Sunday, February 12, 2023


 Comment on:

In 46 Words, Biden Sends a Clear Message to Israel

~Thomas Friedman


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/12/opinion/joe-biden-bibi-netanyahu-israel.html

Demonstrators in Tel Aviv protesting proposed changes to Israel’s Supreme Court.


The last of the 46 is disquieting as it was deliberately and delicately measured: "Building consensus for fundamental changes is really important to ensure that the people buy into them so they can be sustained.”

In this 7th inning stretch of a tight ballgame right here in the good ol' US, our political national pastime has been marked for over a half century with essentially this very type of authoritarian usurping of judicial integrity, and heavy hitters of Trumpism are still very much on deck.

Isreal, albeit operating without a constitution, has the same forces within and without, in the form of very real "othering" and fear-mongering seeding whatever uprisings of nationalism and militarism, it seems to be evolving into a ethical power play with strong arming holding sway in the battle.

Although Friedman cites the peril of Israel succumbing to the fates of Turkey, Hungary & Poland, he failed to cite the global pandemic of algorithmically agitprop fueled "consensus building" that put many other societies in the middle of this slugfest, as ours is here. If a passion base is successfully cultivated through grievance exploitation and disinformation, we're all within the same crisis, constitutional or otherwise.

It's refreshing to see the outpouring of youth protest in Israel on the front end, unlike the much more carefully considered and, yes, intimidated protest movements here. If the anti-rights forces gain control, we're all one emergency declaration from true chaos.

 

~JC

Saturday, February 4, 2023

 


 

Commenting on

Democrats Overhaul Party’s Primary Calendar, Upending a Political Tradition

by Katie Glueck

 “It’s like asking New York to move the Statue of Liberty from New York to Florida. I mean, that’s not going to happen." ~former NH Gov. John Lynch


I mean, what?

This is exemplary cannon fodder for the party that has had to rely upon "trumping" up what used to be more convincing conflated arguments, vapid slogans and snark culture fuel for anything running contrary to their agenda.  

At this point in the electoral cycle, the facts and pluralistic numbers favorably land heartily on the Democratic side of most every argument we'll hear concerning actual issues, with the possible exception of immigration reform, which is a stumper for most anyone anywhere who hasn't properly appreciated the myriad challenges surrounding climate refugee issues and accelerated overpopulation.

If these GOP members continue on their tack of upending, rebranding, stoking, bloviating and ridiculing their way to any sort of prevailing (and legitimate/legal) popular victory, well..."that's not going to happen".

 

~JC

Sunday, January 29, 2023

Put Away Childish Murderous Things (Commentary on "A child-size rifle with cartoon skulls, inspired by the AR-15, raises concerns" By Andrea Salcedo"

  

By in Washington Post
 
 
The ATF (and the FDA, by similar measures) have failed in many ways while compromising the principle of effectively regulating life threatening commodities. They ceded on the side of profit and profiteers a long time ago. Marketing taps into cultural veins, and in turn helps to create, boost and steer them. It's a vicious cycle.

Guns have been part of that conveyance/purveyance since the first Wild West shows that played to settlers, farmers and ranchers during the great expansion. It portrayed the culture to its own, thereby presenting them an identity they could then further celebrate, while the rest of impressionable America emulated cowboys, outlaws, rough riders, soldiers, territorial urban and suburban gangsters etc.

I remember candy cigarettes and bubble gum cigars. Joe Camel was eventually deemed overtly and improperly geared toward children. Kids have been seeing beer commercials since they were old enough to see a TV from their playpens but for a long time liquor commercials were barred from broadcast media. Health warning requirements and other disclaimers continue to provide stopgap loopholes for corporate deniability. I know I'm not alone in finding most of those Rx ads borderline ghoulish, but that's a kind of other story.
 
When my wife and I recently visited a capacious open air Flea Market just south of Los Angeles, I was somewhat astonished not by its presence, but the magnitude of the cultural marketing of children's toys that included not only these full-scale sized toy assault rifles, but reams of posters venerating historical gangsters.  

I abruptly realized that Al Pacino's iconic Scarface portrayal was a turning point that's hence created a more accommodating "altar" upon which numerous other Narco criminal figureheads such as Pablo Escobar and El Chapo share a more current, tangible and seemingly resonant folk-hero status as champions of outlaw justice and vigilante violence. The line of factual and fictional distinction between these figures and say, Batman or Captain America seems extremely blurred. Darker figures such as The Crow, The Joker & V, and Travis Bickel deserve as much adulation and, one might conclude, emulation. Although I spied no brandished likeness of Kyle Rittenhouse at any of these kiosks, one need only visit any neighborhood right wing website (or convention) to see it riding atop a zealous sea of virtual shoulders.

 
Along these lines of "admirable" reactive violence, the Far Right media continues to cultivate the mental illness they cite as the "true" problem, but there is wiggle room within the taboo realm of safety regulations. Legislated lines have been periodically drawn, most of which succeeded in moving the status quo ever so slightly toward intractable progress.

This current cultural moment presents not only mass casualties at our daily doorsteps, but an all too overdue opportunity for such a legislative step.

For fetishist adults and kids that aspire to "have one just like it", these combat devices should be banned and taken off the market. Detractors will ululate basis protest  They should be safely locked away with the grenade launchers, tanks, jet fighters and candy cigarettes. It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.
 
All that said, alas...I must point out that the aforementioned "JR-15" cited in the article, the one being marketed to children--isn't a toy. It's an actual training rifle. Modeled after the AR-15 assault rifle. For children.
 
The moment is now.

Wednesday, October 7, 2020

On The Perverse Effects Of An Upside Down Music Business

 



I began reading Mohamed Sadek’s piece A Musician’s White Whale: Perfectly Recreating the ‘Funky Drummer’ Beat with piqued interest as a music maker. As a session musician, composer, etc. I was initially and positively intrigued. But as I read on I became less so and ultimately annoyed with the once nascent and now well established practices within what was once an industry comprised largely of creative players convening to physically perform and record original music.
 

The prevailing process of recording music during that "classic" era, an ideal was pursued by session participants. A respectful veneration rightly informed the various manifestations of influences within our cultural canon, conscious or not, then fueled a collectively inspired ensemble effort. I find the new laboratory-like process of seek, scan, scroll, review, formulate, emulate and import of existing sounds to be antithetical to that group-based spirit. It's cold and overly calculated, more akin to reviewing the lunch take-out menu over a colleague's shoulder than musically interacting, and I doubt that the joy in achieving its aspired result is anywhere near the same at the completion of "tracking".  Maybe on some other level, but I've witnessed collaborators in these "loop productions", and I sense a disparity in the overall goofy zeal that players show when listening back for the first time to the ensemble "take" they've just played as a group. I've indeed been involved in both processes and I'll humbly share that for me there's no comparing these two "celebrations".


Production processes steadily and constantly innovate and adapt to fashion/style/trends etc., and are then propelled and reinforced by larger economic interests and compulsions. But the most brilliant innovators and pioneers (such as the oft cited and reasonably artistically worshiped drummer Clyde Stubblefield) were bringing their own body, mind, heart and soul to render something truly original, albeit informed by vast and myriad influences, such as ever was the case. See this piece by Brian Eno.

Rap, Hip-Hop and other Avant-Garde brought audio sampling into the process, which led to further “needle-drop” tactics that were-- and are still--exciting within the paradigm of anything becoming art, with and to which I truly agree and occasionally subscribe. Digital recording has accommodated further and admirable “democratization” of musical creativity with prerecorded loops that undoubtedly allow more meagerly-funded and otherwise under-resourced artists to create on a higher and, I daresay, competitive level. 

I'm all in for creativity for its own sake, live and let live, live and let play. But I’m also an advocate for righteously corrective legislative efforts such as Fair Play/Fair Pay, and have been to Capitol Hill to help grass-roots lobbying for the rights of my fellow musicians who’ve been historically excluded from performance royalties by dint of the fact that US terrestrial radio had never been required to pay for those repeat usages via a legal loophole unchanged since the 1920’s. Those remedial efforts have been marginally successful despite--and perhaps due to--the confluence of transitions in market paradigms precipitated by non-unit based sales, digital streaming and subscription platforms. These developments--beginning in the mid 1990's--and the opportunistic measures ushering them to the fore have been the culprit for a tragically decimated income stream for songwriters and musicians. Perhaps not as much for deejays, but that’s another story.   

There nevertheless are forensic aspects in the re-conditioning of recorded music that have always proved fascinating, as any conversation with a “remastering” engineer will bear out, especially those who technically revitalize or restore older, deteriorating ad/or earlier more primitively recorded pieces (hello Smithsonian Folkways) to a new appreciably improved sonic state.

But when this current "blueprint the lick" niche market emerges (and I’m surely not intending to disparage anyone’s admirable work ethic here, much less those that are cultural and arts-based) whose very existence was born from the sonic pursuit of a “more affordable” requisition option other than the statutory norm, thus enabling the "client/buyer/creator" to sidestep higher fees and royalties that would be paid to the owner of the master recording (which could perhaps eventually trickle down to the artists, players, producers, etc., but more often does not) then proceeds elaborately, intricately further by laboriously recreating as many nuanced aspects of that original artistic expression as possible, the line from homage-like dedication is thereby brazenly crossed into the realm of  “just business”, at which point it becomes cultural appropriation and exploitation, all procedural artistic admiration notwithstanding.

I've personally and repeatedly seen my work as a writer, arranger and player become part of a larger licensed income stream for other business entities. I've seen musical notes that required reverent artistic deliberation and many hours formulating, creating and expressively performing end up as commercially marketed sheet music, the proceeds from which I've seen nary a penny. These situations aren’t rare. Artist's recording deals are signed and recording sessions (contracted and not) eagerly occur, but by the time the lucrative “back-end” is in someone else’s pocket, any efforts to reclaim some rightful share would require lawyers, energy and time. As many struggling (that's most) artist might attest, we’ve got more creative things to do. The litigious process of redemption can not merely sap the muse, but devour the spirit along with other resources more wisely spent elsewhere. 

In light of all this, I read here of a fellow musician, surely blessed with formidable talent and developed craftmanship glowingly praised for his entrepreneurial spirit and industrious efforts in meticulously recreating/re-manufacturing/reselling what someone else has already created, thus achieving a purvey-able facility that surgically removes the remunerative rights of those who are the original conveyors of such work as well as those of their survivors. And its lack of authenticity, as seemingly undetectable as it may claim, is surely to be felt on a deeper level of spiritual consciousness, as negligible as one may allow themselves to be convinced.

On one hand, this enterprising culling and (re)production of music (or its elements) is impressive. All sorts of sounds have been digitally sampled and marketed for over a half century. Obversely, when entire performances, riffs and licks that originally channeled through a talented human while in a spiritually high (and collaborative) expressive state are deconstructed, analyzed, rebuilt, reproduced and marketed anew as if it were an original creation, it casts a scorching and unbecoming light on this increasingly more normalized but lamentably vampiric age. Whose hands made that nearly exact but always better music in the first place?

~JC
 

Saturday, August 22, 2020

Preaching Empathy, Compassion and Solidarity from Boo Radley’s Porch

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Art:Wanda Gág

 

 
Preaching Empathy, Compassion and Solidarity from Boo Radley’s Porch

 
She stands transfixed in the wake of recent turmoil, stilled and swooning in the hot hum of an Alabama summer night. The astute eight year old reflects while taking in the view of her home from a new angle--one that had, until this night, been a panicked and perilous intersection of peril and safety, danger and sanctuary.

A new and profound knowledge courses through her, bestowed by this wondrous experience: the sight of her house, her entire neighborhood—from that diametrically “other” place. How unimaginable this scene and sensation has been, nary a hint glimpsed during her prior few years. But by now, this moment, all has changed. From now on, all is cast anew.

Scout, the young protagonist of Harper Lee’s classic adventure novel To Kill A Mockingbird expresses her astonishment at the unexpected simplicity of this discovery and she states with humble certainty, “Just standing on Boo Radley’s porch was enough”.

A  deceptively basic, undeniably stark proclamation: the larger world awaiting us is rife with myriad mores, many inconvenient and stubborn, unless a conscious choice is made to acknowledge, imagine and explore a perspective other than our own.  

The long effervescent arch of literature is comprised of many sagas, each culminating in a rewarding homecoming, a return to where all is as it should be and as we want it ever to be: safe, nurturing, unconditionally supportive, understanding, charitable, forgiving and loving. 

It’s a widely accepted and wisely appropriated narrative model in Greek mythology: characters jostled from their “ordinary worlds”, stirred by a call to adventure, who initially refuse the call, then finally accept it before being irreversibly thrust upon their personal odyssey. Along the way they discern and cherish faithful allies, while becoming wary of lurking treachery in enemies. Mentors on high advise and guide them as thresholds are crossed, battles are fought and crises are confronted in every imaginable form of obstacle. They are dared to grow.

We've notoriously identified with one particular protagonist as she gazes down upon revelatory ruby slippers upon her own two feet. Our hearts resonate with this moment as we wait longingly for the one earnest incantation that will launch us with her back to a safer, more sensible, serene and familiar world.

Consistently, and only after learning to rely solely upon their own fortitude and a newly discovered inner strength, the heroes “find” themselves. Yes, they return home, but that is not the ultimate resolution of their quest. They arrive to a newly transformed origin to present the retrieved gift—a magical elixir—for the larger tribe, a salve that enhances new courage with which to brave its larger plights and woes: the no longer hidden codes of redemption.   

 
This achievement is
not a “return” to what once was, for that would merely be a regressive retreat, but rather the progressive evolution of character and spiritual growth.

We invented the word quixotic to describe a futile effort-- windmill leaning, as it were--for it was Cervante’s anti-hero that endeavored to rediscover and recapture a time when all was right, noble, fair and good, essentially to “find what was once home”, yet failed to realize that his retrospective was illusory. He pursued not transcendent knowledge, but merely entertained a nostalgic obsession with what was at best a vivid aspiration, a fleeting man-made impossible dream which never completely existed.

That is each our own private place of reckoning. Our future is informed with our past, but that past is enhanced with the same creative imagination that fashions our desired future. We’re encouraged to optimism by promises of an imagined reward, yet hindered by wary skepticism born of the still stinging scars of past experiences. We fear first for ourselves before turning a braver gaze outward to others.

Our larger society is comprised of smaller, closer communities. Within them dwells our respective individual realities. An endemic struggle exists between these tiered cohorts as we each experience the varying degrees of loosenings and tightenings of the societal harness, each pulling (or pushing back) his or her share of cynically resistant or civically responsible load, cultivating a future for both our smaller and larger selves.    
 

As the world continues to be exponentially more humanly populated, an ever more inescapable fact insists: each is not alone but consequentially affected-- often and ultimately profoundly so--by the behavior of others, whether parochially trivial or globally pervasive.

Today, chronic dysfunctional divisiveness increasingly proves to be the competitive currency, baiting individual responses, feeding the larger special interests of consorted commerce and mega-industries.

But there still remains a larger and more reliable truth.

It says that one is all and all are one, whether or not that’s ever consciously perceived. It too often is not, and I, for one, am frequently astonished by our seeming inability to accept even our one common planet as a unifying concept. This truth bears out in the scientific conclusion that everything we do or say begets consequential effects for us all. It's in these ways, from the nuanced and trivial to the profoundly impactful, that we are each other.

Western capitalists may decry socialism, collectivism or any other myriad “taboo” non-competitive systems, but these too are cynical and manufactured precepts. The larger, longer continuum is comprised of individual lives, each beginning and ending at their own respective points within it. Moments become life chapters become lifetimes become historical epochs. Along the way, those who episodically subscribe to an “on your own” meritocratic approach to citizenry are the least likely to consider any extensive exploration of an other’s life circumstance as worth the time and effort. What useful insight might lie within striven for for sympathy? Why bother, when compared to one’s own more nourished state, the revelation may prove to be abject, poignant and unpleasant? Once elements of protective avarice and caste-related guilt are added to the recipe, the resultant mixture becomes a repellant—forcing one to push from the true self those uncomfortable notions until they're out of sight and mind. A handy helplessness is a byproduct of the process, and apathy is disguised with its uncaring cloak.    

Prejudice and bigotry are endemic to the human species as we’re blessed and cursed with a stubborn proclivity to imagine. We perceive through lenses of experience, veils of suggestions and the fluid metrics of convenience, comfort, cause and compulsion. We navigate like animals, ever mindful of possible threats, and we discern these dangers with information that we’ve learned first hand or have supposed from related portrayals and narratives. With these templates we build our personal “realities”, and we rush to defend them whenever they’re threatened, for fear they may be dispelled.

Haven’t we each, since childhood, constructed our own ideas and images of upcoming events, persons or places with no more fuel for fancy than a vague description or notion? We instinctively create the overall tones, settings, faces, voices, feelings— anything with which we can initially relate before actually posting in person for the genuine experience.  
Words create pictures, verbal accounts evoke experiences, either impressively real or vicariously interpreted.
 
The class trip, the party, the blind date, the audition, the concert etc.—those words alone evoke a faux reality based upon an inner perception we’ve weaved from descriptive yarns and the threads of our own recollection. We treat ourselves to a supposed reality and without these “gifts of expectation” those people, places and sensations lurking before us in time would be quite literally unimaginable, perhaps frighteningly so.

Having taken that trip, having had the experience, we’re bemused at the newly discovered disparities between those “before” and “after” renditions of truth. We only then realize that what we’d imagined (sometimes in spectacular detail) was merely a “stand-in” reality that we could conveniently anticipate. The ‘before’ scene existed purely behind our eyes. The ‘after’ was vividly before us as three dimensional reality. We continue to edit, enhance and shape the experience afterward, as well.

 
Often we’ve heard “I don’t know what I was expecting but…” or “I wasn’t prepared for that...” , but we indeed did expect something in our attempt to gird ourselves for the unknown.

We compulsively prepare. It’s instinctual, involuntary and survival oriented. We as a species suffer from chronic prejudice, and the fear of losing that sufferance results in chronic bigotry.


As children seeking understanding with limited experience, we asked questions:
Why is that child crying?
Why is that man angry?
What is happening?
Why is it happening? Who are they? Who are you? Who am I?

We received answers from our supreme mentors—our parents and elders—who replied with “explanations”. As youngsters, we’ve no other contradictory information with which to question or challenge, so the explanation is largely accepted and becomes what we anticipate until we learn for ourselves otherwise. With enough verifications within a small number of possible contexts—sometimes only one—we're delivered to an ever more intransigent place where we’d rather our “certainties” not be challenged. We have, unwittingly, embraced our own “confirmation bias”.

We are doing the same as a society. Our legacy is to be the natural victim of hand-me-down partial-truths, convenient misrepresentations, carefully cultivated faux-fact, to put it charitably. More bluntly put, we’ve been lied to, sold myths and kept ignorant. Although hardly a fresh concept, I believe that this societal ignorance, with its critical peaks and nadirs oscillating throughout the eras, has recently gained a chaotic momentum delivering us to a desperate moment. This chaos must be attenuated with reason, knowledge and self-discovery lest the ugliness become a self-manufacturing entity all its own.

In the face of lament or a sincerely expressed grievance, when faced with the prospect that our words, actions, policies or intimations have indeed offended someone’s sensibilities,  we hear time and again the incredulous:
“Who says?”
“I don’t see why they can’t just…”
“After all, what was so offensive?”
“Apologize for what?” …

…all selfish inquiries, pleas for charitable exemption and undeserved clemency.

I’ve one personally peevish button-pusher: “They have all the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. Why can’t they appreciate that and stop whining”, and its many related variants. My reply in such conversations is to encourage more exploration of “the other’s” realities, after which you may not be quite as perplexed.  

As inexperienced children, we created realities with which we could eagerly anticipate a journey. As “experienced” adults, we close the doors and windows, pull up stakes and put down the periscope in order to minimize any new information that may challenge long-held sometimes sacredly cherished beliefs. We may even be offended ourselves when such ludicrous complaints issue forth from theretofore negligible quarters. To acknowledge the challenge, problem or "squeaky wheel" would be an admission of having been wrong or unfairly neglectful. But in the hero’s journey it is knowledge that fuels our forward motion. It is what we learn, more than what we know, that steers us home.

 
There was prejudice throughout To Kill A Mockingbird, in young and old, within and without, before and probably after. From Scout the weight of her particular prejudice was lifted as if by angels with just one gesture. She’d made a years-long journey to see, hear, learn, feel, try, fail and finally succeed in making her way home only to take a few additional brave steps, delivering Boo to his home. She’d by then learned first-hand that he was not the cryptic monster she had imagined him to be, but a true and caring ally. He had held her dear, being a crucial friend in his unique way. He’d been a vigilant protector for Scout, Jem and Dill for longer than they had realized. He was an ally they’d yet to size up as such. He saved them.

But the larger, more profound reward was earned merely by turning on her heels to take in the scene before heading back home. The street had not changed, nor the houses, but nothing would ever again be exactly as she’d once imagined, for her real experience was now enhanced with a new angle, long denied to her by circumstance, fear and predisposition.

The lesson is the elixir: One must make the journey to the other place to earn it, to have it. We must see it for ourselves—in ourselves. But if that’s not physically possible, we might usher our mind’s eyes a few steps further, prevail upon our natural gifts of invention to consider what we may very well have overlooked.   

Only then can we widen our souls’ horizons to prepare ourselves for other truths before those actual trips. It requires imagination. It requires creativity. Those human gears already turn with each day’s plan-making, but when we’re challenged with an alien concept, behavior or customary tradition or a belief strange to us, we might put aside a bit of knee-jerk caution to take a few steps farther outside our comfortable yards.  

If we can heroically summon the will, we might venture part way into the misty veils of faint plausibilies and imagine how someone else’s circumstance may look and feel from where they live. If you’ve not been there, please refrain from throwing up helpless hands. Take a breath, count to three, take a closer look. You may still be wearing the ruby slippers, and you can make that trip. Upon arrival you’ll have won the reward: a fresh take on the origin of another universal sensibility. The glimpse will look different to you. But you’ll also see something familiar that allows you to relate, even a little bit. And it’s all relative.

There’s  a North Star winking above us all, and we each and all have multitudes more similarities than differences. We all have hearts, and we’ve all been hurt. And we all have imaginations.

But we must take that walk—in our own minds and in our own shoes. When we resist, we shun the challenge. But if we’re to prevail as heroes, we must finally accept that call and make the journey. It may be dark and we may need a lantern, but that light will show the way to where truths exist. If we turn it inward as well, we may catch a glimpse of some fairy tales whose truths aren’t as reliably absolute as we had once preferred them to be.

 We can then return stronger with eyes, hearts and minds opened wider with hard-earned enlightenment. That elixir might help to join some smaller pieces of our world into larger sturdier ones.

We can then “find” ourselves on that other porch that, albeit in the very same neighborhood, offers an altogether fresh view. Sometimes just standing on it and having one gaze is enough to change the look and feel of your own street forever.

~JC

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Senate Votes for Lawlessness. Whose Pyrrhic Victory?

In An Unreal Play, Here's Something Real. We're Not Rotten. #NoWitnesses #Sham


Like an overly ripe plumb, it's nearly sickening but still somewhat sweet as it's swallowed. But one post-mortem assessment is worth noting as something of which we might be proud as a justified entity:

After 3+ years of blatant malfeasance, miscreant, abhorrent and at many times undeniably unlawful behavior that to all who bear a shred of dignified moral discernment allowing only scant room for charity in the form of reserved opinion, it was the last straw when the whistleblower emerged.

Most had been frustrated with Nancy Pelosi's and the House's extensive hand-wringing and hem-hawing prior to formal impeachment, their opting to optimize--then emphasize--the "information gathering" phase which would serve to vividly display the abject nature of this dark administrative season replete with as many wince-worthy nooks and crannies as possible for the overall complexion to be regarded as starkly irrefutable.

They did just that, lacking only a probably foolish total counter-intransigence in the pursuit of successful enforcement of subpoenas in the face of a stonewalling, obeisant and corrupt AG William Barr-led judiciary. Challenges to each obstructive non-response would likely be mired in courts for years as per the audaciously designed agenda of the Trump Corp.

Once the decision to impeach was reached, it's my opinion the Democrats did what they could with proper decorum, assertive jurisprudence and clarity and did so as effectively as was allowable under the onerous weight of a win-at-all-costs opposition.  [Note: Yes, the Majority was lawyered to the teeth with celebrity statute benders and murderer defenders with redundantly iterated highly questionable standards of ethics. Merely glance at this emergent story.]

At this moment, we can be assured and perhaps slightly mollified that the right was on our side, the moral spine was ours and a proper posture of respectable forbearance was almost solely exhibited by an honest, thorough and forthright team of House managers each of whom were articulate, righteous, dignified and truthful.

The maddeningly blind dedication of the liberally estimated 30-40% of Trump's GOP electorate is too far gone in their transfiguring ingestion of alt-reality for their re-convincing or re-educating. Alas, they're not worth demeaning any more than they continue to demean themselves.
It should suffice to say that the present day legislative GOP has demeaned itself almost incredibly and probably indelibly.

The rest of us should and shall continue to wage a civil but morally resolute war with compassionate souls and honest fair minds that see to it that this avarice infested and Trump manifested GOP will be held accountable for their moral and legal negligence come this November and beyond. We must however assist them with their political suicide.

Our pride is real and well-founded. We're not bent. Our heads are held high, bearing forward and full on for the bigger battles ahead in this insideously fomented culture war. We will win or go down swinging on the right side of an endemically bent arch of history.

~JC

Monday, December 23, 2019

Comment re: Sen. Patrick Leahy's Take on Senatorial Conscience and Responsibility

Responding to: 
What The Senate Does Now Will Cast A Long Shadow

Historians and politicians are quite fond of invoking the "point of inflection" within any active paradigm. There are in fact an infinite number of these. With today's 10 to 20 minute news cycle the epochal benchmarks are ever more frequent and nearer between but, as Senator Leahy points out, this trial phase of this impeachment portends to be the real doozy. 

The GOP appears to have been rather unabashedly building its one-party conscience over the last 40 years, holding party unity and fealty to the cause as its paramount credo and this moment may be the "high-noon" of this insidiously planned and sometimes clumsily implemented campaign.

No one doubts the intent of this majority Senate. It will hold its collective breath in the face of an all-pervading truth storm until every lawyerly slight of hand, word, reason and logic are manifest within an all too pro forma protocol toward their retention of legislative power.

All linguistic orchestration and improvisation, every policy construction and each manipulative gambit has more than affirmed their resolve.

There will be no change of heart or moment of moral relenting. If so it would have occurred by now. The litany of assailable optical demonstrations of this President's moral turpitude had long ago reached the critical point.  They'll stand in there, blue lipped, bug-eyed and swooning until the last gavel strikes.

A small consolation is Trump's narcissistic pathology making this more discomfiting for them. Too small.