I’m OK. You?

My father was of the firm belief that good is much more prevalent than evil in the world. And the proof, as he saw it, was that we would not be able to live in a world where evil overpowered good. Such a thing would be unfathomable, he believed. And that it only seemed that there was more evil than good in the world because terrible things were always more noticeable and more life altering than positive ones. Along those lines, his favorite analogy when broaching the subject, was to imagine a car in almost perfect condition with the exception of one engine part that rendered the vehicle immobile. Chassis, transmission, steering, tires…all in perfect condition but that flawed engine part that kept it off the road.

It never occurred to him that his analogy actually disproved his theory. Yes, 99% of the car was in excellent condition but the lone imperfection disrupted the whole purpose of the car’s existence, which was to be driven and transport its passengers. So, in the end, the bad outweighed the good even if it was just a solitary actor’s handiwork.

I thought about this recently as I was mulling over what it means to be a good person.

Watching the trailer for the upcoming film Operation Finale, about the capture in Argentina and trial in Israel of the Nazi’s infamous Final Solution architect Adolf Eichmann, I was thinking about philosopher Hannah Arendt’s controversial “banality of evil” which she coined in describing her impression of Eichmann as a detached follower and servant who saw his monstrous crimes as simply the job he was entrusted with carrying out. And, more importantly, an explanation as to how the average person can commit the most heinous atrocities with little acknowledgement of the inherent evil involved.

My intention is not disprove or support Arendt’s analysis per se but to recognize how it made me arrive at certain conclusions in so far as how we characterize ourselves regarding good and evil.

Too often we consider good people—including ourselves—those who simply do no harm to others, as if being a passive bystander is an immediate virtue. I have come to understand that being a good person requires an active effort in that regard and that residing on the sidelines is no real path to honor or nobility, let alone merit.

It has been my lifelong intention to avoid causing deliberate harm and for the most part I have succeeded. But that’s about it. Now, if I were alleviating some kind of suffering, helping with the wellbeing—physical or spiritual—of others, making a tangible positive difference in others’ lives, well, then I would be the first to describe myself as a good person. But merely abstaining from evil is not enough. Sadly, I’m far from alone in this category.

My younger brother, on the other hand, has put his life on hold to care for our elderly and memory-challenged mother. He’s been doing this for a few years now, with loving care and devotion, even at times when she can be incredibly but involuntarily difficult because of her deteriorating condition. And yes, one can point readily to her devotion to him when in his ‘tween/early teen years he was the one who needed constant care and attention after a bad car accident, as the catalyst or motivation for his fidelity to our mother in this trying situation. But as a close friend pointed out, other children with a similar history and predicament have chosen to absolve themselves partially or completely from all responsibility when it comes to the care of their parents or other loved ones, but my brother has faced this challenge with patience, grace and love. He, is a good person; I’m just OK.

Those of you actually doing good out there, thank you. We OK people need to catch up to you. It’s the very least we can do if we want to be even remotely considered decent people. OK, then.

Keep Your Eyes on the Ball, Folks

In one of his typical attempts at misdirection Chump is lashing out on Twitter and even threatening to shut down the government. Fuck that. Let’s concentrate on how his failed tariff war has led to bribe his supporters in the farming industry with a $12B bail out to ensure their vote and how the non-Chumpbots in Flint, whose water was poisoned by the, um, mismanagement of a Republican governor, don’t get jackshit in comparison.

Like Katrina and Maria also taught us, you can fuck with the health and safety of American PoC and get away with it, but if white people have their profit margins affected we must IMMEDIATELY come to their rescue.

We have looong memories, assholes. Remember that.

Federal Judge Allows Emoluments Case Against Trump to Proceed

WaPo:

The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Greenbelt, Md., will allow the plaintiffs — the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia — to proceed with their case, which says Trump has violated little-used anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution known as emoluments clauses. This ruling appeared to mark the first time a federal judge had interpreted those constitutional provisions and applied their restrictions to a sitting president. If the ruling stands, it could bring unprecedented scrutiny to Trump’s businesses — which have sought to keep their transactions with foreign states private, even as their owner sits in the Oval Office.

It's not about convincing his followers or shaming the GOP to do the right thing but to go after him for the illegal bullshit he's knowingly and blatantly perpetrated. Godspeed, folks.

It's A Black Thing, You Wouldn't Understand

One of the more telling aspects of the 2016 Democratic primary was not that Hillary Clinton had a strong following among the African-American community—before Obama became POTUS black people used to jokingly, albeit with affection, call Bill Clinton the first black president—but that many of Bernie Sanders’ followers had no idea of this long-standing relationship. (I knew this would not bode well for the Sanders camp and the frustration it engendered manifested itself in instances of racism I did not expect from fellow liberals. It was both disgusting and heartbreaking, although, admittedly, I felt more of the former than the latter.)

This is particularly important at this juncture in Democratic politics, when there is talk of pushing aside the establishment Democrats in favor of new progressive blood, as we saw with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s recent upset and the rise of Cynthia Nixon’s gubernatorial candidacy. But here’s the rub: like Sanders before them, guess what sector both of these candidates are lacking support from.

Yup.

So, one has to wonder whether Ocasio-Cortez is or not an outlier and if Nixon can win without the most loyal demo in the Democratic party. And there is already some unrest: despite her impressive and historic victory, some have taken to derisively calling Ocasio-Cortez, “the gentrification candidate” due to the widespread, game-changing support she got from neighborhoods whose demographics have been rapidly changing. (To a brown native NYer like her you know that’s gotta hurt.) And while Nixon has amassed an impressive tally of Hollywood backers and endorsers, she’s not garnering much steam with black folks: she’s at 17% with them, while Gov. Cuomo has a 74% approval rate among African Americans.

As always, “We’ll see”, said the blind man.

[CNN: Cynthia Nixon, Like Bernie Sanders Before Her, Has A Problem With Black Democrats]

Fake Haiku of the Day

90% of Republicans support Trump
40% of Americans are Republican
Do the math and vote

With Venezuelan Oil Industry on Verge of Collapse Are The Chavistas Dancing In The Streets Yet?

The Independent:

Despite having the greatest oil reserves in the world, Venezuela’s government is being forced to spend millions of dollars a day importing crude to prop up its ailing industry. Petrol remains the only cheap commodity left in Venezuela amid the collapse of most of its economy, but the oil industry is now also struggling to meet basic domestic demands. Experts say the industry is operating below 40 per cent of its potential output. Last month, the International Energy Agency reported that Venezuela is and will probably remain “the biggest risk factor” in a global supply crisis that may soon tip the market into deficit.

Fucking criminals every last one.

By the way, I blame Rafael Caldera for the monumental disaster that now grips a once proud country in a death-like vise. Despite his noteworthy achievements in his two stints as Venezuelan president, his pardon of those involved in the failed 1992 coup d'etat, including its leader Hugo Chavez—who, as a treasonous colonel, had an assured date with the firing squad—was an infamous decision that eventually led to the fall of Venezuela.

Get In The Ring, Democrats (part 2)

After reading a piece in Esquire that called for former President Obama to call out Trump and his numerous transgressions against our country by name—which Obama has refused, seemingly adhering to past protocols of not publicly chastising one’s successor; as if Trump will ever do the same once we remove him from office he steps down—it occurred to me that the Democrats should name an official pit bull.

And by that I mean, ideally, an Alan Grayson-type to be in charge of attacking this administration and its preposterous policies on a daily basis. Sort of like the lawmaker who offers the opposing side’s take on the State of the Union. But with teeth. This individual must not be someone who is in or seeking office but a consummate Democrat with the balls (or ovaries) to say what needs to be said, conclusively, effectively and without filter. Like a message czar or something.

And yes, I know what you’re thinking: “Isn’t that party chairman Tom Perez’s job?” Should be. Somebody should wake him up and let him know.

Get In The Ring, Democrats

For as long as I have blogged, discussed and debated American politics I have continually made it a point to decry the across-the-board milquetoast attitude of Democrats in how they've made policy, defended their gains and sold their message over the last couple of decades. In other words, I have bemoaned their lack of a killer instinct—the absence of a penchant for being aggressive and yes, playing dirty, when need be. Well, on this front, it seems that I’m not as alone as I have believed.

Citing political scientist David Faris’ new book, It’s Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics, Rob Goodman's recent Politico piece is from a man after my own heart.

Grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, and break California in seven, with the goal of adding 16 new Democrats to the Senate. Expand the Supreme Court and the federal courts, packing them with liberal judges. Move to multi-member House districts to roll back the effects of partisan gerrymandering. Pass a new Voting Rights Act, including nationwide automatic voter registration, felon enfranchisement and an end to voter ID laws. Grant citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants, creating a host of new Democratic-leaning voters: “Republicans have always feared that immigration would change the character of American society. Democrats should reward them with their very worst nightmare.” 

Amen.

Granted, there’s at least a plausible case to be made that a “spiral of conflict” is a bad model to describe the state we’re in, because Republicans do not look to Democrats for permission or precedent before breaking norms. There was no precedent for the theft of the Supreme Court seat now occupied by Gorsuch; there was no provocation for purging voter rolls or suppressing turnout. Given this asymmetry, isn’t the idea that Democrats are responsible for stopping an escalating spiral the worst kind of both-sides-ism? I don’t think so. If the Normal Is Over caucus can imagine a unified, genuinely radical Democratic government in the next four or eight years, they’re also responsible for imagining an enraged opposition, strong in the conviction that the Democratic government is illegitimate. We saw exactly that the last time there was a Democratic government. And we can fully expect next time to be worse, because the culture of self-restraint is weakened with each iteration of the cycle. 

If only the Dems weren’t so chickenshit and had the balls and ovaries to see this thru…

[Politico: Hey Democrats, Fighting Fair For Is For Suckers]

"Exactly who are these people, and what have they done with my party?"

Former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough questions the identity of the current GOP in a WaPo OpEd piece.

Quote of the Day

"The rest of us have to come to grips with the fact that there is no real mystery any more. The president* of the United States is a reckless vandal who is in thrall to a man whose only real goal in life is to loot his own failing country and hobble this one. Putin is a brutal con-man who has found a transparently bad one that he can play like a cheap violin. How the president* got into this situation almost seems irrelevant at this point; there well may be a video of some icky water-sports in a Moscow hotel, but I still think it’s all about money that Russians needed to clean, and that the president* needed to keep his Potemkin empire afloat. In that context, this latest, scarcely believable plot twist has a certain mad logic to it. In for a dime, in for a ruble." 

 - Charles P. Pierce, in Esquire magazine.

Overwhelming Majority of GOPers Approve of Trump's Helsinki Debacle

A recent poll found that 79% of Republicans approve of the president’s handling of the Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin. And 85% of them believe probing into Russia’s meddling in our elections is a distraction.

Anyone surprised? Anyone still think these are people who can be reasoned with and not sycophantic worshippers at the feet of their orange-hued Last Great White Hope? Wake the fuck up! Democrats have to get out the vote and bring along as many as Independents as possible. Period.

The poll found disapproval among Democrats at 91% and Independents at 62%. The overall tally was 58% disapproval and 40% approval.