Biden announces re-election campaign as GOP attempts to undermine policies and shut down government

I’ll be goddamned. What a month. President Biden officially announced his reelection campaign. House Republicans decided to try to make him look as bad as possible and maybe shut the government down. Fox News settled with Dominion and ousted their craziest mouthpiece, sure to be replaced by someone worse. Trump's life is a complete embarrassing mess. Meatball Ron and Disney got it on, and the Mouse, who doesn't fuck around, won. And the Supreme Court came off looking even more corrupt, which barely seem possible. With so much to be outraged about, I'm breaking this up into several posts. 

The president's re-election campaign began earlier this week with a video announcement. More “fighting for the soul of America,” which is still on the ballot, hence scenes from the Capitol riot. From the video: 

“Every generation of Americans has faced a moment when they’ve had to defend democracy, stand up for our personal freedoms, and stand up for our right to vote and our civil rights. This is ours. Let’s finish the job.”

Biden's great strength is his love for politics and everything about it, the rituals, the customs, the meeting people. He's authentic. But he's old and people are freaking out. The Republican frontrunner is also in his 80s so let's chill out. The real concern here is that no one seems to want Kamala Harris to become president. However, Biden's comfortable with her, so give her a break. 

Immediately, House Republicans “led” by Speaker Kevin McCarthy decided to alter their debt limit plan. Back when this was a routine measure to raise the country's debt limit to cover existing debts. Now it's usually twisted around when Republicans control the House into a de facto budget debate. Their proposal would cut federal spending by almost 14% over a decade and undermine major elements of President Biden's domestic agenda—i.e. eliminating clean energy tax credits and his student loan cancellation. It would also impose stricter work requirements for federal nutrition and health programs.

McCarthy, a joke who is being led by the craziest of the crazies from his party who have a razor then majority anyway, made concessions to appease blocs of lawmakers, including all of the above. On two of the holdouts, from the New York Times: 

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (Wisc.), who had lobbied to preserve energy tax credits, similarly said he would be “voting yes” after changes to the bill. Still another key holdout, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), the leader of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, separately told reporters he would back the legislation, heralding Republicans for “moving a bill that actually, literally cuts spending, and provides savings for the American people.”

This is all bullshit and theater, of course. The bill was pushed forward by far-right lawmakers, who claimed that it provided savings for the American people and cut spending. This is all in the vain of cutting spending. Shocker, they don’t care about cutting spending. 

Obviously, with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, this shit is dead on arrival. Democrats, for their part, argued that the proposal is intended to force Biden to negotiate away his administration's accomplishments in advance of running for re-election. As such, they are portraying the plan as a threat to the country's credit and well-being, warning that the bill would be harmful to the American people and the economy by holding the country ransom, all of which is true.

From Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Rules Committee: “My analysis of this new plan is that it is even more draconian, even more devastating, even worse, even more mean. Your problem with this bill was that it didn’t screw people fast enough.”

This guy knows a shake down when he sees one. 

With the nation's borrowing limit projected to be reached as early as this summer without congressional action, President Biden has called on Republicans to raise the limit with no conditions attached. 

In short, what was meant to be a routine and uncontroversial measure has been turned into a contentious debate over the budget and the country's future, with Republicans using it as a way to try to undo President Biden's policies and further their own agenda. Just another day living in a divided government. 

Palm Springs - Max Barbakow - 2020

★★★★★-Released in 2020, Palm Springs, a science fiction romantic comedy, is director Max Barbakow's feature debut. It stars Andy Samberg, Cristin Milioti (whom I mostly think of from The Resort), and J.K. Simmons who is great in everything. It's another Groundhog Day inspired flick, the likes of Happy Death Day, Happy Death Day 2U, Edge of Tomorrow, Source Code, so forth. I can name at least half a dozen more. This replaces Happy Death Day as my new favorite. Fantastic film that you should totally watch.

The gist is two individuals encounter each other at a wedding in Palm Springs and subsequently find themselves trapped in a time loop. Nyles (Samberg) is the first to get stuck in the loop after walking into a magic cave, reliving the same day for god knows how long, living a carefree lifestyle until he convinces when Roy (Simmons), a man he parties with at the wedding, goes in as well. Pissed, he occasionally finds Nyles and tortures him. 

One night, after Roy shoots Nyles with an arrow while making out with Sarah (Milioti), the sister of the bride, he goes into the cave which starts the day over. He tells Sarah not to follow him, but she does and also gets stuck in the loop. The pair eventually become close, even sort of falling for each other, but we learn that Sarah starts each day guilt-ridden having slept with her sister's fiancee the night before. She eventually become obsessed with finding a way out of the loop, which involves exploding herself while in the cave. But will it work?

If you are sort of tired of the whole Groundhog Day concept, Palm Springs breathes new life into the idea with its own refreshing uniqueness. Despite its well-worn familiarity, the film manages to be both new and thought-provoking. What really sets it apart, however, is the endearing central relationship between its two leads. Their chemistry and genuine affection for each other are what make this film such a pleasure, IMO. 

Beyond the lighthearted comedy and dance numbers, it delves into some deep and meaningful shit, such as personal trauma, depression, and guilt. Despite these heavy themes, the film strikes a perfect balance between humor and existential dread. By the end, if you're like me, you'll find yourself reflecting on your own life and questioning the nature of existence and what have you. In short, this was a truly exceptional flick that is both highly entertaining and thought-provoking.

Body Double - Brian De Palma - 1984

★★★-Body Double. An old favorite from 1984, a real banner year for trash films, aka my brand. Love a neo-noir. I was a Brian De Palma super fan, but fear I've outgrown him. Didn't quite like it as much as I did as a younger person. Last saw it around 20 years ago. 

Gist is one Jake Scully (played by Bill Maher lookalike Craig Wasson) is an out-of-work actor who is going through a rough patch in his life after catching his girlfriend cheating on him. However, things turn around when he moves into a new apartment sublet by a new actor buddy (played by Gregg Henry whose still around, most notably playing Peter Quill's [aka Star-Lord] grandfather in the Guardians of the Galaxy flicks) and becomes obsessed with a beautiful woman (played by Deborah Shelton, whom I've not seen in anything else) who does nightly sexy dancing from the window of her nearby home. While creeping on her, he sees another uglier creep and grows concerned, eventually witnessing the woman's murder. Which is all to say that main creep dude becomes entangled in a web of deceit and danger as he investigates the murder and attempts to protect the woman he has been spying on. You know, typical thriller stuff. Along the way, he meets a pornographic actress named Holly Body (Melanie Griffith) who helps him in his investigation after figuring out she was involved. 

The flick is known for its stylish direction, suspenseful plot, and references to other films, particularly Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window and Vertigo. It was apparently controversial at the time of its release due to its explicit content which involves the porn industry, however, the peeping stuff is more unsettling these days.

Overall, Body Double is a tense and visually stunning thriller that showcases De Palma's distinctive style and flair for suspense. However, the plot is ludicrous and features extra sleaze. The last 20 minutes are comically outrageous. It's not nearly as great as I remembered. 

Quick shoutout to Barbara Crampton. She's one of my faves. You might remember from various Stuart Gordon movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, and Castlefreak. Also the Ti West movie You're Next. 

This is her big screen debut. She's naked for the entirety of her performance. Also, Dennis Franz from NYPD Blue plays a bit part. He's an asshole B-movie director. 

Air - Ben Affleck - 2023

★★★-Air retells the story of Michael Jordan's historic signing with Nike in 1984 before ever playing a second of professional basketball. The idea for the film came from screenwriter Alex Convery, who noticed that the story was glossed over in the documentary series The Last Dance. 

Matt Damon stars as talent scout Sonny Vaccaro who had the biggest hand in the signing. Others at the table during the historic pitch include Phil Knight, co-founder of Nike played by Ben Affleck, marketer Rob Strasser (Jason Bateman), player rep Howard White (Chris Tucker), shoe designer Peter Moore (Matthew Maher), Jordan’s agent David Falk (Chris Messina), and Jordan's parents (played by the Viola Davis and her husband Julius Tennon). 

The movie apparently had Jordan's blessing as Affleck met with him before filming on what should be included in the movie (he specifically said that Davis had to play his mother). Nike wasn't consulted, supposedly, but that doesn't matter because they come off looking fucking great. As does Vaccaro, who is considered something of a dubious character (for more on him, check out the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary, Sole Man, which focuses on his life). 

Reviews were mostly positive with the Rotten Tomatoes score at a Certified Fresh 92%. Though there were some people that didn't like it. NPR's Aisha Harris criticized the film's “craven exercise in capitalist exaltation” and lack of character development. Similarly, Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian called it a “shallow, parochial and obtuse” corporate promo.

I liked it though it feels weird rooting for Nike. Claims that it is pretty much a commercial for Jordan's sneakers and Nike are pretty accurate, but it tells a hell of a story with a lot of talented actors. Certainly not the worst movie I've seen about Michael Jordan.

Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America - Barbara Ehrenreich

Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America. By Barbara Ehrenreich. Like the third book of her's I've read. Published in 2009, I've owned it since then but finally got around to it. It's great and needed. 

Gist from above is that Ehrenreich criticizes the widespread promotion of positive thinking in American society, arguing that it's had vastly negative consequences. She argues that the focus on positive thinking has lead to an overly simplistic and individualistic view of success and happiness, and that it fails to address larger systemic issues that may contribute to negative outcomes for certain groups. That it is rare that people approach it with a critical and nuanced perspective, recognizing that there are limitations to what positive thinking can achieve and that other factors may also play a role in determining outcomes. Hence people claiming positive thinking can cure cancer and so forth. 

Throughout the book, Ehrenreich weaves in personal anecdotes and interviews with people who have experienced the downside of positive thinking. From the chapter “Smile or Die: The Bright Side of Cancer,” (great chapter titles throughout): “In the most extreme characterization, breast cancer is not a problem at all, not even an annoyance—it is a 'gift,' deserving of the most heartfelt gratitude,” which transforms cancer into a rite of passage like menopause instead of a tragedy. Sure, being upbeat makes an unfavorable diagnosis easier on family and healthcare workers (p. 29). But there are plenty of problems associated with this type of positive outlook and denialism, which all reflect poorly on the patient. “Rather than providing emotional sustenance, the sugarcoating of cancer can exact a dreadful cost... It requires the denial of understandable feelings of anger and fear, all of which must be buried under a cosmetic layer of cheer,” (p. 41). To have a negative attitude in such a world is to be ostracized. It can thus “weigh on a cancer patient like a second disease,” (p. 43) though a positive attitude does nothing to move the needle in terms of mortality rates. Here we see even a cancer patients are pressured to maintain a cheerful attitude at all times. Then when they eventually die, it was their own faults for having the wrong attitude. 

She also explores the origins of positive thought. Overall, it's a long and complex history. While it has some roots in ancient philosophical and spiritual traditions (ancient Greek and Roman philosophers such as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius), in its present form, it mostly sprung up from the “New Thought” movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was somewhat new information to me. 

This movement emphasized the power of positive thoughts and beliefs to shape one's reality, which spawned a number of self-help and motivational speakers, like Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale. This led, talking the mid-20th century here, the field of psychology began to explore the relationship between thoughts and behavior. This led to an upsurge in positive psychology as a subfield focused on studying the factors that contribute to happiness and well-being. 

The power of positive thinking has been the subject of scientific research, with some studies suggesting that there may be some benefits to cultivating a positive mindset. This includes reducing stress, supposedly boosting immune function, improving overall well-being, greater resilience in the face of adversity, so forth. But most of these benefits were minimal or nonexistent, almost all requiring more research. 

Of course all this information was used for the basis of making the practice respectable, ignoring the fact that most studies have found little to no correlation between positive thinking and improved outcomes. Despite this, it's become the dominant ideology in America, influencing everything from corporate culture to medicine and psychology, going way beyond the religious, infiltrating even the most secular among us, claiming science. 

This relentless pursuit of positivity's harmful effects include making people blame themselves for their own misfortunes, ignoring social and economic injustices, and creating unrealistic expectations.

In the chapter, “How Positive Thinking Ruined the Economy,” for example, she writes about how politicians ignored warning signs and took optimistic approaches. Surrounding themselves with “yes men” instead of people willing to tell the truth, resulting in the 2008 financially crisis. You can draw your own parallels to Trump and the pandemic, his impeachment, the election, and like 200 other things. 

Then there is the “God Wants You To Be Rich” which deals with then prosperity gospel. For those that don't know, the prosperity gospel is a religious belief system that emphasizes material wealth and financial prosperity as evidence of one's spiritual well-being and favor with God. It teaches that faith, positive thinking, and donations to the church or religious leaders will lead to blessings and success in all areas of life, including health, relationships, and finances. It's a huge crock of shit. It distorts traditional Christian teachings by focusing on material gain rather than spiritual growth and service to others. It also preys on vulnerable individuals who are struggling financially, promising them quick fixes and prosperity without addressing the underlying systemic issues that contribute to their poverty. I fucking hate this shit. 

Quick confession. I have a pessimistic worldview. I'll give you a second to catch your breath. I acknowledge the negative aspects of existence and for the most part see the future as bleak and hopeless. The world is hostile and unforgiving. Bad things happen to good people everyday and on the macro level there is little hope for improvement. Such improvement would mean overcoming human nature, which is fundamentally flawed. People are inherently selfish and prone to destructive behaviors.

From my time as a journalist, I've looked killers in the eye, known kids who died while texting and driving, and seen meth claw our people's brains. I've seen the darkness of human existence. Things are going to get worse rather than better. We've got climate change, peak oil, and overpopulation hurtling toward us at an astounding rate, yet people just ignore those things. 

Despite this, I find joy and meaning in life. Every moment is a gift and should be cherished. I therefore do my part to grow and transform society, though I know such actions are only delaying the inevitability of death and societal collapse (which may or may not happen in my lifetime [probably within]). 

As such, I loved that this book gives me ammunition for the blind optimists. So don't come at me with any crap. I don't want that!

Babylon - Damien Chazelle - 2022

★★-Babylon. Yet another film set in the late 1920s and early 1930s in Hollywood, during the transition from silent films to “talkies.” As such it is a movie I feel I've seen multiple times before. Also, not great, though interesting. 

Directed by Damien Chazelle whose claim to fame was La La Land. Overrated. It features an ensemble cast including Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Tobey Maguire, Diego Calva, Jean Smart, Rory Scovel (probably the best comedian I've seen live), Jovan Adepo, and Li Jun Li. 

Has multiple Singing in the Rain references. This film also tells that story from much grimier perspective. When the lone character who survives into the 1950s sees the film when visiting Hollywood with his family, he cries. Well, I sort of wanted to cry watching Babylon for being such a waste of talent and potential. 

As someone who loves Pitt and Robbie as well as this time period, the movie was a mixed bag of enjoyable scenes that lacked a cohesive narrative. Overall, it felt like a movie with a bunch of great scenes (the opening dance/orgy bit on the outskirts of Hollywood and the closing credits bit both come to mind) that doesn't do a good job of coming together. Any one scene I probably found enjoyable, but the sum of them felt shallow. One of those flicks that seems entertaining, but at the end it doesn't quite come together to form a complete or even halfway decent story and you leave it feeling shitty. 

“The asshole of Los Angles” scene is incredible. Tobey Maguire was great and disgusting here. Dudes in over their heads have to go into a horribly dangerous situation because of their idiocy that practically screams “get the fuck out.” Also, having to deal with an unhinged rich maniac drinking booze and ether. This is McGuire's character, who is unsettling. Reminded me of Boogey Nights with the “Wonderland” scene based on John Holmes's bullshit that got a bunch of people killed. 

It's said to be a love letter to Hollywood's golden age, which is quite a claim. It also tries to be a commentary on the industry's historical and ongoing issues with diversity and representation. Okay. Glad I didn't set through its over three hour runtime in an actual theater. Underwhelmed is all I'm saying. 

Prosperity & Violence: The Political Economy of Development - Robert H. Bates

Prosperity & Violence: The Political Economy of Development. Written by one Robert H. Bates. He's an economist and political scientist by trade. Distinguished professor at Harvard University. Published in 1981, the book has since been revised and reprinted several times and is regularly read in college political science classes. 

This is a pretty difficult little book. I read it in college. I know because it had notes in my handwriting written in the margins. However, I can’t recall this at all. Probably for a political science class, I assume, maybe a developing democracy or a consolidating a dictator ship course I took. This had to be one of the less memorable things we read for whichever was the case.

That said, the gist is that economic development is not solely determined by factors such as natural resources or culture, but rather by the interplay between economic and political institutions. Sort of at odds with Jared Diamond, I guess you could say. Bates, for his part, argues that societies with inclusive and flexible institutions, such as competitive markets and responsive governments, are more likely to experience sustained economic growth and prosperity. On the other hand, societies with extractive and rigid institutions, such as monopolistic markets and authoritarian governments, are more likely to experience economic stagnation and violence. 

His big claim is that politics has always been about the use of violence, and has developed from there, but is still the state's main function. As he writes, “Those who engage in politics, rather than production, specialize in the use of violence. Most commonly, they use power to redistribute, not create, wealth. As acts of redistribution, often inflict losses, the use of force often destroys. For power to be used to produce wealth, coercion must therefore be used in new ways. Those who specialize in the use of force must refrain from violence and delegate their authority to those who will employ it productively. They must delegate it to those who specialize in combining land, labor, and capital in the process of production,” (p. 26). 

Bates supports this argument and others with case studies from various countries in Africa and Latin America, showing how their political and economic institutions have influenced their development trajectories. These were the most interesting parts of the book.

Also hints at a lot of economic hitman type work throughout, especially that done by the US government and Soviet Russia. Doesn't get specific but you know it is there. Stuff about taking out loans for infrastructure that developing counties couldn't pay back, eventually resulting in regime change, economic collapse, failed states, and so forth. My younger self was unaware of this phenomenon but was picking up on it. Notes read, “Why they keep borrowing? What happens to countries that can't pay back,” and so forth. 

Lot of the stuff about foreign meddling helping to usher in collapse gets glossed over. Example: “Creditors required the governments of developing nations to adopt policies that would lower the demand for imports, and thus ease the burden of paying for previous purchases from abroad. Cuts in government deficits, higher rates of interest, and lower levels of public spending—these and other measures lowered the level of domestic demand and thus the demand for imports, reducing the burden of foreign payments on the one hand, while on the other sparking policy-induced recessions,” (p. 90). “Seems like a real recipe for disaster,” I wrote circa 2002. Indeed, my younger guy. It's also insanely oversimplified. 

Anyway, the book has been widely influential in the fields of political economy and development studies, apparently. It has been praised for its rigorous analysis and insightful arguments, hence it's near required reading for poli-sci students. I liked it and found it interesting though it is written in academic speak and is at times guilty of oversimplifying complex issues. It also ignores the role of external factors such as globalization and international institutions when discussing the failed states.

He ends the book with the famous Thomas Hobbes quote, that says, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Of it, Bates says, “[Hobbes] words disturb because they respond to much that is felt and seen in the present day, when, for too many in the developing world, insecurity remains the norm and development a dream that cruelly eludes their grasp,” (p. 115). To me, it seems that Bates is unwilling to blame developed countries like the US for sacrificing the prosperity of others for their own. That's just me doe. 

The Myth of Sisyphus - Albert Camus

Albert Camus. Personal hero. The Myth of Sisyphus is his philosophical essay that explores the meaning and purpose of human existence and the question of suicide. The central theme of the book is the concept of the absurd, which refers to the tension between human desire for meaning and purpose, and the apparent meaninglessness and indifference of the universe. Hence the question of suicide, which Camus says is the “one truly serious philosophical problem. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy,” (p. 3). Camus ultimately comes to the conclusion that because of suicide's finality, it is an irrational response to the absurdity of living. 

That is the most famous response but not the only one he gets into. Camus explores other various philosophical responses to the absurd, like nihilism and religious faith as well. He rejects these responses as inadequate, and argues that the only true response to the absurd is to embrace it and live life to its fullest, despite its inherent meaninglessness. Whether or not life needs meaning to be live, Camus writes “It now becomes clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning. Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully,” (p. 53) and the “revolt gives life its value,” (p. 55) and later “the point is to live,” (p. 65). Believe it or not, the book is kind of a pick-me-up, which I read every five or ten years. 

Camus starts and ends the book by examining the story of Sisyphus, a Greek mythological figure who was condemned to endlessly push a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down again. Camus argues that Sisyphus, whom he calls “the absurd hero,” represents the human condition, in which we are faced with the task of finding meaning and purpose in a world that appears to offer none.

Camus suggests that the key to living in the face of the absurd is to adopt a form of rebellion that involves both acceptance of the human condition and a refusal to be defeated by it. He emphasizes the importance of living in the present moment and fully experiencing the joys and pleasures of life, while also acknowledging the inevitability of death. “He is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock,” (p. 121). 

This is why Sisyphus is the ultimate absurd hero. When he must descend the mountain, heading toward his rock, he accepts the absurdity of his existence and finds meaning and purpose in the struggle itself, rather than in achievement. The myth is a metaphor for the human condition, arguing that our lives are similarly absurd and without purpose, as we constantly strive for meaning, a quest that is ultimately futile. 

“All Sisyphus’ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him... Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy,” (p. 123). 

Here Camus plainly offers his remedy for existential dread which afflicts us all. Like Sisyphus, by embracing the absurdity of our existence and living fully in the present moment, we can find freedom and joy that transcends our own mortality.

In this sense, mindfulness is required in a way reminiscent of sudden enlightenment. This concept, also called sudden awakening or sudden realization, is a concept in Zen Buddhism that refers to a sudden and complete understanding of one's true nature or the nature of reality. It is a spontaneous and transformative experience that can happen in a moment of deep contemplation, meditation, or even in daily life activities. This realization is often described as a sudden breaking through of the veil of illusion that separates us from ultimate reality. It can bring a sense of profound joy, liberation, and clarity. However, sudden enlightenment is not something that can be achieved through effort or intellectual understanding alone. It requires a dedicated practice of mindfulness, meditation, and self-reflection, as well as the guidance of a skilled teacher or community.

Like Camus's the absurd, it deals with the nature of reality and the human experience. Sudden enlightenment refers to a sudden and complete understanding of the nature of reality that transcends the ordinary dualistic view of the world and brings a sense of profound clarity and liberation. However, the way in which these concepts are approached is quite different. Camus's absurd is a philosophical stance that requires a critical and rational examination of one's experience, whereas sudden enlightenment is a transformative experience that transcends rational thought and can only be experienced directly. Furthermore, Camus's absurd tends to emphasize the meaninglessness of life and the need to create one's own meaning and purpose, while sudden enlightenment emphasizes the ultimate interconnectedness and interdependence of all things and the realization of one's true nature beyond individualistic desires and attachments.

Anyway, in the final chapter of the book, Camus discusses the concept of the "absurd hero", a figure who lives in the face of the absurd and finds meaning and purpose in the very act of rebelling against it. Camus suggests that the absurd hero embodies a new kind of morality, one that rejects traditional values and embraces the freedom and autonomy of the individual.

Reading this at the same time as I read Percy Shelley, Queen Mab. While Camus and Shelley lived in different time periods and wrote about different subjects they share a lot of similarities, and might have vibed together, although I suspect that Camus would have found Shelley insufferable. 

Most notably, they are both proponents of the idea that heaven and hell are present here on earth, the eternal is absurd. When speaking of Dostoevsky, Camus writes “If God exists, all depends on him and we can do nothing against his will. If he does not exist, everything depends on us. For Kirilov, as for Nietzsche, to kill God is to become god oneself; it is to realize on this earth the eternal life of which the Gospel speaks,” (108). Compare this to Shelley, who writes “when the power of imparting joy/Is equal to the will, the human soul/Requires no other heaven,” (III.11-13) and “earth in itself/Contains at once the evil and the cure,” (III.80-81) and so forth.

Also, both writers task the artist with a significant role in their visions of a better world. The artist and the poet are revolutionary figures who can help bring about social and economic change. They both provide calls to action, urging readers to join in the struggle for a better world. Create instead of consume. I too believe that art can be a powerful force for social change. In fact, I think it is one of the most effective means for change. 

Overall, I love this profound and influential work of existentialist philosophy, which is why I try to read it pretty frequently. It's good for the soul explore the human search for meaning and purpose in a universe that appears to offer none. Embrace the absurd. 

Political Musings - The War on Woke

Here is my monthly political musing following Conservative Political Action Conference and the National Conservatism Conference, both taking place in March. The gist of both was more or less liberals control everything and are destroying the country through “wokeness.”

Wokeness, of course, is the right's new boogeyman. The end of a line that goes abolition, reconstruction, suffrage, the New Deal, communism, civil rights, socialism, gay rights, wokeism. It's sort of used for a unified “left” that hates America which people use to justify their decision to vote for Donald Trump. The times ahead, for them, are a mix of fear and hope, with opponents who are both malevolent and ignorant, countless yet surpassed by "ordinary" Americans. The Republican party's repeated warnings of doomsday in the event of a Democratic victory can only be uttered so many times before their voters stop listening. 

This is all culture-war nonsense. The Tucker Carlson schtick, aka “owning the libs,” requires disregarding the genuine hardships of the world - such as the isolation of a transgender student, the anxiety of the uninsured, or the struggles of a Black man, so forth. It's a manipulative tactic that treats all of life as a ratings game that relies on constant outrage, signaling white identity, and making sweeping generalizations. Conservatives, led by Trump as their culture-war president with limited policy, are fixated on the culture war. However, any conservative worth a shit is contemplating how to move beyond this approach and achieve tangible progress.

Anyway, CPAC and NCC were a lot of projection with CPAC being pro-Trump and NCC being pro-far right with the 2024 hopefuls doing the heavy lifting. The later fancy themselves “Reagan Republicans,” which is more or less the same old shit. Coke Zero to Diet Coke, Carl's Jr. to Hardees, cocaine to crack, so forth. Same means and ends but with different packaging/delivery methods. Trump is pure rage, Reaganites are also full of rage, but smile a little more. 

Some examples of the latter group include Rachel Bovard, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Marco Rubio. 

Bovard got a lot of attention coming out of the conference. Sort of the breakout star. She's a somewhat intelligent/accomplished/young conservative who has worked for various Republican politicians and conservative organizations. She believes that previous generations of conservatives were too naive in thinking that liberals and conservatives had similar goals for America. In her view, the left is actively working to destroy everything the conservative movement stands for. The left does this by controlling every aspect of American society and culture and that they are using their power to dismantle traditional American values and institutions. She is not alone, of course, in such beliefs: 

Cruz: “The left’s attack is on America. The left hates America. It is the left that is trying to use culture as a tool to destroy America.”

Hawley: “Their grand ambition is to deconstruct the United States of America.”

Rubio: “We are confronted now by a systematic effort to dismantle our society, our traditions, our economy, and our way of life.” 

And so forth.

All of this is built on bullshit, of course. From Bovard: “Woke elites—increasingly the mainstream left of this country—do not want what we want. What they want is to destroy us... Not only will they use every power at their disposal to achieve their goal,” they’ve been doing it for years “by dominating every cultural, intellectual, and political institution.” Progressives pretend to be the oppressed ones, “but in reality, it’s just an old boys’ club, another frat house for entitled rich kids contrived to perpetuate their unearned privilege. It’s Skull and Bones for gender-studies majors!” So much for toning it down a bit. 

The left, according to them, is conspiring to undermine America. Not a lot of details on how this is being done but it seems to involve a combination of academia, Hollywood, the news media, and George Soros.

This is how they justify playing dirty and their attempts at doing at exactly what they are accusing the left of, namely destroying their way of life. Leonard Leo, a prominent figure in the Federalist Society, for example, has set his sights on expanding his influence beyond the judiciary and into various sectors of American culture. The guy was a key player in the effort to dismantle Roe v. Wade. Through that bullshit, Leo was involved in the appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. His aim is to establish a "Federalist Society for everything" to take on such institutions as Wall Street, Silicon Valley, journalism, Hollywood, and academia. Leo believes that the same tactics that worked for the Federalist Society in the legal arena can be applied to other areas, including combating "wokeism" in corporate and educational settings, so-called biased media, and corrupting entertainment.

This is, of course, insane and unlikely to work since wrong to think organized/unified wokeists are taking over all the institutions of American life. Not that they care. It's just their way of justifying what they are doing at the state level. 

The argument, they say, is that since the libs control everything, they have to aggressively use state legislatures to pass laws embracing their values, essentially what’s now happening across red America, including my home state of Indiana. An “unapologetically embrace the use of state power,” is what they are calling it. National conservatism taken to its ultimate end, which involves utilizing state authority to dismantle large corporations while simultaneously resisting coastal cultural norms. The conflict between cultural values and economic classes merged, so they hope, and a new right-wing movement arises in which a group of intellectuals lead working-class individuals in opposing the cultural and corporate elites. Blah blah blah. Putting a lot of faith in pushing money upward, but it's worked so far so why not. 

So what are they trying to do with state power, you ask. Well, if you are Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, for example, a favorite for the Republican presidential nomination by the by, who says that his state “is where woke goes to die,” you use it to obliterate First Amendment Rights. 

A bill growing down there in America's wang is an explicit attempt to undo the 1964 Supreme Court decision, The New York Times Company v. Sullivan. This is a bulwark of First Amendment law that requires public figures to prove a news organization engaged in “actual malice” to win a defamation case. The so-called price of being a public figure decision. This case freed news organizations to pursue vigorous reporting about public officials without fear of paying damages.

The new bill would change the definition of actual malice to include any allegation that is “inherently improbable” or that is based on what it calls an “unverified” statement by an anonymous sourceMostucked up is that it says that all anonymous statements are “presumptively false” for the purposes of a defamation case.

If the bill is enacted, it would create enormous damage which other states will copy, likely with its language verbatim, on the way to the high court, where it will ultimately head. Once there, the conservative Justices will likely give it the okay as they would directly benefit from such a landmark case. Citizens who value free speech should really start raising a shit before the state silences them, just saying. The bill obviously represents a dangerous threat to free expression, not just for the news media, but for all Americans, regardless of their political beliefs. But, you know, for Republicans don't really seem to apply. 

Then, of course, there is the whole transgender rights thing that the Republican Party is actively making their major platform for their base of unhinged bigots. At CPAC, for example, one Michael Knowles advocated for the complete elimination of transgenderism from public life, a sentiment that captures the essence of the right's collective efforts. Although there are numerous bills with varying objectives and justifications, Indiana signed one yesterday, their overall impact is reflective of fuck you if you're transgender. DeSantis (did I mention his national aspirations?), again, is leveraging the issue to bolster his anti-woke political image. Own those libs!

What does all this mean, exactly? I think it means the Republican Party is on some weak bullshit, and they know it. It remains unclear whether right-wing populism is here to stay, but it is clear that it requires an adversary, and opposition to “woke” ideals is a convenient target, although ultimately a one they can't really define. Look at the Federalist Society, for example. Their objective until recently was simple: replace one group of judges with the most ideologically extreme. Having unfortunately succeeded, now they are largely opposed to this concept of being “woke,” which is more or less taking on the entire culture without knowing what it is or means. However, as they are learning, attempting to reverse social progress across all facets of American society is not a simple or attainable goal, especially when lacking an understanding of the root causes of that progress. 

To clarify, to be “woke” originally referred to having an awareness of social issues, particularly pertaining to racism and inequality. It has since evolved to encompass actively seeking education on issues with the goal of taking action to effect positive change. Nowadays, the term is commonly used to describe individuals who are socially conscious, who give a shit about other people, who aren't the raging asshole no one wants to engage with. These are the people that the anti-expression laws are coming for. For now, to the real fucks pushing this stuff, I say, go fuck yourself, you pieces of shit. 

Knock at the Cabin - M. Night Shyamalan - 2023

★★★-Knock at the Cabin. M. Night Shyamalan's latest. Another apocalyptic psychological horror flick with some Christian bullshit at the center. Based on a 2018 novel called The Cabin at the End of the World by one Paul G. Tremblay. 

The stellar cast includes Dave Bautista who is hard not to love, Jonathan Groff from Mindhunter and the new Matrix movie who is phenomenal in everything (including this), Ben Aldridge whom I've never seen, Nikki Amuka-Bird (don't know her either), a little Asian girl named Kristen Cui, Abby Quinn who sort of steals the show, and Rupert Grint who played Ron in the Harry Potter movies.

Gist is an affluent family consisting of two dads, Andrew and Eric (Aldridge and Groff), and their adopted daughter Wen (Cui) are hanging out at their beautiful cabin in rural PA when they get a knock on the door by a stranger named Leonard. He claims that they are the “chosen ones” (sigh) to prevent the impending apocalypse by sacrificing one of themselves. When they refuse, saying these folks are obviously delusional and scamming them for some reason, they kill one of their group, saying “a part of humanity has been judged.” Pretty shitty "knock, knock" joke, am-I-right? Following that the world experiences “a plague.” The doctor, secular dad suspects that the attack is motivated by revenge and he escapes to get his gun and tries to prove that the intruders were lying. Eventually, the family realizes that the intruders represent the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse though I don't really think they line up very well with a few of them but whatever. Also, airplanes generally don't just tumble out of the sky when they crash. They can still glide even if both engines are out. But I digress. In the end, they have to decide if they are going to kill one of their loving family as they decide what they believe. 

Right after I watched it I hated it, however, I can't stop thinking about it though it is a total bummer of a movie with some stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Plus, the acting was out of this world. This Abby Quinn gets trying to act normal when extremely frantic down in the way of the insane I've been around in such a state. That mania in her eyes. Overall, interesting concept but a bullshit movie. Definitely better than Old, and far worse than Split. 

Slow Learner - Thomas Pynchon

Goddamn, I love the work of Thomas Pynchon. This book, early short stories, is no exception. Collected in 1984, the five stories were first published at different times between 1959 and 1964. The New Republic called them “an exhilarating spectacle of greatness discovering its powers.” While I agree, Pynchon does not. This brings me to the by far the coolest thing about the book: Pynchon wrote the introduction.

An extremely private person, he doesn't give away shit about his personal life. He's got the nine books, of course, which can be described as postmodern literary historical fiction. I've read five. Love them all. One enough to inspire my first tattoo, a version of the "muted post horn" that's a symbol for the secret "Trystero" society that's at the center of The Crying of Lot 49. My personalized license plate, WASTE, is also a reference to the book, an acronym for "We Await Silent Tristero's Empire". 

His repertoire also includes essays on the Watts riots, sloth, and Luddites, book reviews and blurbs, introductions to classic works such as 1984 as well as fiction by his friends (these include Donald Barthelme, Jim Dodge, and Richard Farina), and liner notes for albums by bandleader Spike Jones (not to be confused with actor/director Spike Jonze) and indie-rock band Lotion. He has even done a few voiceovers, two for The Simpsons (in one he is shown with a paper bag over his head) and a publicity video for his novel Inherent Vice. These are must views, by the by. His work transcends conventional boundaries, encompassing a wide spectrum of genres, subjects, and mediums, reflecting his versatility, creativity, and multi-faceted talents as a celebrated writer. God, I love him. 

That said, none of this gives us much of anything about his personal life. In fact, he goes to great lengths to remain obscure. This has always been a part of his writing, as he sez he had “an unkind impatience with fiction I felt then to be 'too autobiographical.' Somewhere I had come up with the notion that one's personal life had nothing to do with fiction, when the truth, as everyone knows, is nearly the direct opposite. Moreover, contrary evidence was all around me, though I chose to ignore it,” (p.21). 

This intentional inaccessibility is partly why I'm confident he'll never win a Nobel Prize in Literature. He's been on the shortlist for years, but since they awarded one to Bob Dylan, which is bullshit, in 2016, and then the more deserving poet Louise Glück in 2020, they probably won't award another American for at least a decade or so. Plus the Nobel committee would have a second no-show to deal with since Dylan was absent from the banquet in his honor, saying that he had other commitments. (Of course, some expressed dissatisfaction with Bob Dylan's Nobel. One example at random, this from novelist Rabih Alameddin, who said on Twitter, "Bob Dylan winning a Nobel in Literature is like Mrs. Fields being awarded 3 Michelin stars.” I'm among the said camp.) Pynchon, for his part, never shows up for stuff like this which has caused some uproar. For the 1974 National Book Awards, when he won Best Novel for "Gravity's Rainbow", it was widely known that Pynchon was unlikely to attend. Part of that well-known aversion to public appearances. Instead of Pynchon, his publisher Thomas Guinzburg sent comedian Professor Irwin Corey as a stand-in that was introduced as the writer. Corey's absent-minded professor schtick was known for butchering highfalutin language with bad puns and was an all-around embarrassment for the ceremony. Therefore, I think it's safe to eliminate him from real consideration.

(Also, that whole Nobel award has a history of trash. It lost its significance long ago, being more political than based on literary excellence. Auden, Borges, Chekhov, Greene, Hardy, Ibsen, James, Joyce, Nabokov, Proust, Roth, Tolstoy, and Twain were all snubbed. All undeniable masters of the craft. Robert Frost and E.M. Forster were up for the prize in 1961 but were explicitly ruled out by the Swedish Academy “because of their advanced years.” Pynchon in his mid-80s is likely considered too old though in 2007 Doris Lessig won at the age of 88, the eldest winner to date. Since its conception in 1901, only seven writers in their 80s have won and two of those came between 1901-1910. Needless to say, criteria other than high art are obviously at play.)

The only exception to his lack of personal detail is the introduction to this collection, which makes this book especially cool. He talks about how he felt re-reading the stories after a long time in his typical humorous way, saying “You may already know what a blow to the ego it can be to have to read over anything you wrote 20 years ago, even canceled checks. My first reaction, rereading these stories, was oh my God, accompanied by physical symptoms we shouldn't dwell upon. My second thought was about some kind of a wall-to-wall rewrite. These two impulses have given way to one of those episodes of middle-aged tranquility, in which I now pretend to have reached a level of clarity about the young writer I was back then,” (p. 3). But he also shares some memories of when he first wrote them! It's the only time he gets a bit personal with his readers and was by far my favorite thing about the book. (One day soon select scholars will get more personal stuff as he sold his archive consisting of letters, notes, drafts, and so forth to the Huntington Library. The papers will provide valuable insights into his work but will include no photographs. I imagine getting access will be next to impossible though, so be warned.) The little tantalizing glimpse we get is of a modest guy that would be fun to party with. It obviously made me love him and want to learn about him even more.

Anyway, on to the book, which consists of five stories: “The Small Rain”, ”Low-lands”, “Entropy”, Under the Rose”, and “The Secret Integration”. Here's a brief rundown. “The Small Rain”, Pynchon's first published work, follows Nathan Levine, an indifferent Army enlistee stationed in New Orleans. Along with his fellow enlisted men, he is tasked with assisting in the cleanup efforts on Creole, a small island devastated by a hurricane. After a grueling day of retrieving dead bodies and sex with a local college gal, Nathan reflects on his uncertain future and contemplates how to move forward, if at all. Think of this as a test run for Gravity's Rainbow with lower stakes. 

”Low-lands” follows one Dennis Flange, a lawyer, who skips work to get drunk with Rocco the garbage man, much to his wife's annoyance. Once his old college friend Pig Bodine, whom the wife loathes, shows up, she kicks them out. For good. They go to the dump where they stay with the caretaker. There Dennis contemplates his life when ominous, unexpected shit starts going down. In the middle of the night, Dennis hears a voice and goes out to meet a three-foot-tall woman identified as a “gypsy” who asks him to marry her. Initially declining, he changes his mind when he sees her child-like appearance and agrees to stay for a while, saying that he always wanted kids. Here we get a lot of counter-culture fringe that could have been at home in The Crying of Lot 49. 

Speaking of counter-culture fringe “Entropy,” the third story of the collection, is possibly my favorite of the bunch (but I would maybe make that claim about the last two as well). It details a wild lease-breaking party hosted by one Meatball Mulligan. Chaos ensues with a mix of guests including cronies, servicemen, jazz musicians, philosophy majors, and sailors. Callisto and Aubade care for a baby bird while contemplating the Laws of Thermodynamics and entropy as a metaphor for society. The whole time the temperature outside remains 37 degrees Fahrenheit, fueling apocalyptic paranoia in Callisto. Among the challenges Meatball navigates there are managing drug use, conversations on communication theory, and an unexpected visit from the FBI, or some other agency. 

Two English spies, Porpentine and Goodfellow, are in Upper Egypt to track down their nemesis, Moldweorp, and figure out what he's up to. They suspect he plans to assassinate the Consul-General, so they travel to Cairo with Goodfellow's new girlfriend, Victoria Wren, her family, and a man named Bongo-Shaftsbury. Porpentine stops Bongo-Shaftsbury from sexually assaulting Victoria's sister and realizes he's an opposing spy. In Cairo, they find Moldweorp and his spies at the opera house, foiling the assassination attempt. A chase ensues, ending at the Sphinx where Porpentine and Goodfellow confront Moldweorp. Porpentine tells Goodfellow to go back to the cab, but Moldweorp shoots Porpentine and escapes. Sixteen years later, Goodfellow is with a new girlfriend, a barmaid who sees him as just an obsessive Englishman with money to spend. The story ends with them hearing rumors of an assassination plot against Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which you should from the history books for its monumental impact on the history of the 20th century. With all this spy stuff, double agents, and depravity whilst traipsing through foreign land, I'm reminded of Gravity's Rainbow, however, the story was apparently reworked into a chapter of his novel V. which I have not read but is probably next on my list. 

In the final story, "The Secret Integration," we are introduced to a cast of characters who would later become familiar faces in 2006's Against The Day, a group that goes by “the Chums of Chance.” Here, the daring youths embark on a mission codenamed “Operation Spartacus.” The ragtag group of boys (Tim, Carl, Etienne, and Hogan [they also have a great doggo, which is much appreciated on my end]) gather in their leader's basement (one Grover Snodd, who is something of a boy genius) to plan their upcoming “Project Mayhem” type mischief on the bigoted folks of Mingeborough, New York. Things are complicated when Hogan (who's been a member of AAA since age seven) receives a call to support a struggling member. They go to a hotel to help an African-American musician named Mr. McAfee whose staying there. Despite their attempts to help, Mr. McAfee is escorted out by the police for belligerence. 

Despite acknowledging the faults of his early stories in the intro as “bad habits, dumb theories,” he does not talk about how exceptionally good they are despite their supposed flaws. These stories show how from the beginning, he was able to transport readers into his wonderful, eccentric imagined worlds through incredible storytelling. An attentive, well-informed observer, he's astute, in-the-know, obsessively alert, zanily comedic. He effortlessly earns the reader's admiration with such qualities.

These brilliant stories are literary treasures that should not be overlooked, tour de force that they are. Still, though, his best work was ahead of him. As he writes at the end of the intro, “What is most appealing about young folks is the changes, not the still photograph of finished character but the movie, the soul in flux. Maybe this small attachment to my past is only another case of what Frank Zappa calls a bunch of old guys sitting around playing rock 'n' roll. But as we all know, rock 'n' roll will never die, and education too, as Henry Adams always sez, keeps going on forever,” (p. 23).