Zoey The Dog, December 2003-March 2021: A Noble Dog

Yesterday, Zoey The Dog fled her mortal coil. She was 17 1/4. Zoey was an extraordinary dog from the start of her life with us in 2005 through her last breath. Zoey, a French Poodle/Cocker mix (Cockapoo, as sometimes called), had been a rescue dog who, in the words of rescue groups, rescues the people who take her in. I will always remember how we picked her up in Chula Vista, CA at a person's home, where, shockingly to us, Zoey was being kept in a small cage. She jumped out to greet us, and nearly ran out ahead of us as we returned with her to our car. Her name then was Noelle, and I said, Too goyish. Although The Daughter insists she named the dog, I distinctly recall I did--as I named her after the Nickelodeon show The Daughter watched, which was a character played by Brittney Spears' younger sister, Jamie. I liked the name, Zoey, and preferred the "y" (sometimes it is spelled Zoe) to make clear how to pronounce the name. In any event, Zoey happily jumped--lots of jumping for most of her life--into the car's back seat between The Son and The Daughter, and we drove back to Poway, about 45 minutes away. Every once in awhile, I would look in the rear view mirror to see how the dog, so quiet, was doing. Each time, I saw the dog was looking forward, content, and never once did the dog look back. I said to myself, I think this dog has found her servants. 

Recently, as the vets would tell us Zoey has so many ailments--including at least two cancers, kidney disease, plus a very bad heart that made surgeries impossible--there would be nothing to do if she collapsed, which she did yesterday. Hearing that each time we took her in, I would respond Zoey will find a way to 18. I would then say, when Zoey reaches 18, I will take her to the County Clerk to register her to vote. I figure she is at least as smart, and definitely more kindly than a third of Boomer voters. Our other joke, when she was younger, was in the context of how, when taking Zoey on walks in and around Poway, CA, people loved to come up to Zoey and pet Zoey. When regaling ourselves back home, I would imitate Zoey, and say to the family, "I'm Zoey! Want to feel better, stranger? Pet me." "Want to be happy? Pet me." And then I would ask Zoey, "Zoey, how would you solve the problems in the Middle East?" And Zoey would answer, "Pet me!" It remains my only regret Zoey was not called upon as a diplomat to solve the problems in the Middle East.

The photo below is from the morning we left CA for NM in June 2017. At the time we had left CA in June 2017, Zoey's CA veterinarian had worried her heart murmur was getting worse, and she would not last too long in NM. Instead, we found NM rejuvenated her. The video below is from Haynes Park in Rio Rancho, NM, about a year later as she began to slow down a bit. The video features my voice with that high pitch one automatically uses with babies and doggies--until the very end of the video, when I say "Alright!"  The Wife and I were so happy Zoey was still able to run. It was only in the past year when Zoey finally showed her age, and she could no longer take walks, being relegated to the back yard where she slowly could walk around before going back to her bed to sleep. In dog years, Zoey lived to just past 120, which, in Jewish lore, was the age of Moses when he passed, and therefore an age of greatness. 

The Daughter calls Zoey "A noble dog."  Indeed, she was a noble dog.  Zoey The Dog is greatly missed, but lovingly remembered.  

It is more than constitutional paralysis which ails the United States as an operating republic

I consider Corey Robin one of the most brilliant political philosophical minds of our time. His book on reactionary/conservative thinking over the past 250 years is must reading, and, from reviews I have read, he understands Clarence Thomas better than most commentators. However, this article in The New Yorker is blandly conventional in blaming constitutional paralysis as the most significant element for our nation's challenges, and too sanguine about the facts regarding Trump's reign and its consequences.

I agree with Corey Robin to the extent he appears to be saying the Senate is the injury beyond the insult of the Electoral College.  I disagree with his big example of Republican and institutional pushback against Trump when he compares what happened with Trump's NDAA veto and previous presidents who vetoed the NDAA. Robin misses the factual differences between previous presidential vetoes and Trump's. Carter wanted a particular nuclear carrier spending plan removed, and got it removed after his veto.  Reagan wanted more power to control negotiations with the Russians, and got it. Clinton wanted to avoid a violation of the ABM Treaty over a proposed missile defense of one of the US protectorates. Bush II's and Obama's vetoes were similarly policy based.  Trump's stated reason for his veto was his carping about the symbolic gesture of renaming military bases named after slaveholders and clear racists--and in the context of Mitch McConnell and other Republicans worried about Trump's desperateness following his re-election loss.  Context therefore matters far more in this instance than Robin's essay assumes.

To read Robin's article, one would think Trump made very little difference in policy making.  However, when we look at what Trump's administration "accomplished," despite the paralyzing "checks and balances," we must start with Trump's various executive actions--where Congress' structural paralysis allows for that type of executive focused governance.  On immigration, student debt collection, and environmental de-regulation, Trump did a lot of damage to our nation and our planet.  And Trump worked effectively with Republicans in Congress to stack the courts, which is a significant structural oriented change.  

As for defining Fascism in the context of Trump, we should look at Jason Stanley's (Yale political philosopher prof who wrote "How Fascism Works" in 2018) definition of fascism. Stanley defines fascism, saying, "One of the hallmarks of Fascism is the ‘politics of hierarchy’—a belief in a biologically determined superiority—whereby Fascists strive to recreate a ‘mythic’ and ‘glorious’ past…(while) excluding those they believe to be inferior because of their ethnicity, religion, and/or race.”  

I believe it is factually indisputable that Stanley's definition applies to how 40% of Americans and 50% of the senate think--and why we should be concerned that the Republicans have a strong chance to win back the White House in 2024 through the Electoral College. Our nation has had what the late sociologist, Bertram Gross, called "Friendly Fascism," for much of the post 1960s period in US history.  In this context, it is useful to quote Mussolini, who gave a working definition of fascism in the early 1930s: “It is in the corporation that the Fascist State finds its ultimate expression…According to the Fascist conception, the corporation is the organ which makes collaboration systematic and harmonic…”. One can say Mussolini's definition of "corporation" does not quite cover our modern conception of corporations. However, the tendency of corporate executives in the US to side with authoritarians, whether here or in China, is unmistakable--and again not one that provides me with any sense of security.  

Finally, Fascism's ugly side continues to grow in our nation, but less because of what Robin sees as our governmental and corporate leaders being paralyzed.  He seems to back into an assumption that Biden and the corporate Democrats want to stop fascism, but are somehow powerless to do so. For anyone believing that, let's consider Buenaventura Durruti, a Spanish anti-Fascist, who said in 1936:  "No government fights fascism to destroy it. When the bourgeoisie sees that power is slipping out of its hands, it brings up fascism to hold onto their privileges." When we consider Durruti's advice, we who favor progressive policies should be outraged at how the outgoing Democratic leadership in Nevada behaved when the progressive slate prevailed last weekend. We now know how Democratic power brokers admitted to the two authors of the new book on the Biden campaign, "Lucky," how they really thought they could decide to let Trump win in 2020 rather than let Bernie win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. 

I find myself less and less sanguine about the prospects of the American experiment, partly for what Robin sees as constitutional paralysis, but as much if not more the propaganda the majority of our nation's people have ingested since the start of the Cold War.  For that, I find Jodi Dean's books of the past decade a more reliable guide to what ails us.

Judas and the Black Messiah is outstanding!

The Wife and I watched "Judas and the Black Messiah" last night on HBO Max. It was awesome. And historically, I would say that it was as close to reality as I have ever seen in what may be called a bio-pic from start to finish. The cinematography is beautifully rendered, the acting performances stellar, and the story should be enough to show us another "what-if" besides RFK. This is a must-see film.

Historically, the film nailed the FBI (yeah, a puffed up Martin Sheen playing J. Edgar Hoover was amusing) and its active role in stopping Hampton from doing well by fellow citizens, black, white and Puerto Rican, in Chicago. The film also nails the murder of Hampton at the hands of the FBI and Chicago police, while giving truth to the "Judas"'s position (Bill O'Neal) that he did not spike Hampton's drink on the night of the murders, when there are others who believe he did spike the drink. In other words, there was a subtlety I respected very much. The two shots from the police or FBI that killed Hampton follows what his common law wife has said for decades--and which I had personally heard a year ago when meeting (through my greatest friend in New Mexico, Alan Wagman) the lawyer who represented her. That lawyer is now retired and living in Santa Fe, I believe.

The film's only material historical license I saw is making it clearer than it is whether George Sams of the New Haven, Connecticut Panthers was an in fact an FBI informant. The whole Sams-Rickey sub-story remains convoluted, but the FBI's hands there are undeniable, too--especially with the FBI's frame up of Bobby Seale for the Rickey murder. The FBI got what they wanted, which was to neutralize Seale, just as they did Newton, Cleaver, and others. The FBI really feared Hampton and that is why they murdered him.

I should add here how, in my RFK lives novel, released nearly twenty years ago (!), I have Dave Dellinger, Tom Hayden and Mayor Daley's DA Tom Foran (representing Daley), in the summer of 1968, cutting a deal RFK brokers that includes Fred Hampton being left to run his clinic and day care, and how later, in an RFK administration Justice Department, the FBI's COINTELPRO is told in no uncertain terms to leave Hampton alone.  Still, it is legendary educator Marva Collins who becomes Chicago's first black mayor. 

Scorsese makes a fool of himself...again

In the latest Harpers, Martin Scorsese has written a wonderful analysis and memoir of sorts about Fellini and his films.  It shows his deft director talents, and how much films have meant emotionally and artistically for him. However, Scorsese's essay is marred by his continued inability to understand anything outside himself regarding the film "business." In the early part of the essay, Scorsese rails that the streaming industry is too focused on "content," not whether what is shown, i.e. the "content," is good, bad, or mediocre.  He then laments at the end of the essay:

We can’t depend on the movie business, such as it is, to take care of cinema. In the movie business, which is now the mass visual entertainment business, the emphasis is always on the word "business," and value is always determined by the amount of money to be made from any given property—in that sense, everything from Sunrise to La Strada to 2001 is now pretty much wrung dry and ready for the “Art Film” swim lane on a streaming platform.

Scorsese bases his observation on his own limited life of coming of age in the early 1970s and being in NYC in the 1970s, which occurred between the fall of the major studios and the rise of the big independents in the 1980s. Scorsese has no understanding of anything that came before him, or occurred outside his rarified existence that started with his initial success in the early to mid 1970s.  I truly doubt Scorsese has read much about the history of Hollywood as an industry, as nothing I've read from him shows any engagement with the overall history.  I highly doubt he has read Lawrence Levine's Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America, either of the Lew Wasserman bios by Connie Bruck or Dennis McDougal, or other deeply researched and analyzed works regarding the film industry--and I can guarantee he never even heard of Gilbert Seldes' The Great Audience (1950), which nails the rise and dominance of radio and films, and the early history of television (Gilbert was an entertainment industry executive and journal editor who actually understood how directors and writers got and lost their jobs).  It is extraordinary to me how ignorant Scorsese is about anything that can't fit into his continuing autobiography.

Scorsese's essay opens with a clever faux script of a person who is in 1970s Manhattan, and how one could walk to any number of film houses to see all sorts of intriguing and offbeat films there, and one could check the Village Voice for what was playing over the next week. Yeah, Marty. That was true. But, I lived in New Jersey at that time, and, in my deep suburban life, all we had was a bunch of Dirty Harry/Death Wish type films--and if we were "lucky" (sarcasm alert) Willard. And unlike the myriad of film houses in Mahattan, we had film houses that had one screen, and maybe two screens--before superplexes of the late 1980s and forward. For people like me and a hundred million other people, we had to get on a train to get to a major, major city (mine was Manhattan) to see any of the films Scorsese references. I admit I also remember a revival house in Linden, NJ, but that played relatively few foreign films for a few days apiece, and more often gave us offbeat films, which I loved, such as Harold & Maude. That was the best we got. It was not as wide a choice as we get now in our homes through streaming channels. That is much more than a "swim lane," Marty.  

Scorsese reminds me of the people who lamented the rise of Border's and B&N in the late 1980s and 1990s, saying, "Oh, they are going to put Shakespeare & Co. in Berkeley out of business!"  My response to such people then was, "Whoa! Before Border's, us folks in the deep suburbs or worse had only the B. Dalton/Waldenbooks in a mall which only carried what I called 'Self Help Diet Books By Lee Iacocca.'" I had to travel literally to Berkeley to Shakespeare & Co. to get the latest Chomsky or anything that was from a university press. Borders was outstanding in its selection, and when B&N came in not far behind, it was awesome to be able to get those books in the deep suburbs outside NYC or Los Angeles or any other major, major city. And yes, Shakespeare & Company did eventually close down, but more because the owner got too old to run it, the rise in property values--and rent--on Berkeley's Telegraph Avenue, and of course the Internet.  It wasn't Border's. Not by a long shot.

This is what is wrong with Scorsese's argument against "content." Of course the studios are a business, Marty. File that under "No shit, Sherlock." For me, I personally don't give a damn that a lot of the content being produced for streaming television is "crap," to quote Sy Benson in My Favorite Year (1984) talking about Benji Stone's love for Alan Swann movies. What I care about is I now have access, on streaming channels, to see Brief Encounter (1945) on TCM through HBO Max.  And La Strata is there, too.  

Scorsese is a brilliant director, and I revere so many of his films.  But, I remain stunned at his having so little understanding of the history of Hollywood as a business. We can now add that Scorsese has no understanding what it is like to live where 90% of Americans live when it comes to access to films and television series. Scorsese is becoming a grand old man of cinematic history for corporate media, and it is so wrong for anyone who wants to understand the actual history of the film industry. Scorsese's comments regarding Marvel films were bad enough. But now he is revealing in full view how he has never engaged with the way "highbrow" and "lowbrow" in art developed and continues to exist in modern society over the past 140 years. 

Whenever Scorsese opines about business trends outside his own life story, he may as well be telling us to get off his lawn. Just as Scorsese missed the remarkable combination of "highbrow" and "lowbrow" exhibited in so many of the Marvel films of this still unfolding century (and yes, I think we are now past peak superhero film genre), Scorsese is missing how our national television experience has been significantly enhanced for those of us who don't live in the rarified world he lives in. Because of the explosion of "content" Scorsese is lamenting, those of us who seek quality film making and television series are able to see such artistic works ANYWHERE and ANYTIME. We don't have to travel and hang in Manhattan any longer. We now can watch La Strada when we want with a click of our clicker. I'll take that over the way things used to be.  And the sooner you get your head out of your navel, Martin, the more wise you will be about things you obviously don't understand about the executives who produce and distribute your films.

B'tsalem calls Israel an apartheid state and American Jews are not interested in knowing how that conclusion was reached

Oh, American Jews are doing their best to not know about this report from B'tsalem, a Jewish-Israeli-lawyer dominated organization in Israel. Trust me. There is not a rabbi in nearly temple or synagogue in the United States who will talk about this, and if they do, they will likely vehemently deny its conclusions. The corruption within our temples and synagogues, largely from big donors who have more of the late Sheldon Adelson's politics, is nearly ubiquitous. 

I know, I know. "The Arabs!" See? We don't even have to finish the sentence. We know and genuflect immediately. "The Arabs!" That's all American Jews are taught to know. It allows us to end all discussion. It allows us to ignore the oppression inflicted on Arabs. It allows us to ignore the continued encroachments on lands where Arabs dwell, whether it is a bad faith permitting system that allows Israeli military bulldozers to destroy homes and seize land, or seize water sources. It allows us to ignore the fact the Israeli military is the largest and most trained military apart from the US, China, and Russia. It allows us to ignore how Hamas political leaders, yes, Hamas, since 2007 or so, have offered olive branches, only to be swept aside and ignored by Netanyahu and nearly all of the Israeli Jewish establishment parties. We won't find any solace in the Blue & White, or any other so-called "unity" party. 

We must also face the following fact: B'tsalem consists of people who have been marginalized in Israel, especially during this still unfolding century. The same may be said of the opinion writers and reporters at Haaretz. I feel badly for these people, who live in a land where the majority fo Israeli Jews who vote have voted for apartheid--and yet those voters have the audacity to cynically use victim cards, while denying what it is they actually stand for. They cry "We don't have a partner for peace!" No, they are the partner who doesn't want peace.

Oh, and did anyone hear about this in any discussion on MSNBC or CNN?  Just wondering.  I think I know the answer.

Drive-Bys for a Cold, Wintery February Morning in New Mexico Before Going to Teach Classes

*This book, "Virtue Hoarders," from UC Irvine professor, Catherine Liu, is must reading. It is only about 90 pages and is more of a footnoted, well reasoned manifesto regarding what Barbara (and her husband John) Ehrenreich, in the 1980s, called the professional-managerial class (PMC).  Liu nails so many things here, as people should just start with her introduction, as most of the book is available online here.  I am a class traitor to the PMC most of my adult life.  Liu has never made me more proud of that singular fact.  An interview with her at Jacobin's YouTube site is here if you don't want to read. Liu also makes the case how the professional class is falling behind the managerial class, starting with adjunct professors who won't have the economic stability of tenured full time professors. I would add lawyers who work for law firms, and doctors working for large medical groups, or hospitals, won't make what their predecessors-owners have made, and yet suffer from crippling student debt.  It is why the argument against canceling all student debt, and only some, misses the point. Even that $200K salaried doctor has big student debt from medical school (lawyers tend to have at least $150K from three years of $50K tuition at law school).  That has kept these millennials far behind the boomers in wealth accumulation.  All that the means test people have left is meanness, which is "Hey, you shouldn't have gone to law school or medical school, sucker!"  Never mind it would be good for the economy.  Such people only think lowering rich people's taxes is good for the economy.

*When you leave such people behind economically, and leave them to television and radio presentation and reenforcement of cultural resentments, this, the January 6th Capitol insurrection, is where such people tend to end up. This result is not much different than the effect from US foreign policy, from the 1950s forward, that undermined and destroyed early to mid--20th Century secular and leftist Pan-Arabism, leaving only the Ayatollahs to express human pain in the Middle East region. And we see how that worked out.

*It is part of the metaphorical sickness of the Failed States of America that we not only can't get employees in this nation a few sick leave mandated under law, but a guy like this putz Republican in Pennsylvania can think it wise to introduce a bill that would say to states and cities, "No federal aid if you mandate sick pay leave." Anyone who tells you that if we mandated three days of sick pay leave, meaning at least three days as a minimum, their business will fail either deserve to fail because they don't know how to run a business anyway, or is simply a liar. Yes, anyone who wants to debate this, I did have to run a payroll for nearly nine years as a synagogue president--and I not only gave people employed with us generous sick pay leave, but also raised their salaries fairly significantly over that time. And what happened? Did this little synagogue go broke? No, it is going strong even in the pandemic, and even with the usual turnover, and some unusual turnover of a new rabbi. To think McD's (really franchisees) can't give its employees sick pay leave is beyond ridiculous. And please don't tell me sop stories about the little corner business. They can do it, too. Oh, and here's the funniest argument: "I give sick pay, but I am not going to force my competitors who don't to do so." Really, how kindhearted for your asshole competitors. You must be in a union of business people. What do you call yourselves? Asshole Union Local 666?

* Joe Biden to minimum wage workers: I am not your president. Sorry. I only listen to the rich people. No federal minimum wage steps to $15 an hour, even though many states have already implemented such things. So, you may ask yourself, which states have not?  Well, more than a few are states with high African-American populations, but not sufficient to get the changes themselves.  Glad to see Joe fighting for the African-Americans he used to win South Carolina's Democratic Primary, and vanquish the only true champion for aggrieved minorities, Bernie Sanders. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Do some of you watch MSNBC or CNN?  I forgot. You think Bernie is a racist enabler or maybe a racist himself. Yeah, you're not manipulated. Not in the least. Why don't you vote for Elizabeth Warren again? LOL.

* Nancy Plousy needs the Republican Party to survive so corporate rich people grifter politicians such as Plousy and Schumer can keep down workers in America, and leave the workers to seething cultural resentments against each other, courtesy of our corporate owned media news outlets.  So, is it any surprise that Nancy Plousy is so worried the Republicans may implode as a party? If it does, it will cause progressives and good hearted people to finally consider leaving the husk known as the national Democratic Party.  Good heavens!  

What is fascism and how one may see, from the definitions, why those definitions matter in our time and moment

For those who still wince or are confused as to why I call Trump and his Republican enablers fascist, here are a couple of definitions, one from a scholar who has studied fascism, and a couple of quotes from Benito Mussolini. Then, I provide a compellingly simple insight about fascism, and the way in which "friendly" fascism in the US is being replaced by increasingly authoritarian fascism. Your wealthiest friends will, I promise you, support fascism in its full form to keep their privilege, sooner or later.

1. Jason Stanley, political philosopher, Yale University, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (Penguin Random House 2018); How Propaganda Works (Princeton University Press 2015), describes how Fascism makes its appeal in societies which have had some experience in a democracy or a republic: “One of the hallmarks of Fascism is the ‘politics of hierarchy’—a belief in a biologically determined superiority—whereby Fascists strive to recreate a ‘mythic’ and ‘glorious’ past…(while) excluding those they believe to be inferior because of their ethnicity, religion, and/or race.” I would also add those who, today, scream "There's only two genders--period!" (start here for a biology lesson) or who still can't support same sex marriages. 

2. Benito Mussolini, founder of the term Fascism, Italy’s dictator from 1922-1943, called Fascism, as a political philosophy, “The Corporate State” (a speech from 1933), where Mussolini stated how, once capitalism reaches a crisis, capitalists must throw themselves “into the very arms of the State” to form the “corporative economy,” which is what led Mussolini to establish, in the Fascist regime he led, the Council of Corporations, which directed the day-to-day functions of the Italian nation’s economy. On April 21, 1930, Mussolini stated, in the course of a speech to corporate leaders in Italy, “It is in the corporation that the Fascist State finds its ultimate expression…According to the Fascist conception, the corporation is the organ which makes collaboration systematic and harmonic…”

3. "No government fights fascism to destroy it. When the bourgeoisie sees that power is slipping out of its hands, it brings up fascism to hold onto their privileges"— Spanish anti-fascist, Buenaventura Durruti, quote from an interview with Pierre van Paassen, July 24, 1936.

4. Bertram Gross, in his book, "Friendly Fascism," released in 1980, explained how even Cold War liberals were trending toward fascist economic beliefs, and how their political elitism was poisonous to the best democratic/republican values.