Revisionist History Works Both Ways

        We see the words “revisionist history” bandied about, generally by conservatives, as if it were somehow yet one more example of the evils of liberalism, vice what it usually is, a deeper search for reality than older sources cite. The recent op-ed I just responded to at some length on my blog used the term, although considering the creds of the writer, I question her understanding of the real meaning of the term.

        There is one easy example which shows the true nature of the beast: Following the  1890 Wounded Knee massacre, and using what incredibly biased reports were generated by the Army, 20 soldiers were awarded Congressional Medals of Honor for their parts in using four Hotchkiss-designed M1875 mountain guns  against the Lakota, many of whom had already been disarmed.

       By comparison, only six Medals of Honor have been awarded personnel involved in fighting in Iraq. Yet, to some, usually the “my country is always right” crowd, telling the reality is “revisionist” which by the meaning of the word it is. It is also frequently the truth.

       The same philosophy prevails in places like Kansas where school texts are approved only on the basis that they minimize the real story of the Civil Rights, Reconstruction, etc. To be equitable, it must be conceded that revisionism cuts both ways at times.

         One such example is Patrick Buchanan’s claim that Poland, Britain and France, not Germany, were responsible for World War II. Think about that for a moment. His view is that the Anglo–French guarantee to Poland in 1939 encouraged Poland not to seek a compromise over Danzig₁, though Britain and France were in no position to come to Poland's aid, and Hitler was offering the Poles an alliance in return. He argues that they thereby turned a minor border dispute into a catastrophic world conflict, and handed East Europe, including Poland, to Stalin. Buchanan further argued the British pact with Poland ensured the country would be invaded, as Stalin knew the British Empire would not be able to declare war on Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939. To be candid, this viewpoint is rejected by most historians on the grounds that Hitler would have done to Poland as he did to Austria in 1938 – simply annex it.

        Revisionism places on the reader the onus of reading more than one source if “truth” (frequently a subjective concept in any case) is to be found. Most recent revisionism however centers around recognizing previously marginalized accomplishments or events and those responsible.  

1. Danzig (Gdansk, in Polish) had been declared an “open city” with joint German/Polish access by the Versailles Treaty. As Germany rearmed, many Germans in Gdansk became Nazis and pushed for the city to become solely German. Poland as a nation would never have conceded this, so Buchanan’s point (he is an anti-Semite, and Danzig had a large Jewish merchant population most of whom were later exterminated by the Germans), is, to me more than a bit suspect.

       Another means of revisionism is to analyze the beliefs of the original writers and reevaluate their works through the lens of their inbuilt biases. A final example of an author for whom this is applicable is Theodore Roosevelt. While I find many things to admire about the man, he was a white supremacist in perspective  as well as robustly convinced that just about everything good in America was Anglo-Saxon in derivation.

        A brilliant man, a legitimate historian and a very good writer, his 1889 Four volume set, “The Winning of the West,” is a masterpiece of historiography – as T.R. saw it. In Roosevelt’s world view, essentially everything done to expand America to the Pacific and settle all that lay between was the product of vigorous and generally moral White men and, to a significantly lesser extent, women. Hispanics, persons of color, and, to an even lesser extent, Native Americans, have relatively little place in the narrative.

       Roosevelt admitted that the shedding of blood was not always “agreeable,” but deemed it the “healthy sign of the virile strength” of the American people. As president of the American Historical Association and as president of the United States, Roosevelt exulted in “our manifest destiny to swallow up the land of all adjoining nations who were too weak to withstand us.” He deemed it “desirable for the good of humanity at large that the American people should ultimately crowd out the Mexicans from their sparsely populated Northern provinces₂” and wrest the rest of the West from Indians.

Roosevelt and his peers largely ignored the simple farmers who actually built towns, schools and churches in favor of more glamorous and far more violent figures, lawmen and baddies alike.

Revisionists point out that the uncomfortable (for some) truth is that almost everything Americans know about cowboying was learned from Mexican Vaqueros. Additionally, Most of California’s culture in 1850 was Spanish in character. Roosevelt, a product of his time and his background wrote about it not as it was, specifically, but rather as he envisioned it to be.

2. Since the US had already annexed Texas and all the states along the current Mexican border were already US territories, TR must have been referring to taking what is now still Mexican territory South of the current US/Mexican Border!

Op-Ed Riposte

Imperialism (Noun) “A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.” (Oxford reference)

        Today’s local rag sports a new, fresh faced, op-ed writer named Alyssa Ahlgren. (is that name “Aryan” enough for ya?) The title of the piece is, “The Unmatched Exceptionalism of Western Culture.”  At first blush one might think, “Well, that’s a bit heavy handed but….”  In truth, what the essay actually implies, and states is just another “But Whatabbout?” collection of jingoistic garbage.

         Of course, being who she apparently is, Ms. Ahlgren just can’t help herself. She has to begin with a negative reference to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. She implies that it is a negative statement when Ms. Omar is quoted as stating, at an early November Bernie Sanders rally, that we need to end “Western Imperialism.”  She than somehow conflates ending Imperialism with rejecting western culture, which was not what MS. Omar said or implied. Of course, Ms. Ahlgren lacks any part of Ms. Omar’s frame of reference re: prejudice, racism, religious intolerance. She apparently has two egregiously incorrect points, be they her personal beliefs or simply Far Right boiler plate. The first would seem to be that if it doesn’t happen to her, then it doesn’t happen. The second and far more troubling to me is after listing all the ways in which women and minorities are treated badly elsewhere in the world, we should apparently simply rejoice that we are “better.” The terribly misguided implication here is that “better than (whomever)” is good enough. The bar she sets is typical of those white nationalists and other who reject the idea that, in the spirit of recent AT&T commercials, “okay” is what we should expect and be content with as regards our nation’s ideals regarding equality for all persons.

                I must, at this point, quote from the article, so that my contrasting statements to follow have frame of reference for the reader.

        “First of all, Western culture has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. To believe that western civilization’s sole contribution was and is minority oppression and bigotry is not only a misread of history, it’s a misunderstanding of reality.  The United States, like, all developed and successful nations, has embraced Western values and in turn benefits from free, tolerant, and prosperous societies.” 

       She then goes on to praise Israel as the only middle East country to “adopt western principles.”

       Where to start? As an actual historian, the first thing which leaps out of this drivel is that Ms. Ahlgren is looking, not at the process, but at the current result. It was quintessentially Western culture which elevated The Church to positions of primacy in all of Western European emerging nation states, where “Western Culture” originated, post Renaissance. It was those same nation states which with the Pope’s blessing Spain and Portugal were allowed, in 1494 to split the World into two distinct spheres of influence (Treaty of Tordesillas). That same Pope blessed the issuance of a document written by the Council of Castile asserting Castile's divinely ordained right to take possession of the territories of the New World and to subjugate, exploit and, when necessary, to kill the native inhabitants. It mandated that Spanish explorers were to read (in Spanish, which of course locals  couldn’t understand) a document known as the “Requerimiento” to native populations. Failure to do as the Spanish demanded (including conversion to Catholicism) was grounds for death. This death could be by fire, sword or in some cases being torn to death by dogs.  While there is no definitive toll of Spanish orchestrated Taino, Arawak and Cariban deaths. It is indisputable that it was “western culture” which was responsible. 

        In like manner, the horrors of race based African slavery began with the Portuguese and were readily adopted by the British in such hell- holes as Barbados, driven by practitioners of Ms. Ahlgren’s “free market” zeal. Early attempts to enslave native populations failed, primarily due to native susceptibility to European diseases, especially Malaria, to which Africans had some natural resistance. Between 1640 and 1834, Christian Britons bought and worked to death, in many cases, hundreds of thousands of Africans, trafficked until 1807 by British, Spanish and American slavers. Some Western culture of morality, huh?   

,

        Similarly, devout British Christians in Massachusetts Bay colony, whenever possible, forced conversion of native populations into “praying towns” or drove them off their lands farther North and West. The Pequots, resisting these attempts retaliated with minor skirmished against armed colonists. On May 26, 1637, two hours before dawn, the Puritans and their “praying” Indian allies marched on the Pequot village at Mystic, now in Connecticut, slaughtering all but a handful of its inhabitants. On June 5, Captain John Mason attacked another Pequot village, this one near present-day Stonington, and again the Indian inhabitants were defeated and massacred. On July 28, a third attack and massacre occurred near present-day Fairfield, and the Pequot War came to an end. Most of the surviving Pequot were sold into slavery, though a handful escaped, the Mashantucket group, to Long Island, where they remained for several decades.

        The incidents above are only the tip of the iceberg of how “moral”, “Christian”, Western Culture dealt with the original inhabitants of America. Sadly, every single current state, including Hawaii would see repetition of this arrogant, "our way or the highway" approach to native populations.

        Sadly, farther south, In Virginia, a year before the Mayflower sailed for Plymouth, Residents of Jamestown were already being seduced by slavery, having purchased Africans, who were eventually enslaved, from the Dutch in 1619. Even more contrary to Ms. Ahlgren’s proposition, these slaves were to replace indentured servants – Christians being virtually enslaved by richer Christians. This indentured servitude would continue in America for almost two centuries. Between the 1630s and the American Revolution, one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies arrived under indentures. These persons had few or no civil rights, depending on colony of residence, and were little more than slaves.

       The definition of Imperialism with which I began this monograph, does not speak to colonization, although Western Civilization, into the 20^th century, was responsible for the colonization of most of the African continent. Without details, too numerous to recount here, suffice it to say that all these exploits were engaged in by Western European Christians who deemed Black Africans as inferior humans, and justified horrors inflicted upon native populations on that basis.

        As for the United States which Ms. Ahlgren seems to allege was “above all that”, consider Hawaii. Forced religious conversion by US missionaries was followed by overthrow of government and annexation in 1898. To figure out why, one only needs to know that the first governor of newly annexed Hawaii was one Sanford Dole (does that last name ring a bell? Can you say government action in favor of big business?)

       Or, perhaps, consider the Philippines, freed from Christian Spain, and overwhelmingly Catholic in settled areas. Following their liberation, the US instead “pacified” and annexed them, controlling their destiny until 1947. The fact that there was the framework of government by Filipinos in place was merely a nuisance. The book “Benevolent Assimilation” recounts that, then Governor General, William H. Taft, "assured President McKinley that 'our little brown brothers' would need 'fifty or one hundred years' of close supervision 'to develop anything resembling Anglo-Saxon political principles and skills'", and reports that the military greeted Taft's assertion, "that 'Filipinos are moved by similar considerations to those which move other men' with utter scorn." Accordingly, McKinley announced that he had prayed and “God told him” to annex the Philippines. 220,000 dead Filipinos later, resistance ended. Similarly, American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico also “entered the fold.”  So, colonialism wasn’t completely absent from the American story after all. We just got into the business late.          

        As for the beginning definition: The meaning has been in transition since at least the end of WWI. Imperialism in the modern world and current sense of the word is more about projecting a nation’s philosophy and political beliefs and attitudes to other cultures than actual military acquisition of territory. As this has already become longer that I intended, I’ll just mention examples of US political and economic imperialism.

        Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan are all exemplars of US troops deployed in the interest of either propping up friendly governments (Korea and Vietnam) or attempts to establish “friendly” regimes in nations whose original leaders were unfriendly to Western Democracy. You know, Imperialism? Of these, only one, Korea, has exhibited lasting success and that was a multinational UN effort. The rest have accounted for millions of military and civilian deaths. Vietnam is as it would have been had there been no war, except 2 million of them are dead. Iraq and Afghanistan remain unresolved, but body count is closing in on ¾ of a million total. Afghan civilian deaths alone are at around 58,000. The horrific events of 911 are a fringe result of US Imperialism as involvement in Mid-East politics.

        I have written all the above to show that, contrary to Ms. Ahlgren’s criticism of Ms. Omar’s statement, US Imperialism continues into the 21^st century. I am making no judgement (here) as to whether it is justified or not, simply that it does exist.

        Regarding Ms. Ahlgren’s assertion that all good things American are a result of western culture, as she states: One simple point: African slavery and its lingering effects in the US, as well as the 58 broken treaties between the US government and native tribes  was a direct result and, initially supported by, Western self-image of racial and religious superiority. This is undebatable.

        Have we made some strides? Yes, so have most Western European nations and some of those have made more than we. Norway, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Iceland, Australia are just some of those. My problem with Ms. Ahlgren’s conclusions is that she seems to be stating that having achieved some gains in the areas of minority rights and racial and gender issues we should be bragging about what we have done rather than focusing on what remains to be done, which is significant.

She has simply set the bar low, so as to claim victory with minimal effort. As for her spin on imperialism, she simply doesn’t know what she doesn’t know.     

All the News That fits

All the News That Fits, We Print

       

Some may recognize the above title as the former mast head of the NY Times, slightly modified. Back in the day the original read “All the News That’s Fit To Print.”  Obviously for much print news media that is no longer the case.

        So where to start this day, 11/21/2019?

       In Florida oddities, a man was arrested after being discovered hiding in the ceiling of a Walmart in (where else) South Florida. Bad enough to be there. Worse to be discovered. But, his refusal to come down was apparently the last straw for the law enforcement officers who were called to the scene. After refusing several times to present himself on the floor, he was “tased”. He came down. Somewhere, Darwin is chuckling..

        In the “PhDs aren’t always bright in other areas”, category, Economist Walter Williams is at it again. He denounces essentially the entire scientific community for claims supporting the idea that global warming is a real problem. He does so, using just one book by an author, not a recognized scientist, by the way, who has cherry picked data to fit his narrative (and sell books to deplorables). Williams apparently believes this, in spite of all the 90 + percent of the world’s reputable (and actual) scientists who maintain otherwise.

        Sadly, this approach has become the norm for many conservatives who only hear what they wish to believe. If the good doctor grants credibility to this book, which I choose not to publicize by name, he must really pleasure himself to Erich Van Daniken’s “Chariots of the Gods.”

        In a more local item, a man was arrested yesterday in nearby Lady Lake, for possession of Marijuana and Cocaine with intent to sell. So? Not all that unusual, right? Well, maybe a little. It seems that location is everything. When arrested he was found to have cocaine in, among other locations in the vehicle, his ear! I’ve heard of snorting, but...? Without further amplification, one can only guess how this was meant to turn out. But wait, there’s more. The charges were escalated in severity because he was within 1000 yards of a church. At first, I was unable to come to a rational conclusion as to why this was a matter in aggravation, and then it hit me! This addendum to the law was urged by the churches, themselves, who are determined to eliminate competition regarding distribution of opiates to the masses.   

        In Kansas, animal control personnel responded to a call regarding three animals traveling together as companions along a rural county road. Oddly enough, the three escapees were a camel, a donkey and a cow. (honest!) I assume they were a sort of moving creche, getting an early start to Bethlehem. They won’t make it this year, though, as they were herded into a van and returned to their owner.

        Appropriately, the US Navy, in a rebuff to Donald Trump, who pardoned and actually promoted one of three war criminal SEALS, over the specific objections of the Chief of Naval Operations, did what Trump cannot undo, remove their SEAL designation. For these three trigger happy assassins this is equivalent to revoking their licenses to kill.

         Lest you think I’m turning on the service I served for 26 years, let me make this clear: SEALS do a nasty, clandestine and, for security reasons, usually under-recognized job. This job requires discipline and professionalism, which most maintain in the face of unimaginably difficult and split-second circumstances. As Jack Nicolson says in A Few Good Men, these guys are “The sentries who stand on the wall and protect us.” As in the same play, however, these three went off the reservation, posing proudly with their “kills” and in one instance slitting a young woman’s throat when she was captured.

       

        As with Submariners, of which I was a very senior one, SEALS are trained to a higher level, and expected to exercise discipline in doing their job. Don’t even for a moment think I’m equating the mission of Submariners with that of SEALS. The essential difference is that the training Submariners get and constantly hone is aimed at doing what is necessary in a crisis to save the lives of their shipmates or insure the survival of the boat. SEAL training is completely different, since it generally involves killing, even if while saving others.

        In civilian parlance it’s somewhat similar to comparing Police Officers to Fire Fighters. Both are terribly difficult and sometimes life-threatening callings, but with almost diametrically opposite aims in most cases.

        The Uniform Code of Military Justice was crafted to deal with these differences between military and civilian job requirements. Sadly, some of those same folks who blindly support a policeman who kills an unarmed individual, seem to feel that the rules are similar for the military. Not so much.

        Famous trial lawyer, and former Marine fighter pilot, F. Lee Bailey, famously said that if he were to be tried for a serious offense, he would prefer a military court martial over any civilian court. He went on to explain that military courts are generally far more fact driven and less emotion susceptible.

        When a Senior force Commander convenes a court martial the result is probably more likely to reflect a just determination of fact than a civilian court. When Trump overrides not one, but three verdicts over the express strenuous objection and recommendations of the senior naval officer in the nation and issues pardons for serious crimes, he is standing in waters he cannot fathom. Ordering the promotion of one of the offenders is yet a further insult. In this case, Trump is playing to an ignorant support base who have no idea of what is truly involved.

On a lighter note to close:

        An Arizona man was recently shopping the meat aisle at a Buckeye (yep, really) Arizona, Walmart. Arizona is a state which, in true Joe Arpaio spirit, requires zero proof of any sort for a gun owner to either open or concealed carry a handgun,  so our stalwart hero felt free to carry his piece "commando-style" (unholstered) beneath the waistband of his jeans. As he shopped, the unsecured gun drifted down into his jeans. Reaching to retrieve said piece, he inadvertently pulled the trigger while repositioning his weapon. He shot his own sausage, blowing off a significant portion of his low hanging fruit. Having shredded his ability to reproduce (see, there is a bright side) he survived, sadder, lighter, but probably little wiser. This article produced several amusing responses on a Facebook page where it was posted. Entries included:

"Was his gun named 'Lorena'?    "So, he went off half-cocked?"

"Fresh sausage half off!"  “His barrel was shortened that day."

"Friends call him 'snub-nose' now."

“He's not half the man he used to be."

And my favorite:  "Clean up on Aisle 4."

       

        Until next time.  

Uncivility Gone Wild

        To all you people of whatever political bent who think it reasonable, even for a moment, to accuse a career Army officer, twice wounded battle veteran, of disloyalty to the nation because you view the president as the nation:

        Donald Trump has fired a number of competent and reasonably honorable appointees for the same reason. Regardless the excuse, usually lame, it always boils down to his mistaken belief regarding his position in the greater picture.  In his narcissistic delusion, he equates loyalty to him with loyalty to the nation. Sadly, many of his sycophant base, including some shamefully toadying members of Congress, have publicly made the same leap of illogic. Oddly enough, the less intelligent and/or informed the supporter, the more firmly held this belief is generally shown to be.

        The oath of office requires loyalty to and support of the Constitution, specifically, not to any individual. There’s a reason for this, which reflects the genius of James Madison, who, believe me, would be mortified by the distortions of his masterpiece which have been applied by some (but not all) of the Republican party.  Having won independence from an autocratic Britain, which frequently used “Treason” prosecute simple differences of opinion with the crown, there was no intent to create a document which would allow the new government to become similar in nature.  The Constitution is a framework, designed to avoid exactly what Trump has attempted to do, which is rule by executive fiat and personal pressure regardless of the legality of those actions.

       It is representative of the train wreck that this administration has become, when an honorable man, deeply troubled by Presidential actions which an Ambassador (and Trump appointee) have now confirmed, and which constitute political extortion of a foreign power for personal gain, reports those concerns and is accused of disloyalty.

         At the same time the subject of this concern, grandstanding and against military Chief of Staff  recommendations, recently pardoned three convicted war criminals and then forced the Navy to promote one of them. I’ve been politically aware through the administrations of the last 15 of the Presidents in our nation’s history (yeah, I’m that old!). Never have I seen anything as base, crude and downright disgusting as recent Trump shenanigans, other than what I remember and have read regarding Joseph McCarthy’s red baiting extortion of the US Army and, even then, members of his own party had the guts to object.

       I recall Dwight Eisenhower, an honorable man, and Republican, and am appalled by the comparatively puerile, vindictive depth to which what used to be simply conservatism, has been reduced.         

Whaddabout?

But Whaddabout…?

       

        A friend, a terrific writer in his own right, has coined a descriptor which precisely describes one of the Far Right’s primary “go to” responses to criticism of bad behaviors by the great Cheetoh. He calls it “but whaddabout?” He actually spells it “what about” but those who use it in conversation usually pronounce it as I spelled it. It smacks of elementary school playground tactics in its simplicity and transparency.

        Examples abound:

        “The national deficit is disturbingly high, and soaring over the last three years, although Trump said he’d eliminate it in 8 years.”  “Oh yeah? Well, whaddabout the low unemployment?”

        A member of a veteran’s discussion group pointed out, recently, that Trump was forced to collapse his “foundation” which was actually a front for spending other people’s money on questionable causes. Another retorted: “Oh yeah? Well, whaddabout the Clinton Foundation?” (I’ll expand on this because it screams for more information)

 Me: “Check Charity Navigator for more data on the Clinton foundation.” 

(Charity Navigator, a non-aligned and long-standing charity rating organization, rates the Clinton Foundation 4 stars out of a possible four.  It is rated 93 (a high rating) for transparency and fiscal accountability. The Donald J. Trump foundation, on the other hand  has a zero rating, having refused to submit financial records, but there is a warning to potential donors of high concern, based on various legal challenges (which it lists) to its legitimacy.    

Him: “Why would I trust any source which would rate the Clinton Foundation highly?”       Whaddabout… (or WTF)?

        In similar manner, mention any allegation of financial impropriety related to Trump’s continued profiteering from businesses from which his corporation was supposed to disengage and…

 “But whaddabout Uranium one?” 

 I won’t even bore you with the reasons why one vote in a 9-person committee, several of whom were Republican appointees, and all of whom voted affirmatively, is exactly that, an 11% share of the responsibility.

        One significant aspect of this phenomenon is that examples of current malfeasance by Trump and his acolytes are consistently met with “whaddabouts” based on events which have passed and are irrelevant.

        On final example from the Obama years:

       A historian reviewing events related to tragedies at US foreign embassies, might well reflect on the Reagan administration’s horrible record. During the entire Benghazi farce, laden with vitriol aimed at SecState Clinton (and still resurrected from time to time as a deflection from current Republican malfeasance) there was no mention of the more than 250 deaths in US embassies at the hands of terrorists. These were during the Reagan administration. After the first, (the infamous Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut) a bipartisan committee convened to discuss measures which should be taken to prevent further such incidents. These recommendations were slow to be instituted and another attack occurred, resulting in the video-taped execution of the ambassador. In all of this, no one blamed either the President or the SecState. In fact, Reagan analogized the lack of proper security implementation as recommended by Congress to delays in remodeling a kitchen.  Yet, even today, we periodically hear “But whaddabout Benghazi?”          

        This childish refusal to engage in real dialogue saddens and frustrates those of us who feel we, as a nation, deserve better.

A Possible Explanation

A Possible Explanation.

In 1989, a female jogger in Central Park was raped and beaten nearly to death.  This violent attack upon a white investment banker was, almost immediately labeled the “crime of the century.”  Intense public pressure to solve the case led to the rapid arrest of five young (14 to 16 years old) men who were black and Latino.

        After intense interrogations, ranging from 14 to 30 hours in length, four of the five confessed to the crime, but all five were charged with the attack. It is significant that (a) the boys soon recanted their confessions which they blamed on police coercion, (b) no physical evidence linked the young men to the crime, (c) no physical evidence indicated that there was more than one attacker, (d) the semen found in the victim did not match any of the young men, and (e) the four confessions were inconsistent with each other and with the physical evidence from the crime scene. In spite of this complete lack of forensic evidence, all five of the young men were convicted and sent to jail.  Real estate developer Donald Trump called for their swift execution in a full-page newspaper ad.

        Thirteen years later, Matias Reyes, who was serving a life sentence for murder, confessed to the crime. His DNA was a perfect match for the semen (and only forensic trace) recovered from the victim.  His was the only semen recovered from the victim.  The attack on the jogger was similar in M.O. to his other rapes, none of which involved any other perpetrator.

Eventually, the Central Park 5 settled a wrongful conviction lawsuit with the City of New York for $41 million.

       Most of us have heard this story recently. I only describe it in this detail because, to me, it leads to a connection to current events of another sort. Although the evidence of the innocence of the five convicted erroneously of this horrific crime was indisputable and overwhelming, evidence of their innocence did not change the minds of several individuals.

Linda Fairstein, founder of the NYPD SVU, overall case coordinator then and now a well-known crime fiction author, maintains that it was a righteous conviction.    

The lead prosecutor, still claims that the five young men were indeed “still guilty” and that Reyes was simply an additional perpetrator—an “unindicted co-ejaculator.”

The head detective said: ‘This lunatic [Reyes] concocts this wild story and these people fell for it.”

The second chair lawyer in the prosecution still calls the taped confessions “pretty compelling” notwithstanding their inconsistencies and the fact that of the first 325 DNA exonerations in the U.S., 27% involved false, extorted confessions.

Here’s the good part. Donald Trump, in 2013, tweeted (what else?) that Ken Burns’ award-winning documentary on the Central Park 5’s innocence was “…. a one-sided piece of garbage that didn’t explain the horrific crimes of these young men while in the park.”

      OK, so why all this history? I wrote all this to illustrate a phenomenon referred to in the psychological literature as Cognitive Dissonance.

        In the above examples, the issue is that a long and deeply held belief is challenged by facts which refute that belief.

       
        One example from history is a case of Dr. Freud’s in which a young woman, on  seeing her beloved (and assumed faithful) father enter what she knows to be a brothel, becomes deeply troubled and demonstrates various symptoms (hysterical blindness among them) as a result of the dissonance between what was tightly held belief and what was shown to be reality.

]
       Similarly, the assumed guilt of five young men of color as we have seen since, fits Donald Trump’s racial and social world view, ergo anything which threatens that position causes anger and disbelief. In the case of the prosecutors and law enforcement individuals involved, a proof of innocence challenges their belief in the absolute rectitude of their job performance.

        In the above examples (of the Central Park events), the result of the dissonance is simply denial. In the earlier case of the young woman, the result was more disabling and seemingly, at first, unrelated. The point is that the magnitude and nature of cognitive dissonance can cover a wide array of reactions from mild to extreme.

        I said all that to say this: the response to being presented with a cognitive dissonance can range from denial, to anger to violence. I have seen all these responses exhibited by Trump supporters when faced with Trump behavior(s) which are at odds with what they know to be proper or appropriate. This is magnified by the fact that, for many supporters, the real reason for their tightly held adoration lays below the surface so far that it’s more visceral than objective. Ok, ok, here’s an example: Many folks. as we know. are fond of Trump because they’ve seen and heard all the code words for white supremacy yet attempt to justify their hero worship by citing more “acceptable” actions.

         Supporting Trump’s tariffs is one such example of many. By every standard of economics they are a failure. American farmers have been subsidized (so far) an extra $15 billion due to tariffs causing loss of Chinese soy-bean markets. The fact that this would build three of Trump’s $5 billion walls is seemingly contradictory. Rather than acknowledge this fact, an obvious dissonance, since on one hand they proclaim Trump’s genius and yet he’s an obvious economic dunce, is anger directed at anyone who points this out. It is the externalization of internal conflict, directed at the source of the contradictory truth.

        Another example: we have heard for years the term “tax and spend” liberals. Rising Republican star Paul Ryan and his cohorts were “deficit hawks”, clamoring for reductions in spending on persons who need help. And yet, and yet. We have at present what is, by any definition, a strong economy, yet we see a huge deficit, actually as large as ones Obama had during a major recession and Wall Street bailout. Many Trump supporters were entranced by campaign promises such as:  

On balancing the federal budget:

 "It can be done. ... It will take place and it will go relatively quickly.  ... If you have the right people, like, in the agencies and the various people that do the balancing ... you can cut the numbers by two pennies and three pennies and balance a budget quickly and have a stronger and better country."

On Eliminating the federal debt in 8 years”

"We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt. ... Well, I would say over a period of eight years.”  

This not only hasn’t happened, it’s escalated astronomically. This should, and perhaps does, produce huge cognitive dissonance among the devotees, yet we hear no complaint. Rather we get “But what about....? (insert anything Obama or Clinton here). Even worse we just see rage aimed at the messenger.

       In my opinion, all this derives from the hard core Trumpists’ absolute inability or unwillingness, (probably both) to confront the fact that all these ill-advised actions are insufficient to override the deep-rooted bond of racism that created the relationship in the first place.

          

If, by reading this, you have come to believe that Trump supporters are suffering from mental issues….well, that’s your conclusion.

Get them a dictionary

Get them a dictionary

       Arianna Cohen, in a recent op-ed, scathingly derided the Washington Post for using the descriptor “austere cleric” to describe the late and unlamented Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in an article on the recent successful raid aimed at his termination. Both Ms. Cohen and SecState Mike Pompeo, seemingly ignorant of the meaning of the words used, went literarily berserk declaring that they words “murderer”, “Jihadi”, “terrorist” and others, similar in nature, were the proper terms, and of course implying that The Post and ergo Publisher Jeff Bezos were…pick one, “soft on terrorism”, ultra-liberals, “un-American, …you name it, they want their readers to believe it.

              There was so much (and so similar) wrong with both pundit’s allegations that I’ll simple address the gist. It is classic “Fake News” and typically, it is exemplary of the Trump tactic of shaming the innocent while engaging in the media distortion so common of this administration and so many of those in it who deal with the public.

               First: the words which made their heads explode: “austere cleric.”

"Austere": “Severe or strict in manner, attitude, or appearance.” Secondarily it is used to describe lifestyle, “(of living conditions or a way of life) having no comforts or luxuries; harsh or ascetic”

“Cleric:” Any individual with the equivalent of a PhD in any theology, as al-Baghdadi held, is properly described as a cleric. Period.

       There can be no informed rational disagreement with this descriptor, which, rather than a character evaluation as the Far-Right media seem to think it, precisely describes the late asshole’s persona to a tee. One is left to guess that Ms. Cohen and Secretary Pompeo simply have no idea what the word means. The other point of note here is that these words were used to describe al-Baghdadi as he was prior to the 2003 destabilization of Iraq, when no one knew his name.    

       The real sham here is that, both Pompeo and Cohen (and a slew of lesser Far Right illiterates), seizing on words they should have , but apparently don’t understand, seem to have stopped reading before they got to the  part were the Post writer said: “…notorious, vicious and — for a time — successful terrorist groups of modern times. Under his guidance, it would burst into the public consciousness as the Islamic State, an organization that would seize control of entire cities in Iraq and Syria and become a byword for shocking brutality.” …. “a messianic figure drawn to the harshest interpretations of Islamic texts and seized with the conviction that all dissenters should be put to death.” ….or, “embraced a kind of extreme brutality that would become the group’s trademark. and finally, “Mr. Baghdadi reveled in ghoulish displays of violence, often as the subject of elaborately produced videos. His followers carried out mass crucifixions, turned female captives into sex slaves and gleefully executed prisoners by stoning, hacking or burning them alive — always with Mr. Baghdadi’s implicit blessing.” 

If reading that allows one to believe that The Post was “whitewashing” this man, then I’d hate to see a critical article!

The Real Reason

I’ve spent a lot of time, off and on, considering the reactions of Trump supporters to criticism of their leader. I have no respect, but do have understanding, of those who are overtly racist and acknowledge it. They, at least, can look in the mirror and understand what they see. Are they un-American? I think so. Are they dangerous? Can you say Dylan Roof? But they are truthful, however dire and heinous their truth is.  

        I’m much more troubled by those who hide whatever their real motivation may be behind the flag labeled “patriotism.” As an example, critics of Trump are chastised for being “disloyal” or “unpatriotic” or “disrespectful” of the President. Some will cite all three. If they conflate the man with the office and assume both deserve the same respect, then they are either 1: sadly misguided, or 2: blindly hypocritical. The first error is that there is no organization in a free society where the office confers a legal obligation for personal respect, no matter how amoral the holder.

        Most of us have at least once worked in an organization under the command or supervision of someone either incompetent or unable to relate to subordinates. This may be a hated supervisor who is obeyed because the job requires it, yet massively disliked by employees. Some of us, myself notably, have had to be the filter between the areshole in charge and those who must accomplish the organizational mission. To a great extent this is the difference between management and leadership. Managers manipulate people and material. Leaders provide vision and encouragement. Good leaders lift people up, poor ones suppress them. Good leaders are comfortable in one on one personal situations, poor leaders operate like gravity - macroscopically and at distance.   The revolving door in the Trump administration, marked by all the “acting” heads of departments, because he hasn’t been able to confirm new ones, would seem to indicate that Trump’s is the latter style. Comments from staunch Republicans leaving the administration via resignation supports this theory. The inability to process all this very public and visible data and activity is representative of the second sycophant possibility - blind obedience based on some deep and unspoken connection reflecting private refusal to acknowledge the visible carnage.  

        So, here’s my “self-test” for Trumpists to determine where you really stand. Take a moment to reflect on how irate you were when Michelle Obama was criticized for caring about how school kids ate. Recall how mad and empathetic you were when the two Obama daughters were slandered and subjected to critics for their clothing choices. Reflect on all the times someone said slanderous things about President Barack Obama and he responded as a bully with public temper and/or twitter tantrums. Can’t think of any? Me either. 

         If you still want to play the “respect card”, then here’s the final balance. Respect cannot be commanded or legislated. It is earned, and right now Trump’s account is empty. If you can’t see that, then look in the mirror and meet the problem face to face, because if you still support this man’s actions or public performances, there is something deeper, darker, and unacknowledged at work.