I've taken a long vacation from blogging, but I'm back again and looking forward to posting again. Hope I can remember how.

Desert perspective

         I didn't vote at all in the late eighties and throughout the nineties. I was a traveler then and spent a lot of my time away from the United States. It wasn't the difficulty of voting while not having a fixed address that kept me from the polls, and it wasn't lack of intersect in the issues of the day. I just chose to stay an outsider. I even referred to myself as a citizen of the world. American citizenship came after that in priority.
         Diogenes of Sinope claimed world citizenship. It's believed he was the first to coin the term cosmopolitan ( which literally means world citizen) and apply it to himself in the 5th century BCE.  Diogenes has long been a hero of mine, and a teacher. Whether he inspired my claim to cosmopolitan status I don't remember. It may have just been a reluctance to claim New Jersey as my home. It may have been simple arrogance. Maybe I just hoped to remain aloof and untainted by the unseemly spectacle of political mud slinging.  I'm pure no more. 
      This presidential election is a singular moment in our nation's political history. The election of 1860, with the country at the brink of dissolution, may have been a more fateful election, but I doubt we've ever faced an election as ludicrous or tasteless as this one. We can blame that on a just one candidate. Hillary, for all her flaws, has not disgraced herself in this campaign, or elsewhere in her life quite like Donald Trump manages to do on a daily basis. Many of his critics like to point out that Trump gained his fame as a reality t.v. star. That's true, but I don't see how that alone excludes him from high office. I think I could live with the Donald Trump character from the Apprentice as president. The Trump we've seen in this campaign instead has acted more like someone you'd see on the Jerry Springer show. In tonight's  debate I'm waiting for the moment he tears off his shirt and shouts "You want this, Hillary?".
    According to the Washington Post, Americans are feeling considerable stress over this election. They cite a survey from the American Psychological association where 52% of adults admit feeling somewhat to highly stressed by the presidential race. Those reporting the highest levels of stress are newer voters (  Millennials) and older voters. Michelle Obama in a recent speech said that hearing Trumps remarks about women from the leaked Access Hollywood video " had shaken me to my very core, in a way that I could not have predicted".  That sounds like election stress to me.
     If this election is getting to you I have a suggestion. Wait for your ballot to arrive,fill it out the best you can, then drop it off in a mail box on your way out of town for the remainder of the election. It's off season anyway. There's nothing worth staying for if you don't have kids in school. Head for the desert. Get on a mountain bike. Clip on to a belay rope. Pull on a pair of hiking boots. Whatever you do stay away from the television. Stay away from radio. Stay away from social media. There is so much going on outside of the narrow world of politics. There is the Milky Way swirling across the night sky. Planets circle round your head. The moon rises and descends, eclipsing any stars that stray across its path. Daylight is worth hanging around for too, and the Sun doesn't give a damn about Donald Trump either.
     When holy men in ancient times grew weary of the hurly burly they grabbed a staff and a robe and headed straight for the desert. Maybe they'd meet a burning bush, or hear God whisper something meaningful into their ear. Maybe nothing at all would happen. At the very least the desert guaranteed silence. There was the sound of blowing wind in the afternoon , and at night, the distant howl of jackels . Revelations only come in silence.  Silence has a power to restore and feed the soul. 
      Anyhow, don't be caught thinking that this election will bring disaster on our heads. Trump will not win. When Clinton wins she will not single handedly dismantle the last vestiges of our constitutional republican system and replace them with some good ideas she got from studying Kim Il Sung or Saul Alinsky. That's not her inclination. Even if it were ,a president alone does not have that much power. A president Trump would have even less. He has alienated himself from his own party and he's unlikely to find any allies from across the aisle. If worst comes to worst, there's always the desert.

Another racist rant (corrected)

   
   If you're a baby boomer, like myself, Neil Young has been around for so long it's hard to imagine a time when his voice wasn't in your head. At some time I began to take him for granted. When a friend showed up from out of town to see Neil's shows in town park and presented me with a weekend pass it was the first time that growing to a Neil Young concert had occurred to me. I'm so glad I went. Young's music is more than just wallpaper for me. He's been a part of my life.  That's what I learned. If you're looking for a review, OK here goes. It was great!
   One thing about Young's music and life that stands out is that he not only wrote great stuff, he inspired it from others.. When he wrote "You can't be twenty on Sugar Mountain" Judy Collins countered with " the Carousel of Life " ,one of her best. When Young crooned " Southern man better keep your head. Don't forget what your good book said" Leonard Skinner sent back "Sweet Home Alabama ", an anthem of Southern pride, and one of the greatest rock songs ever performed. Neil should get royalties.
    On a completely different subject, I wrote a column recently that may have gone too far, even strayed into the forbidden realm of controversy. Just kidding. It was meant to be controversial. Since when did controversy become so controversial?
    I wrote about  the Black Lives Matter movement, which I don't have a very high opinion of. When it comes to the hornets nest that I apparently disturbed, my guess is that I came a little too close to discussing race. Re-read the column, if you dare, you'll see that I don't discuss race or make any remark that could be remotely conscrued as racist. Black Lives Matters is not shy about the discussion of race as long as opposing views are off bounds. There is a word frequently used to shut down discussions that contradict the views of the  racial cognoscenti. The word is "racist". I'm old enough to remember when the word actually meant something. You can look it up in any dictionary. The original meaning is still there. Today's meaning is different, it just means you're wrong I'm right, shut up, oh ,and I think you're appalling!
     Nevertheless, I'm willing to talk about race in these columns. There's no reason it should be a forbidden subject. I just haven't felt inclined to yet. I have nothing to be ashamed of, no hidden animosity, no secret agenda. I have no more reason to feel superior to someone else on racial grounds as on any other.
     What I did discuss was why BLM is wrong about police shootings. I also compared them to mobs of the past who often outdid BLM  in violence and racial hatred, but not necessarily in the harm they brought to their own people and society at large.
      Judging from what I've seen on Facebook where my column sparked a vigorous discussion with many hundreds of comments, it could be that I've struck a chord. Maybe it was the person who made the original post ,suggesting that I apologize for my column and never write another ,that did the striking.  I think a very valid point made by some was that I presented my "facts" without citing any sources. It occurred to some that I'd probably just made them up. For evidence I refer you to professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. of Harvard. Professor Fryer set out to demonstrate police racial bias, and in fact he did, but not in shootings. In matters of rough treatment from cops he found in all ten of the cities that he studied a greater propensity to strong arm black suspects. What surprised him was finding that in police shootings white suspects in similar circumstances to black suspects had a greater chance of being shot, even if not attacking the officer at that moment. This also proved out in all ten cities in the study. In Houston ,for instance, your chances of being shot in a confrontation with police is 20% higher if you are white.  In LA, Orlando, same story.
      Now you see why I didn't include any of this collaborative material in my original column. It's fun putting all this down on paper, but it takes up such a ridiculous amount of space. Now I have so much less room to praise Neil Young a little more, or talk about the beautiful fall we've been having, or wonder why Telluride tax dollars are going to reroute a stream that was already doing a fine job of making its way downhill? None of that should be controversial.

Another racist rant

   
   If you're a baby boomer, like myself, Neil Young has been around for so long it's hard to imagine a time when his voice wasn't in your head. At some time I began to take him for granted. When a friend showed up from out of town to see Neil's shows in town park and presented me with a weekend pass it was the first time that growing to a Neil Young concert had occurred to me. I'm so glad I went. Young's music is more than just wallpaper for me. He's been a part of my life.  That's what I learned. If you're looking for a review, OK here goes. It was great!
   One thing about Young's music and life that stands out is that he not only wrote great stuff, he inspired it from others.. When he wrote "You can't be twenty on Sugar Mountain" Judy Collins countered with " the Carousel of Life " ,one of her best. When Young crooned " Southern man better keep your head. Don't forget what your good book said" Leonard Skinner sent back "Southern Man ", an anthem of Southern pride, and one of the greatest rock songs ever performed. Neil should get royalties.
    On a completely different subject, I wrote a column recently that may have gone too far, even strayed into the forbidden realm of controversy. Just kidding. It was meant to be controversial. Since when did controversy become so controversial?
    I wrote about  the Black Lives Matter movement, which I don't have a very high opinion of. When it comes to the hornets nest that I apparently disturbed, my guess is that I came a little too close to discussing race. Re-read the column, if you dare, you'll see that I don't discuss race or make any remark that could be remotely conscrued as racist. Black Lives Matters is not shy about the discussion of race as long as opposing views are off bounds. There is a word frequently used to shut down discussions that contradict the views of the  racial cognoscenti. The word is "racist". I'm old enough to remember when the word actually meant something. You can look it up in any dictionary. The original meaning is still there. Today's meaning is different, it just means you're wrong I'm right, shut up, oh ,and I think you're appalling!
     Nevertheless, I'm willing to talk about race in these columns. There's no reason it should be a forbidden subject. I just haven't felt inclined to yet. I have nothing to be ashamed of, no hidden animosity, no secret agenda. I have no more reason to feel superior to someone else on racial grounds as on any other.
     What I did discuss was why BLM is wrong about police shootings. I also compared them to mobs of the past who often outdid BLM  in violence and racial hatred, but not necessarily in the harm they brought to their own people and society at large.
      Judging from what I've seen on Facebook where my column sparked a vigorous discussion with many hundreds of comments, it could be that I've struck a chord. Maybe it was the person who made the original post ,suggesting that I apologize for my column and never write another ,that did the striking.  I think a very valid point made by some was that I presented my "facts" without citing any sources. It occurred to some that I'd probably just made them up. For evidence I refer you to professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. of Harvard. Professor Fryer set out to demonstrate police racial bias, and in fact he did, but not in shootings. In matters of rough treatment from cops he found in all ten of the cities that he studied a greater propensity to strong arm black suspects. What surprised him was finding that in police shootings white suspects in similar circumstances to black suspects had a greater chance of being shot, even if not attacking the officer at that moment. This also proved out in all ten cities in the study. In Houston ,for instance, your chances of being shot in a confrontation with police is 20% higher if you are white.  In LA, Orlando, same story.
      Now you see why I didn't include any of this collaborative material in my original column. It's fun putting all this down on paper, but it takes up such a ridiculous amount of space. Now I have so much less room to praise Neil Young a little more, or talk about the beautiful fall we've been having, or wonder why Telluride tax dollars are going to reroute a stream that was already doing a fine job of making its way downhill? None of that should be controversial.

Strange fruit

       Once upon a time in some parts of this country, lynching was a popular form of public expression. There were reasons for this rough style of ad hoc justice. The area of the country where it was practiced was occupied by Federal troops during the reconstruction era. Courts were under the control of enemy occupiers and were not seen as promoting community interests. In this atmosphere of distrust, vigilantism became an alternate form of  justice .
     With an enormous portion of their men so recently slaughtered or maimed on the battlefields of the civil war, their economy wrecked, and enduring occupation, Southerners quickly found a scapegoat for their problems. Newly freed slaves bore the brunt of Southern rage and humiliation.  What followed was a hundred years of extrajudicial whippings, beatings, cross burnings, and hangings.
    If you've been watching the rioting in Charlotte or similar demonstrations throughout the country since Ferguson then you may have guessed why mob action is on my mind these days. Instead of the KKK we've got Black Lives Matter. Instead of actually stringing victims up from the nearest tree we have death threats on social media ,and the execution style murders of policemen. Instead of cries of "White Power" we have " No Justice, No Peace". It's doubtful that all those swept up into this movement share the same goals or motivations. They're a pretty diverse group. On the more peaceful side you have people who are nostalgic for the heyday of the civil rights movement and see this as it's logical extension. On the more violent side you have anarchists who feed on anger and hatred and violence, and get their kicks from creating mayhem .But racism is often the underlying unifier behind the protests. I'm talking about the racism of the protesters.  Assuming that Whites are guilty of racism until proven innocent is a racist assumption. It's also unwarranted. Assuming that cops are racist, or that that racism is the cause of police shootings of Blacks, is likewise wrongheaded.
     I'm not suggesting there is some moral equivalence between lynch mobs of the Jim Crow era and those of today. I'm trying to make that point explicit.
      I've presented the facts before that make the claims of the Black Lives Matter movement irrelevant because they are all untrue. In this column I'll summarize this argument in as few words as possible. No, white officers are not more likely to shoot black suspects more often than other races. Yes, black officers are more likely to shoot blacks than white officers are. No, police shootings of blacks is not on the rise. Video of shootings is on the rise . No, making an issue out of this phoney non-issue is not helpful. It isn't saving black lives. It's doing the opposite. Murder rates in America's largest 100 cities are growing , reversing earlier trends dramatically. Most of those murders are perpetrated by young black men, also most of the victims. This is the direct result of the Black Lives Matter movement as police are now less likely to practice  proactive policing in the most troubled neighborhoods. Black Lives Matter is wrong . Each of their claims are false, apart from the one in their name.
     I'm outraged by this entire spectacle. The role played by our politicians and bureaucrats is particularly despicable. Instead of refuting false claims they often validate them. As I've illustrated, debunking BLM is so dang easy . I understand that the counterargument has little chance of being appreciated coming from someone like me. I'm begging President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch to do the work of debunking the myths of Black Lives Matter. That would have a positive effect. Their words would carry weight with the communities that need to hear it most. I'm left wondering why that won't happen. Most likely it's because the mob's anger is a useful tool in their hands. This is the reason race relations have gone downhill since the election of Barack Obama. Keep the population divided and angry over racial issues and you ensure yourself of their votes and undying loyalty. Power corrupts, they say. Gaining it, keeping it, exercising it ,corrupts absolutely.
     
      Mobs love instant justice. Mobs reject rationality. They're fueled by primal passions and self righteous indignation, and seek redemption through communal violent action, a sacrament of blood and fire.  Mob action is remarkably the same phenomenon wherever and whenever you find it. Every mob in history believed itself the victim of others ill will. They felt oppressed and ready to take action to settle the score in their favor. Amazing, isn't it, that the kind of rough justice once used to keep their greatgrandparents in their place has become the expression of today's mobs?

Hot fudge movie

    What's your favorite food? Mine is the hot fudge sundae. I don't eat one every day. I don't remember the last one. Was it in the nineties? No idea. What I can remember was my first  sundae at Ferrell's in Phoenix in 1973. I remember the many sundaes I had with my family as a kid, and some of the restaurants where we had them. That's because the combination of ice cream, whipped cream and hot fudge are just so darn good it's a sensation that stays with you ( except for that last one apparently).
    I bring this up to make a point. Favorite and best are not always the same thing. No one over the age of fourteen or fifteen is likely to claim that hot fudge sundaes are excellent food. They are not fine cuisine. They're not even healthy.
     I got to see a lot of films during the film festival last week. The best of the bunch was Graduation . The film was set in Romania with a great story to tell, a tremendous cast, and brilliant direction and editing. I loved it, but it was not my favorite of the festival.
     Favorite goes to Maudie. It lacked some of the polish of many of the other films this year. Acting talent didn't extend very far down its cast list. It was the hot fudge sundae among the many gourmet meals on offer. But this sundae was one of the rare ones that is actually good for you, and it was the film I'll remember most.
     Maud Dowley was born in Nova Scotia in 1903. She suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis from an early age. Throughout her sixty seven years it progressively twisted and destroyed her body causing near constant pain, but it did not have the power to destroy her spirit.  Maud loved to paint. She painted the simple rural world of Nova Scotia's Annapolis valley in a simple charming style that would make her famous, becoming Canada's most beloved folk artist. The movie "Maudie" covers her adult years as she leaves the stifling influence of her family to begin a new life with the village's least eligible bachelor, the fish peddler, Everett Lewis. Everett has issues. He was not the easiest fellow to get along with. The community had good reason to avoid him. Maud sees someone else in him, though it takes most of the rest of her life to bring out this slightly better version of Everett.
     That's the story, and I'll admit it's a good one but "Maudie" has more than just a good story going for it. There's a secret weapon. Her name is Sally Hawkins. Sally, who plays Maud ,in my opinion, is the most remarkable actor of her generation. If you saw her in Mike Lee's "Happy go Lucky" when it played at an earlier Telluride Film festival, or the brilliant realization of Jane Austen's "Persuasion" made for BBC television in which she starred, you have some idea what I'm talking about. You don't see her on screen all that often, she carefully chooses her roles,  but when you do , there's a thrill in store watching her hitting performance notes  you scarcely knew existed. To strain my operatic analogy a little further, she is the coloratura among fellow singers who learned everything they know about music listening to pop tunes. She's the Bartoli in comparison to contestants of a reality show talent contest. I guess I'm trying to say she stands out.
      There's a danger in watching movies like Maudie, or reading books about people similarly challenged. It's certainly jarring ,and maybe a little depressing, to realise that people without your advantages have gone so far while you're holding in place.  Overcoming obstacles becomes habit for some. Avoiding them becomes habit for others. I know that seems obvious. So why did I have to dope slap myself while coming out of this movie, as I was reminded of these simple facts for the ninehundredth ever forgettable time?
       Maud's life is  testament to the power of perseverance, also of love. Her love for life itself was evident, also her love of painting, and her love for Everett, undeserving as he was. She really had nothing going for her. A realist would have just crawled into a corner and wait for the sweet release of death. That she made life sweet instead, for herself, for her husband, and for anyone touched by her art, is some kind of miracle. It's the sort of miracle that ought to shake you right down to your most basic assumptions. Can you ask much more of a movie than that?

Politics and paranoia

   I've been thinking back on the Clinton campaign of 1992 , and contrasting it to the one of 2016. Admittedly we're talking about two different Clintons, but it's still a comparison worth making. In my memory that was a far more civil election, kinder and gentler, to borrow a phrase from the era.
    I'm going to leave the Trumpster out of this equation as far as possible. That's not to defend him or his proposals and rhetoric. I intend the opposite. He's just so far beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour that he should be dismissed out of hand. I'd rather consider the campaigning style of Hillary. 
     In 1964 historian Richard Hofstadter wrote an essay for Harper's, later expanded into a book, entitled" the Paranoid Style in American Politics". He was writing about the Goldwater campaign  that year. Goldwater ,according to Hofstadter, drew much of his support from conspiracy theorists on the right who were all too willing to believe the worst about their political opponents.  Hofstadter may have forgotten that this paranoia thing works both ways. Maybe he just ran out of space. I can understand that as a occasional essayist myself. He might have pointed out that the Johnson landslide that year was largely the result of his campaign painting Goldwater as a raving lunatic and a warmonger who couldn't be trusted with America's considerable military might. Did paranoia play a role in that election? Oh yea!
     So going back to 1992, did Bill Clinton accuse the elder George Bush of secretly wanting to drag us into war, or drop atomic weapons on our enemies, or disenfranchise large swathes of our population through voter reform,  eliminate Social Security, or any other of these reliable shibboleths from the Democrat playbook? I don't recall any of that. I remember a very smart campaign manager deciding that those approaches were a little timeworn and frayed, and anyhow would have a hard time sticking to this opponent. Afterall, we already knew George Bush. The campaign was primarily over the economy. It asked in who's hands should it to be entrusted? The people chose Clinton. You may remember he didn't do that bad a job with it either, though it hurts to say so.
      The Clinton of this presidential campaign is a little different, or is it the times that have changed? She can, and does criticize the economic plans and track record of what's his name, and contrast those with her own,  but there's lots of the other stuff too. The sad part is that her opponent gives her so much ammunition. He can't help himself. I mean that. He really is unable to help himself or control himself. In our entire history we may never have seen a candidate for high office like this one. Like a child that's been chewing on lead paint flakes from the windowsills all his life, there's no impulse control in him, no judgement, little reason or self awareness either. Shouldn't she be running on that?
      Instead it's back to the playbook. Republicans are racist, anti-environment, religious bigots, authoritarian, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, just whateverphobic. If you can name a phobia, they've probably got it. It's a wonder they find the courage to get out of bed each morning. In this century, the old chestnuts of the paranoid playbook return from the grave, are dusted off and polished, and low and behold they work as well as ever.
      I'm not against name calling if the name fits. I can't stand it when the only reason for bringing it out is that it works. You score a few points but have poisoned the process. Worse than all that, you've decreased social trust, and confidence. Scapegoating, conspiracy mongering, stereotyping are all back in style and that's too bad.
     Imagine politics minus paranoia. It's easy if you try. How about honest policy discussions? How about giving the other side credit wherever credit is due? How about not demonizing them, or always ascribing to them the lowest motivations when other options are available? It goes without saying that this plea is meant for everyone. My side is hardly blameless. I've been an avid listener to political talk radio for decades. I can hardly listen anymore because I can't stand the  unfair accusations and stereotyping that are so commonplace lately. My paranoia tolerance is failing me. These days I limit my listening to NPR, and the few radio shows that still respect fair play, and tolerance, John Batchelor for instance, and Armstrong and Getty.
      I'm imagining politics with respect and tolerance right now. I pick up the newspaper and strangely ,it's not there.
      Fly high GB.