Passages

Bill Maher. I'm a fan, with some hesitation. Sometimes he is so arrogant and decidedly wrong in his opinionated self that he will say the stupidest shit imaginable. He actually asked President Obama AND Cornel West if they were just faking it about believing in God because they're too smart to believe in fairy tales. He knows that their intelligence is self-evident, but he's too blind to understand that faith is called faith for a reason. A wiser man would say to himself, "These people are smart, so maybe religious belief isn't proof of stupidity." But he's as narcissistic as Donald Trump in his reasoning:

"I'm smart and I think religion is ridiculous. Therefore, all smart people should think what I do, because, in case I haven't mentioned it, I'm smart."

He is also wrong on some other things. Anti-vax tripe. Thinking it's groovy if an older woman has sex with a 12 year old boy. That kind of thing.

But I think he's smart and funny and I agree with him on a lot of things, too. My husband and I watch "Real Time" religiously (unintentional pun). To me, the good more than outweighs the bad with Bill Maher. I just wish someone would talk to him about developing a little humility. It's clear he doesn't want to turn into Donald Trump.

If you don't know what I'm talking about with the title of this piece, Google Bill Maher and Ben Sasse, and you'll see his joke about being a house . . . (I don't use the word, so I'm not putting it here, even in the name of journalistic integrity.)

When he said it, I gasped in shock. I understood the context and it was a clever and knowledgable comeback--Bill Maher knows enough to know that, during slavery, there was a name for slaves who worked in the house vs. those who worked in the fields. And because Maher's ultimate god is the spontaneous joke, he said it. He has gone after racism enough on his show to think (deludedly) that his non-racist bona fides made it permissible.

I have seen this a lot in the last few years. White people who have really good Black friends and think of themselves as post-racial use the n word and think it's okay, because they have Black friends, have dated/slept with Black people. They've partied with them! They listen to rap music.

So everyone (Black and White) should know there's no intent behind the world. They're cool.

This is not the first time Bill has used the n word on this show. He used it once when his great buddy, D.L. Hughley was on the show. The context was not meant to be demeaning in any way, but I saw D.L. give him a look. That look. That "Are you crazy, motherf'er?" look. And Bill was like, "What, I can't say it? C'mon man. After all this time. You know me. We've partied together. . ."

This rap is so old it used to be, "I can't be racist; I have Negro friends." And D.L. didn't excuse it, but he didn't punch Bill's lights out, either, which I could tell he really wanted to do.

The only thing missing from Bill's apologia to D.L. was, "Hey, rappers say the word all the time and they're the quintessence of cool."

It's the conservatives' favorite thing to say when one of theirs uses the n word. "Double standard," they whine, like babies deprived of the most desired of lollipops. Because saying the n word is just such a freaking thrill. I mean, first they didn't get to ride the ferris wheel and now this.

So let me be the first to clue you. If you think saying that word is some kind of gift or freedom, there's something terribly wrong with you.

You're not alone, though. I read Randall Kennedy's book on the subject, but I won't write the title because, in case you haven't noticed, I don't use that word.

He gave a pass to "some" White people to use the word "in some contexts." Kennedy is Black and he clerked for Thurgood Marshall, but I am convinced I know that Thurgood would not agree with him on this. Marshall used to use the term HNIC about himself, but when talking to White people he cleaned it up to Head Negro in Charge. Because he knew he wouldn't want White people to think using the word was a-okay.

So. I don't care how many Black friends you have, how well you understand "Black culture" (like "Black culture is a monolith, one size fits all," anyhoo), you're married to a Black person, you're Rachel FREAKING Dolezal, I DON'T CARE.

If you're White, be smart enough not to use a word that is so explosive that, to this day, it's seen in courts as akin to pulling out a gun.

Be cool enough, too, to have a sense of the wider world. We don't live in a post-racial society. Some southerners are threatening to kill anyone who takes down the statues memorializing the Confederacy and Lebron James just came home to a graffitied house using the word you think is okay for you to say.

So, my fellow White people, buy a clue and some perspective and don't use the word.

Maybe one day, we'll live in a society where it's okay for Whites to use that word, but if I'm gonna have a dream, it's going to be that that word is no longer recognized in society, because it's so specious and antiquated.

ETA: My husband asked if I'm going to stop watching Politically Incorrect because of this. The answer is no.

But D.L., talk to your brother. Tell him that this is decidedly uncool. Maybe he'll listen to you.

When I was teaching 8th grade English in the mid-eighties, one of the books students read on their own and then were tested on was House of Stairs by William Sleator. While the characters are one-dimensional and the dialogue stilted, I was drawn to the dystopian metaphor of five "throwaway" children (no parents to interfere) being transported to a "house of stairs," a "building" with no floor, just never-ending staircases and small landings and narrow bridges. There is a machine that dispenses food pellets and a toilet that is also the source of water. At first the food dispensing seems random, but then it begins to reward particular behavior.

The clunky underpinning is that it's a scientific experiment to create for the President his requested "group of young people, an elite corps, who would be able to follow unquestioningly any order given to them, no matter how . . . uh . . . distasteful or unnecessary it might at first seem; and who, furthermore, would be so cautious and so later that they would be very unlikely every to be interrupted or . . . well, to get caught."

(I can see Trump being delighted with and or requesting such a cadre.)

While it wasn't a book I enjoyed, I thought of it from time to time and decided I wanted to re-read it. It took me a while to relocate it, because I wasn't sure of the title and I had no memory of the author's name. Periodically, I would think about it and try to describe it in a way that Google could show me the title. Eventually, I was able to put it all together and ordered it from Inter-library Loan because I was pretty sure I didn't want to own it.

And I don't. But I think I've become a more incisive reader over the last 30 years, and the concept of brainwashing through positive and negative reinforcement has never seemed more real to me than it has with our nation's current disdain for facts that interfere with what are now political fantasists.

The book showed that three of the five were only too willing to be manipulated by the machine in order to receive the occasional food pellet. But two refused, and their different reasons for that resistance are overtly drawn for the reader.

I was struck by certain parallels to the television show, The OA. In both, the prisoners are observed for their behaviors, dispensed food pellets and their water source must be used for drinking and waste disposal. And in both cases, synchronized dancing is rewarded.

The book is still quite thought-provoking. And I will end this by quoting an Amazon reviewer, who also read it 30 years ago and had to search it out: "I work in a prison and many of our supervisors are "by the book" with no heart and one step away from being a prefect [sp] Nazi German death camp guard. I have given out a copy of this to one of them....so far [as] I can she has not read the book."

I can't say this is a well-written book, but there is something compelling about it nonetheless. I am sure I will be thinking about it within the context of our political times for some days to come.

One of the quandaries every conscientious reviewer faces is not simply recognizing one's partialities and prejudices, but then expanding his or her vision regarding the subject of the review to encompass an audience that has quite different inclinations. No product is for everyone; the questions that need to be answered are 1) who is the target audience and 2) is it a quality product for the target audience and 3) will it appeal to others outside of the target audience. It seems the Botanical Inspirations Deck by US Games has multiple audiences, as it is being marketed to museums and gifts shops, as well as new age stores.

When it comes to cards, I am partial to tarot, am open to what I consider quality oracles, and when it comes to either, I prefer only the title information to be placed on the cards themselves. As an image-based reader, any additional words will distract from or interfere with my intuition, so limit your verbal intelligence to the little white book and let me focus solely on the icon. However, this deck isn't necessarily an oracle, but an "Inspirational deck"--I find the differences between the two a bit blurry, but you know what they say. To a carpenter, everything looks like a nail, and to a diviner, everything looks like an oracle.

The box is elegance itself: slightly larger than a tarot deck, the sturdy box opens from the front, with a small, satin sea-green ribbon handle. (Sea green is possibly my favorite color, but others might see this as more of a mint. But I digress.) The top is covered with flowers and, imagistically, suggests Victoriana Magazine, especially with the look of the aged-paper title label. This box would be an addition to any room in your house--it exudes the feel of gracious living and old-world opulence.

The card background is the color of aged ivory paper, and a stemmed flower or flowers appear on each card of the 44 cards. All illustrations are by Pierre-Joseph Redoute, a painter whose botanical and floral watercolors were the most famous and sought-after in Europe in the late 1700's. The name of the flower, along with its botanical name appears at the top, and keywords and a quotation, along with the quotation's author, appear at the bottom of each card. As you have no doubt guessed from my introduction, that is too many words for my taste. For an oracle, that is.

However. I love flowers, but I don't know much about them, and I know even less about their symbolic meaning. For me to use this deck as an oracle, I need as much information about them as I can get--and the corpulent companion booklet, written by Lynn Araujo, contains even more words than the cards themselves. It offers a short paragraph about the history of the card and provides a paragraph-long "Inspirational Message," as well as several three card spreads and two sample readings. Also included with the deck are a fold-out "cheat sheet" that encompasses all the card titles with their keyword or keywords, and a sea-green (or mint) gauze bag for the cards. While the bag adds to the gracious living aspect of the deck, I can't imagine why anyone would remove it from its lovely accommodations.

When I saw the three card sample spreads, I secretly suspected that they were gratuitous, or, not to put too fine a point on it, gilding the lily. Other spreads I've attempted with some unnamed decorative oracles have led to highly unsatisfying, jumbled results that convinced me that one card readings were the best and sole province of non-Tarot oracles. The way Botanical Inspirations is constructed seemed to be ideal for oracular novices who wanted to draw a card for a gently soothing or inspirational message, but not for any kind of profound or interconnected message that a three card tarot spread might provide.

Despite that, I decided to try one of Araujo's Fleur de Lis spreads (and, as I did so, realized how clever she was to name them thus--Fleur de Lis translates to Lily Flower). The three positions were Faith/Wisdom/Valor and my question involved a current tarot project. I received valuable insight and specific advice and, in a surprising synchronicity, received a flower keenly specific to my project. While I referred to the companion booklet, I got all the insights I needed simply from the keyword and quotation, combined with my own intuitive correspondences.

To play devil's advocate, while my reading was quite meaningful, the cards don't really interact in the same way tarot cards do. I could have as easily asked three separate questions about my project and received the same answer. Perhaps if I were more versed in flower lore, additional inter-card associations would suggest themselves.

I'm not sure how much I will use this particular deck, but I can not only recommend it to whom I initially perceived as its target audience, novices and art and flower enthusiasts attracted to a lovely and mainstream set, but to anyone looking for an effective flower oracle. This deck would be equally "at home" in a museum or a new age bookstore.

You can view specific cards and order the set here.

This post is in response to people thinking that because a number of the bomb threats to Jewish Community Centers were made by one person, this whole rise in anti-Semitism isn't really a big deal. Nor is a registry of Muslims, nor the latest Trump EO limiting visitors from "dangerous countries" nor . . .

I think people need to understand how history works. I was tempted to use the example of Nazi Germany, because that's the history I know best, but I decided to bring it closer to home. To home, in fact.

Because California was the closest American coast to Asia, it became the outpost of Chinese immigration at the time of the American Gold Rush. At first, the Chinese, who in 1870 were a significant part of the population, were welcomed because business was booming and cheap labor was needed. White resentment grew (imagine that) when job competition increased (does this sound remotely familiar?) and sure enough, a Chinese immigration bill was passed to stem the tide. (Ringing any bells yet?)

The Japanese began to come to the US at around the same time as the Chinese, but in smaller numbers, so they were less of a focal point, but still fell under the lovely rubric of anti-Asian prejudice. However, anti-Japanese sentiment didn't really come to a head until Japan defeated Russia in the war of 1905. The number of Japanese in the US had increased and the idea that they could be powerful enough to defeat a White country made White Americans nervous.

Guess what happened next? I know you can, because we've seen this before. Anti-Japanese organizations sprouted up, school segregation was begun (in liberal SF, which wasn't so liberal back then), and there was an increase in violence against Japanese people and businesses. (Not many graveyards to desecrate at that point, I'm guessing. A substantial number of Jews have lived in the US for hundreds of years. That wasn't true of the Japanese.)

But I digress. The Japanese government and Teddy Roosevelt made a deal--Japan would strictly limit immigration and the segregation bans would be lifted and no more anti-Japanese bills would be passed.

Various "Alien Land Acts" were passed, which involved stopping the Japanese immigrants from owning American land or even sharecropping (in those days, Asians were stopped from becoming citizens because the 14th Amendment only covered Whites and Blacks, aka "aliens of African descent"). And yes, the Supreme Court agreed with this narrow reading of the Constitution. Then, in 1924, ALL Japanese immigration was outlawed. (Too many of them were here. We couldn't change the fact that those who were born here were citizens but we could stop them from changing the demographics. Sound familiar?)

This was the period of the charming name "Yellow Peril"--lots of White resentment in that the Japanese were very successful farmers and, of course, had a work ethic to beat the band. (Is any of this creating a parallel in your mind?)

All of this didn't involve any dramatic stuff, like internment. Because you know, America isn't like that.

And then--the day that lives in infamy, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Kind of like ISEL, but different, because there was a World War going on and Japan was in it, but we weren't.

On December 7th, 3000 arrests were made of those who were considered "dangerous" enemy aliens. Half of those people were of Japanese descent, many of whom were community leaders. And of course, their bank accounts were frozen. They were sent to internment camps and most remained there for the remainder of the war.

This made the remaining Japanese-American people in the West fairly vulnerable--no money, no leaders. The Undersecretary of the Navy, Frank Knox, didn't want to point out that America was completely unprepared for the Pearl Harbor attack, so he blamed it on "the fifth column"--in this case, those undermining Japanese-Americans who were sabotaging the war effort. (Absolutely zero proof and there was never any proof of any Japanese-American saboteurs discovered. Just so we're clear.)

This kind of scapegoating was supported and reported in the media. Stories without any basis in fact threatened an imminent Japanese invasion of the US, fifth column attacks, and sabotage. (And of course, the US military knew there was never going to be a full-scale attack on the US from the Japanese--they were kinda busy on other fronts.)

But a fearful populace is one that can be convinced to do anything to protect itself.

Martial law was declared in Hawaii, where 1/3 of the people were of Japanese descent. At first the US pols threatened incarceration of them all; they only relented because the military (!) resisted--they didn't have enough troops to spare, so only a small percentage were relocated to the mainland and put in interment camps. (Again, none of them were found guilty of anything except breathing while Japanese-American.)

And then the debate began as to how many Japanese Americans should be placed in an internment camp to protect America. (At first that group also included German-Americans and Italian-Americans, but public opinion put an end to that. Then California and three other states (Oregon, Washington, and Arizona) were divided into sections where Japanese-Americans could and couldn't live. Many "refugees" (Americans of Japanese descent) were turned away from other states--because they were California's "undesirables." (I'm telling you, only the nationalities change.)

When the evacuations began, most Japanese-Americans went quietly. Anyone with more than 1/16th of Japanese blood was considered Japanese. Doesn't that clinical statistic make your blood run cold? Over 17,000 children imprisoned were under 10 years old, and over 1,000 of them were infirm and/or disabled. Because they were such threats. The exact number of Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps is unknown, but it's estimated between 110,000-120,000 people.

That little history lesson was brought to you by Diane Wilkes and the Internet. I didn't know all the details, but I knew the internment camps didn't happen in a vacuum. That's not how things work.

It never starts with the camps.

And it's always about scapegoating.

To me, one of the important messages of this story is that public opinion is the ONLY thing that can stop injustice. I am sure there are German and Italian immigrants who will read this. Your ancestors could have also been placed in internment camps; if the public had not made an outcry, they would have been.

Another important message: the only reason more Japanese-Americans weren't placed in internment camps was that the military didn't have enough people to transport them. Does that fact register with anyone who thinks all illegal immigrants should be returned to the land of their origin?





https://www.nps.gov/articles/historyinternment.htm

http://www.ht-la.org/htla/projects/oralhistory/japaneseinternment/timeline.html

https://artifactsjournal.missouri.edu/2012/03/wwii-propaganda-the-influence-of-racism/

For complete transparency, let me be clear. I didn't watch. I. Just. Can't.

So, I'm reading the transcript and here's practically the first sentence:

Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.

Maybe it's because I'm a former English teacher that I have the need to do this, but let's break this sentence down to its husk:

Recent threats remind us that we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil... Really, the threats remind us of that?? He is either an incompetent illiterate when it comes to language or he's encouraging his Nazi base. One or the other. You choose.

But clearly he had assistance with this speech. You think he has Lincoln quotations memorized? So he and the speechwriters (who I imagine do know how to structure sentences and have noun/verb agreement) thought it was good and sufficient to say that threats prove our country will say hate and evil is bad.

I'll keep reading. But nothing in that acknowledgment suggests that we should do anything about these threats--in fact, the opposite is true. People can go on making threats (because they remind us we are a country that says hate is bad) and we will not act on them. (We'll just keep saying darn, that's a shame. Wink wink, nudge nudge.)

Conservatives and Trump complained that President Obama wouldn't say the term "Radical Islam"--but Trump refuses to say we will do anything to stop the religion-based hate crimes. Which is worse?

And before you ask, "What can we do about anonymous bomb threats, Ms. Liberal Hysteric?" -- I have two answers. One is that we can reiterate that those who terrorize little kids will be tracked down and punished to the fullest extent of the law. You know, like we do with those members of Radical Islam or peaceful Hispanics who entered the country illegally. The second is that if there's one thing Trump represents to many is that he's a can-do guy. He's a fighter, someone who will threaten any Tweeter who criticizes him. But he has nary a threat for people who target Jewish schoolchildren. Why is that? This is a man who gets an A in posturing, but not about American terrorists. WTF?

OTOH--"America is strong, proud and free." :)

I am being honest here. If he had just added a sentence or two like, "We will do our level best to find and punish anyone who commits these hate crimes. They are un-American and we will not have this kind of behavior here," I wouldn't say a damn thing. Except address the loony sentence structure I cited above.

I just met with officials and workers from a great American company, Harley-Davidson. In fact, they proudly displayed five of their magnificent motorcycles, made in the U.S.A., on the front lawn of the White House.And they wanted me to ride one, and I said, “No, thank you.”

I'd have loved to see this. A hog on a hog.

Okay, that was just mean. Just basing my style on the man some red states with the minority of Americans selected to lead the country.

Seriously, I should resist. That will be my one and only gratuitous swipe.

I am glad Megan Pompe is doing so well, but the idea of lifting FDA restraints is complete madness. If anything, the pharmaceutical trials should be more exhaustive. How many commercials do you see on a regular basis that involve wrongful death lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies because the drugs the FDA APPROVED were dangerous? Does Vioxx ring a bell? Crestor? Fen-phen? Celexa?

And of course, Trump made the correlation from there to other restraints on the DAY HE OVERTURNED PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ORDER ON WATER POLLUTION. Drink up, guys!

You people are crazy if you think this is okay. Really. Some things are complex, some are debatable, but potable water is as basic as basic can be.

Back to the speech.

School choice = vouchers and schools for pay, right after the release of an exhaustive studying showing how charter schools are a disaster for our children. Facts are immaterial to this man.

I love the storyline that President Obama didn't work with law enforcement. Sad!

The rest of it was mostly platitudes, some gauzed with the "We are all made by the same God" lack of respect for religious diversity mentality Trump has in abundance. He's not a subtle man.

So glad I didn't watch. I might require a new blood pressure medication that will end up killing me because it didn't get sufficiently pre-tested.

ETA: If you think I'm being remotely unfair, read this:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/28/trump-is-reportedly-hinting-that-anti-semitic-incidents-are-false-flags-it-wouldnt-be-the-first-time/?utm_term=.c2dd4352ab21

Everything he says goes through the Trump mind-set strainer. What comes out most resembles a three year old child's analytical skills. "Cookie, good. Me want biggest cookie."

Israeli-Palestinian affairs? "NO yell. Me like Bibi best."

Antonin Scalia died a year ago yesterday, and the GOP leadership refused to allow President Obama to appoint a replacement with almost a year of his Presidency remaining.

This "in your face" opposition and disrespect wasn't something new for Republicans in office. They treated President Obama as an interloper and fought with Democrats at every moment, not doing their job and working with the people who should have been their brothers in arms, their esteemed colleagues. (Remember that phrase?)

And the people who permitted and approved this dismantling of the wheels of government and this kind of willful sabotage of a fairly-elected President wrought what we have now--a bullying despot with no respect for or even understanding of what it means to be the President of the US.

As Malcolm once said, "The chickens have come home to roost."

And Americans have to decide anew--are you going to continue to embrace the unacceptable in the name of party or are you going to say, "Enough!"

A year ago yesterday, Antonin Scalia died and Mitch McConnell defiantly fought a President who recognized who Putin is, who was a President of all the people, who understood the Constitution, who appointed men (and women) of intellectual heft and serious temperament, whose much-decried Executive Orders were painstakingly considered and legal, who behaved at all times with decency and compassion and wisdom.

I look at what we lost...and what too many people considered a superior replacement...and I am both furious and bereft.

And I beg Democratic senators to stand strong and do whatever they must to hold off on a SC nominee until we have a President who can be trusted to make appointments that won't further bring down our democracy.

We often see political cartoons and tend to laugh hardest at the ones that mock those with whom we disagree.

Laughter is good. Humor is good Both are necessary to survive challenging times. And laughing together, with a friend, with a group, is a delicious bonding experience.

Lately, I've been thinking about humor, and forgive me for not being funny, but I have never found propaganda--in any form-- amusing.

There are different kinds of humor, but most depend on shared narratives/belief systems: pratfalls are giggle-worthy; self-importance and stupidity beg for comic takedowns; falsehoods can be milked of their toxicity with sarcasm and irony.

I'm not sure if this has always been true, but lately I've noticed that some cartoons are deliberately positing mentalities that are not just inaccurate, but dangerous in hidden and overt ways.

Take this relatively light-hearted one:



The implicit shared narrative is that the people who are protesting Trump's anti-women, anti-Muslim, anti-everything policies just want to protest something. They're silly. They're over-reactors. There's nothing worthwhile protesting, nothing is different, Trump is merely making America great again.

#notmygroundhog is nothing like #notmyreichstag

And if I seem ponderous or that I am humorless, well...I saw too many cartoons before the election that continually made the point that voting for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton were just two equally horrific choices. There was really no choice, no difference, between the two.

And you know what? Twenty percent of voters polled said they disliked both candidates. And of that group, the vast majority chose Donald Trump.

Now we're watching the very foundations of our country being rocked. I can't even list them all. People who are completely unqualified are chosen to be cabinet members over education, energy, housing. Trump's only measure of qualification is how loyal they are to him or how much money they contributed. That's a banana republic mentality, any way you look at it. You really think Clinton's cabinet would resemble this motley and unprepared crew?

How long have we been a refuge for people who would not survive in their home country? That's done. How long have we been a country that, by law, didn't judge or designate people by their religion or their place of origin or their race? Done. The GOP and Donald Trump see anyone who don't believe as they do as the enemy, an enemy that must be crushed. Disenfranchise people of their votes, disenfranchise Democrat congressmen and women? If there's an ethical consideration, they ignore it, change the rules.

I see this every day. Every day.

So, that groundhog joke. Implicit in that joke is that these people, these crazy liberals, these violent protesters--they'll bitch about anything. Even the decision of a groundhog will get them wielding moronic signs.

We see the echoes of that mentality every day. "All protesters are stupid." "All liberals are morons." "There's really nothing unusual going on since Trump took office, these people are afraid of their own shadows." "They're hypocrites--Clinton said we need to take stronger measures regarding illegal immigrants, and that was applauded--so why go after Trump for doing just that?"

Let me just briefly address that last one, because it's stuck in my craw today.

The implicit assumption is that, under Barack Obama, illegal immigrants were given parades and pelted with thornless roses. Obama deported more illegal immigrants than the last ten Presidents. But hey, let's not let get facts in the way. A wall will be so much more effective. (I know, wait, maybe it will be. And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt, too, but I doubt it.)

But let's start there. Donald Trump isn't the first to address the issue of illegal immigrants. It is the way that he's doing it that is objectionable. But the myth is that the Dems were soft on illegal immigration. It's just that--a myth.

If you want Donald Trump to continue to make up things as they go along (Yemen attack, orders that aren't vetted and have to be changed, policy that is offered and reversed within minutes...), the best way to do that is to continue to minimize those crazy, silly, Groundhog-loving, indiscriminate protesters. Mock them. Diminish them.

That is what that cartoon does. I wasn't being funny when I said #notmyreichstag. I meant it. I don't give a flying fuck about Groundhog's Day. I do, however, give multiple fucks about turning my country into a banana republic.

And if that makes me a laughingstock, as John Lennon sang, I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us.

Maybe the world won't live as one, but at this point, I'll just be grateful for the world to exist.


****

I just came up with the perfect name for Trump...

Bannon's Cabana Boy

It evokes an amusing image, and it expresses that Trump is Bannon's underling (which, if it caught on, would infuriate Trump, maybe enough to divest himself of the White Supremacist).

I wouldn't have come up with it if Trump wasn't so devoted to mean and snarky nicknames. Just adapting to the new order.

Diane Birch wowed me beyond belief with her first album, Bible Belt. An incredible ear worm of an album that distilled Laura Nyro, Joni Mitchell, and Carole King, yet was uniquely individual, too. Classic songwriting.

I had the opportunity to see her on tour for that album and I was totally enchanted. I even got to chat with her in the bathroom and tell her how much she evoked my beloved Laura Nyro.

Everyone I introduced her music to became a fan.

Her next album wasn't one--it was an ep of covers, none of which I recognized. Joy Division, Sisters of Mercy, Siouxie and the Banshees. I'm a lot older and a lot less cool than Ms. Birch. The ep was not remotely like Bible Belt and I am not particularly musically adventurous. I have breadth and depth, but there are places I simply choose not to go. However, I had become a paying member of the Church of Birch (her term) and with each listen, I liked it more and more.

But I really really wanted her to go back to the Bible Belt. Retread that water of life, baby. I find it so rejuvenating, healing, I want more, more, more of that elixir.

But.

Diane Birch does not retread. (Or Rewind.)

Her next album, Speak a Little Louder, was a return to Birch originals, but it was even more ambient, even more distant a part of the water for me to tread (let alone swim). Fortunately, I had seen her in concert at a residency at Joe's Pub, so I not only sort-of knew what to expect, but one of the new songs, "Pretty in Pain" had hooked me with its catchy hooks and girl group feel atop the ambiance. But the album was even more of a stretch for me. However, when I am truly committed to an artist, I figure I'm the one who needs to do some heavy listening before walking away, and Speak a Little Louder grew on me despite some of the discofied arrangements that I initially found trying. The lyrics are so brilliant and inspiring--it's a truly beloved work now.

Another ep, Nous. I'm still adjusting, but by now, even I know that my limitations are not in my best musical interest. Play, play, play until I get it.

Birch recently announced two Stage-It shows for today (1/31/17). Stage-It allows artists to do live shows over the internet and get paid by fans. She has done them a few times before and Jeff and I always "attend."

Sweet Lord. What great shows. Diane played some amazing new songs, including one clearly inspired by what is going on in the US now (she went to JFK Airport and joined the protest of the Muslim ban, which yeah, makes me love her even more). Interestingly, the new songs faintly hew back to the Bible Belt era in song structure, but it's just one layer of the artist she has become. Her vocal style is more jazzy, more mannered, particularly on the older numbers.

Even live, she is constantly in the act of re-creation, like Neil Young.

She also covered Lennon's Imagine at both shows. Her piano work is so effortless, so soulful, so evocative.

She also revisited a lot of songs from Bible Belt, including Rise Up, which is now my anthem for the year.

She's a genius that I love enough to stretch for, and I can't wait til her new album is released. I plan to do some touring with her.

All Birch elixir is good elixir.

Donald Trump is going to have to learn that the office of the Presidency isn't a kingship but that of a PUBLIC SERVANT. (Just that term will gall him for the rest of his Presidency. I hope people use it often, because...it's the truth.)

I don't think this fact has sunk in for Trump, his followers, or the American people at large.

Assuming the media does their job not to be press agents and cheerleaders for the status quo but journalists (a big if), this will be made clear to him and Kellyanne and anyone who thinks we've just experienced a coronation.

The press has enormous power and I sure hope they wield it correctly.

Now they know that Spicer thinks he can just give a speech and not take questions, they can not show up unless he agrees to take questions. "Just email us your speech, buddy. We'll decide if it's newsworthy."

Not everyone gets their news from Twitter (nor should anyone). The people who consider Twitter a news source are in the minority, and what's more, aren't Trump's base (the elder generation is not known for tweeting). Trump's base isn't large enough for it to be wise to splinter them further, so the attempt on the part of the administration to poison people against traditional news sources--a common practice for tyrannical governments and countries such as Russia--is unlikely to be effective.