Get real

 

Get the bumper sticker

I admit it. I’m fond of fake news and loathe looking at reality. By “reality” I mean the world described by an unidentified White House aide in 2004. Ron Suskind wrote in The New YorkTimes:

“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’"

While some consider news in media organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR and the BBC to be fake, I consider them to be reality based and factual. Since news is reported similarly by different such “fake news” organizations, I can’t believe that their news is untrue. There are too many organizations are involved to sustain a conspiracy. Further, these organizations identify their information sources and attempt to present all sides of various issues.

Ron Suskind’s article addressed a faith based presidential administration. He wrote:

“The faith-based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret.”

Suskind did not call it an untruthful administration, but in retrospect it is now known that the United States declared war on Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never proven or found. When her husband presented a fact-based correction, CIA agent, Valerie Plame's covert identity was revealed by someone in the Bush administration. This after-the-fact action can only be seen as pure spitefulness.

I have no problem with having faith, as long as that faith is tempered with facts and logic — however the Bush administration wasn’t tarnished by the president’s faith, but by its lack of truthfulness.

The Washington Post claims Donald Trump lied to or misled the public over 30,000 times during his four years as president.That kind of untruthfulness sets a bad example for like-minded partisans. During the recent Republican convention speakers fibbed freely. Here are some examples:

On the opening night of the Republican National Convention, Nikki Haley said of Democrats, “They want massive tax hikes on working families.” In reality, Biden’s tax proposals would increase taxes on the top one percent of earners not on the majority of earners who earn far less. Those who would receive the higher tax burden make up the same one percent of earners who benefited from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

On the second day Kari Lake said of her opponent, “Just last week, Ruben Gallego voted to let the millions of people who poured into our country illegally cast a ballet in this upcoming election.” Gallego had voted against a law that would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Such a bill would create obstacles to voter registration for many potential voters. Proving citizenship would likely require a birth certificate, a document few keep handy, should they actually own a copy. Immigrants who become naturalized citizens receive certificates of citizenship. Those born here do not.

It is illegal for non-citizens to vote and there is sparse evidence of immigrants risking deportation by doing so, yet Ted Cruz claimed that illegal immigration, “happened because Democrats cynically decided they wanted votes from illegals more than they wanted to protect our children.” Cruz provided no supporting evidence for this claim, perhaps because there isn’t any.

On the convention’s third day, JD Vance said, “Joe Biden is willing to buy energy from tinpot dictators but not hard-working Americans right here at home.” The New York Times labeled this statement false adding that a record breaking amount of crude oil was produced here in 2023. 

I could provide more examples but instead I’d like to return to the idea that a lying leader encourages others to lie as well. Exaggerated claims have long played a part in politics, but the current trend of speaking outright lies instead of facts is new to this country. It’s dangerous to think that when an empire acts it creates its own reality. Such thinking ignores external realities such as climate change or foreign wars. Totalitarian regimes try to control what information their peoples receive. Do Republicans seek totalitarianism?

On July 27, Donald Trump, after noting that Christians are, “not big voters,” said,

“Christians, get out and vote. Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

His campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, explained,

 “President Trump was talking about uniting this country and bringing prosperity to every American, as opposed to the divisive political environment that has sowed so much division and even resulted in an assassination attempt.”

As far as that goes: 1) Trump’s economic plan of high tariffs and tax cuts for the rich would make life miserable for average Americans, 2) The FBI hasn’t established a motive, so the assumption that divisive politics resulted in an assassination attempt isn’t justified, 3) about that divisiveness … Most of the name calling has come from the right, not the left, so how exactly does Trump and his party plan to unite the country? Calling Democrats ‘Communists’ and immigrants ’rapists’ is both untruthful and unjustified. Name calling can’t promote unity.

Outfoxed

The Fox Wife: A Novel
Yangsze Choo
Fiction 392 pages
Henry Holt and Co., Press, 2024

“There are as many kinds of foxes as there are types of people. Some are criminals. Others seek to escape this world by refining themselves.”

“The Fox Wife” is told through two perspectives. First person narration comes through a female fox out for revenge, while an elderly detective’s attempts to solve a complex mystery are told through the third person. The chapters alternate, first one told in first person followed by the next in the third person. It works.

 I’ve had difficulty reading stories in which the main characters alternate. An interesting chapter can be followed by a dull one that ruins the effect of the first. But if dovetailed characters and plots are equally interesting, boredom doesn’t arise. An effective twined narrative requires a skilled writer and Yangsze Choo is that.

 Set in 1908 Manchuria, the year in which China’s empress died, and three years prior to its revolution, China’s Qing dynasty is in decline. Revolutionary fervor infects its students. The daughters of poor families are sold to brothels while multiple wives and concubines occupy wealthier homes. It’s a China on the edge of modernity. Old tales of shapeshifting foxes are increasingly considered superstition, yet Bao the detective puzzles over alternative explanations for unlikely occurrences. He has room for doubt remembering how in childhood his nurse worshiped at a fox shrine and his friend claimed to have met a fox in human form.

 This novel features love, lust, loss, mystery, murder and madness. It’s well worth a read.

Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio
Pu Songling (Died 1715) translated by Herbert A. Giles
Fiction 448 pages depending on edition
Public Domain, 1880 translation

Many tales of shapeshifting foxes can be found in Pu Songling’s story anthology. Here is an example.

Friendship with Foxes

A certain man had an enormous stack of straw, as big as a hill, in which his servants, taking what was daily required for use, had made quite a hole. In this hole a fox fixed his abode, and would often show himself to the master of the house in the form of an old man.

 One day the latter invited the master to walk into the cave, which he at first declined, but accepted on being pressed by the fox; and when he got inside, lo! he saw a long suite of handsome apartments. They then sat down, and exquisitely perfumed tea and wine were brought; but the place was so gloomy that there was no difference between night and day. By-and-by, the entertainment being over, the guest took his leave; and on looking back the beautiful rooms and their contents had all disappeared.

 The old man himself was in the habit of going away in the evening and returning with the first streaks of morning; and as no one was able to follow him, the master of the house asked him one day whither he went. To this he replied that a friend invited him to take wine; and then the master begged to be allowed to accompany him, a proposal to which the old man very reluctantly consented. However, he seized the master by the arm, and away they went as though riding on the wings of the wind; and, in about the time it takes to cook a pot of millet, they reached a city, and walked into a restaurant, where there were a number of people drinking together and making a great noise.

The old man led his companion to a gallery above, from which they could look down on the feasters below; and he himself went down and brought away from the tables all kinds of nice food and wine, without appearing to be seen or noticed by any of the company. After awhile a man dressed in red garments came forward and laid upon the table some dishes of cumquats; and the master at once requested the old man to go down and get him some of these. “Ah,” replied the latter, “that is an upright man. I cannot approach him.”

 Thereupon the master said to himself, “By thus seeking the companionship of a fox, I then am deflected from the true course. Henceforth I, too, will be an upright man.” No sooner had he formed this resolution, than he suddenly lost all control over his body, and fell from the gallery down among the revelers below. These gentlemen were much astonished by his unexpected descent; and he himself, looking up, saw there was no gallery to the house, but only a large beam upon which he had been sitting. He now detailed the whole of the circumstances, and those present made up a purse for him to pay his traveling expenses; for he was at Yü-t‘ai—one thousand li from home.

Supreme Avoidance

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court met to address Colorado’s ruling that Donald Trump should be excluded from its ballots for fomenting an insurrection. When they had adjourned many pundits opined that the justices, including those in the liberal minority, were disinclined to let Colorado’s ruling stand. Allowing Colorado to exclude trump from the ballot would be an injustice to American voters as a whole and could set a precedent allowing other states to take retaliatory action against candidates they didn’t like.

The Supreme Court has a good point here, but is it the correct point for them to put forward? None of them even glanced at the elephant in the chamber. That elephant is the allegation that Trump instigated an insurrection, rather than a mere riot, or a rowdy  picnic. I believe that what occurred on January 6, 2021 was an insurrection, though one that was ill-conceived, poorly planned, and doomed from the start. It would have had a better chance of  success if the Capital had not been breached.

Not everyone thinks this way. Various polls found that between 44 and 50 percent of respondents believe that the events of January 6 did not constitute an insurrection. Other polls indicate that between 30 and 40 percent of respondents believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

Given the large number of Americans who deny that an insurrection occurred the Supreme Court avoided controversy by side-stepping the issue. Acknowledging an insurrection attempt would have lessened public doubt. But sidestepping the issue does nothing to address the greatest current threat to our system. That threat is an absence of  publicly accepted facts. This threat is only being addressed through libel suits against public figures and media providers. These are helpful, but it would be more helpful if an authority like the Supreme Court were to say: “This is true. That is false.” This can’t happen with a Supreme Court that’s falling into the same partisan vortex that’s swallowing our democracy.

Trump didn’t need his rowdy picnic (or insurrection) because he’d already lined up nearly 150 Republicans willing to delay certification of the election results – eight from the Senate and 139 from the House of Representatives – even though over five dozen election fraud lawsuits had been dismissed prior to January 6. If the Supreme Court were to agree that Trump had violated the 14th Amendment by attempting an insurrection it would be admitting that at least some of the 147 Republicans eager to deny Bidden his win might be in violation of the Constitution as well. The Court can’t do this if it wants to maintain a semblance of normalcy. Sadly, a semblance is not sufficient to keep the country running well. It’s time to address a polarized and dysfunctional political system. Colorado made a good start by bringing the issue to the table. Expecting a partisan congress to enforce the 14th Amendment is a non-starter.