The Quaint American

It’s quaint how many Americans & others who tend to identify with the two US political parties view the investigation into the activities of Donald Trump & his campaign for the Office of the US Presidency as it relates to whether they cooperated with its manipulation by a foreign government as either an unlawful inquisition, the worst witch hunt since Salem or some such, or as crucial to the ongoing existence of the democratic republic since… take your pick.It is almost intriguing how what is routinely seen as the importance of the party designation in the election of a representative or appointment to a post is an affiliation set aside by some based solely on the fact that a special prosecutor happens to be investigating members affiliated with his own party. Of course, there is sound, if still quaint, reasoning behind this: The always good Democrat, who’ll readily admit that Democrats are not always good, says it’s because there exist non-partisan Republicans, which is big of ’em. As proof, there’s the sometimes fair, depending on the weather, Republican who is troubled by facts learned so far and feels like the investigation should continue. Here lies the firm foundation of American democracy! How quaint.

This bipartisan brotherhood brews over into mistrust the moment members don’t behave as their counterpart had hoped. This, too, is rooted in soundness, and is quite quaint. Naturally when someone who’d been friendly to you suddenly smacks you in the face you’re gonna change your opinion of them. But not least of which based on the unpredictability of the actions of others, I say these party affiliations are irrelevant.

I allude here not to the question of the discrepancies between the iterated party ideologies and their actual differences. I rather refer to the irrelevancy of the Biggest Sideshow on Earth. Warning, I’m fixin’ to make the oft fallacious “the same people who…” argument, which as a matter of course should be viewed as question begging. So don’t beg it, that is, don’t take my word for it, but seriously consider whether or not this statement is true: The same people who are salivating at every tidbit coming downwind of Robert Mueller and consequently see him as a man of integrity today would view him as a treasonous party hack the moment he were to complete his investigation without either fingering the president or prosecuting someone in his inner circle. And of course the same people who are currently calling for the president to fire Robert Mueller for abuse of power or whatever will cite in perpetuity his investigation should the president escape scot-free.

Not that every selfsame amateur constitution wonk, who learns of some new arcane statute with every related “actually” tweet from their fave professional DC policy wonk, are not willing to hold that nothing is certain and will admit in advance to whichever special investigator’s being treacherous unless he gets fired first. This is also part of the quaintness quagmire that makes up the self-image of this moment’s American. It constitutes just the latest act in the sideshow.

Every spotlighted actor in this play is a study in treachery, but not of the disloyalty to the quaint American kind. It is a treachery toward whatever potential there is for earthy human decency. But not of the civility & decorum variety, quite the contrary. The most treacherous lay claim to that mantle with the backing of decorous fanfare — a quaint contradiction if there was one, which just might be a clue as to the expedient nature of that civility in all its historic duplicity.

Quaint Americans, much like the ugly ones, are selfish. If it’s found that the current monster in the White House has nada effect on their own real lives, they’ll point out how much they care about the effect it has, or will have, on others. Given the perpetual relativist application of the evidence of such effects depending on the timing of their cause, it’s difficult for me to sympathize.

Butawhatery

Note that the list of the greatest threats to American democracy does not include whenever the Americans manipulated or destroyed someone else’s. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” is the quaint logic moving forward, but neither does a second wrong necessarily warrant the most urgent need for correction. This is true when there is wrongdoing of relative ubiquity, particularly so when that ubiquitous wrongness is of the official institutions tasked with the correction of wrong. That’s called institutionalized corruption. There has never been a greater assurance of the end of American democracy than the partisan embracement of those institutions when it suits one’s selective fancy.

“But I can criticize both,” or “We can’t do anything about the other thing,” are a common refrain of the quaint American, often in that the wrong in question lies in the distant past or is beyond the powers of democratic citizens and their apparently expediently powerless representatives charged with confirming those who sit in the institutions.

But the institutional wrongs are quantifiable. They are individual as well as collective actions taken in any of the institutions’ names, or under one or more of their auspices, sometimes in secret. Enough of those secrets have been officially revealed such that any special investigators and prosecutors worth their weight in honor-ability or well-qualified-ness would be able to air the grievances publicly and sentence any & all the wrong doers living & dead.

Before there can be a credible account of the election of 2016, there needs to be a credible account of both of their primaries. Still of greater urgency would be for international cooperation into the investigation of the murderous manipulation and/or overthrow of the Ukraine and Libya most recently, Iraq, Somalia, Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, and again Libya more recently as well as historically, by all means Russia in the 90s, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Panama in the ’80s, Chile, Ghana, Zaire, Bolivia, the Congo— hell, just about anywhere in Africa and Latin America that ever attempted autonomous democracy, socialist-ist or otherwise, and throw in Fiji, Grenada, and Jamaica, and Cuba. Naturally Iran, Guatemala, and Indonesia— I know. Pure fantasy, right?

I submit that it is more important to the survival of democracy that those institutions face a reckoning regardless of how temporally afield their transgressions lie. By comparison, the current lawless executive facing even the slightest censure from any one of those same institutions would bolster their credibility of convenience with the quaint American. The removal of the latest symptom will make them happy and might lead to that infamous fanfare, but it ain’t gonna save no democracy.

 

Advertisements

Progress you can believe in will make us the great we’ve never not been.

Question: Can whoever is elected after this guy leaves undo this crap he has done?Answer: Sure. Didn’t the last guy undo the unconstitutional expansions of the guy before him, dial back on the accretion of power to the executive branch, and do due diligence on the opposition’s chosen appointees while emboldening his party in the Houses to oppose with all due force those whose preferred policies, as they warned their constituencies, would be definitely detrimental? Didn’t he not allow the former’s tax breaks to extend and not extend his public-private misappropriation of the public domain-funded information infrastructure, which thereby did anything other than broaden their movement into the public’s private lives while enriching the richest of that revolving door sector? Did he not court-martial his predecessor’s torturers and architects of that program, restoring the rule of law, and pursue prosecution of the financial wizards who continued well into his terms of office to sell out their clients to the ultimate ruin of an entire class of home-owner, and didn’t he refuse to appoint to positions of power anyone who’d advise him to do otherwise? Didn’t he curtail the dealing of destructive devises to the dominion his agency said supports the terrorism he reaffirmed was being battled, and didn’t he stop toppling governments and widening the desert of misery in the very region contiguous to That One War he’d given such a moving speech in opposition to, which was after all a prominent part of the long list of audaciously hopeful assurances of restoration that largely led to his winning the office in the first place?

For that matter, did not the guy before the last guy undo the right-to-work union busting and trade policy and welfare reform and financial deregulation that would be sure to result in a pox-like foreclosure on his house’s historical record, or the guy before that not resist doing those things I just listed, which had done less than undo what was anyway certainly not a rip-off of the working class by the last revolutionary tv star to dodder at the desk in the ovoid room – for wouldn’t it otherwise not continually inspire the iconographic identification with the illuminated imagery channeled into its nation’s living spaces, where, as far as can be plausibly discerned, at least one chosen feed maintains its resident consumers’ credulous appetite?

 

Just the Facts

Observe the following sentence & subsequent translation: Der Rollstuhlfahrer soll beim Überqueren der Straße nicht den Fußgängerüberweg genutzt haben, eine Ampel befand sich nur 25 Meter weiter. It means: The wheelchair user is believed not to have used the pedestrian crossing. A traffic light was only 25 meters away.nur {adv}: only; just | If he’d only wheeled his lazy ass to the next corner. He’s just looking for sympathy.

The descriptive measurement becomes a value judgment by way of the insertion of no more than an additional word, a simple syllable, a mere morpheme, which is then nothing less than a transgression of journalistic responsibility that triggers a number of possible conclusions about what actually happened. However, the application of “nur” in this context is not only bad reporting pregnant with the plausibly prejudicial ableist attitude beclouded in traffic law & order. It’s also inaccurate, which mere minutes of research might have made clear. As you can glean from the item’s accompanying photograph, there is in fact a light at the reported intersection. Either the Unfortunate wasn’t crossing at this corner and the driver dragged him the distance, or the nearest light was *twice as far away.
Continue reading

Terminankündigungsberichterstattungsunbekanntgabe

»Hast du schon gehört? Es soll mit dem BER endlich soweit sein!«»Echt? Ich hätte mir nie erträumt. Du! Lass uns mal einen Flug buchen! Egal wohin!«

»Soweit ist es noch nicht. Ich meine, bald wird es einen Termin geben

»Wie, einen Termin? Ab wann können wir da fliegen?«

»Das weiß ich auch noch nicht. Ich meine, bald wird es einen Termin geben… für die Bekanntgabe für den Eröffnungstermin. Und jener Termin soll denn irgendwann bald bekannt gegeben werden… als Weihnachtsgeschenk!  Falls nichts mehr dazwischen kommt.«

»Spannend. Sag mal. Nach dem Eröffnungstermin, dürfte man von BER aus abfliegen?«

Relevanter link:
Bericht über die Meldung der Eröffnungsterminbekanntgabe

 

Weened on Hallowed Wood

Severed heads are sacrificed; the blood trickles toward the penthouse cellar. Se7en spaced the severity of the unsubtlety of his deflection — a brazen attempt to have his having had an active gaydar steal the spotlight away from the evil he used it for. Narcissus knows no bonds — none too tight from which to wiggle with glee. He’d be given to going, “It’s time to say ’twas not my intent, but coincident to coming clean’.” But silence is also an option.

Monday’s Man o’ Fort saw the phrase ‘dictator friendly’ just often enough to bring to mind an entire country’s intelligence combined. Verily. One could strikethrough each instance of the named in the indictment and replace it with ‘the US’. However, either’d serve as apt metonymy for machinations of autocrat-o-philic money laundering. But let’s not forget about extortion and racketeering.

Now for FAKE MUSE!

Blutkotzende Goten – bis Marzahn  – Unkrautrock (1989)