United We Stand: Bridging America's Divides

Just an observation about the rhetoric and branding strategies of political parties in the U.S. today...The Destructive Politicization of American Liberalism vs Conservatism Today:

Democrats and the Avoidance of "Liberal"

The Democratic Party has often distanced itself from the term "liberal" due to decades of conservative framing that cast it in a negative light. Starting in the 1980s, figures like Ronald Reagan and media personalities worked to equate "liberal" with ideas of excess government spending, moral permissiveness, and elitism. Consequently, Democrats have leaned on terms like "progressive" or "moderate" to avoid the baggage attached to "liberal," even when advocating for traditionally liberal policies such as expanding healthcare, environmental regulation, or civil rights.

This rhetorical shift allows Democrats to sidestep cultural stigma while still appealing to broad coalitions. However, it also risks obscuring the ideological core of liberalism—emphasizing individual rights, equality, and the role of government in mitigating societal inequities. Some critics argue this avoidance dilutes the party's identity, leaving it open to accusations of inconsistency or opportunism.

Republicans and the Embrace of "Conservative"

In contrast, the Republican Party has embraced "conservative" as a badge of honor. Historically, conservatism in the U.S. meant preserving traditional values, maintaining a limited government, and adhering to fiscal responsibility. Over time, however, the term has been adapted to align with a broader populist and nationalist agenda, often emphasizing cultural issues, deregulation, and opposition to perceived liberal overreach.

This evolution has led to contradictions within the label. For example:

• Fiscal conservatism is often sidelined by massive federal spending under Republican administrations.
• Traditionalist values coexist with an embrace of disruptive populist rhetoric and policies.

Despite these shifts, the term "conservative" retains a powerful unifying effect for the Republican base. It invokes a sense of continuity and resistance to change, even as its practical application has strayed from its historical roots.

Why the Contrast?

1. Cultural Framing: Conservatives have successfully framed "liberal" as a pejorative, while keeping "conservative" as synonymous with patriotism and stability. This asymmetry in framing gives Republicans a rhetorical advantage.

2. Ideological Cohesion vs. Coalition Building: The Republican Party tends to emphasize ideological purity, reinforcing the conservative label even when its policies shift. The Democratic Party, by contrast, is a broader coalition, requiring flexibility in rhetoric to appeal to diverse constituencies.

3. Media Influence: Right-leaning media has kept "conservative" central to its identity, reinforcing its appeal to Republican voters, while left-leaning media often avoids "liberal" in favor of issue-specific language or "progressive."

Implications

• For Democrats, avoiding "liberal" might help short-term political branding but risks eroding a clear ideological identity.
• For Republicans, clinging to "conservative" despite ideological shifts may foster internal contradictions but strengthens external unity.

In sum, these linguistic strategies reflect broader dynamics of how the parties define themselves and appeal to voters in a polarized political landscape.

Modern conservatism in the U.S. has evolved significantly from its historical roots, becoming a more complex and, in some ways, contradictory movement. Similarly, the way conservatives often frame and critique "liberalism" today reveals deeper anxieties and frustrations that go beyond the term itself.

Why Conservatism Today Is Different

1. Shift Toward Populism: Modern conservatism has incorporated populist rhetoric, focusing on the grievances of "ordinary people" against elites. This shift often emphasizes cultural identity, nationalism, and opposition to perceived threats, diverging from the classical conservative focus on order, tradition, and restraint.

2. Emphasis on Culture Wars: Many contemporary conservatives focus heavily on cultural issues—abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and education—rather than traditional economic conservatism or small government. This marks a departure from the classical conservatism that prioritized stability and economic restraint.

3. Expansion of Government for Preferred Goals: While conservatism historically advocated for limited government, modern conservatives often embrace strong government intervention when it aligns with their cultural or political priorities, such as border security, law enforcement, and restrictions on social issues.

4. Anti-Globalization: Current conservatism reflects resistance to globalist policies and institutions, favoring protectionism and nationalism over the free-market principles of classical conservatism.

5. Alignment with Authoritarian Tendencies: In some factions, there’s a willingness to accept or even embrace authoritarian approaches if they serve conservative goals, which stands in stark contrast to the original conservative skepticism of concentrated power.

---

Why "Liberalism" Is a Target

Conservatives often criticize "liberalism" not as a coherent ideology but as a catch-all term for the things they oppose. The criticisms are often directed at modern progressivism or leftist movements that advocate for social change, environmental protections, and diversity. The anger is not necessarily at "liberalism" in its philosophical sense but at what it represents to them:

1. Fear of Social Change: Many conservatives view liberalism as a force driving cultural and moral changes that threaten traditional values. This includes issues like gender roles, racial equality, and family structures.

2. Perceived Elitism: Liberals are often framed as out-of-touch intellectuals or urban elites imposing their values on "ordinary" people in rural or conservative areas. This perception fuels resentment and resistance.

3. Economic Anxiety: Policies often associated with liberalism—like higher taxes, regulation of industries, or climate change initiatives—are perceived as threats to economic stability, especially in regions reliant on traditional industries like fossil fuels.

4. Globalization and Multiculturalism: Many conservatives see liberalism as promoting globalism and multiculturalism at the expense of national identity and sovereignty, exacerbating feelings of displacement.

5. Weaponized Language: Conservative leaders and media have weaponized "liberalism" as a term to galvanize their base. It’s less about the actual philosophy of liberalism and more about rallying against a caricature of left-wing excess and progressive overreach.

---

Who Are Conservatives Really Angry At?

1. Cultural Elites: Conservatives often feel alienated by cultural shifts driven by academia, Hollywood, and progressive activism. These groups are seen as dismissive of traditional values and lifestyles.

2. The Federal Government: There’s longstanding mistrust of federal overreach, which conservatives often associate with liberal policies. Ironically, this mistrust persists even as some factions of conservatism embrace strong federal action for conservative goals.

3. Social Justice Advocates: Movements advocating for racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ equality are often perceived as threats to traditional societal structures.

4. Global Institutions and Corporations: Conservatives may resent multinational corporations, international agreements, and global organizations for their perceived prioritization of global agendas over national interests.

5. Themselves (to a degree): Some anger comes from internal contradictions. Many conservatives advocate for traditional values while facing a rapidly changing world where these values are increasingly challenged. The tension between wanting stability and resisting inevitable change fuels frustration.

---

Conclusion

The anger conservatives direct at "liberalism" is less about liberalism as an ideology and more about a symbolic opposition to change, diversity, and a sense of cultural displacement. The evolution of conservatism into a movement centered on cultural and identity politics, rather than its original focus on restraint and tradition, reflects deeper insecurities about the future and a struggle to reconcile these changes with their vision of America.

Bringing America together despite vastly different worldviews requires intentional efforts to foster mutual understanding, rebuild trust, and find shared purpose. Here are some strategies to help bridge divides and rekindle a sense of shared national identity:

---

1. Encourage Respectful Dialogue

• Promote Active Listening: Create forums, both online and offline, where people can share their perspectives without fear of judgment. Encourage listening not just to respond but to understand.
• Model Civility: Public figures, educators, and community leaders should emphasize respectful debate and discourage inflammatory rhetoric.
• Seek Common Ground: Focus on shared values such as family, freedom, and the desire for safety and opportunity, even when the means to achieve them differ.

---

2. Build Local Connections

• Community Projects: Encourage collaboration on local initiatives, such as rebuilding parks, addressing homelessness, or improving schools, where people with different views can work together.
• Civic Education: Reinforce knowledge of American history, civics, and democratic principles in schools and communities to foster a sense of shared heritage.
• Cultural Exchange: Organize events that celebrate diverse cultures, helping people appreciate differences while recognizing shared humanity.

---

3. Address Economic and Social Inequalities

• Invest in Communities: Strengthen struggling communities with access to quality education, healthcare, and job opportunities. Economic insecurity often exacerbates divisions.
• Encourage Shared Prosperity: Advocate for policies that ensure fair economic opportunities, bridging gaps between urban, rural, and suburban areas.
• Focus on Inclusive Policies: Craft policies that are solutions-focused rather than ideologically polarizing, demonstrating that government can work for all citizens.

---

4. Combat Polarization in Media

• Support Responsible Journalism: Encourage news outlets to prioritize fact-based reporting and offer diverse viewpoints without sensationalism.
• Media Literacy Education: Teach people how to critically evaluate information, distinguish fact from opinion, and avoid echo chambers.
• Hold Social Media Accountable: Push for transparency and responsibility from platforms that amplify divisive content and misinformation.

---

5. Reform Political Processes

• Electoral Reforms: Promote ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting commissions, and campaign finance reform to reduce hyper-partisanship.
• Encourage Bipartisanship: Recognize and reward leaders who prioritize cross-party collaboration.
• Increase Voter Engagement: Make voting more accessible and emphasize the importance of civic participation in bridging divides.

---

6. Rekindle a Sense of Shared Identity

• National Service Programs: Introduce voluntary programs that bring people from different backgrounds together to work on national or community projects.
• Celebrate Shared Achievements: Highlight moments in history where Americans united to achieve great things, such as the moon landing, civil rights advancements, or public health victories.
• Reaffirm American Ideals: Focus on the foundational ideals of liberty, justice, and equality while acknowledging and addressing past and present challenges.

---

7. Focus on Generational Change

• Educate Future Generations: Teach children and young adults about empathy, compromise, and constructive conflict resolution.
• Encourage Civic Participation: Inspire younger generations to engage in community service and leadership, fostering a culture of contribution rather than division.

---

8. Acknowledge Differences Without Demonizing

• Normalize Disagreement: Remind people that differing opinions are natural and healthy in a democracy. Conflict doesn’t mean disloyalty or enmity.
• Focus on Humanity: Encourage people to see each other as neighbors and fellow citizens first, not as political adversaries.

---

Final Conclusion

Reuniting America requires patience, humility, and a shared commitment to building trust. It’s not about erasing differences but about embracing the idea that diverse perspectives can coexist under a common banner. By focusing on shared values, addressing inequities, and fostering empathy, Americans can rebuild a sense of national unity while respecting the diversity that makes the country strong.

As an adjunct to this blog, the one I published next, same day... 

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

The Demise of America: Commercialization of News From Public Service to Toxically Profit-Driven Nightmare

Who allowed news to transition from being a network loss leader to a for-profit, 24-hour operation, paving the way for the decline of accurate reporting? A shift that turned news into opinion-driven shows, prioritizing what the public wants to hear over the essential truths they need to know.

The shift of news from a public service or network loss leader to a for-profit, 24-hour model is often attributed to a combination of changes in legislation, technology, and market dynamics:

1. The Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (1987)
   The Fairness Doctrine, established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949, required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance in a fair and balanced manner. Its repeal in 1987 removed this obligation, leading to the rise of opinion-driven news programming.

2. Cable News and the Rise of 24-Hour News Networks
   The launch of CNN in 1980 marked the beginning of 24-hour news. Cable television's business model relied on subscription fees and advertising revenue, incentivizing networks to focus on stories that drew viewership, often favoring sensationalism or polarizing topics over in-depth reporting.

3. Telecommunications Act of 1996
   Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, this act deregulated the telecommunications industry, allowing for greater media consolidation. Large corporations bought up multiple news outlets, further prioritizing profitability over journalistic integrity.

4. The "Profit Center" Model
   Historically, network news divisions were treated as loss leaders—a public service provided by networks to meet FCC licensing requirements. This changed in the 1980s when networks began viewing news divisions as potential profit centers. This shift was driven by executives seeking to maximize shareholder value.

The Results:

• Entertainment Over Information: News began to compete directly with entertainment for ratings, leading to more sensationalism and opinion-driven content.
• Echo Chambers: The focus on profitability encouraged targeting specific demographics, reinforcing viewers’ existing biases and creating polarized audiences.
• Erosion of Public Trust: As news became a commodity, trust in media declined, with many viewing outlets as prioritizing profits over public service.

These changes fundamentally altered the landscape of journalism, prioritizing market demands over the dissemination of unbiased, accurate information.

Rupert Murdoch's establishment of Fox News in 1996 marked a significant shift in American media, particularly in its approach to serving a conservative audience. Murdoch, alongside founding CEO Roger Ailes, aimed to create a network that would dominate the conservative media landscape. Fox News quickly rose to prominence by presenting sensationalized, emotionally charged stories that often prioritized audience engagement over factual accuracy. Its strategy included crafting narratives that aligned with conservative ideologies, creating a loyal viewer base while heavily influencing public opinion and political discourse.

Fox News employed a business model focused on high ratings, choosing topics and framing them in ways that appealed to its target demographic, often amplifying polarizing issues. This approach extended to opinion programming, with prominent hosts using their platforms to push conservative talking points, sometimes at the expense of journalistic objectivity. The network's success in blending news and entertainment reshaped the industry, encouraging other outlets to adopt similar strategies to compete​

TheWrap

​

The Independent

Murdoch’s control over Fox News has been instrumental in shaping its editorial direction, focusing on stories that resonate emotionally with its audience regardless of broader societal consequences. This model has drawn criticism for spreading misinformation and contributing to political polarization in the United States​

The Independent

The ongoing struggle over succession within the Murdoch family also highlights concerns about the future of Fox News. Lachlan Murdoch, Rupert's eldest son and his preferred successor, is seen as committed to the conservative vision of the network. However, internal family disputes may challenge this trajectory, potentially reshaping Fox News' role in American media​

It's speculative to determine exactly how America would have fared without Fox News, but the network's influence has undeniably shaped the political, cultural, and media landscape. Without Fox News:

1. Media Landscape:

   • The dominance of conservative-leaning news could have been less centralized, potentially giving rise to multiple smaller outlets instead of a singular dominant voice.
   • Cable news might have evolved differently, with less focus on partisan opinion-driven programming. The "infotainment" approach, heavily popularized by Fox, may have developed more slowly or taken a different form.

2. Political Polarization:

   • Fox News has played a major role in amplifying partisan divides by framing issues through a conservative lens and creating an "us versus them" narrative. Without this, political polarization might not have reached the same levels, though other factors (e.g., social media) also contribute significantly.

3. Elections and Policy:

   • The network's influence on elections, particularly in mobilizing conservative voters, has been profound. Its absence could have impacted outcomes like the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, where Fox News coverage and narratives were pivotal in shaping public opinion.
   • Policy debates might have been less influenced by sensationalism and more centered on consensus-building.

4. Public Trust in Media:

   • Fox News has been accused of spreading misinformation and eroding trust in mainstream journalism. Without it, public trust in traditional news outlets might have been higher, reducing skepticism toward verified information and fact-based reporting.

5. Social Issues:

   • Cultural and social debates—such as those surrounding immigration, gun rights, and healthcare—may have unfolded with less sensational framing, potentially leading to different public perceptions and policy outcomes.

However, it's important to note that Fox News filled a preexisting demand for conservative perspectives in media. In its absence, other outlets might have emerged to fill this void, and the broader trends of commercialization and sensationalism in news were already underway. Fox News capitalized on these dynamics, but it did not create them entirely. The rise of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter would also have played a major role in reshaping discourse, even without Fox News.

Ultimately, while Fox News has been a significant driver of the current media and political climate, other factors and outlets might have filled the gap, leading to different but perhaps equally complex challenges.

It's important to point out however, none did. Though OAN, Newsmax, and RT (Russia Today) have tried, and failed.

Now this, as Rupert ages out of humanity (or had decades ago...), trying to maintain the disreputable and illiberal, lying format of Fox News by putting his child puppet in his place. However, his other children are not so topically corruptly capitalistic and democracy-hating. Just sayin'...

Rupert Murdoch's attempts to solidify control of his media empire through his eldest son, Lachlan, have faced significant setbacks. Recently, a Nevada court commissioner blocked Murdoch's effort to amend the family trust in a way that would strip voting power from his other three children—James, Elisabeth, and Prudence—and ensure Lachlan's dominance. 

The court found this move to be a "carefully crafted charade" designed to cement Lachlan's position and preserve the conservative editorial stance of Fox News and other Murdoch-controlled outlets. The ruling maintains the current trust structure, giving all four children an equal voice in decisions following Rupert's eventual passing​.

This decision reflects internal family disputes over the future of the Murdoch empire. While Lachlan aligns closely with his father’s conservative ideology, James and Elisabeth are known for holding more moderate political views, which could influence the direction of Fox News and other properties if they gain more control​.

These developments have raised questions about the long-term stability and editorial direction of the Murdoch media empire, particularly as Lachlan faces challenges from within his own family. This internal strife underscores the broader implications for Fox News and its influence on American and global politics.

Hopefully, Fox News, under the control of more sane, reasonable, decent Murdoch offspring, will die the toxic conservative death of Reality and Actual Real NEWS America deserves...and Rupert so despises.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

"What we think, we become," Buddha - Now, About American Politics

The Cycle of Demonization: Perspectives on Self-Destruction and Identity

Buddha's insight, "What we think, we become," serves as a powerful lens through which to explore the corrosive cycle of demonization in contemporary political disourse.

When one group, such as the political right, engages in a campaign of inaccurate, inarticulate, and inexpert critique of the left—resorting to tactics like childish name-calling, a hallmark of their leader Donald Trump's branding—it often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

America is actively experiencing a cultural and ethical conflict, where progressives/ liberals push forward into new cultural frontiers, championing innovation, inclusivity, and social transformation, perhaps without enough consideration for slower-to-change citizens.

Brief aside, Andy Borowitz, You are not alone: "...a welcome reminder that half the country did the right thing this election."

While, conservatives, like MaGA-GOP, demand the maintenance of traditional, often outmoded values, justifying leadership who prioritize perceived stability & ideological alignment while utterly ignoring broader societal progress.

This ongoing struggle shapes the nation's political, social, and cultural landscapes, revealing stark (and dark) differences in approaches to leadership, ethics, and cultural growth.

Regardless of one's orientation, the quality of leaders must be of primary concern.

This is being utterly ignored in the Trump MaGA-GOP faction, aligning more with America's enemies than our friends.

By channeling their energy into exaggeration and mischaracterization, they risk transforming into the very traits they falsely ascribe to their adversaries.

The Cycle of Demonization

When demonization becomes the primary mode of engagement, it fosters disrespect and dehumanization. Instead of critiquing ideas with precision and integrity, the act of mislabeling opponents—accusing them of hypocrisy, authoritarianism, or hatred—often reveals a failure to engage honestly. In time, this behavior cultivates in the accusers a mirror image of what they falsely attribute to others. Their rhetoric shifts from being a tool for communication to one for distortion, and they become entangled in the negativity they sow.

The Paradox of Projection

Psychology offers insight into this phenomenon through the concept of projection. Often, the traits we most vehemently criticize in others are ones we subconsciously recognize in ourselves. A political movement that attacks the left for being "tyrannical" or "intolerant" while engaging in censorship or dismissiveness may, in fact, highlight its own insecurities or unacknowledged flaws.

Disrespect as Transformation

Disrespect is a defining feature of this dynamic. When opponents are not treated as worthy of nuanced consideration, it degrades not only the dialogue but the moral compass of the critic. Disrespectful engagement—rooted in contempt and caricature—erodes empathy and narrows the scope of understanding. As a result, the critic loses sight of shared humanity and becomes ensnared in the ugliness of their own making.

Becoming the Ugliness

To demonize inaccurately is to distort reality, and to do so inarticulately is to abandon the tools of thoughtful reasoning. This process has a corrosive effect on character and discourse alike. Over time, those who wield disrespect as a weapon cannot help but absorb its poison. They descend into the very ugliness they once claimed to combat, illustrating the Buddha’s timeless wisdom.

The Path Forward

The antidote lies in re-centering dialogue on respect and truth. Instead of demonization, engage with compassion. Instead of mischaracterization, strive for understanding. By doing so, we not only preserve the integrity of our own character but also foster a healthier, more constructive political environment. In this way, we avoid becoming the monsters we fear and instead embody the ideals we wish to see in the world.

Psychology

From a psychological perspective, this behavior can be understood through several key concepts, including projection, groupthink, confirmation bias, and the scapegoat mechanism. Each sheds light on the underlying motivations and consequences of such behavior:

1. Projection

Projection is a defense mechanism first identified by Sigmund Freud, where individuals attribute their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or traits to others. In this case, those engaging in name-calling or demonization might unconsciously recognize similar flaws or behaviors in themselves but displace those onto their opponents. For example, accusing the left of being authoritarian while advocating for restrictive policies may reflect an unacknowledged internal conflict or insecurity.

---

2. Groupthink and Tribalism

This behavior often thrives in environments of groupthink, where a desire for conformity within a group suppresses critical thinking and promotes the vilification of "outsiders." The phenomenon of tribalism—an intense loyalty to one's own group—amplifies this dynamic. In such contexts, attacks on opponents become a way of strengthening group identity, even if those attacks are irrational or unfounded. This creates a reinforcing loop where criticism is not about truth but about signaling loyalty to the group.

---

3. Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias drives individuals to seek out and accept information that supports their existing beliefs while rejecting information that contradicts them. Those engaging in demonization are often unwilling to engage with nuanced or opposing viewpoints, preferring oversimplified, exaggerated narratives that confirm their worldview. This selective thinking leads to further entrenchment and a distorted perception of their opponents.

---

4. The Scapegoat Mechanism

René Girard’s theory of the scapegoat mechanism posits that societies and groups often channel collective anxieties or conflicts onto a scapegoat to maintain internal cohesion. In political contexts, demonizing "the other side" becomes a way to offload responsibility for societal issues. This not only deflects attention from internal shortcomings but also unites the group through shared opposition to an external "enemy."

---

5. Cognitive Dissonance

When individuals hold conflicting beliefs or behaviors, they experience psychological discomfort known as cognitive dissonance. Demonizing others can be a way to resolve this tension by externalizing the conflict. For instance, if someone advocates for "freedom" while supporting restrictive policies, they might demonize their opponents as "tyrannical" to reconcile the inconsistency in their own stance.

---

6. Erosion of Empathy

This behavior often signals a decline in empathy, as demonization involves dehumanizing the opponent. Psychologists recognize that dehumanization is a precursor to justifying harmful behavior against others, as it allows individuals to view their opponents not as people but as caricatures or symbols of perceived threat.

---

Consequences

• Identity Shaping: As people project their flaws onto others and reinforce their narratives within echo chambers, they increasingly embody the traits they attribute to their opponents.
• Polarization: Demonization entrenches divisions, making constructive dialogue and compromise nearly impossible.
• Loss of Integrity: Focusing on false narratives and exaggerations undermines the moral and intellectual credibility of those engaging in such tactics.

---

Remedies

Psychology suggests remedies like encouraging empathy, cultivating self-awareness, and promoting critical thinking to break these cycles. Engaging in dialogue, acknowledging shared humanity, and striving for accurate critiques can help counter the destructive effects of demonization.

Phenomenology

The phenomenological perspective examines the subjective, lived experience of individuals engaging in or affected by this behavior. It focuses on how such actions are experienced and understood from within the consciousness of those involved, rather than analyzing them as external phenomena. Here’s how this perspective applies:

---

1. The Experience of Demonization

From the perspective of individuals engaging in demonization, their actions may be rooted in their felt sense of being right or righteous. They may experience their critiques not as distortions but as expressions of deeply held truths. This phenomenological reality is shaped by:

• Pre-reflective biases: The ways in which cultural, social, and ideological backgrounds shape their perceptions before conscious reflection.
• Sense of identity: Demonizing "the other" becomes a way to solidify one's sense of self or group belonging.

For those on the receiving end of demonization, the experience may be one of alienation and dehumanization, where they feel unseen as complex individuals and reduced to stereotypes. This can create a felt sense of frustration, anger, or even despair.

---

2. The Role of Embodiment

Phenomenology emphasizes the role of embodiment in lived experience. For instance, engaging in demonization might involve visceral sensations—tension, anger, or exhilaration—experienced as bodily reinforcement of one's beliefs. Similarly, those demonized might experience physical manifestations of distress, such as a tight chest, racing thoughts, or an inability to focus, underscoring the embodied nature of these interactions.

---

3. Intersubjectivity and the Breakdown of Shared Meaning

Phenomenology highlights the importance of intersubjectivity—the shared understanding that arises in human interactions. Demonization disrupts this process by reducing others to fixed categories, denying them the opportunity to be encountered as full, dynamic subjects. Instead of dialogue, there is monologue: one-sided declarations that fail to respect or truly acknowledge the other.

This results in a loss of shared meaning, where individuals or groups can no longer agree on basic realities. Each side perceives the other not just as wrong but as incomprehensibly alien, intensifying division.

---

4. The Intentionality of Consciousness

Phenomenology views consciousness as inherently intentional—it is always directed toward something. When individuals focus their attention on demonizing others, their consciousness becomes structured around hostility, exaggeration, and distortion. This intentionality shapes their worldview, reinforcing negative perceptions and making it difficult to entertain alternative perspectives.

For the demonized, their consciousness may become preoccupied with defending themselves or grappling with feelings of being unfairly judged, pulling them into the same toxic dynamic.

---

5. The Temporal Dimension

Phenomenology considers how experiences are situated in time. Demonization is not an isolated act but part of a broader temporal arc. The person engaging in it may draw on past grievances and project fears into the future, shaping their experience of the present. For the target, the demonization might feel like a continuity of historical patterns, such as marginalization or stereotyping, compounding its emotional weight.

---

6. The Existential Implications

Phenomenologically, demonization touches on deeper existential concerns:

• Authenticity: Demonization can be seen as an inauthentic mode of being, where individuals avoid confronting their own flaws or uncertainties by externalizing them.
• Freedom: Both parties experience a loss of existential freedom—those demonizing are trapped in rigid perceptions, while the demonized are constrained by imposed identities.
• Meaning: Demonization threatens the creation of shared meaning, leading to existential disconnection and fragmentation.

---

The Phenomenological Insight

Phenomenology reveals that demonization is not just a political or psychological phenomenon but a distortion of how individuals and groups relate to one another as conscious beings. By failing to see others as full, lived subjects, demonization reduces both the "other" and the self to narrower, less authentic ways of being. This perspective invites a return to openness, empathy, and an acknowledgment of the shared, complex nature of human existence.

The cycle of demonization, explored through political, psychological, and phenomenological lenses, reveals how the act of inaccurately labeling and dehumanizing others can ultimately distort one's own identity. By focusing on exaggeration, mischaracterization, and projection, individuals and groups risk becoming the very traits they accuse others of embodying.

When a leader like Donald Trump uses such divisive and uncaring tactics to manipulate and control his own citizens—leveraging misinformation to grift money, seize power, and perpetuate destruction without regard for the suffering he causes—it becomes imperative for the nation to reflect on the gravity of his actions. His blatant disregard for the well-being of those he abuses, both within his follower base and beyond, speaks to a deeper crisis of empathy and moral leadership. 

Those who support such a figure must confront the harm they are complicit in, recognizing that the future of the country depends on unity, compassion, and the rejection of divisive, self-serving figures. It is critical that we strive to rebuild a nation centered on collective welfare and work tirelessly to ensure that such individuals never hold public office again, safeguarding democracy and humanity for generations to come.

This destructive cycle erodes empathy, deepens divisions, and undermines authentic dialogue, leaving both the demonizers and the demonized trapped in a feedback loop of self-destruction and alienation. The remedy lies in re-centering respect, self-awareness, and shared human understanding.

We need to understand respect for the fact that you're an American citizen. Disagree, debate (something lost lately for bickering and shouting one another down...yes, some very dumb being espoused, esp, from the Right, but come on...).

We can do better. We must do better.

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Those who Advocate For Wiping Out LGBTQ

One of the most compelling arguments against those who advocate for wiping out LGBTQ+ representation through media and enacting discriminatory laws is the importance of equality, human rights, and inclusivity as part and parcel of living in modern America. 

Now we have a POTUS-elect in convicted felon Donald Trump who is all in for disrupting much of what advances have been made (Trump on LGBTQ Rights: Rolling Back Protections and Criminalizing Gender Nonconformity). Has there been overreach by recent administrations on the side of "progressiveness"? A good word for humanitarians and those involved in societal advancements while decreasing abuses by the many upon the few, but a bad word to those on the right who just can't see that's a thing.

I agree there may have been some overreach but not to the degree being sold by the right. Part of their issue is not having been allowed to catch up, or some things feeling imposed upon them not only against their will, or awareness, but beliefs, culture, religion, and indeed, part of that is historical misperceptions, bigotry, and racism. Some of THAT is wrapped up in their history, culture, and politics.

There should have been more persuading, more educating, more awareness, and coaxing. But to be fair, many on the Right vehemently thwarted that, and some of that will never, ever work with some of those people and in those subcultures whose substance is built upon a rejection of certain lifestyles or ways of thinking. 

To some degree, that's fine. Except, this is America and they need to catch up to who we actually are, a country of acceptance even the Founding Fathers didn't fully realize the full impact of that. Some, they would go against many today on the right. Some could never come to terms with it because of the climate of the times they lived in. 

But it's up to us to realize how this is at odds with moving forward, and also how they, the Framers and many today stuck in their cemented anachronistic beliefs, need to either get with the program or be dragged kicking and screaming into the present.

Much of this is based in religion, the religious Right, Christian Nationalists, and others pushing what should remain private. Enjoy your beliefs, just leave others alone. We're not all theists or at your level of devotion. THAT's America!  So let's not be doing this and let's return to "your religion is private". Stop being so aggro. Got it? Okay, OK? 

Oklahoma attorney general says state schools superintendent cannot mandate students watch prayer video

This dovetails very well with my long-held overly reasonable belief that we need to stop with the "In God We Trust" nonsense everwhere, certainly as our American motto, and return to our original, "Out of Many, One" (E Pluribus Unum), for what is truly inclusive and doesn't lead to abuse of others. As we see today. As we see in these anti-"other people" movements by the Right. I don't want to get down against the religious. I want them to have their lives. Just as the rest of us want to.

Here are several key points one can make on these issues of being anti-LGBTQ+:

Diversity and Inclusion for LGBTQ+ individuals and workers are an integral part of society, and their diverse perspectives, talents, and contributions enrich our communities. Media representation and legal protections enable LGBTQ+ individuals to be recognized, respected, and included, fostering a more inclusive and accepting society for everyone.

1. Human Rights: LGBTQ+ rights are human rights. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity, equality, and fairness, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. Discrimination and erasure based on these factors undermine the fundamental principles of human rights and deny LGBTQ+ individuals their inherent worth and value.
2. Mental Health and Well-being: LGBTQ+ individuals have historically faced higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidality, due to societal stigma and marginalization. Media representation and legal protections help reduce stigma and create a supportive environment, positively impacting the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals.
3. Authentic Representation: Media plays a powerful role in shaping public perception and attitudes. By portraying diverse LGBTQ+ characters and storylines, media can challenge stereotypes, dispel myths, and promote empathy and understanding. Authentic representation allows LGBTQ+ individuals to see themselves reflected positively and helps foster greater acceptance and support within society.
4. Freedom and Autonomy: Everyone has the right to live their lives authentically, free from societal pressure and discrimination. Restricting LGBTQ+ representation and rights infringes upon their freedom of expression, personal autonomy, and the pursuit of happiness. Upholding these freedoms is crucial for a just and democratic society.
5. Social Progress: Over the years, societies worldwide have made significant progress in recognizing LGBTQ+ rights and equality. Rolling back these advancements would not only perpetuate injustice but also hinder societal progress as a whole. Inclusivity and acceptance lead to stronger and more vibrant communities where everyone can thrive.
6. Economic Benefits: Embracing diversity and inclusivity has economic benefits. Studies consistently demonstrate that LGBTQ+-friendly policies and environments attract and retain top talent, stimulate innovation, and contribute to economic growth. By embracing LGBTQ+ individuals, societies can harness their skills, talents, and purchasing power, resulting in a stronger and more prosperous nation.

It's essential to engage in respectful dialogue, providing well-reasoned arguments backed by evidence and personal stories to foster understanding and empathy in the face of opposition.

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

The Once "Grand Old Party", the Once "Republican Party" of Lincoln, is No More

Because so many "Republicans" or "conservatives" no longer know who they are or what they stand for, while still believing and reveling in past glory when they are no longer what they once were and had become known and praised for.

Now Democrats have their own concerns and issues, but nothing as vast or problematic as the MaGA GOP today with its confused messaging, autocratic orientations, lies and disinformation platform.  

They are now mostly ideology over citizens, party over country, leader over party, autocracy over democracy.

Most Trump supporters feel free to ignore this, as it's info they probably aren't interested in having to know, or deal with.

There are still "Republicans" but the party at large refers to them as "RINOs", Republicans in name only, while those calling others that are, for the most part, actual RINOs.

The once-Republican Party of Lincoln, originally founded in the mid-1800s, was shaped by principles of abolitionism, civil rights, and federal power to unify the country.

Over time, especially in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the party shifted from its roots as an advocate for civil rights and anti-slavery, embracing more conservative economic policies focused on business and limited government.

By the 20th century, Republicans moved away from the progressive policies associated with Lincoln's era, with further shifts in the 1960s as the party increasingly courted Southern conservative voters.

This transformation saw the GOP evolve into a party defined more by conservative values, limited federal intervention, and an emphasis on states’ rights, markedly different from Lincoln’s original vision.

The Democratic Party, historically rooted in states' rights and agrarian interests, gradually took up the mantle of civil rights and social reform that once defined Lincoln's Republican Party. This shift began in the early 20th century, as Democrats adopted more progressive policies under leaders like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who expanded federal government intervention to address economic inequality, labor rights, and social welfare during the New Deal era.

The transformation accelerated in the 1960s when Democratic leaders like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson championed civil rights legislation. Johnson’s support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 solidified the party's role as an advocate for racial equality and social justice, a position that further distanced them from the segregationist elements of their past.

This shift also led to a realignment of voter bases: as the Democratic Party became associated with civil rights and progressive social issues, many conservative Southern voters shifted to the Republican Party. The modern Democratic Party thus came to champion many of the inclusive, equality-focused ideals that had characterized Lincoln’s Republicans, while the GOP shifted toward a platform emphasizing traditional values, limited government, and conservative policies.

Today’s Republican conservative values differ significantly from original conservative principles. Classic conservatism, as articulated by thinkers like Edmund Burke, emphasized caution in societal change, a respect for tradition, and a commitment to stability, with an emphasis on personal responsibility, rule of law, and small government. Traditional conservatives believed in upholding institutions and norms, often avoiding radical shifts in policy that could disrupt social order.

In contrast, modern American conservatism has evolved, particularly within the Republican Party. Today, it often emphasizes a populist approach that challenges established institutions and norms, including the judiciary and the media. Recent conservative movements within the GOP have supported significant government intervention on issues like immigration, reproductive rights, and voting laws, focusing less on institutional stability and more on advancing specific social agendas. The GOP has also embraced fiscal policies that diverge from early conservative economic prudence, such as deficit spending and tax cuts for corporations, which early conservatives might have viewed skeptically.

This shift represents a move away from traditional conservatism’s focus on incremental change and institutional respect toward a more populist, activist form of conservatism that prioritizes ideological goals over the original conservative caution.

A more precise term for today’s Republican Party might be "populist right" or "nationalist right." These terms capture the party’s shift from traditional conservatism to a platform that emphasizes strong national identity, populist appeals, and a willingness to disrupt established norms to achieve specific political and cultural goals.

Populist Right: This term reflects the focus on appealing directly to "the people" or "the common man" and often emphasizes anti-elite, anti-establishment rhetoric. This populist approach involves a strong appeal to certain groups' grievances and perceived loss of status, frequently targeting institutions like the media, academia, and government as "elites" who are out of touch with everyday Americans.

Nationalist Right: This term reflects the increased emphasis on national sovereignty, a strong stance on immigration, and a focus on traditional American identity and values. Nationalist right politics prioritize policies that favor domestic interests, sometimes at the expense of international alliances or global institutions.

Right-Wing Populism: Combining elements of populism with conservative ideas, this term encapsulates a political style that challenges established structures while using conservative rhetoric on social issues.

Each of these terms captures aspects of the modern GOP’s orientation that differ from traditional conservatism, particularly its embrace of more radical change and direct appeals to popular, often nationalist sentiment.

These people who support Donald Trump and his MaGA are focused on concepts, and ideals over people. That is merely a tool in life, but when used blindly, it leads to what we see today from the Right wing. To wit...

People who view the world primarily through ideological frameworks rather than through the lens of individual experiences and actual impacts on people are often referred to as ideologues. Ideologues hold rigid beliefs, interpreting events and issues through the lens of their preferred ideology without necessarily considering the practical or human consequences.

This kind of outlook, sometimes called ideological absolutism or dogmatism, can lead to a detachment from real-world consequences and empathy, as they prioritize the purity or consistency of their ideas over the nuanced, complex needs of people. Political theorists also refer to this as political moralism, where abstract principles are valued over pragmatic, compassionate approaches to governance and interpersonal issues.

In extreme cases, such a perspective can foster authoritarian tendencies, where the enforcement of ideology takes precedence over individual freedoms and wellbeing. This mindset can be seen in people who prioritize ideological "wins" even when they come at a personal or societal cost, causing harm in both governmental policies and personal relationships.

I wish us ALL the best, for those of us with the best intentions at heart, where the "best intentions" actually are, our best for us all.

Cheers! Sláinte!

"20 lessons from the 20th century" by Timothy Snyder

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Changes in American Conservatism Over the Past 50 years

I've been pointing out how conservatism today is not the conservatism people think of it as. This has led to some very bad things until finally someone as morally corrupt as Donald Trump was able to convince just enough people to elect him as POTUS45 in 2016, with some help from a confluence of situations like Russian disinformation in social media, and various social and governmental issues. Like FBI Dir. James Comey speaking out about an investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, to protect the institution of the FBI, rather than the nation as a whole. 

The Republican Party has been positioning itself to win elections regardless of thought about the wellbeing of the country or its citizens, but to the benefit of the Party and at any or all costs to any or all others, regardless of the damages, as long as it does not hurt the party or its leadership.

 That is not a political party. That tends, to lead sooner or later, to devolve into a political cult of personality. As it finally has done in Trump's MaGA club of abuse.

The evolution of American conservatism over has raised several concerns among critics and even some within the conservative movement itself. In 2012 when the GOP lost the presidency to Barack Obama, again, they called for an "autopsy" of the party which offered some very good observations and changes that need to be made if they wanted to win an election again. They doubled down on the bad and ignored the good.

This is a party that is in "win at all costs" mode. Ethics didn't matter, morals didn't matter, lies, dishonesty, criminal activity don't matter. That is still being adjudicated over the Donald Trump presidency today in the courts and when Trump loses this 2024 election, he will see justice served.

Should he somehow bizarrely win the election, he will disable the DOJ, end the trials against him, and get back to his original intent of wrecking the US government and building his autocracy. The GOP set themselves up, all of us up, for this to eventually happen, one way or another.

But what has changed about conservatism in the past 50 years?

Here are some potential negative aspects of these changes:

1. Polarization and Division

• Increased Partisanship: The shift towards populism and identity politics has contributed to a more polarized political landscape. This division can lead to gridlock in government and a lack of bipartisan cooperation on critical issues.

2. Erosion of Traditional Conservative Values

• Departure from Principles: Critics argue that the embrace of populism has led some conservatives to abandon foundational principles like fiscal responsibility and limited government in favor of more reactionary and populist policies.

3. Distrust in Institutions

• Anti-Establishment Sentiment: The rise of anti-establishment rhetoric has fostered distrust in key institutions, including the media, judiciary, and electoral processes. This can undermine democratic norms and civic engagement.

4. Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation

• Acceptance of False Narratives: The increased reliance on alternative media has facilitated the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This can lead to a misinformed electorate and harm public discourse.

5. Reduction in Civil Discourse

• Hostility and Aggression: The combative style of leadership and rhetoric prevalent in modern conservatism can contribute to a more hostile political environment, making constructive dialogue more challenging.

6. Focus on Cultural Wars

• Diverting Attention from Economic Issues: A strong emphasis on cultural and identity politics can detract from addressing pressing economic concerns such as income inequality, job creation, and healthcare access, which affect many Americans across the political spectrum.

7. Impact on Governance

• Populism Over Policy: The focus on populism may prioritize short-term political gains over long-term policy solutions, potentially leading to ineffective governance and neglect of critical issues like climate change and healthcare reform.

8. Marginalization of Moderate Voices

• Decline of Centrism: The rise of extreme viewpoints may marginalize moderate conservatives, making it difficult for those who advocate for compromise and pragmatic solutions to find a place in the party.

9. Undermining Rule of Law

• Challenging Judicial Independence: The distrust in the judiciary and calls to undermine its authority can threaten the rule of law and the independence of the judicial system, essential for a functioning democracy.

10. Cultural Backlash

• Resistance to Progress: A strong focus on preserving traditional values can lead to backlash against progress on social issues, potentially hindering advancements in civil rights and equality.

Overall, while the evolution of American conservatism reflects changing societal dynamics and concerns, critics argue that these changes can lead to increased polarization, a decline in democratic norms, and a shift away from traditional conservative values, potentially harming both the party and the broader political landscape.

I have to say, I've always been a progressive. From birth. My life has been all about  moving forward, making positive changes, and taking risks. I've done some very dangerous things in my life. Search and Rescue. Street racing. SCUBA and sky diving. It goes on and on. I've had people ask me at times if I was trying to kill myself or had a "death wish". For part of the first part of my life, I really wasn't sure.

But I came to realize that wasn't the case at all. I started testing my limits very young. Some guys haven't done that util they were adults and some never have. I've always challenged myself, pushing beyond what I found difficult or frightening. There were a lot of things as a young child that I found scary. 

At some point, I decided I had enough of that. I would face my fears. Those guys I've met who haven't challenged themselves when they were young? A lot of those types were the guys I ran into as adults who were bullies, or challenging others to match up to them. Maybe being aggressive, or starting a fight. I felt sorry for them. I had no need to challenge myself against others. 

I'd done that decades ago. While they were riding their bikes a kids, I was hanging off a damn mountain. When they were in high school racing their cars, I was too actually...but I was also jumping out of a plane, SCUBA diving by myself in Puget Sound, backpacking in the Cascades, alone.

Eventually my comment to those thinking I was nuts has been that, yes, I do some very dangerous things, but as professionally as possible. I was taught from childhood to always find the best teachers in their field and learn all you can.

My point in all that is I always felt being conservative was not something you admit to others because it involves being overly careful, safe..."conservative". If we had been conservative during the founding of this nation, or the Revolutionary War, we'd still be a British colony today. 

How is being conservative something got be proud of? OK. But I also recognize we need both sides, both sides being functional, to balance out our nation. Being all on or the other is going to get someone killed. And it has. On Jan. 6th in Trump's instruction. 

Let's not do that again.

Now about our Founding Fathers, the Framers of our Constitution...

The Founding Fathers of the United States are often seen as both conservative and liberal figures, and their classification can depend on the specific context and criteria used. Here are some points to consider regarding their ideological leanings:

Conservative Aspects

1. Tradition and Order: The Founders valued certain Enlightenment principles and sought to create a government that balanced individual freedoms with social order, drawing heavily on established political thought and practices of their time.

2. Limited Government: Many of the Founders, particularly figures like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, advocated for a government that was limited in scope, reflecting a conservative desire to prevent tyranny and preserve personal liberties.

3. Property Rights: The emphasis on protecting property rights and the interests of landowners and merchants indicates a conservative approach to economic and social order.

4. Federalism: The establishment of a federal system was designed to maintain a balance of power, which can be seen as a conservative effort to prevent any one group or faction from gaining too much control.

Liberal Aspects

1. Rebellion Against Authority: The very act of declaring independence from Great Britain was a progressive move, challenging the authority of a distant monarchy and asserting the right to self-governance and individual liberty.

2. Natural Rights Philosophy: The Founders, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, believed in natural rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—as inherent to all individuals. This reflects a more liberal view on human rights and the role of government in protecting them.

3. Democratic Principles: The creation of a government based on popular sovereignty and representative democracy was a radical departure from the aristocratic and monarchical systems that preceded it, aligning more closely with liberal ideals.

4. Social Contract Theory: The idea that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed is a progressive notion, emphasizing individual agency and rights over traditional authority.

Conclusion

In summary, the Founding Fathers embodied a complex blend of conservative and liberal ideas. They were revolutionary in their quest for independence and individual rights, reflecting liberal values, while also seeking to establish a stable and orderly government that adhered to certain traditional principles. Their legacy can be seen as a foundation for both modern conservatism and liberalism in America, depending on the aspects of their philosophy and actions that are emphasized.

This duality is part of what makes their contributions to American political thought so significant and enduring, as they laid the groundwork for a dynamic and evolving democratic system that continues to grapple with the balance between liberty and order.

To end, we need balance. The Republican Party anymore just wants to win. Only they know best. Nonsense. We need to work together and work to gether to end this polarization that Donald Trump is so addicted to in order to put or keep himself in power.

It's not democratic, it's not American, and it's' not functional. But it does make for some very terrifying autocracies. I don't want America to turn into North Korea, or Russia, or China. I don't want a cult of personality running things here. I don't want a dictator or a tyrant, which Trump would be more than happy to be.

What we have here is a pretty sweet thing. Which is what Ben Franklin was sayig when he said, "A republic...if you can keep it."

"The source of this quotation is a journal kept by James McHenry (1753-1816) while he was a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention. On the page where McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” Then McHenry added: “The Lady here alluded to was Mrs. Powel of Philada.” The journal is at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress." LOC Blogs

Mr. Franklin, by the way...was an independent. So am I.

Finally...

What do you call someone who is a blank slate for followers, using confusing and manipulative language that lets supporters project whatever they want onto them? 

Does this describe Donald Trump?

ChatGPT:

Yes, this description can apply to Donald Trump. His rhetoric often blends ambiguity with bold or polarizing statements, allowing followers and critics alike to project their own interpretations onto his words & actions. His statements are sometimes contradictory or open-ended, giving supporters room to see what aligns with their own views or to explain away inconsistencies. This approach can create a strong sense of loyalty among his followers, as they feel he represents their ideals, even if those ideals vary widely.

This kind of person could be considered a Rorschach figure or projection surface, terms that highlight how followers can "read into" or project their own values, ideas, or hopes onto them, much like interpreting a Rorschach inkblot test. The person's ambiguous or confusing communication style allows people to fill in the blanks with what they want to see, making them relatable to a wide range of supporters while still avoiding clear accountability or transparency.

Additionally, some terms that might capture aspects of this behavior are:

Gaslighter: Someone who uses manipulation & confusing language to cause doubt or to control perception.

Cult of Personality Leader: This applies when the person cultivates an image that others idealize, often through manipulation or charisma.

Enigmatic Figure: An intentionally confusing or mysterious figure who leaves followers guessing.

These figures often blend ambiguity with abusive language or manipulation to create a kind of “mirror” effect, allowing followers to see what they want while maintaining control over their narratives.

For more, see my 2016 blog on "Food vs Nationalism" with a critique by ChatGPT on its accuracy compared to today.

Also...

As of recent reports, over 40 former Trump officials and associates have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. This includes individuals from a range of positions, from high-profile cabinet members to advisors, communications staff, and former campaign aides. 

Here's a breakdown of the types of officials:

-Cabinet Members: At least 5 former cabinet members (e.g., John Bolton, Bill Barr, Rex Tillerson).

-Senior White House Staff: Around 10 former chiefs of staff, advisors, and communications directors (e.g., Gen. John Kelly, Alyssa Farah Griffin).

-Former Campaign Aides: A few campaign staffers from both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns have also spoken out.

-Other GOP Politicians and Allies: Various Republican politicians who previously endorsed Trump, like Chris Christie, have switched their stance.

This number could increase as more former officials choose to speak out in the lead-up to the 2024 election.

Several former officials and close associates of Donald Trump have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. Here are a few prominent names:

John Bolton – Trump's former National Security Advisor has been a vocal critic since leaving the administration and is outspoken about not supporting Trump's 2024 run.

Bill Barr – The former Attorney General, once a staunch defender, has criticized Trump’s actions post-presidency, especially regarding January 6 and election interference, and said he would not vote for him.

Gen. John Kelly – Trump's former Chief of Staff has expressed disapproval of Trump’s behavior and leadership style and has publicly criticized him.

Rex Tillerson – The former Secretary of State has criticized Trump’s handling of international relations and stated that he cannot support him.

Chris Christie – Former New Jersey Governor and once a close Trump ally, Christie is now one of Trump's most vocal Republican critics and is running against him in the 2024 primary.

Mick Mulvaney – Former Acting White House Chief of Staff has been critical of Trump, especially following the January 6 Capitol riot, and said he would not support him.

Alyssa Farah Griffin – Former White House Director of Strategic Communications has openly criticized Trump since January 6 and is against his 2024 campaign.

These individuals, among others, have voiced concerns over Trump’s leadership style and his actions related to the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol attack, which have influenced their public opposition to his 2024 candidacy.

All the best to us all...

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Walkabout Thoughts #84

As a father myself, Happy Father's Day! Wishing the best to all fathers who care, who try and put effort into their children, and their family, and as for those who do not, may your children survive you anyway...

I have to say, in reviewing Father's Day memes online, so many of them simply aren't funny, and are kind of mean. Which fits the esteem in which many fathers are held, or the lack thereof. While it's also notable just how often too many fathers have earned that.

Thoughts & Stream of Consciousness, rough and ready, from an award-winning filmmaker and author you’ve never heard of, while walking off long Covid, and listening to podcasts…walking day, Thursday, June 13, 2024

Weather for the day… nice day, starting out, 63° nice sunny day blue sky cool breeze starting out, 73 back at home

First Podcast pod Rachel Maddow presents Ultra
And then WTF? Marc Maron. An episode first with actor Ed O'Neill (Married With Children) and then later below, with comedian Ali Siddiq in another episode.

I did a short walk to the bakery the other day and now I’m doing my full walk today. It’s a little confused below.

So today for the full walk, I’m doing another WTF? Podcast episode with.

On Marc's podcast they’re talking about Nepobabies and at first they mention, Jeff Bridges, who Ed said Jeff used to be worried about himself and nepotism and if his acting was better than his being a legacy. Which obviously he was.

First time I saw Jeff in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot at the drive-in, back when it came out for the first time and then later I saw The Last Picture Show. Ed: “This guy is a fucking actor.” I knew about Jeff when I was a kid and from his dad's show, Sea Hunt with Lloyd Bridges when he would very occasionally have his two sons on for something in the storyline.

Years later, I saw Jeff Bridges in other movies (Stardman, one of my favorites but then John Carpenter was one of my favorite directors) and his brother Beau acting as adults and I was surprised and pleased. I loved seeing them together in "The Fabulous Baker Boys", as piano players.

Anyway, Marc and Ed are joking about how Ed started out as a college student in a steel mill where his dad had worked and Marc jokes “so you were a Nepo baby.” And they laugh and I realize my older brother and sister and I all had our first jobs at the drive-in theater. Where our stepdad worked nights after getting off his real job every day, at the Tacoma Washington Nalley's warehouse.

The thing with my stepdad was his night job was supplemental but it was his day job in the warehouse where belongs to the Teamsters union for healthcare and whatever. But it was the night job that gave him the prestige and satisfaction as assistant manager and box office cashier where he got to wear suit. Back in the 40s and maybe 50s, he had his own 20 piece orchestra in Philadelphia. So I get his attraction to entertainment. Mom herself was a big fan of Hollywood and movies.

As for myself working there, eventually, after a couple of years in high school working there, I became snack bar manager summer before my senior year. Then I started working as box office cashier as the ticket guy who lets you into the theater when you drive up to the window. By that time my stepdad and our Manager had moved to the brand new 112th St drive-in theater. We got stuck with a goofy guy who ended up firing me when I had ended up in the hospital for bronchitis.

So working in the snack bar and as the box office cashier, a few my friends got in free. Not many, but a few. I suppose that was wrong. But I guess in a way it was payback because every holiday, weekend or during the summer, I had to work my ass off in the snack bar for like I said, all three years in high school while my friends would show up and were partying and come in to get food and there I was. I could see how much fun they were having and...I wasn’t. It got painful after a couple months of that.

I also could never figure out how some of them could afford so much more than me, and seemingly a lot of them. Too many had nicer cars than me when I got one. They also got drivers licenses before me. When we graduated, I was 17, most of them were 18 and some 19. Some of them were building their dragstrip racing car while I had an old beater I got half paid for by my parents, that September of my senior high school year. At some point I realized some of them just had families in a higher economic class than mine. Or their dad, got them at job at his company which just paid better.

My stepdad had driven me to work in my sophomore and junior high school years and I assume he'd finally had it. So I got a car. 1967 Chevy Impala. 283CI, “3 on the tree”, standard shift. Clean car, ran well. Sounds great, right? But I was supposed to get THEIR Impala Supersport. They'd had a '67, 327Cubic Inch, automatic transmission with bucket seats...SWEET RIDE! Then one day I was washing dishes at 7am before school and someone totaled the car sitting in front of our house! Then drove away. End of that situation.

Then my stepdad moved to the new drive-in at the south end of town and I needed a car to get to work anyway. Our AutoView Drive-in that my siblings and I kind of grew up at, was at the north end of town, near the Tacoma Narrow's bridge (back when there was only one) and on the same road as Point Defiance Park (an awesome place).

One of my friends worked at a Tacoma steel mill, whatever it was called. Gave that dude some muscles. And it paid well. Then he got our friend Al a job there. Al just friended me on Facebook a few months ago. Hadn’t heard from him in decades. Anyway he wasn't the most buff kind of guy. But then after he'd been working at the steel mill a while, he got pretty buff, too.

I remember after years of seeing Ed O'Neill on Married With Children, he played Popeye Doyle and a sequel to The French Connection. And I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t buy him as Popeye Doyle. Gene Hackman? Absolutely. But then when I watch the movie, I gotta say he did a pretty damn good job. I was starting to feel pretty wimpy.

OK. That podcast is over.

If you haven’t heard Rachel Maddow's Ultra podcast, good God if you’re American, especially if you’re conservative, listen to season one. Season two just hit. Learn your history here in America because we’re seeing it happen again and it’s not good. It’s history, it’s not make believe disinformation, propaganda or just some sort of nonsense.

I finished that podcast on my off day between walking. I had been eating a perfectly cooked steak I had made and watching Gordon Ramsay‘s Uncharted episode in Hawaii. I’m looking forward to his next episode in Cuba. But it motivated me to want tasty something and I thought of the bakery and bread products.

There’s this really cool little bakery “mom and pop” type shop that cooks really cool stuff about 3/4 of a mile from my house. So I thought, OK if you’re gonna go buy carbs, then walk there, don’t drive!

So, I’m walking.

My favorite bakery in Bremerton is Saboteur in Manette, a suburb just off downtown here. Amazing bakery. But if they’re closed, or I don’t feel like going that far, these guys are great, too. They both bake stuff from around the world, and you never know what they’re gonna have. Probably never heard of it. And it likely sold out you and should have gotten there sooner!

OK, I’ll tell you what I got from the bakery. OK, I don't know. Tasty stuff though.

I noticed walking down to there on the other side of the street and walking home, on this side of the street, that I keep seeing empty containers of tobacco chew. As if somebody’s driving down the street and going, “Hey, it’s empty!” And tosses it out their window. I just want to say kindly to those people: “Fuuuuuck you! Use your trash bin, bitch!” Sorry, had to get that out. They did. It's only fair.

Ed O’Neill on Marc Maron's “WTF?” podcast just said that the French Connection movie he was in, where he played Popeye Doyle, was actually a pilot for a TV show that didn’t happen. Well, finally THAT makes a lot of sense because in that case, it was pretty good. But as a sequel to the French Connection, maybe not so much. I always wondered what the deal was with that flick.

Beginning now in my full walk day with WTF? Podcast with Ali Siddiq
Now…

When I was younger I remember people saying, “If you do that you’re either gonna die or take years off the end of your life.” Who knows what I was about to do. But I remember my cavalier response being, “Well you gotta die sometime, it might as well be interesting and I’ll deal with the end of my life at the end of my life!” What a jerk.

OK, I’m there now jackass, in that last stage of one’s life. Hopefully, I have a lot more years left. Good years left. A few months ago I saw an old person who was like 100 years old being interviewed and asked, “What’s it like?” Her response was unexpected but reasonable, “Pain.”

And I'm now understanding what she meant. It’s annoying how some people age gracefully. They don’t seem to be in a great deal of discomfort, if any. They can still have drinks without a problem and they’re on the go, or traveling. For myself, I’m learning what the pain of arthritis is like (Granma had it and I always felt bad for her) and, a bunch of other really weird things, some (or all?) that may be Covid related. I so hate that disease for so many reasons.

I guess I just had higher hopes for this stage of life.

I guess I live vicariously through, oddly enough, my older brother and sister. My sister being three years older and my brother seven. He’s been going gangbusters until recently and our sister in having been a senior flight attendant most of her life, is still traveling the world in retirement now.

I’ve been saving a collection of postcards since she started flying. Offhandedly one day I asked if she would send me a postcard sometime from another country. So she kindly started to send them to me from around the world. Something that started back in the '70s. I actually actually actively “collecting” postcards kind of started with my foundational postcard. I had her postcards in a box with soe others, but then when I got this one postcard, I started putting them in a postcard collector album.

When I was attending Western Washington University a friend of mine and his girlfriend signed up to work at McMurto Station in Antarctica. He said you have to sign up for 6 months. So I asked him if he'd send me a postcard. He looked at me kind of weird, thought about it and said, “Sure, OK.”

Flash forward about 6+ months later and I'm walking across “Red Square” in the center of Western Washington University and there he was, with a cold. We had a nice talk and I got to thank him for the postcard. I asked what they did at night and he said everyone had a VCR in their rooms and most nights people were watching John Carpenter's “The Thing”. I asked him, “Really? Honest?” He assured me it was true. This was 1983.

Recently, I’ve got one from my sister from South America on a trip she took with one of her ex-flight attendant girlfriends. And just the other day I got one from Portugal, where she was with her husband, Joe.

Brother-in-law Joe, who paid for both of us to attend a seminar series with famed filmmaker Stanley Kramer at Bellevue Community College, in I think 1984, after I graduated college. I guess Stanley had moved there to be close to his daughter in retirement. Joe's deal was, since I was broke and back working at Tower Record's brand new Tower Video store in Tacoma (in the same location where I had previously worked at their Tower Posters)… Joe had said he'd pay for the seminar if I drive his BMW to get us there. I just saw a win-win: Great car. Great seminar.

I’m a big fan of Hollywood's Golden Age. So to sit there and listen to Stanley talk about so much of old Hollywood, including one of my all-time favorite actors, Kirk Douglas, and all about film production and filmmaking (as it was a seminar on film production: “Tell the actors you have the bank and the studio, the bank you have the studio and the actors, and the studio you have the bank and actors.”).

It was just so cool. Then I ran into Mike Rainey there, who was one of our team of eight at WWU on our team TV scriptwriting series of classes with Bob Schelonka. Hey, I should look him up on IMDb. I never thought about that. This was back in 1983-4 when IMDb and the Internet didn’t yet exist for another decade. I mean, I was first on the internet in the late 1980s at the University of Washington. But then it was a text bassed internet and now yet the WWW, or “graphical internet” which I didn't learn about until working at US West Technologies in the early to mid=90s.

Anyway, 1984 was the year of the first screenplay I ever wrote, a sci-fi titled, “Ahriman” about a prophet prince with a special ability. I had first discovered “independent study” in high school when I took an independent reading class. You could read whatever you want, then report on it to your teacher. I was a massive reader so it was kind of amazing. I rediscovered independent study in college. I had talked to two of my professors, one of them being my psychology department advisor and talked them into giving me a class credit to shoot a video in the vein of phenomenology.

Defective equipment, having to get out my soldering gun for connections, and having no working battery in the very large, reel to reel, half inch, black-and-white video machine and camera that existed at the school back then for loan, with camera Vidicon tubes that many of the cameras I checked out, jad visual blemishes that would appear on the recorded video like ghosts.

That video is I believe, up on my YouTube channel. When I graduated spring of 1984 with my degree in psychology and my minor in writing and script/screenwriting…I realized I had just enough money left in my VA educational benefits that I could take one more quarter of (summer) school and spent that whole time writing my screenplay.

I was NOT going to leave university after all that without a finished screenplay. I tried to send it out all through the 80s to no avail. I couldn't figure out how to get it to anyone. And I tried. That was in part how I ended up meeting Tony Karloff (stage name with tagline of “Son of Boris Karloff”), and his son. Apparently Tony actually had contacted Boris about the name thing and he said Boris couldn't have been kinder and said to go for it in claiming lineage.

I think I’ve talked about this screenplay in previous blogs. So I got two psychology professors, Dr. Rees my psych department advisor, and maybe it was Bob over at the theater department, to give me a one credit each in independent study to write a screenplay. I was surprised they agreed. I'd also talked to Dr Rees about staying in college, maybe get my masters. But he talked me into leaving and not getting addicted to the “protective academic environment”. That while some of us need to stay, more of us need to go out to change the world.

I took the minimal load of classes that summer to get my VA paycheck, so I could pay my rent, and eat and I attended classes. But I didn’t buy any books because they’re expensive. And I didn’t need them. I already had a degree. I spent the rest of my time each day writing. And it was past/fail so I got my two extra credits when I passed, but basically received an “A” from both profs on both screenplay evaluations.

I’ve also detailed this previously, but I used that screenplay on websites like Greenlight which Matt Damon and Ben Affleck started new screenwriters, and maybe a couple others back in the 2000s. On the Greenlight site you upload your screenplay and evaluate other people's screenplays who would then evaluate yours. Kinda 1 to 1 barter situation. Using those peer reviews, and I would get several people reviewing it, I rewrote that screenplay nine times. And I realize two things. Peer review among amateurs is exactly that. Kind of like you get what you pay for. And second, my screenplay was getting worse with each rewrite. So finally I just skipped the entire thing and sadly dropped the project.

It would be interesting now to take all versions and feed it into an AI and see what it comes up with.

I didn’t get a great screenplay out it, though it does have some interesting elements in it. Some of which I didn’t see an actual movie for 8 to 10 years. Like “The 13th Floor”. And some others.

I had based that screenplay on tempo. Not storyline, but the tempo of the movie “Brainstorm”.

Back in the summer of 1984 I heard you could rent RCA video players which play a video disc, like a vinyl audio record. I think I rented four or five movies and one was Brainstorm. I watched all the movies but I really liked Brainstorm. I believe one of the films was “The Verdict” with Paul Newman. Really liked that movie.

I then decided to use Brainstorm as a model for my screenplay. So I re-watched it, with clipboard in hand, and then watched it six more times over that next day. Eight times in two days.

By the sixth of viewing, I was really tired of watching it. But that's when you start to really see things. I wrote down the types of scenes and beats. Then I started writing my screenplay from those notes. It was an interesting exercise. It was something to do, a way to do it. And it helped me accomplish a full screenplay. To get over my fears. Before that, over that past year, I had only been writing short scripts for TV, and one act plays, things like that. Or I was writing parts of a half hour TV script, one one character's dialog, and so on.

Before I started college I couldn’t write a complete short story. I never could complete the endings because there were just too many options and I didn’t want to screw it up. Typical of amateur writers. In 10th grade I whipped out a short story one day, then never again until my senior year at university. In between, I wrote many beginnings, never endings. Which drove my friends nuts.

Hey. I just walked by a guy working on his bicycle in front of his house on the side of the road and realized he could hear what I saying, what I was recording here. That always gives me a weird feeling. I really don't like when I'm recording something about politics anymore, now a days. That's even weirder. So sad.

Anyway, Brainstorm was a way to trick my mind into completing an entire screenplay. And once reviewed, they liked it. Though my psychology professor, who's really smart, asked me, “Why did you write three screenplay in one?” I wasn't sure what he meant at first. Something today that nobody would ask.

Starting my 2nd mile...

I find this interesting. My son called me yesterday and asked if he could give my USAF challenge coin that I gave him, to his girlfriend. I said technically? No you can’t, because you didn’t earn it. Then I said, “But I would be happy to give it to her, and you can hand it to her for me and I’ll get you another one.” Which all sent me down to rabbit hole of finding another one online and updating my notes on the challenge coins I have. Which is about 15, total covering from 1968 to 1982.

The thing about his girlfriend is that over more than the past year, she’s been bouncing around hospitals without a primary prognosis that has remained unattainable. Now they say she has MRSA. Before that MS. Before that, a variety of things.

Her story is a novel, a movie about her traumatic experiences through this nightmare. She’s had heart surgeries, brain surgeries and other surgeries and has been passed from one doctor to another so that there’s legal issues involved now and potential lawsuits and she’s just been trying to survive this entire tie, fully on the edge of life and has she said if it wasn’t for my son, she'd probably be dead if not for his moral support. Which has also taken a toll on him. Some of his research and suggestions to her doctors, which they tried at first to ignore him, they eventually realized he was coming up with valid concepts and good ideas. Some we believe saved her life, several times.

So yes, he could give her a challenge coin. Absolutely, even if indirectly.

Oh, yesterday I drove up to Poulsbo, Washington where I originally bought my car at Liberty Bay Auto. Love those guys. I filled out a web form for the first time from their email, and it had an opening the next day at 11 AM. I got an email from them at 7 PM mirroring that eform. So I assumed it meant, “accepted”.

So I drive up there for the appointment and they say, “No, I had sent you an email saying we didn’t have that time slot. Maybe Friday?” Maybe it went to my spam folder. I get so many emails on a daily basis, I miss some occasionally. So I made an appointment for tomorrow and I’ll drive back the, what is it? 25 minutes to get there. I had lived in Squamish, just a few miles from there on some bucolic acreage in the woods, and it was the longest I had ever lived anywhere in my life, at 16 years.

My family had moved around a lot when I was a kid. It’s fun to go back once in a while to Poulsbo. I don’t go back often but when I do, either for my car or my dental appointment (I like Poulsbo Dental Clinic), it’s interesting how the town has built up. It’s so much nicer now. Like Tacoma which was kind of a rats nest (naw, wasn't really that bad) when I was a kid in the '60s. But kind of a nice town, anymore.

My ex-wife had remarried back, in I think 2003. Her husband had owned a restaurant we liked in Kingston, Washington on the Kitsap Peninsula. After they married, he bought a restaurant downtown Poulsbo that my ex ran, mostly. Then he got one in Quilcine. Until it was burned down accidentally by a couple of employees who were cousins. Their second restaurant there ended up with Washington state's largest restaurant tax fraud in history, because of her husband. So she says.

Well, I warned her about him. When she was dating him, I warned her that he wasn’t a good choice for a husband. But she just saw her ex being vindictive I guess. I told her that as I saw it, we were once best friends, and married. It’s over, I know. I wasn't trying to do anything but help. I may have been mad, but I still wanted her back and I did want the best for her.

That’s been my history and relationships. While I’m like anyone else, we can be not the best person in the world at times as people, especially when you’re right in the moment. But I always try to view my girlfriend or spouse as my best friend and always tried to help them, even if it meant I’d suffer for it. Because I’ll survive, but what’s better? Someone leaving you to be better or to have a better life? Or try to keep them under your control, or something?

We're not as important as those whom we choose to bring into our lives. Or under our care, as with our children.

I don’t know if it’s having been raised Catholic, or from my switching to my own special brand of Buddhism, or from my degree in psychology. But when a significant other asks for an opinion. Or especially if they say they really want our “honest” opinion, it gives one the opportunity to focus and be aware of what we are doing. To really think about their question and give them the (several) best considered responses that we can think of.

With my girlfriend back in college, that led to her having an affair and ended up, with her marrying the guy, and having two kids. At least it was serious and not just fluff.

Which I thought was much better than my oldest son’s mom who had an affair on me, who kind of left me for him? Who couldn’t handle the family life, or being a mom. Even though she was the one who kept telling me that getting married would “make her sane.” Then later said “having a child would make her sane.”

Yeah, I don’t know? Red lights? Warning sirens? A friend once lovingly told me she thought that I was, “The stupidest smart person I'd ever met.” Yeah sounds about right.

I remember my most previous ex-wife, the one with the restaurant, trend setting tax fraud husband, who once said to me, in apparently not understanding ADHD, that this, “absent-minded Professor stuff isn’t gonna work anymore for me.” I tried to explain to her I’m not doing anything on purpose. It’s just how my mind works.

Which was interesting with her stepson, and my oldest child, when she kept reading his behavior as being planned, thought out, when it clearly was just basic ADHD he got from me, along with whatever the hell his mother has. Which I think is ADHD, with some other issues.

When that last wife would get extremely angry with my son, I’d look at him and could see exactly what I went through when I was him at that age.

She was really angry with him one time and she said, “Look at him, right now. Look at that look on his face. He is being obstinate!” To be fair to her, he was difficult to raise...at times. Mostly he need more room to roam and range. When I was a kid I was never home. He was always home. Such were these times when we protect our kids to the point of what? Death? Sigh... I tried to get him all the freedom I could.

I looked down at him and I told her, “That’s not at all what I’m seeing. I’m seeing him frozen in fear because of how you’re acting. That blank look?I’ve experienced ut as a child when my mom was screaming at me. He has no clue what you're mad at right now. His mind needs time to calm and recognize what's happening.”

I remember once as a kid in the kitchen, by the stove, mom was yelling at me about something or other than I'd done and probably rightfully so. But I’m standing there looking up at her and I clearly remember my only thought was, “Why is she so mad at me? What did I do this time? What am I in trouble for doing?”

I was thinking as hard as I could, but I was locked up in my mind. Probably out of fear, I don’t know. ADHD at that moment may just have been locked up out of over-stimulation. The fear may have had nothing to do with it.

When I looked down at my son, with my younger wife, 15 years younger than me, I knew what he was going through (don't judge, she wanted that marriage even more than I had)...he may already have forgotten what he was in trouble for.

The other thing she liked to do was what happened to me as a kid a lot. But at least I knew my mom loved me a lot. And he knew his stepmom didn’t love him at all. Although in the beginning, she had been very sweet and kind to him, until finally after a few years of his rejection, she kind of snapped.

Narcissism can only handle rebuke for so long, even (or especially) from a child.

Anyway, she like to “ground “him a lot. I was grounded a lot, but that's why I stayed away from home every chance I got. It wasn't that mom was hard to be around (stepdad was), but that I knew if given the time, I'd screw something up.

As a kid I escaped into my scifi novels. It didn’t even feel like I was grounded. I'd walk into my room, pick up a book and suddenly be on another planet. I was actually pleased to get grounded sometimes. I'd rather be outside. But if I can't I loved to be immersed in scifi. I tried to teach my son about that.

When you ground a kid for a month, it's too long as he needs time to get ungrounded before he gets in trouble again. It becomes a never ending cycle. Because maybe he's frustrated and sick of being grounded and isolated which does weird things to you as a kid, or as an adult.

So when she wants (needs?) to ground him again...for another month? I told her one just can’t do that.

Well, in the end we got divorced. A lot of that was over raising our kids, and some other things. A big one I believe was in her having had multiple brain concussions a child, which can cause issues as an adult, or as a child.

When I was first dating her...her family, her entire family, lovingly and lightheartedly, kept asking me why I was with her, and that I was going to regret it. My comment was she’s the sweetest person I’ve ever met and the best mom I’ve ever seen, with her infant who I had met for the first time at eight months old. And eventually adopted after we married, at two years of age.

It took a few years, but eventually, I saw what they were talking about.

It was as it is with bipolar people. Which her older sister was, who eventually, so sadly, killed herself. I had warned them. She was on too many medications from her psychiatrist and needed a new psychiatrist. But nobody would talk to her about it. I should have, but for the family nightmare that would have caused for me. They were a nice family but one where you didn't speak of some things. My family was far more messy, you got called out for things. 

In hindsight, in knowing now that she killed herself, I wish I had said something. But honestly, I don't think it would have done anything but caused noise and problems with nothing coming of it. I've tried many times to help someone who needed it, but refused it, or couldn't see it, or was simply never ready to help themselves. Or accept help.

Missed opportunities.

Anyway, my experience of being around bipolar people, especially in a romantic relationship is that you're on top of the world with them. It's fun, exciting, novel, entertaining, at times weird. Same with narcissists. It's all fun and games, until it's not. And they turn into a nightmare. Usually of a kind you've never seen before. Which was the problem here. A type I'd never run into before.

So in my life, I’ve just avoided bipolar and borderline people. I have nothing against them. I wish them well. I want them to get help. But often they won’t or they work around the help. Of the help comes and goes, with often the normal times decreasing over time.

My ex and I were very different. People remarked about how "you guys have nothing in common, how are you together?" And our answer was always that we loved each other. Until one day I said that to her, asked her if she remembered that and she said “Love's not enough. Not anymore. “Thanks for telling me that, now.

I used to think being with somebody different from you would give you both more to learn about each other and interact about. When reality the more familiar you are in your backgrounds, as many experts have told me now… NOW… the better your chances of success and staying together.

Starting my 3rd mile…

My understanding of military challenge coins, is you have to earn them. I never saw one when I was in the service. Now, people are giving them out all over the place, to people in the service in the fundamental way of earning them, to giving them to other people either in the service, or to people they respect who are civilians, and so on.

But it’s loosened up obviously since I was in the service. My service ended in 1982 halfway through my college years. After 4 years active service there were 2 inactive years they can easily call you back into service. So my assumption now is that if you put in the service but weren't given one, you can go out and buy yourself a coin to represent the work you have done that you earned. 

So I went out, and got my own coins for my military service. Also received my certificate for "Cold War" service from the government.

Today something dawned on me. In 1968 I was in civil air patrol, an auxiliary of the USAF since the late 40s I think. Mid to late 1940s. I think it started during the war with civilians pilots taking up some slack on the domestic front, flying along our coastlines for things like submarines and enemy resources lurking along our coasts. They would then report to the military. So they were an auxiliary, and eventually were named one. Over time it morphed into other things.

Like civilian kids getting military training to do search and rescue for downed civilian aircraft. I got a lot of that training in junior high. Which helped me in the Air Force. Had I stayed in CAP longer I would’ve come out of basic training with one or two stripes instead of as a "slick sleeve". Like a couple guys did in my BMTS flight of 50 guys. I was so annoyed about that. I was only short a few months. Something that would happen in various areas of my life going forward where I would just miss out on something I'd learned, but only by a few months.

One day my CAP squadron was called up to serve at the 1968 Paine Field airport in Everett, Washington for an Airshow. Which has been held annually there. That same year the airfield delivered the first 747 as Boeing was also using that field.

Do you know the Navy's Blue Angels? They were started in the 40s. The USAF has their Thunderbirds, started in the early 50s who were at the show. I was director cars in the parking lot, a thankless job, wilting in the heat and dust kicked up by the cars. Until they called a bunch of us to stand guard keeping the large crowd of civilians away from the Thunderbird's jets while they were being refueled along the flightline.

So I’m standing there, all their jets lined up behind us, a cadet about every 10 feat, and a Thunderbird pilot walked over next to me, watching the crowd and keeping an eye on the refueling. 

So I thought, I could talk to a Thunderbird pilot! Take the opportunity! (photo above is that pilot on that day).

I started talking to him. I don’t remember what all we talked about. I just remember asking him at one point, why are we standing here guarding the planes?

He said, “It’s our job in the military to protect the civilian population. Fueling the jets with jet fuel is a dangerous operation. We don’t want the civilians getting too close in case of an explosion. That’s why you’re all standing here. As a barrier."

It was a hot day in August. So it was easy to break into a sweat at that comment. I asked him, “You mean...we could blow up?“

He looked down on me in his aviator suit with his aviator glasses, wearing his flight cap, and probably saw the fear in my eyes, which I was doing my best to hide. He responded, “That’s our job, in the military. But there’s a little chance of an explosion. We’re pretty good at this. We do this multiple times every day. But if ever we die for our country in protecting our citizens, it’s a good way to go. That’s what we sign up for. Yes?." He smiled at me.

I don’t know what it sounds like now, to hear that exchange. I can only share how it affected me at that moment, as a kid. It did exactly what he had intended. It instilled pride. It strengthened my commitment to what I had signed up for, even as a kid. And obviously, I remember it like it was yesterday. It had deeply affected me.

I was in various groups as a young kid. But the thing about CAP was at that time, you did real and serious adult things You were given responsibility. We got to do things my mother would probably never have approved of in being trained to cover mountainous terrains to search for crashed aircraft and potentially cadavers. That was all very attractive to me. The doing adult things, not the finding of cadavers. None of us wanted that, though we also all wanted to be first to find a downed plane, because that was the gold standard of exactly what we did and why we existed. I also got to fly on a C-141 Starlifter out of McChord AFB once. We had to wear our USAF uniforms as it was an official flight. We even got saluted by the SP at the gate to the bast as one of us in the car was an officer, even if they were a kid. We were kids. But we were also well trained and pretty adult when need be, or under duress.

I grew up a child of the 60s and 70s, somewhat of the 50s, but I got out of that decade at five. Though I remember a lot of it since we had moved to Spain when I was three and then Philadelphia, that same year. Then back to Tacoma in 1960. much to my disappointment. Even at 4, once out of Tacoma, I never wanted to go back. Living in Spain was awesome. I used to piss off the cantina owner, in his establishment just by the beach in Roda, Spain.

I had a lot of the attitudes in my childhood and teens of the current zeitgeist of the "love generation" and "give peace a chance." I went into the USAF because they were just no opportunities in 1973-5 for a high school graduate. I had tried to go to college in '73, even though I said after I graduated 12th grade that I would never go to school again… because K-12 (esp., K-6) sucked. ADHD sucked.

But my parents said there was no money for college and the government docs I filled out said my parents made too much money. So I was one of those trapped in: You’re too poor to go to college, but too rich to get help to go to college. It was really frustrating.

Good times. (sarcasm)

So I entered the USAF with a confused sense of patriotism, let’s say. But I came out with a more informed point of view. Albeist still a bit confused.

I have written much about the rest of this. My entire life has proven one thing to me and that is that I’m very glad I was born in America. All the times of spite and disappointment and feeling like a victim had washed away when I learned what other people in the world go through. 

Genocides. Starvation. Stupid governments. Far stupider than ours. We hear a lot of crap from conservatives about how bad our government is, as they denigrate liberals for valid criticisms of the same, but liberals aren't complaining to fund raise, but to point out what we need to work on. Very different things.

Despite all the manufactured disinformation MAGA crap, we have it pretty good in America. Yeah, we get it. Republicans can’t raise money if they say America is already great, we just have some issues to work on. But the other side are populated with so many lound and proud criminals proclaiming, "Give us money to save you!"? 

Ah well, If you look at the record they have with all the criminals lately, with a criminal Republican leader and failed exPOTUS with his gang from his last administration, how many are in prison are now indicted?

Occam’s razor, people.

I’m sorry it’s not the Democrats who are the problem in this country.

Just listening to Marc Maron joke with his guest how he’s never made it big and popular while his guest is more famous at 26 years old and hitting it big so far. Marc says at his age he knows that he pleases a few people and he’s made a living at it, but he was never the type of please everybody as some people do who become big stars.

I can relate to that. I learned a long time ago. It’s not about how much talent you have. It’s about how you translate that to enough people who want to see you again and again. And the more people who are involved as fans, the harder that is to do.

I spent my lifetime showing people things I’ve done and nearly always being highly praised for it. In the IT world as a senior technical writer, I did very very. Treated incredibly well with a great deal of respect. Which was weird at first. 

Well. I probably should’ve stuck with that career.

When I retired and had the opportunity to write and make movies, I jumped at it. So what’s the difference between the two?

I'd had millions of dollars behind me working for corporations in IT. In my early 20s, in the USAF, I was directly responsible for people's lives on a real and daily basis ("PJs" jumped my packed chutes, daily, not to mention my work on the jets) and about a $1.5mil  of government equipment. 

Now, I have just me behind me. Yeah, there’s kind of a big difference between the two.

I told my kids that working for a corporation can be soul-sucking, but it pays well. If really you love your work (which I did for the first half of my IT career), you may have a better experience. But you kind of pay for your success (and compensation) with your soul, or your humanity, or your personality. I would say it took me about 5 years after I retired to start to feel like myself. 

Friends forewarned me it would take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. I thought that was ridiculous, at first. Yeah I felt better after 6 months. Then again after about 2 years. But wasn't until about 5 years later I really felt normal again.

In that vein, after 9 or 10 years of marriage the last time, it took me 6 years to finally feel like myself again.

There’s a cost for “making it. “

So when I started out writing in the early 80s in college, I got a lot of praise in my stunned disbelief at times. So I was pretty sure I might be able to “make it “ after graduation. When I look over everything I’ve accomplished? I think I can be proud of it all. I mean I once believed that I'd make over $10/hr. But has it all paid off financially, dumping the corporate for the self supported artistic? 

Nope. Most of my arts/writer friends say the same. One of two did well, some make a bit here and there, many got nowhere.

I asked Bing Copilot AI yesterday: Tell me who “JZ Murdock “is. Just curious. Like googling yourself.

I was surprised to see what he gave back. I thought: That guy sounds pretty good. I showed it to a friend of mine and she said I always knew you were doing great things. But that write up sounded kind of creepy. I did the same with ChatGPT. It gave me a much shorter write up. Then I tried. Gemini. It said, who?

But yeah, that’s what I find in general with AI. It sounding not (to me) "creepy" but mundane. Corny even. The thought of taking AI-written text and passing it off as your own is ridiculous.

If I could get it to read all of my writings and to write a story in my style, that’s different.

But whenever I get any text out of it, I either have to reword it a lot, or rewrite it. Especially if I need it to be in my voice. But we're on a very interesting path, soon.

I don’t think we’re there yet, as far as AI overtaking the creative arts. Although that is the free public version, I’m using.

So…

I never intended to make it big. Everybody in my lifetime I know who tried to do it in the arts, has either failed or is doing just OK.

Though I would say my sister’s two kids did quite well because they're very talented and maybe young enough that they hit the world as adults at just the right time. But they also put in the labor as kids, while growing up that definitely led them into doing well, I would say, somewhat lucrative jobs. Let's say better than the norm. 

My niece is among other things, an actress who’s been in various TV shows. Her younger brother has been a "grip" on TV reality show and now is a cameraman. He's worked both in New York and LA. While his sister has been all over the world. Just like mom, only in a different career.

I only wanted to make enough to enhance my retirement a little bit because of how things went thsee last 20 years or so, raising my kids, and such.

But hey this flick ain’t over yet!

I don’t think I’ve finished what I was saying up above, about the USAF Thunderbirds. My point in that story was that I think I could get myself a Thunderbird challenge coin, of some sort. I mean, if I were in the Air Force doing that job as Thunderbird ground crew? Let's say there had been an accident. The plane behind me blew up and I died in a flame of glory or stupidity. Depending on the Air Force report. Would I then deserve a challenge coin? Let's say I didn't die, or an accident didn't happen. Would I deserve a coin?

If that pilot had handed me a Thunderbird challenge coin? Yeah, then I would definitely have earned it. Right?

Starting my final 5th mile for the day...

So yesterday was fun. I mentioned another blog that a friend of mine in Texas, no, I think she moved from here to Texas then to North Carolina...who had helped me with my social media some years ago. She recently asked me if I would do a Director's viewing with her online horror group for my film “Gumdrop “, a short horror. I said, let me send you a DVD of it with the second audio track having my director's commentary and you can listen to that before we look at doing it online, so you’ll have some background and things for your group.

So yesterday I tried to open my DVD creator software, and that was interesting. First off it couldn’t find some files because I changed the file names or moved them or something. Then when I resolved that, I couldn’t get it to burn to the DVD burner. It couldn’t recognize it.

Couple hours of playing with that, which is really annoying, and while I was talking to my son on the phone, telling him about it, suddenly I had an idea. I plugged the external DVD burner into another port and boom everything worked. So I burned her copy and I have to print a cover for the DVD cover and mail it to her.

About this Republican infection of MAGA disinformation. You know my entire life we’ve been careful about disinformation, misinformation, riling up the public, until recently when some tixic conservatives (Trump) thought, "Hey, we can grift these people! How cares who dies!"

The best inoculation for viral behavior is not going there to begin with. 

At 4.5 miles now...

Well, that was spooky. I’ve been feeling pretty good, sun beating down on me, but just now my heart started pounding. I had a sip of water as I got to 4.5 mile marker, the end of a block on the route. I walked over and stood under a tree, cooling down and drank the rest of my water. Must’ve gotten a little dehydrated. Well, when I get home, it’ll be lunch and I got a really properly cooked med well steak waiting, leftover from the other day, and some kind of very tasty Middle Eastern bread from the bakery, so lunch should be tasty and that will make me feel better. A few minutes later my head started pounding, then it stopped and I felt better overall. So yeah, probably just slight dehydration.

Marc Maron’s guest Ali Siddiq on this podcast episode did a stand-up called "The Domino Effect" (part 1, 2, 3, 4). Apparently, he had been in prison so he talked about before that happened and Mark said it was all pretty hilarious.

I bought a month of BritBox so I could watch that Cary Grant series, "Archie" (Jason Isaacs). That was pretty good. Learned a lot about him. I didn’t know much about him, just in general broad strokes. I loved his movies when I was growing up.

I also had watched one free episode of that new Sam Spade "Monsieur Spade" (Clive Own) series a while back and now I get to see the whole thing. I looked around and discovered a bunch of other things like the Martin Freeman single season/series from a few years ago about him being a cop, "A Confession". It’s pretty good. I like the concept of a show where you know that the criminal confesses in the end and then you make that story leading up to it, and the confession, interesting. Because there is no "will they catch him?", "will he confess?", because he won’t usually. While instead here, you know you’re going to get the catharsis of a confession in the end, and  it’s based on a true story. 

So apparently the water did the trick and I’m feeling good, but this last say quarter-mile is just seeming a lot longer

On that note, I’ll bid you adieu…
And I’ll leave you with that as it’s noon and time for lunch!

Cheers! Sláinte!