Jacob Chansley, AKA Jake Angeli, Arizona man makes first court appearance in for charges related to storming the U.S. Capitol. His mom says he hasn’t eaten since Friday because the detention facility won’t feed him all organic food. @abc15pic.twitter.com/doTLFal4At
Bro, bro, if you tryin to eat right bro you need to check this out bro seriously bro you aint gonna eat right if they lock U up bro that's the thing like its all process carbs bro and you're body mass ratio will be FUUUUUUUUUGGED by the time they let you out of there bro so FUUUUUUUUUGGED so you shouldnt be like breakin in to gobermint buildings bro because yeah sure U get to turbo the Insta for a hot minute and everbody checked out you're sick gear and yeah you look super righteous bro but you gotta think long term bro about your Temple your Temple bro seriously bro you gotta think about that because the garbage they feed you in prison bro that stuff is gonna pollute you're situation and its not paleo and its not organic and its not clean protein and they aint gonna let you juice an shit its just messed up bro so bro don't be thinking about you're Insta bro instead you gotta look at the big picture bro an take care of your Temple ok bro peace out U-D-Man
Rebels without causes are easily attracted to personality cults. They slip easily into the comfort of a kindred mob's nonspecific fury, claiming no lofty ideals beyond a vague notion of an empty image of an aloof figure upon whom they project their hazily bilious aspirations.
If you've never read "The True Believer", it's a beautifully-written short book that (along with Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly") is required reading for our era.
Everyone knows the term coined by its title, and the book was once considered an essential classic, but its decline into obscurity paralleled our own critical decline. We should never have lost touch with the key principles therein.
There's a clear fact everyone with political experience understands completely but which news media will not explicitly say because it can't be "proven":
Trump doesn't fear impeachment because it will bar him from the presidency in 2024. He doesn't care. He hates being president. But if he's running (which - why the hell not? - he'll announce on Jan 21) he gets to suck money from his supporters for the next four years. And never forget (he sure doesn't) that half a billion dollars of debt is soon coming due.
The voter fraud charade was a fund-raising scam. He milked hundreds of millions from followers who thought they were helping his legal fight. That fight consisted of three idiot lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits without even making an effort. Virtually all were thrown out of court while Donny pocketed the cash. That was the point. That was the gist of this latest con.
His reelection campaign would continue that same scam. An excuse to pocket money. Impeachment (with conviction) would ruin it, because the "2024 campaign" pretense would no longer work. That's why he fears impeachment. It's about the money.
That's the dynamic here. Bear this in mind amid all the pro-wrestling fake beef bullshit from the right and the credulous face-value reporting from the left and center.
Prediction: if he's impeached and convicted (unlikely but possible), he'll still fake-campaign for 2024, and his followers will still send him money.
Just a quick note to say that I'm incredibly selective about what I retweet from my Twitter account. I never just stoke my own confirmation bias. It's either 1. counter-intuitive and credible takes, 2. particularly well-expressed surmises, 3. nuances previously missed, or 4. super funny. Plus brief announcements of new Slog postings.
You can also read over my shoulder my "Must-Read" Twitter list. It includes a few dozen people of diverse political opinions (all anti-Trump; I failed to find a sane MAGA voice) plus some additional color. There is a disproportionate number of conservative anti-Trumpers, because they tend to view this whole situation with insight rather than blind fury (I'm super-sick of being told he's a racist and this isn't normal. I got that the moment he rode down the escalator spouting about how Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals).
The swarming of the Capital (turn on your TV) is, in my view, a positive development.
The spittle-flecked violent nuts and hoodlums perpetrating this are utterly beyond reason. They've always been out here, and will always remain. I don't waste much time thinking about them.
I'm thinking entirely about my Republican friends and neighbors - nice, reasonable people who for various reasons (largely: tribal momentum, political underinformation - they're busy! - and misinformation via Fox News) supported Trump while disliking lots of things about him.
They are (mostly) not spittle-flecked, and have not enjoyed Trump's post-election antics. They're sensible enough to recognize a sore loser. And they're not going to be cool with armed insurrection in the US Capital. This will only help the fever to break.
This is not hoodlums and brownshirts taking over. This is edge case extremists emboldened to sufficient excess to lose their tether with the tens of millions on the center right. This is too far.
To be sure, one or two of my neighbors are likely stoked with this news. But not most of them. And foundational societal movement - especially the critical inclination of Americans to revert to the mean - is about majorities, not edge cases.
We've been hearing about the Civil War in the Republican Party this week - first among Georgia Republicans, but very quickly spreading to Washington (see Mitch McConnell's speech today and Pence's letter, both breaking free of the cult), and now it's super-rapidly consumed the country. This isn't MAGAs versus Libtards (as these crazies in DC imagine). It's center right versus radical right. This is where the center begins to unhitch from the extreme. It's by no means the death of Trumpism, but it's definitely the beginning of the end.
Many families have a Big Lie, or even several. You know; the thing everyone knows to never mention.
It amounts to a curse placed by elders on their loved ones.
The kids are never directly instructed, because that would require talking about it. So they're forced to glean their marching orders from nonverbal feedback. And they don't know where it ends. The embargo might be about one certain thing - one realm - or it might encompass half the world. They have no way of knowing, because you won't explain, because non-discussion is the whole point.
From the parents' perspective, it's clear enough: simply stay away from this one certain subject. Easy! Aside from that, sure, truth, honesty, and knowing are highly valued. The parents see a crisp boundary.
But the children don't experience this crispness. The Dark Matter feels like an indeterminate blob, and they can only conclude that truth is pliable at best. One can't revere truth while silently harboring falsehood. Parents think they've simply created an exception - a trivial carve-out from the greater good that is Truth. But kids are left wondering where to draw the line. Which way is up, and which way is down?
The inevitable result of Big Lies - in the "micro" of family or the "macro" of nation - is the feeling of living under autocracy, where leaders dictate Truth itself. Life becomes essentially truthless when indeterminate cut-outs silently lurk.
If your family harbors a Big Lie, consider whether its repression is worth cursing your kids to queasy truthlessness. Remember, the cut-out was carved on your terms and you've left them no determinate map. You own the compartmentalization, and while you can easily see its contours, your no-mention policy leaves those around you struggling through a dark maze of indeterminate scope. A gulag.
Consider sitting down your kids (even if they're grown) and finally talking it through. Give them some closure; some sensation of ground beneath their feet; some reassurance that truth isn't an empty affirmation to be sneered at whenever inconvenient. Free them from the gulag, even if the truth is unflattering to you or to the myths that prop up your self-esteem.
Here's my life arc explained in a single short paragraph (a feat of framing! It's taken many many years to back up the camera far enough to capture this wide a shot):
Jazz was passé in the 80s and 90s. Blogs were passé in the 00s. Smartphone apps were passé in the 10s. Web sites, however, were sexy and appealing in 1997. And that's why Chowhound was my only undertaking that sparked any wide interest.
"But, wait!" you object. "Chowhound was really good! It wasn't successful simply because web sites happened to be fashionable!"
Well, being good certainly didn't hurt us. But plenty of operations from that era prospered without being the least bit heartfelt, thoughtful, or cleverly innovative.
"But, wait!" you object. "The form - the media - doesn't matter! It's all about the content! To say you've built a smartphone app or write a blog tells people nothing about how useful and compelling your's is!"
Sure! Hey, that reminds me to invite you to swing by my exceptionally creative MySpace page! I know, I know...MySpace sucks. But - really! - I've done something extremely cool there! Come see! Hey, why aren't you clicking? Don't you wanna see it? Didn't you just say the form isn't the thing? Ok, well, then, would you maybe consider buying my brilliant 8-track tapes? Hello? Still there?
Mark my words. If you ever find yourself expecting to pitch something on the basis of "...but my version's better!", you are on the wrong track. First: quality barely counts at all. People can scarcely recognize quality, much less appreciate it. Second: masses are moved only by category, not iteration. If you're inexorably pulled to devote yourself to quality and iteration, fine, but don't expect more than a tiny handful to care, if that. I'm not being cynical, I'm being realistic.
If you devote yourself to doing quality (and not just posing at it), know that you have chosen the path of a spiritual renunciate. You are working to please God (or whatever transcendent higher construct you'd care to frame, from dead ancestors to a nondescript all-embracing Everythingness). There is no foothold in society for you. Genuinely good work that becomes popular does so despite its quality, not because of it.
Your best hope for society to take the least notice is to latch onto a hot, flashy, fashionable sector/form/realm and ride the greater wave. You might, incidentally, make it awesome, for your private sanity and satisfaction; for the proverbial "shits-and-giggles" (fortuitously, that's the best mind frame for producing quality, anyway: deep commitment fused with lightly bemused expectations).
Obviously, you'll want to open this video in full-screen (hit the icon in the lower right corner).
Several people have, over the years, peered over my shoulder while I wrote. I hate to see them do it, because my aphasia (difficulty finding certain words in real time) makes my writing process seem tiresome, and I worry that I'll stress them out. It's okay for me, because I've cultivated blithe patience via the acceptance of inviolable reality.
This is what professionals must do. Seasoned ice fishermen don't kibbitz about how frickin' cold it is. Urban bus drivers don't scowl at poor drivers. And professional house movers don't grunt and moan as they lift.
Whiney ice fishermen, scowling bus drivers, and moaning house movers don't last long. They're locked up somewhere, sipping broth.
But the upshot I've heard from such looky-loos has been surprising. Oddly, they often get something from their glimpse into my process. I suppose it's like "The Tortoise and the Hare" or the Special Olympics. An "inspiring display of perseverance" or whatever. It's so courageous to see the poor dear painstakingly struggle to rise above his constraints.
So I figured it might be interesting to share here. One thing's for certain: this verifies my observation that writing = editing. As I noted on Twitter recently:
Writing = Editing, and ideas come from invisible magical fairies.
We live in the intersection of two waves, one viral and the other political (nationalist/populist). We are, per the apocryphal Chinese curse, "living in interesting times". And there's no greater sin than to live amid stress and challenge while failing to keep one's eyes wide open and soak in as much first-hand insight as one possibly can.
There's not much to learn amid boring tedium. So when it all starts roiling, we can emit a piercing infantile shriek until it all settles back down to tedium, or we can watch and learn. We could read about these patterns in books, but, to quote intellectual thought leader Marvin Pentz Gay Jr, "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing (Baby)".
Britain, no surprise (Boris and Donald being cut from the same cloth), is doing something monumentally stupid. Leaders there have convinced themselves that it would be fairer to delay the second vaccine dose for those already vaccinated, in order to allow a broader range of voters the population to receive a first dose sooner.
This is how politicians think. Unfortunately, it's not how scientists think, and vaccines are a scientific instrument. How will pushing the second dose forward a few weeks affect the immunization process? Forgive the technical jargon, but medical experts have responded with "Geez, who knows?"
This is what happens when government gets lopsided, and the right-brained "Let's seem be fair and good and just" dominates the left-brained "Let's smartly game this out."
One can easily empathize with the perspective (framing!): "We have 30 carrots and 60 hungry people. So we'll slice each carrot in half, and await fresh carrots! Voila! Solomonic wisdom!"
My empathy does not signify agreement (though cultural blocks against empathizing-while-disagreeing are so fundamental that the inhibition is even baked into our language. Never empathize with stupid! Never empathize with crazy! Doing so marks you as a facilitator/appeaser of stupid/craziness!). So while I can understand and empathize, my objection is easily stated: Vaccines aren't like carrots, you grotesque morons.
One of my friends is among the smarter people walking this Earth, and some time ago he arrived at a solution for the Middle East mess: nuke it. Nuke it all. Remove the people, remove the problem, as well as the ongoing spillover from the problem which has been the engine for such mayhem in this world.
You likely visualize a blood-thirsty, raging, racist psychopath. But no. He's one of the gentlest, kindest, most reasonable people I've ever met. I've never seen him lose his temper in 35 years. He is incapable of unkindness, and will make himself helpful to anyone in any way. He'd take an hour to explain a complex issue for someone he can't stand and who'd asked impolitely. He's way nicer than you are.
If you empathize with - or at least try to understand - his perspective (which most people would resist doing, because its monstrousness seemingly disqualifies it from such consideration), you'll recognize that, beyond the obvious, er, issues, it is not intellectually unreasonable.
It's the sort of solution a computer would come up with. Input this: "Hatred and vengeance extending back centuries. No clear path forward. An entire planet endangered by a toxic, entrenched conflict that won't cool for generations, if ever." An output of "Nuke it all" follows impeccable computer logic, if not human judgement.
And this is why we don't run countries by computer logic. We actually do need politicians.
The reason my friend is so smart is because his mind works like a computer. He doesn't get bogged down with emotional hoo-haw. Normally, this is very effective for him. But the problem with surgically excising emotional hoo-haw is that at some point you'll unwittingly propose a solution built upon the cool computer logic everyone normally appreciates, but which really really really conflicts with all things human and good. If you don't self-impose a "gut check", all bets are off.
Having painstakingly trained himself to excise gut from cognition (with normally beneficial results), monstrousness can emerge from this otherwise lovely and reasonable person, leaving him hopelessly confused by the extremely hostile reaction to his thoughtful proposal.
Some of his friends have parted ways with him over this, which mystifies him. Having appreciated his cold hard logic for years, why would they suddenly turn against him for more of the same? It's reminiscent of how we turned viciously against the sort of people who are our war heroes, who work our vital dirty jobs, and who dug bodies from the smoldering 9/11 WTC pile, when their characteristic hard-boiled scoff-at-danger toughness led them to poo-poo face masks. Societal feedback can be maddeningly inconsistent.
We need all types. Emotional and intellectual and every gradation in between. I take a hippy-dippy "it takes all kinds" attitude, and don't expect any person to contain all human chunks in optimal proportion. I'm anthill-minded, with faith that the big picture will naturally come to balance - more or less, and in lumpy fits and starts. It's okay if many of us are partial people. We partial people have depth, while "complete"-seeming people (CSP) are rarely more than a single atom deep in any portion of their broad silhouette. I don't trust CSPs. They're inevitably mere veneers. They work on the seeming, not the being or doing. Fine for them, maybe, but useless for the rest of us. I respect narrow specialists.
My friend is partial, but he's a hell of a terrific specialist. He delivers his chunks with fantastic consistency, reliability, and flair. That said, I absolutely wouldn't want him to ever become president. Pure logical intellectualism is not (sorry, Plato) an apt guiding principle. You need softer-headed, warmer-hearted emotionalism in the mix, as well. I shudder to imagine a society led by parties incapable of gut-checks. Never put pure intellectuals in unchecked control. Yikes.
But the soft-heads in UK have fallen into the opposite excess. All soft-headedness and emotion, without a speck of frickin' logic.
