Putting the Civil back in Civilization: Violence

If we’re going to talk about a civil society we’re going to have to have a proper discussion about violence.

What do I mean by “proper”?

Well, for one thing, no fucking glad-handing.

None of this, “Gee, in a civilized society there would be no violence,” bullshit.

(If that is the marker for civilization, then we as a species have never been civilized. Never.)

We might like to think of ourselves as the only animals that have evolved beyond our violent tendencies, but that is some of the most chokingly fragrant manure ever spread in popular discourse.

It also has no basis in fact.

All you have to do is look at America, and you will see it disproven time and again, and again, and fucking again.

(And lest you think this is something you can blame on them, whoever your “them” happens to be, let’s squash that tribalism cockroach under foot right now. Even a cursory glance at the news will be more than adequate to demonstrate that both sides, of any divide you’d like to name, contain violent bastards. Both. Fucking. Sides. The sooner you get that “us and them” shit out of your head, the sooner you can start being productive in the effort to make things better.)

As animals, humans are just as capable of violence as any other animal.

We cannot begin to work towards minimizing the damage violence causes until we first take this fact into account.

We are violent, and there is no way to make us wholly non-violent.

Get it in your heads, and keep it there.

If that is the place we’re starting from, a place of reality, then we can begin to move forward.

The first thing we need to do is figure out when, under what circumstances, violence is ethically justified.

Yes, violence can be moral and ethical, if contained to certain parameters.

What might those be?

Here’s a suggestion:

Violence is ethically justified when it is used to protect one’s self, or persons nearby, from bodily harm.

(I invite you to consider, for yourself, other cases in which violence may be justified. This is the bare bones, hardest limit, no exception standard I could devise.)

I want you to notice the bit about bodily harm. That’s important.

Violence is never ethical in pursuit or defense of an ideology, so far as I have been able to discern. Nor is it ethical to engage in violence because of verbiage.

Thoughts and emotions happen in the nebulous space in our heads. Because what happens in all of our heads can vary wildly from person to person, and because immaterial notions do not adversely affect another person’s rights or safety, these things can not be used to justify violence on ethical grounds.

As for ideology, well, ideology is a competition of ideas and the presentation of those ideas. When violence enters into the picture it becomes a decision based on coercion, not on which idea has the most merit. 

As such, to justify the ethical use of violence, the use thereof must be universalizable. That is to say, it must be formulated in such a way that, if someone else were to use it thus, even the person you hate the most in the world – especially that prick – that you would be okay with it. A universal principle.

That is why I have restricted my own ethical standard to bodily harm of my person, or of any person near me.

(Not that too, any person. I don’t have to like you or love you, or even care about you to intercede on your behalf if you are the victim of violence in the moment. It doesn’t matter. If I see you in trouble, I/ him/her/ they are ethically justified in stepping in.)

And that brings me to another thing about violence:

Can we, as a culture, stop this nonsense about how, “Violence never solves anything,” please?

I understand the motivation behind the saying, I do. But knock it the fuck off. Violence does in fact solve some things, albeit a set of one.

Violence is sometimes the only thing that will stop violence.

(That is to say that violence can be stopped with prevention, before and only before it becomes physical. Once it becomes physical, the only two things that will stop violence is: a) more violence –or – b) the violent party getting tired and stopping of his/ her own volition. I think we can all see the inherent dangers in waiting for option (b) to happen.)

So, by this thinking violence is not only justifiable, but sometimes required.

(If you don’t think so, try this thought experiment: Say someone is beating the living shit out of you. If you were wholly non-violent, which you aren’t, would you like the police that come to your aid to be non-violent? You want the cops to talk the crazy son of a bitch down, or do you want them to wrestle that flailing fuck off of you and put him/ her in handcuffs? Come on now, be honest.)

Now, as a corollary to the hard ethical standard I set forth above, let me further specify on the use of violence:

One must only use as much violence as is necessary to bring the violent situation to a halt.

That means no overkill. There is no justifiable reason to continue to be violent when an aggressor has been subdued or neutralized. No need to kick on unconscious or otherwise incapacitated offender. Curb stomping is right out. Sorry.

Under those restrictions, violence can be ethically justified. More than that it can be useful and preservative of human life and safety.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Please feel free to comment here.

(Let’s leave aside the notion of War for the moment. It is a stickier wicket, and not much applicable to one’s everyday life. Start small and work up.)

(In the interest of full disclosure, I need to tell you a little about myself: I grew up a shy, too-smart, chubby kid who never slept. I grew up in some rough neighborhoods, at times, and some rough schools. I also spent around 5 years of my working life as a bouncer. I have been mugged at knife point. I have been jumped. I have been in numerous multi-person chaotic brawls. I have studied various martial arts for the majority of my existence to date. I am also on record as encouraging everyone to learn how to fight. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, kind of thing. I have been the victim of violence, and interceded to end violent situations. I also have a degree in philosophy and have studied ethics and ethical systems. I can thank Kant for the idea of universalism. I have taken theory and my first hand experience, and the experience and thoughts of other experts in the field into account in my considerations of the subject.

All of that to say this: if you wish to debate me on the topic, I welcome it. I truly do. But please, come correct. Do your homework. Make your arguments as tight and defensible as possible. If you’ve done that. I’d love to hear your thoughts. If not, I’d still like to hear your feelings and concerns, but we won’t be engaging in debate. Still, the conversation could be interesting.)

If you’ve made it this far, allow me to sum up the way I think violence can be ethically integrated into a civilized society:

1)  Violence is only ethically justified when it is used to protect one’s self, or persons nearby, from bodily harm.

2) One must only use as much violence as is necessary to bring the violent situation to a halt.

Think about it.

Posted in Putting the "Civil" Back in Civilization | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Putting the Civil Back in Civilization: Speech

Some time ago, probably somewhere in the middle of a rant, I mentioned something about making things better.

It’s one thing to opine, to criticize, to get down to some serious spittle-flecked raving, but it’s another thing altogether to suggest some ways that we might, collectively or as individuals, make things a little less bile-inducing.

In that spirit, and when my lazy, badly in need of lubrication brain thinks of them, I will try to post some suggestions.

Today’s inaugural topic is: Free Speech.

A lot of people talk a lot of shit regarding the subject, especially online.

Please allow me to offer some thoughts, and maybe – if it seems reasonable to you, dear reader – a way to proceed.

First, we need to make a necessary distinction to avoid confusion.

There are two types of Free Speech.

One type of freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution. It protects one from having one’s speech curtailed by the government.

Dig that, it’s important. The first type of free speech protects the right to say what you will from being censored, shut down, imprisoned or otherwise retaliated against by your government.

That’s important because the second type of Freedom of Speech follows from that legal protection. It is an assumptive ideal within our social discourse.

It is assumed, based on our legal rights that I, or anyone else for that matter, can not stop you from saying whatever the hell you want to say in public.

(Yes, I know there are certain reasonable legal limits concerning libel laws, slander statutes, and crowded theaters. Lets leave those aside for the purposes of this discussion.)

I feel the urge to illuminate this subject because lately, and not for the first time in America, certain groups – both Left and Right – have decided that they need to shut down speech they disagree with.

I didn’t think I needed to point this out, but apparently I do:

Trying to shut down speech you don’t like is patently Un-American.

It goes against one of our foundational ideals.

Now, I’m not going to get into the various name-calling that this subject inevitably brings up.

(Recall, if you will, The Only Rule that Matters: Don’t be a Dick.)

What I want to point out is the utter foolishness of censoring speech of any kind.

There is one way, and one way only to deal with speech you disagree with: Argue against it’s point. Present better ideas. Be persuasive.

(I know that being persuasive and making good arguments require a modicum of skill. Take the time to learn. Your life will improve because of it. Promise.)

Here’s why trying to censor unpopular speech is foolish. It does two things:

1) It sends the speech underground, creating a sub-culture. This gives the idea more weight and energy than it otherwise would have warranted in open discussion.

-and –

2) It makes you blind to the types of ideas and notions swirling around in your opponent’s head(s).

You should always know your enemy.

Knowing what makes your perceived opponent tick allows you to engineer around it. Dig under it. Crawl over it. Overcome it with better ideas, and show people the better ideas so they have a legitimate choice.

I think that censoring language is, essentially, a move from a position of fear.

People, as individuals, are fairly ok. They can pick a good idea from a bad one if the sides are presented clearly. To want to stop anyone from hearing an idea is to be afraid that one’s own idea is inferior.

Then it becomes a game of control, not enlightenment.

Ideas can be terrible things.

But they can also be great, and wonderful, and liberating.

We should, at least as Americans, never be afraid of ideas, even ones that make us uncomfortable.

Especially the ideas that make us uncomfortable.

That’s how we grow. That’s how we learn more about ourselves. That is how we find common ground.

That is how we fix things.

Does this mean we have to listen to everybody?

Hell no!

There are some reasonable limits to engagement. If a party does not respect the dialogue or the people trying to have it, then they can be excluded from said dialogue. We should still keep an ear out for what they’re spewing, because, again: know your enemy. But on the whole those types of troublemakers can be disregarded, in a given conversation. This especially includes fucking internet trolls. (FITs, for short).

Notice that I mentioned dialogue/ discussion. That’s important too. It’s important because nothing and no one can be ruled out of dialogue/ discussion in general , (Except, maybe FITs, maybe). One must exercise judgment, in the moment, and with regard to the participants of the discussion and the subject matter being discussed. 

I know, I know, no one likes to use their judgment anymore.

What if I’m wrong? What if I look bad?

What about it?

Be wrong occasionally. Look bad.

You learn more being wrong than being right.

(Of that, I speak from copious personal experience.)

But that’s the short and sweet of it:

Listen, argue, exclude when warranted and necessary.

Listen and argue some more.

Repeat, ad infinitum.

We keep that up and things might, by tiny increments and agonizingly slowly, get better.

Might.

We have a better shot at it that way than any other.

And it has the benefit, when done correctly, of no one getting hurt.

That’s a plus in my book.

Anyways, now you know.

Go argue.

Have fun.

Posted in Putting the "Civil" Back in Civilization | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Humor Nooner

Just a quickie for the middle of your day:

I was thinking about how much I admire the women in fitness. Specifically the drive and sacrifice it takes to achieve their goals.

And I thought, you couldn’t get men to go the same distance.

It’s like, many women, at least all the ones I know personally, complain that when they get fit, the first thing to go away is their breasts.

Now, consider if the shoe were on the other foot.

If men, in order to get fit and look jacked had to lose two inches of dick…

…We’d all be fat bastards in baggy jogging suits.

Just a thought to brighten your day.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Writing Updatery

Sent out the newest round of query letters last night for Drawn to Flame.

Here’s hoping I have finally learned to write a query as interesting as the novel it’s trying to sell.

And now…  The Waiting.

Wish me luck.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Of Ruins and Non-Confession Confessions

My brain is fucked this morning. Figured I’d share. I hope what follows is something like coherent.

First, a little background:

I did not have, what is now commonly referred to as, a stable childhood. I’m old enough that when my parents divorced, I still got strange, sideways glances from people in school – students and teachers. This is back when they still used the phrase “broken home.”

I was raised, mostly, by a parent from a highly dysfunctional family. And these things get passed down the generations. So, beyond being a child of divorce, the environment I was raised in was also highly dysfunctional. Add to that an undiagnosed thyroid condition that never let me sleep, and an adult dose of anxiety and depression, and the picture of my childhood and adolescent life becomes more like a late night horror show than a Lifetime movie.

To tell the truth, looking back on those times with the benefit of hindsight, medication, and therapy, I hove no clue how I managed to maintain. It was probably a combination of dumb luck, animal cunning, and sheer bloody-mindedness. There are certain drives wired into us that help the organism survive. And it’s impressive what you can get used to and see as normal – especially if you don’t know any other way of being.

I tell you this, not to solicit sympathy, but to set the scene.

This was the water I was swimming in – the underlying structures that existed when I was 15, and a sophomore in high school.

With that in mind, let me tell you a little about the worst year of my life.

A whole bunch of things happened, within the space of about two months, give or take:

I lost the girlfriend I consider my high school sweetheart. (My first real heartbreak. That’s like virginity; you don’t forget the first time.) She left me for one of the guys in my circle of friends. For whatever reason, (teenagers have lots of reasons, and they’re all teenage bullshit), that friend group ostracized me. I suppose this was before the idea of “Bros before Hoes,” but so be it. Around the same time, my mother announced to me that she was getting remarried and we would be moving out of state to live with her new husband, in New York – state not city. So, to sum up: My girl dumped me, my friends dumped me, and I had just found out, about 3 months into the school year, that this would be my last year at that school.

If you can hear the support structures crumbling like God-sized dominoes, it wouldn’t surprise me. Some days I still hear the echoes.

That year, and series of events, ruined my life. But, I’ll get back to that point a little later.

It’s now 23 years later. I’m happily married, reasonably successful, and marginally sane.

You think you make peace with a thing.

(You kind of do make peace with it, in that you stop allowing it to fuck up your day. You stop obsessing over the thing, and you rarely think about it, and not with the same energy you did in years past. But that thing still pisses you off. And it should. For a human life to have value, someone should be angry when it is damaged, even if that someone is a N of 1).

So, why is this thing rearing it’s hydra-headed presence to disturb my relative peace of mind at this moment in time?

This is why my brain is fucked, this morning.

The guy who stole my girl, (couldn’t resist the phrasing, sorry) those so many years ago. The same guy who worked to not only ostracize me from that friend group, but also to generally give my name a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. That guy, sent me a Facebook message the other day.

(My Facebook account is set to private. So, this message had to be accepted by me. Because of something weird with the notifications, I didn’t read it until a week after it was sent.)

Apparently, he’d been thinking a lot about the past, lately.

Oh joy!

And he wanted to, in his scattered and inarticulate way, apologize. At least that’s kind of the gist I gleaned from the message. I mean, the word apologize was used. I think it was even directed at me. But have you ever had someone apologize without really and sincerely accepting fault?

(If you’re wondering, “I was kind of a dick,” is not really accepting fault. It doesn’t admit hurting the other person and it doesn’t admit that it was wrong.)

I got this message yesterday. And a whole Jehovah-decides-to kill-off-the-nephilim flood of memories and emotions broke through and started scouring the countryside of my emotional landscape.

And that’s why my brain is fucked this morning.

I’m still processing.

(I’m definitely taking my wife’s advice – which strangely wasn’t, “set him on fire,” this time – and I’m not going to engage with him. What the hell could I say anyway? And why would it matter? Nothing will change. Well, he might feel a little better about his past mistakes, but I sure as hell won’t. And I’ll be damned if I’m making him feel better. )

Really, this post isn’t about him.

But his message brought back the memories of that year.

The memories of what was, of what I had worked and planned for – such as I could plan. And those old, razor-edged thoughts about what could have been.

Those thoughts kill you, in ways little and large.

I wish I could tell you how to deal with those thoughts, how to stop having them, or stop letting them hurt you. If I could, then I would know how to handle it myself. Maybe I’ll try denial next time?

It’s funny, people who have the capacity, or ability, or whatever, to “let things go” will tell you to just let things go. But when I question them, they never seem to be able to tell me how. I’m not stupid, but letting things go is way outside of my framework of understanding. If I’m going to attempt it, I’m going to need some instruction.

(I have been trying to teach myself, by the way. Through reason, and therapy, and meditation I’ve learned a lot about myself and how my brain works. I’ve learned a lot about how to cope. But letting go is a skill I still struggle with, sometimes daily.)

Oh, I told you I’d come back to the thing about my life being ruined. So, here’s that bit:

I had an argument with my older sister – she had much the same sort of upheaval at the same time – about that statement, that my life had been ruined. This was many years ago.

She was vehemently of the opinion that my life couldn’t have been ruined, because, you know, there I was. I was a living, breathing adult operating, if not within normative parameters close enough to avoid detection.

I’ve thought about that argument, and her point, a lot since then. I still disagree.

Because the life that I knew had been ruined. For all intents and purposes, (there were other circumstances I’ll not go into here), the life that I knew ceased to exist. More than that, it was taken from me, bit by bit.

That I have a life now, that I am happily married, reasonably successful, and marginally sane does not alter that fact.

But it does prove one thing:

You can rebuild over old ruins.

What you build may be better or worse, grander or meaner, but it will never be that thing that came before. Nothing can be.

This is, as near as I can tell, an incontrovertible fact of existence.  

Nothing, once destroyed, can ever be remade. You can make something with a remarkable semblance, a veritable copy, but the glass can never be unbroken. Even if all the pieces fit back together, you will still see the fracture lines. There will always be chips, missing.

So, that’s what I went to bed and woke up with: dealing with that.

And I’ll continue to deal with that. My brain will gnaw on it like a rawhide dog chew covered in peanut butter.

It might be a minute before I get it sorted.

I’d like to end this with some note of hope, some moral or heuristic or advice for the future.

But I don’t have anything like that.

All I can do is chew on it.

And, maybe, thank you for walking this leg of the journey with me.

I don’t know what it means, but it means something, and for that:

Thank you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Across the Atlantic Sea…

(Yes, it’s a lyric from the musical Hair. Also, I cribbed the idea for the title from my friend Ziggy. Ziggy, if you’re reading this, thanks for the inspiration.)

Ok, so, on Monday there was a suicide bombing attack following an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. The concert was attended, according to the various news reports, by a crowd that seemed to be majority young people, even some children.

That is some fucked up, repugnant shit.

There isn’t another way to describe it.

It is truly horrible.

In the days since the attack, I have seen a lot of posts and articles, and tweets, and whatnots offering thoughts and prayers.

I know why we say those things. We say them because we feel something, and because we wish we could do something.

Any one of us with a soul or a heart, or even basic human compassion feels that way.

But I am getting sick of the deluge of thought and prayers.

Another thing I firmly believe is that one should not carp too loudly about a problem unless one is also willing to offer a solution.

So here’s my solution, a solution that will let you take action.

Do something more than offer your thoughts and prayers.

In my experience, Thoughts and Prayers are a barrier to action. Either we’re too lazy or too ignorant to actually do something, to act on that upwelling of compassion we feel. So, I’m going to lower the barrier of both those obstacles. After reading this, you will no longer be ignorant. I can’t do much about the lazy part, but I’ll try to make it as easy as I possibly can for you to actually do something.

If I’m not too technologically inept, this post will include some links to charities for victims of the Manchester attack. If you have the means, please donate. The funds will go a lot farther than your well-wishes and supplications to some supernatural power.

(If you don’t have the means, I will also have actions you, too, can take.)

Charities:

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/westandtogethermanchester

https://www.gofundme.com/fmvwa-manchester-attack-victims-fund

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/ManchesterTerror

http://www.redcross.org.uk/Donate-Now/Make-a-single-donation/manchester-emergency-fund

Those are just a few charities. It took me less than 10 minutes on Google, if you want to look for others. (I gathered there are a lot of personal crowdfunding sites as well.)

 

But, you say, I don’t have any spare cash.

That’s fine. Your time and energy are just as valuable. Maybe more so.

So, here’s my suggestion for how to spend it:

Call, write, email – or all three – your representatives in Congress, House and Senate.

Here, I’ll help out with links to find out those too:

https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

There you go.

What should you say to them? That’s up to you. But, if you guessed I was going to make some suggestions, you’d be the winner. (and don’t we all want to be winners?)

Here’s a list of topics:

* Encourage them to make every effort to stay in NATO.

* Encourage them to support refugees, from any country.

*Encourage them to do everything they can to stop the bombing, everywhere.

The last one is my favorite.

How would that help Manchester, you may be asking?

In the short term, not much, I’ll grant, but in the long term, it could make all the difference in the world.

There were a lot of children hurt and some killed during Monday night’s attack. There are a lot more killed whenever we drop bombs on urban areas, hospitals, schools, mosques. And that happens every day.

Every. Day.

Even when we don’t drop bombs on heavily populated areas, we still do immeasurable damage to civilians.

Here’s a for instance: our President got all Morning-Wood over dropping the MOAB. The MOAB, (aka the Mother Of All Bombs), being our largest non-nuclear ordinance, has a blast radius of approximately 1 mile. A mile. And they dropped it to kill one mother fucker. In a 2 mile circle of destruction, do you think we might have killed a few innocent people? Maybe even some Children?

Of course we did.

(And. as our government still ostensibly represents us, that blood and death are on us – our responsibility.)

Now, don’t get me wrong here. I am not saying that if you’re not feeling and acting compassionately towards one group that you can’t be feeling and acting that way towards another. No.

I’m not that particular kind of asshole.

What I am saying is that children are children. Innocent civilians are innocent.

What I’m saying is: You have compassion enough to act on both their behalf’s.

There is enough in you, even the lowest of you, to act on the compassion for the suffering of all innocent people.

No matter where they are from or the color of their skin.

No matter what they believe about the supernatural, or not.

No. Matter.

You feel the need to act, because you’re human, and decent. And because it’s the right thing to do.

There are people you can help.

People whose lives you can strive to make better just by taking the time to engage with your government representatives and tell them:

No more killing in my name. 

You, yes you, can take ten minutes to make the world better.

It’s only ten minutes.

Might even be less.

Because Thoughts and Prayers mean Jack and Shit without the action to give them direction and shape.

Wishful thinking won’t make anything better.

But you might.

Little old you.

You might.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Election 2016: Post-Mortem

So, there have been many explanations put forth as to why Hillary Clinton lost the election. I imagine there will be many more in the months and years to come. I have spent a goodly amount of time thinking about this subject, and doing some research, so I thought I’d share with you today.

NOTE: Keep in mind, while reading what follows, that I did, in fact, vote for Hillary. Not because I thought she spoke to my issues, or because I agreed with her policies, but simply because I considered her Republican opponent to be the single worst qualified person for the job, perhaps in the history of our republic. And that includes the president that was rumored to have trampled a lady to death while he was on a drunken carriage ride. In truth, I still believe our current dumpster-fire of a president is worse.

So, how did we get to here, with a certified sewage cyclone leading the free world?

Well, the first thing that you need to absorb is that it was more than one reason.

(Everybody you ask has their pet silver bullet: Comey’s October surprise, Russian collusion, misogyny, voter suppression, et cetera…)

I don’t doubt that all of those things played a part, but none of them were the holy grail of deciding factors.

(it wasn’t Jill Stein either. Lay off those voters conscientious enough to cast their ballots all the while knowing their candidate didn’t stand a chance. In a Democracy we’re supposed to vote for the person we think best represents us and our interests. And it takes a certain kind of courage to go a different way than the rest. I’m not saying buy them a beer, but lay off. They didn’t keep Hillary from being the first woman president.)

So, back to my point: I think those things listed above did have some effect on the outcome of the election. It would be foolish to disregard any variable in the equation. But it would be just as foolish to think that the things I have previously listed were, any of them, solely or even majorly responsible.

I think the main problems with Hillary’s campaign were that:

1) She really didn’t have a platform.

Seriously, she didn’t. Her platform consisted of – essentially – Trump is a bad man, and I’m not him.

(I know she had positions stated on her website. I read most of them. But positions aren’t a platform. A platform is what you intend to do for the people. And as far as Hillary campaigned, there wasn’t anything concrete in that arena.)

And the people really did need a politician to make things better for them. We still do. The economic recovery, under President Obama, made a lot of corporations and rich people even richer, but really didn’t do anything for the working folk of this nation, except kick a bunch of them out of their houses.

(As an aside, maybe you think that healthcare reform, the ACA, was a boon to the poor and working people of this country, and you would be wrong. It was a boon to the insurance companies. It should have been, at its very least, a first step towards something better – a transitional tool. But it wasn’t, and about as many people got screwed as got helped. My thoughts on healthcare reform are probably best saved for some other rant.)

The research shows that 95% of the income growth that occurred during the recovery went to the richest 1% of the American population. That means, if you’re anywhere near the same tax bracket as me, you got hosed and asked to pay for the water they used to do it. But that is also another rant for another time.

Suffice it to say, other than being more hawkish than Obama, Hillary essentially promised the American people more of the same.

And that leads me to…

2) She was a neo-liberal corporatist.

Feel free to look up neo-liberalism, (unless you’re well versed in economic theory, it isn’t what you’re thinking it is based on its name.)

She was in the pocket of corporations, big business, the banking sector, and the military-industrial complex. This is not speculation. Please look up her views. It’s all out there. Most of it is on tape, if you don’t want to bother with the books.

If you need more evidence, look at what she would, adamantly, not come out in favor of: single payer healthcare system, $15 per hour minimum wage, cutting up the too-big-to-fail banks, getting rid of Citizens Untied by working to get corporate money our of our politics, doing something about the growing student loan debt bubble.

And you know what? Most polls show the majority of Americans support all of those initiatives.

But Hillary didn’t. In fact, she tried to make Bernie Sanders out to be some loon for advocating for those very issues. You know, the ones that would help the vast majority of Americans.

And let me add another thing to the list:

3) The tactics of her campaign.

By that, I mean during the primaries and the general elections. I also mean the actions of the DNC.

More specifically, what I mean is the notion that was implied that somehow she deserved to be president.

A few brave souls in independent media referred to it as what it actually felt like: a veritable coronation, like the presidency was meant to be hers by some divine of right of succession. Also, there was this weird insistence that the force of history was telling us it was time for a woman president; the implication being that Hillary was the clear choice. I think it’s past time we had a woman as president. But I also don’t think Hillary was that woman.

Add to that sense of imperiousness the chicanery and machinations of the DNC, and you get a potent cocktail that usually turns the average American’s stomach.

You see, a great many of us still believe in the myths they used to teach us: fair play, let the best person win, the ends do not justify the means, truth, justice, you know, the American Way.

Between Hillary acting like the presidency was hers for the taking and the skullduggery of the DNC, well, it left a sour taste in the mouths of many people I’ve spoken with about the subject, including my own.

If you haven’t realized this fact by now, commit it to memory: Never underestimate the peevishness of Americans. Get stuck in our craw and we will go out of our way to keep you from getting what you want. Just on principle.

And that brings me to my final point:

4) Hillary had zero charisma.

Sorry. For any of you that don’t think charisma matters, go ask Al Gore how his presidency went. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Like it or not, as Americans, we like our leaders to have charisma. Want to win the highest elected office in this nation, and you got to have it, even if – in the case of Trump – it’s slimy as hell.

And Hillary didn’t have it. If you thought she did, you’re wrong, and I’d like the number of your drug dealer, because you are getting the good shit.

I watched a bunch of her speeches – because I don’t have a life – and all but one of her debate performances. She was in control of herself and in possession of the facts, and she made good arguments. So did Ralph Nader. Go ask him how his term as president went. Go Ahead, I’ll wait.

She was wooden and without emotion in every speech or debate performance I watched. She could not read a crowd’s energy, and she could not stir emotion in a listener. Now, you could blame that on her speech writers, but in the end, it’s the delivery system that makes the impact. Just ask any of your friends whether or not they could listen to – oh pick a celebrity – read the phone book. See what I mean?

Now, all of that being said, let me remind you that most likely, it wasn’t one thing or even two or three things that cost Hillary the election. It was a constellation of things. A night’s sky full of stars worth of things. Some of those were definitely the things I listed early on in this post.  But it certainly wasn’t the third party candidates. How much a percentage of the vote did Vermin Supreme get? Yeah, about that much. And it wasn’t her e-mails.

For fuck’s sake, if I hear any more shit about her e-mails I am going to puke blood.

(I think Bernie did the right thing when he said he was tired of hearing about her damn e-mails.)

The only people that nonsense had an effect on were the people who were already not going to vote for her. Same deal with Comey’s October clusterfuck. If you were going to vote for Hillary, those things didn’t matter. And, in truth, they didn’t matter regardless of how you were going to vote. But they made for good headlines and gave the 24 hour news whores something to dole out between commercial breaks.

(As another aside, if the truth about a candidate makes it so people wouldn’t vote for him or her, then as a voting populace, we should know that shit. But the odds of that happening are so long you can’t see one end while standing at the other.)

So, that’s what I’ve managed to come up with, since the election. Maybe you agree. Maybe you don’t. That’s okay. It’s also the beauty of a democracy wherein we have the right of free expression. (Well, mostly free.)

Obama ran on hope. Trump ran on fear. And Hillary ran on fumes.

And Americans will take anything, even something terrible, over nothing at all.

Something to remember for next time.

Unless you’d like to see history continue to repeat itself.

Again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment