Skip to content


FREUD, FATHERHOOD AND THE AMERICAN SON

While not a disciple of Freud in any way, I am nevertheless intrigued by some of his observations, however dated they may be in the 21st century.  In “Civilization and Its Discontents”, Freud posits, “everything past is preserved (in the mind) “on condition that the organ…has remained intact and that its tissues have not been damaged by trauma or inflammation” (which must include dementia and related maladies).

It is hard to argue against that assumption given the very real occurrences of remembering details of an event, even an innocuous one, decades after the experience.   What Freud does not treat at all in his work is the lack of memories and how that poverty affects people in later life.  For our purposes here, we will only be concerned with American sons and what happens to them when they have no cache of fatherly memories to guide them as they grow.

The book, actually a very long essay made up of Freudian observations, amounts to a commentary on the culture of Freud’s world “from a psychoanalytic perspective.”[1]  One would expect Freud to read like any academic tome, confusing in its esotericism, therefore difficult and boring, and in this case, one would not be disappointed.  But Freud occasionally comes down to earth, writing simple credos from his personal reserve anyone can understand and appreciate even eighty-four years later.

Many have a view of Freud as a detached observer, a thinker, a cold scientist with a proclivity for studying, describing and ascribing all human psychological issues to sexual anxieties, inadequacies and resultant deviances, but that view is almost entirely wrong.  Freud was a quite normal family man for the most part, someone who certainly understood the importance of being a parent.  This is evidenced by one statement from “Civilization and Its Discontents” which makes it difficult to think of him in any other way.  “I can’t think of any need in childhood,” he wrote, “as strong as the need for a father’s protection.”[2]

Freud was of course incorporating emotional, moral and physical protection into his declaration.  If he is right, a boy who lacks a father’s protection goes through his formative years with a deficit he may never overcome in adulthood.  And if the lack of a father’s protection is generational, indeed systemic, then the outcome can only be disaster for the entire society.  The principle of use and disuse comes into play as generation after generation of males are starved of what Freud considered the most important aspect of parent-child relations.  Sooner or later, not having a father around to perform his protective duties becomes the norm, but on a level incompatible with the reality of what are fundamental, perhaps instinctive needs to protect and be protected.  Once it is “normal” to be a boy without a father, it becomes acceptable until now, under the auspices of a secular liberal progressivism, it is preferred.

What happens to boys who grow up without the protection of a father?  Freud didn’t say it exactly, but I would suggest they grow up in fear and their response to that fear is either to strike out or become subservient to it.  In both cases living with that kind of fear is intolerable, made the more so when the fearful have no understanding of what it is they are living with.  They don’t know it is fear.  On the contrary, they grow up thinking it is a shrewd caution, being street smart if you will, which makes the worst behavior justifiable.  Bill O’Reilly recently labeled the phenomena among black youth especially, “cynicism”, and he may be at least somewhat correct.

It will come as no surprise then that gangs take the place of fathers.  There is not only protection in membership, but authority, a requirement for discipline in the most perverted sense.  It is also why prison is pretty much just another, sometimes inevitable avenue in life wherein structure plays the part of a father in protective mode.  Joining the military is often the best alternative for young, fatherless men for the same reasons.

But gangs, prison and the military are only bandages on a problem in America that is the direct result of liberal secular progressivism.  Freud would be appalled to see destruction of the nuclear family as justification for a political agenda.

We have a disintegrating culture because it is steeped in a political movement which thrives on immorality becoming so pervasive it metamorphoses into amorality which by its nature criminalizes moral judgment.  Liberal secular progressivism’s goal is total amorality such that the difference between what we know to be right and wrong becomes so blurred we cannot make the case either way.  It is why libertarianism in its purest form is equally pernicious.

Progressives, especially their fanatical feminist wing, rail violently at the notion men are essential to the proper workings of society.  But they know it to be true which enrages them since no matter what they do, that particular truth cannot be eradicated from the American psyche.  What they can do however is something they have been very successful at, making men appear to be superfluous.  The elevation of the single mother to some kind of sainthood obfuscates the fact that she got there through bad decisions and a total disregard for the consequences.  Thus her motherhood skills do not align with her instincts since to admit her children are products of little more than lust diminishes their value commensurately.  Fathers are more to blame as they deposit their seed then walk away without a “smidgen” of regard for the child or children born into a slavery from which there is no escape.

What every honest thinking person, including Sigmund Freud understood then and understands now is that children without a father’s protection necessarily grow in fear and will project that fear onto their offspring by being as absent from their lives as previous generations of fathers were thus perpetuating the downward spiral for their descendants until society breaks down entirely.

In 2011 I published a small book entitled, “A Father’s Guide To Raising Conservative Gentlemen: And Saving America At The Same Time.”  In it I warned of the coming calamity of fatherless sons and suggested an all-out effort to change the existing paradigm.  I wrote of society’s need to begin instructing the sons of America on the necessity for becoming gentlemen, that is, good, decent men of substance.  I set down four principles of gentility on which fathers or anyone having influence over boys could rely and expand upon: Respect, Responsibility, Righteousness and Resolve.  For it is through instilling those precepts into the body of memories with which a boy grows can he develop into a man of honor.

Freud may have been an atheist, for that I pity him, but through all his writings, lectures and discussions, it is clear he understood a principle of faith in God, that a man’s value is determined by his spirit’s exultation as a function of a boy’s trust in his father’s protection.  If nothing else, fathers, protect your sons.

 



[1] Strachey, James,  (Ed.).  (1961).  Sigmund Freud – Civilization and Its Discontents.  New York, London:  W. W. Norton & Company.

[2] Ibid

Share

Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


HARRY REID’S LIFE IN A VACUUM

My older brother Ralph is an attorney, a litigator.  In other words, unlike many of his colleagues who avoid confrontation in a courtroom at all costs, it is his stock in trade and he does it very, very well.  Part of his success comes from a belief in dealing with the realities.  He is a seasoned antagonist, someone who, from the time we were kids, displayed a talent for ripping the logic out of complex problems and presenting it clearly, concisely and effectively in order to win his arguments.  But it isn’t that talent alone which makes him a formidable professional.  My brother has the ability to see beyond the common human facade.  Don’t misunderstand, a student of people he is definitely not, nothing requiring such an investment of sympathy and empathy would ever be of value to him in the course of his work.  As a lawyer, he sees people for who they are, makes no judgments, but evaluates them on the basis of whether or not they will be good or bad clients and whether their cases have merit in the real world, not the client’s world.  Part of his evaluation has to do with what he calls living in a vacuum.

Perhaps the majority of people you know live in a vacuum to one degree or another.  Their sense of reality extends to the surface of their skin.  Anything other than caring for themselves or seeing the world only as it affects them is unimportant except for the necessity to hide that truth from others so as to look like more than they are.

Living in a vacuum over a long period of time ultimately has the effect of insulating the individual completely.  He or she begins to believe their reality is the world’s reality.  Like little children who cover their eyes to become invisible, people who exist in a vacuum of their own making never seem to realize the rest of the world can see them.  Over time they become so involved in the unreal, there is no longer a chance of breaking out.  There are those who may mistake this condition as some sundry malady affecting the brain, but it is self-absorption to the highest factor.

There are none who live so completely in a vacuum than public figures.  Given their positions in the workings of the world, they can be incredibly dangerous and destructive.  Barack Obama is chief on the list, living in a vacuum he created, but having minions and sycophants who maintain the illusion for him.  The same applies to Harry Reid, the aging Senator from Nevada who just recently certified his life in a vacuum by declaring those who have been negatively affected by Obamacare are liars, all of them.

It would be one thing to have the man stand in the Senate chambers and run down a list of indisputable facts to prove his contention.  Presumably, it is expected of someone who can be considered the second most powerful man in the United States government.  But not Harry Reid.  Like all people who live in such a vacuum of self-absorption, facts have no place in a declaration no matter how outrageous it may be.  Harry Reid, like Barack Obama and others of the same ilk truly believe saying something makes it a fact.

But, lest we be accused of being in our own vacuum, allow Harry Reid to prove our point about him through his own words:  “So people have been hurting and I understand that.  And it doesn’t give them comfort or solace for me to tell them, you know, but for me, we would be in a worldwide depression.”

CNN’s Dana Bash once asked Reid about a House bill that would have amended Obamacare to allow clinical trials for children with cancer.  Reid responded, “What right did they (House Republicans) have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded?”

Bash followed up with, “But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?”

Reid snapped, “Why would we want to do that?  I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home.  They have a few problems of their own.  This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless …”

The list of Reid inanities is as long as his tenure in the public eye.  From racially charged comments about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court” and that “his opinions are poorly written” to his equally infamous quote about Barack Obama being “light-skinned” and having “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one,” Harry Reid has escaped condemnation like a crazy old uncle at Thanksgiving.

One can only live in a vacuum for so long however.  Reality, especially the reality of death has a way of dragging the Harry Reids of this world out from within such that they must face a world so unfamiliar they oftentimes cannot cope.  In Reid’s case it is happening now.   His statement accusing Americans who have been dramatically harmed by Obamacare of being liars has hit a raw nerve all over the country.  The crazy uncle with the foul mouth can no longer be tolerated at dinner or elsewhere, he must be scolded or excluded completely from family gatherings.

Americans have had enough of Harry Reid and by extension, Obama, Democrats and their agenda.  It is hoped he will be replaced as Majority Leader in January of 2015 as a result of the November elections which will be a referendum on progressivism.  After the election, Republicans will have their chance at fixing what is wrong with American federal government.  If in the process they create their own vacuum in which to live, they will find themselves as alone and irrelevant as Harry Reid and they will pay the same price.

 

 

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


THE DE BLASIO VIRUS, WILL IT FIND ITS WAY NORTH?

One of the reasons we have championed a separation of Upstate New York from Downstate is the cultural divide which exists between the two regions.  No better illustration of that divide is embodied in the New York City mayoralty of Bill de Blasio.  Had he been running for mayor of any Upstate city, he would have lost badly.  Only the most far left Upstate citizen would have cast a vote for him; there are very few Upstaters who lean that far left in any case.

Bill de Blasio is a political accident for which New York City residents will pay dearly over the next four years.  Why should Upstaters care?  Because, unlike normal crap which runs downhill, Downstate crap seems to find its way Upstate over time however diluted it may be once it gets here.

Testament to the above claim, de Blasio has managed to outrage voters who supported him during his campaign by shutting down four New York City charter schools.  This he did by refusing to allow them to continue occupying the space they’ve already been using in public buildings.  But the parents and supporters of charter schools really have nothing to be angry about since de Blasio campaigned on a promise to effectively force charter schools out. Those same people voted for him big time, 73.3% to Republican opponent, Joe Lhota’s 24.3%.

The Mayor claims charter schools take limited resources from public schools.  It’s an effective argument however specious.  The charter schools he is closing are among the most successful schools in the city, one of them considered among the best in the state.  In comparison, New York City public schools are notorious for their poor performance and bloated budgets.  According to Breitbart.com, “Currently, there are 70,000 students enrolled in charter schools in New York, and 50,000 more students on waiting lists for charter schools,” so it isn’t a matter of low demand either.  Obviously, even peripherally involved parents know the value of charter schools.

What can it be driving de Blasio to dismantle what can only be considered the most successful foray into educating New York City children in modern times?  Either the man is an ideologue so besotted with a Hitleresque determination or he’s the most corrupt politician in the history of that city.  Probably some of both, but the people of New York are reaping what they sowed.

Dr. Susan Berry, writing for Breitbart.com underscores the real kick in the behind for idiot New York City voters:  “Prior to the election last November, de Blasio mapped out his plan to make charter schools pay rent for space in school buildings, while his Republican opponent, Joseph Lhota, said he would double the number of charter schools in New York City, rent-free.”

A discussion of the outrage affected parents, administrators, teachers and supporters of charter schools are displaying is not the purpose of this piece.  The point is, New York City’s frivolous, mindless, ultra-liberal sheeple have been duped again.  Bloomberg assaulted and effectively overturned the city’s term limit legislation and the people’s response…there was no response, they let it happen.  Now they have another monster at the helm, one worse than the previous, a mayor who rules rather than governs.  This is a warning to Upstate, it can happen here.  It happened with such innocuous issues as trans-fats, it will happen again on far weightier ones.

The slow, yet inexorable movement of cultural rot from Downstate to Upstate is inevitable if the two peoples are forced to continue their relationship.  With it comes the political decay that is the result of one-party rule and one region’s rule of the one party.  Albany, that bastion of corruption and filth is the way it is because of the overwhelming Downstate influence.  The only reason Upstate has not come completely under the control of Downstate politicians is their ambivalence.  Upstate is only a concern when it needs a bone to chew on.  Other than that, Downstaters don’t know or care that Upstate exists.

Breaking the bonds which bind Upstate and Downstate is not a complicated thing when approached from the standpoint of a determination to break them by an overwhelming majority of Upstaters.  Contrary to the unprecedented and Byzantine proposals for a separation on paper into two autonomous regions such as that put forward by the Upstate Conservative Coalition, a decision on the part of all the county legislatures to pursue the breakup could not be denied.

Removing the political and cultural shackles of Downstate dominance is of paramount importance if Upstate New York is to survive.  In its death throes now, there is very little time left, but if Upstaters have the courage to cut the ties and make themselves independent, a new age of prosperity and real growth is just over the horizon.

Share

Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


THE SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD – KILLING COMMON CORE

You’ve seen it in various movies, read it in numerous books, “1984″ comes to mind immediately and obviously.  The government has usurped all the people’s rights and power in the name of social welfare and justice.  An egalitarian society now exists where there was once a society built on the excesses of one percent at the expense of the ninety-nine percent who were always portrayed on political posters and in photographs and early films as pre-Bolshevik  serfs.  Starving masses with bulging eyes and thin, drawn faces in threadbare clothing aimlessly tramping their way into smoking, poisonous factories under the monacled eye of a tuxedoed, cigar-smoking industrialist looking down from the top floor, his hands on victorious hips.  Thing is, it never happened like that.

The Industrial Revolution had its horrors to be sure, but they were consequences of the era rather than intentions of capitalists.  Nevertheless, the propaganda made for great cathartic drama.  The political elite, those highly educated ultra-liberals who eschew an effort at profit for its crassness and their complete inability to make one, found then as they do now, immense satisfaction in fiery, baseless rhetoric meant to inflame those same masses so inelegantly and untruthfully portrayed as they were.

It’s always been that way, the truth must suffer if true equality is to exist.  Take Common Core (CC) for example.  If you aren’t familiar with it, let us sum it up in one statement of fact:  The attempt by America’s most extreme leftist elites to bring education of our children under federal control in the name of equality.  Those leftists will counter-argue that Common Core is merely a curriculum designed to take the inequities out of the system.  They will tell you a common curriculum is good for everyone since it levels the playing field and makes education in Compton the equal of education in Beverly Hills.  How can anyone argue with that?

Like all Utopian plans, the glaze of sugar hiding the taste of rotten eggs is temporary at best.  The rotten eggs will make themselves known.  Common Core is not a plan for equalizing outcomes in schools, it is a political subset of extreme and pernicious liberalism designed to inculcate children with the most extreme agenda possible including the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal way of life and promiscuity at any age as part of growing up in a modern society.

Who is responsible for Common Core?  Its greatest champions are Barack Obama (of course), Bill and Melinda Gates and a host of other liberal establishment types who want to see education torn from the dictates of local school boards and parents in order to impose a system reliant on federal government approval at every level.  The reason is most assuredly not to better educate our children, but rather the same reason why liberals do all they do, for the sake of naked power.  But the real culprits for CC’s genesis are two organizations which are unelected, accountable to no one and have absolutely nothing to do with education except as a political issue historically and traditionally divined at the local level which means they have little or no control over the decisions made, something no politician or bureaucrat can stand.  They are the National Governor’s Association and the Council of State School Officers.

Who first brought the dangers of Common Core to the public forefront?  None other than Glenn Beck who railed against it at least two years ago if not before on his radio and television programs.  He ridiculed its development and warned of its effects just as he made Americans aware of the dangers involved in the UN’s Agenda 21.  Now, parents and even teachers’ unions in a rare display of unanimity are raising questions about the real purpose of Common Core.  So much resistance is bubbling up, some states which had already adopted the standards are reversing their decisions, Indiana perhaps most conspicuously through a bill labeled the “Common Cause Pause” which was signed by Governor Mike Pence (R) who stated, “I have long believed that education is a state and local function…”

Even in arguably the most liberal state of the Union, New York, there has been pushback over implementation of Common Core.  A recent Siena College poll showed New Yorkers favor a two-year delay in CC’s implementation by 50% to 38%.  And there is a growing consensus that its implementation should be entirely abandoned.  Proponents in New York argue that opposition comes from teachers and parents whose students and children simply don’t measure up to the new standards.  Opponents say, it’s not the new standards, but the seemingly arbitrary methods by which the new standards were developed.  The rationale goes, no one knows better how to educate their children than the parents, teachers and administrators within the school district.  How can a Washington bureaucrat dictate the efficacy of universal standards when they fly in the face of local community mores and folkways?  “We teach Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Chemistry, Biology and American History here,” local officials and parents say.  “We don’t want to teach that Billy has two daddies or mommies, it’s not part of our community’s culture, nor do we see it as having anything to do with educating our children for the jobs of the future.”

People may ask why there is pushback all of a sudden since it can be argued most don’t know exactly what CC is all about in the first place.  The answer is simple because it is ingrained in the American culture.  Like politics, all education has been considered a local affair since the founding of our country.  The theory has always been that parents, in order to effectively interact with their children vis a vis their schooling, must be able to participate at a level they not only understand, but one over which they can exert some control.  Common Core disallows that participation.  Moreover, there is a singularly foul aspect of CC which smacks of the very reason our country was founded in the first place, government imposition without the representation of the people suffering that imposition, e.g. taxation without representation.  While the financing of education remains a purely local aspect, including sometimes exorbitant property taxes, the control goes to a bureaucracy in Washington.   Americans kick against those goads.

The intrusion of the federal government into every aspect of our lives is reaching critical mass.  The resistance to Common Core is a manifestation of that frustration and anxiety and it makes sense that it is.  It is one thing to be personally subject to the whims and fancies of an out-of-control government headed by effete liberals, but when they try wholesale imposition of an agenda on America’s children, even the most docile and accepting parents begin to grow backbones.

The success of counter-efforts to CC’s implementation is hopefully a harbinger of other civil counteroffensives to liberal government’s violation of our Constitution and the rights guaranteed under it.  Let us pray for the courage to openly rebel.

Share

Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


WHEN DEATH IS THE ONLY CURE

Eliana Johnson, writing for The National Review Online (2/26/14), reports House GOP members are about to advance a plan which will presumably, hopefully, maybe (but won’t) “curb the power of the nation’s tax-collecting agency (by introducing) reforms that directly address the circumstances that led to last year’s scandal” centered around the IRS’ targeting conservative groups seeking 501(c)(4) (not-for-profit) status.  Being introduced by Representative Dave Camp (R – MI), chairman of the once powerful Ways and Means Committee, the bill essentially takes aim at what is known as Internal Revenue Code section 6103 which has become notorious for its outrageous protection of IRS miscreants like Lois Lerner who pled the 5th at a Congressional hearing looking into IRS abuses.

Okay, all the above aside because it is so incredibly arcane and only tangential to the present discussion.  Tangential since no amount of “reigning in the IRS” will have the desired effect of actually reigning in the IRS.  Anyone who believes Congress can now corral and discipline its errant children like the IRS and the EPA is entirely ignorant of the most fundamental truth regarding bureaucracies…they never change much less die because their first rule is self-preservation no matter the cost or collateral damage.  The reality of reigning in an out-of-control bureaucracy is the same as dealing with a shark about to take a limb or two, you have to kill it or it will kill you.

Why is it Republicans in Congress and generally it appears, cannot bring the hammer down?  The President of the United States is an out-of-control dictator who violates the very Constitution he and they are sworn to uphold.  What is the Republican response?  A lot of talk about what they would do had they the majority in the Senate which translated really means, if they had the guts.  The Attorney General of the United States blatantly violates his sworn oath and the law, then lies about it front of Congress, then tells his state counterparts to ignore their own state’s laws by refusing to prosecute violations, then involves the Department of Justice in local schools by suggesting they no longer discipline black students through suspension no matter how disruptive and incorrigible they may be.  How do Republicans respond?  They don’t unless you count mumbling and grumbling as responses.

It will come as no surprise to conservatives, indeed people in general who see their government now as the enemy, that Republicans are merely a set of political hacks who reside somewhere in a lala land of their own fantasy.  They neither represent the will of their constituents, nor do they care about the future of the country.  They are infantile in their temper tantrums, powerless as children who rail against parents for being forced to go to bed.  And when they’re done with their tantrums, they hold hearings and push legislation they know won’t go anywhere.

One wishes there was a restart button for the entire government of the United States, a button which would rid us of the entire political spectrum, one that would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection agency, the Department of Education, most of the Department of Justice and at least 75% of the government workforce especially top level bureaucrats, all of Congress, the Executive branch and every sitting judge in the federal system.  Sadly that button was reserved for Hillary Clinton and our relationship with the Russians.  Typical for her, she screwed up even that minor mission managing to make the United States look weaker and more stupid than ever.

If Representative Camp and the other Republicans hanging around in Congress want to massively change the way this government works, they should not start with reforming that which cannot be reformed, they should begin with killing it and supplanting it with a revenue system that cannot be corrupted by scum with agendas like Lois Lerner.  It’s been said many times, the Internal Revenue Service is a cancer on the American body politic.  It cannot be changed.  It cannot be treated.  It cannot be ignored.  It has metastasized and must be cut out of the American organism.  Why don’t Republicans make the diagnosis, then apply the cure?  They would be shocked by the popular support.

 

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


PIERS MORGAN’S FALL FROM ON HIGH…NOT ENTIRELY HIS FAULT

It is always sobering when a son remembers his father’s innumerable admonitions.  “Save your money.”  “Work hard.”  “Do better.”  Then there were those which were less articulated than demonstrated, like when my father, involved in a heated business competition, beat his opponent rather publicly, but refused to make one mention of it after the fact no matter how often he was pressed for the details.  Not that he was humble, he was aware.  Gloating serves no purpose other than to make a vanquished opponent a hated enemy.  Kicking the defeated in any case is an act of boorish stupidity.

This is not to say any one of us learned the lesson so well that 100% of the time we walked away without at least one whoop to let our opponent know we were more than satisfied with defeating him, we’d humiliated him as well.  And in a fair number of cases, the fact that our opponent, had he defeated us, would be dancing on our prostrate body, made gloating not only justifiable, but deserved.  Still, the sound of my father’s voice in the background advising me that gloating is reserved for those who always win, brings me back to the reality that no one does.

Which brings us to Piers Morgan.  Anyone gloating over this man’s having lost his job is as unkind as Mr. Morgan was to people who disagreed with him while he was hosting his program.  Piers Morgan losing his job should not be fodder for his opponents’ amusement.  This isn’t in defense of the man as much as it is an observation of an inevitable outcome.  Piers Morgan was going to lose his job no matter what he might have tried to do to prevent it from happening.  The same applies to everyone working at CNN and MSNBC as well.  Too few watch those networks to make them profitable.  No profit, no network, no Piers Morgan much less an Ed Schultz.

Some years ago, and lately too, I wrote a prescription for what ails both CNN and MSNBC.  In fact, I suggested it might go to help cure what afflicts the New York Times and so many other liberal media outlets, but I was and remain a voice in the wilderness.  Too bad because had any or all of them heeded my advice, they would be going toe to toe with FOX News right now.

How often does one have to slam his head into a wall before he realizes that stopping relieves the pain?  Let’s try that another way.  Isn’t the smartest money in the room that which bypasses reinventing the wheel and goes with what positively without question works?  One more time:  If the king of the hill is there for obvious reasons, wouldn’t it behoove you to copy whatever they are in order to at least fight fire with fire?

CNN and MSNBC (and to an extent, the leftist media in general) are failing because they aren’t giving people what they want.  FOX consistently beats them in all demographics at all times by enormous margins for precisely the opposite reason.  Why then would not CNN and MSNBC jump on the same bandwagon?  Simple, because like all commercial enterprises steeped in a leftist political agenda, profit is the dirty part of what they do, theirs is a higher calling.

And so you cannot blame Piers Morgan for failing just as you will not be able to blame Dylan Farrow, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz et. al. when they do.  Their vehicle is at fault as much as is their politics.  No one watches because no one wants to be told they are part of a rotten society in a rotten country that is unfair, unjust, phobic (pick one or several) and racist, especially when they are none of those things.  No one really believes what they say, so no one tunes in to watch them say it.

Nope, not going to gloat over Piers Morgan’s job loss.  In fact, I hope he finds work somewhere quickly as I suppose he must have mouths to feed like everyone else.  But he should at least heed a word of advice if not warning.  Americans welcome foreigners who come to this country and fall in love with it.  They do not like people who come to this country to receive a paycheck for disparaging it.  Had Piers Morgan been more like Stuart Varney, he’d still have a job.   And if the leftist media wants to compete in the real world, it would be better to drop the leftism and try rightism because right works and left doesn’t.  It’s that simple.

Share

Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Business, Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


SELF-LOATHING, THE LEFT’S LUCRE

This piece began as a response to Bill Maher’s latest rants calling for the heads of Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck and everyone at FOX News, but been there, done that tripped the circuit breaker and I’m glad it did.  I’m sick of him and everyone like him; responding is mind-numbing and useless.

Anyone who puts words to paper (or screen) knows it is a tedious, time-consuming, often boring exercise that in the end can result in something akin to coffee gone cold in your cup.  You want to say it just right, but the process takes you in sundry directions, the control over which is very difficult to regain once lost.  It is why opinion pieces are usually easier and more pleasurable to write than fact based research efforts which command not only fierce concentration, but an equally fierce attention to the reliability and accuracy of all data used in the piece’s assembly process.  To make the task more difficult, it is absolutely essential the data used is appropriately cited such that credit due is properly assigned.

It is why originality comes at a steep price.  Usually, if you think it, it’s already been said.  The best hope is an approach no one or few have taken in an effort to give the reader cause to pause.  With that as the foundation here, allow one observation as to why the United States of America seems to be in such rapid decline:  Americans have no more faith in their institutions and leaders and are almost out of hope.

Now comes the hard part:  An attempt at originality.

When I was growing up in the sixties, it was not uncommon to hear mothers and fathers berate their children for being reflections of the parents.  You heard it all the time, “You rotten little b____rd,” or, “You rotten kids, why can’t you be like…”  The disappointment in their own lives extended to their children.

It seemed few but the most sensitive sons and daughters paid much attention to their parents since being reviled by them was pretty much universal.  But though scratches at the time, those wounds festered.  By adulthood, either they’d healed through some kind of reconciliation (both parents and children having grown together) or they blossomed into full-scale distaste if not hatred for each other.

No one wants to be told they’re rotten, even if they are to a degree, by those who are supposed to love them.  No one wants to live their lives looking in the mirror at someone who constantly disappoints.  Ultimately, when spirits are slowly, inexorably crushed by those who are supposed to defend and encourage their growth, self-loathing creeps in to finish the job.  When a human being loses the ability to see value in his or her own life, the light of hope is extinguished.

That is America in 2014.  Excoriated twenty-four hours a day, three hundred sixty five days a year for over one hundred years by self-loathers, we’ve become self-loathing ourselves.  We’ve had respites along the way, two world wars and Ronald Reagan the most notable, but the rest of the time we’ve been lashed over and over by the political left and their media whips who can only reach orgasm through humiliation.

The discussion of why the left hates America or why the media hypes the hatred in the name of social justice has too many threads for this treatment.  Sooner or later the entire argument becomes little more than an entanglement anyway, a useless effort with only one consequence, the left gets to once again obfuscate what is quite simple and clear, self-loathing leads to self destruction.

Remember when I pointed to the extinguishment of hope after a life of being told how rotten, worthless and pointless was our existence?  I failed to qualify that assessment with another observation, perhaps not as universal, but in sufficient quantity my faith in mankind is holding on.  In spite of being crushed by negativity, people, especially Americans, will at some point say, “Enough is enough.”  Unfortunately it usually comes at the point of no return, but the beauty in suddenly rising up so quickly is that the oppressors are rarely prepared.  Lulled into a sense of security based on how easy it was to get to where they wanted to go and how long they’ve been in control, their response to rebellion is usually too little too late, but extremely desperate and dangerous.

Not all Americans are as fed up as some, but it is because those who aren’t have no one to articulate their sensibilities.  That is to say, they would if they understood why and how.  While radio talk show hosts do their best to bring an awareness to people, they reach only those few who are interested enough to have come to the realization already on their own.  But that doesn’t mean low information people want to be ignorant, it’s that becoming informed requires work.  It’s been easier to let the media do the work for them.  They trusted the networks, Oprah and Katie Couric, but all that has changed with the Internet.  Oprah is yesterday’s effete elitist in socialist garb while Katie Couric is too old for innocent cuteness.  America is sick to death of syrup on road kill.

There is no longer any excuse for ignorance.  If you want the truth, it’s there for you to find.  There is an excuse for being misinformed, but not for total ignorance.  Information gathering aside, there is an underlying issue which needs no dramatic inculcation of patriotic fervor to become noticeable.  Americans are tired of hating themselves.  The left knows this and it worries them to no end.

People like Bill Maher know it too, their desperate hatred for anyone who disagrees with them tells the story.  The federal government knows it as well, if they didn’t the FCC wouldn’t be so interested in managing the information Americans receive.  The IRS knows it or they would not be zeroing in on patriots to nip their messages in the bud.  The EPA knows it or they would not be extending their reach into every facet of American life under the guise of protecting the environment.  Most of all, Democrats know it, especially Barack Obama.  They all require Americans to hate themselves for without self-loathing there is no guilt.  Without guilt there is no remorse.  Without remorse there is no willingness to pay reparations to the climate, the poor, homosexuals, lesbians, abortion and every other issue, group or cause dividing us so completely and so well.

Americans may be slow to awaken, but they are also quick to change their perspective when it appears they’ve been conned.  The first sign that change is upon us comes from the more obscure sources.  It could be something as innocuous as an anonymous tipster who drops $15,000 on a waitress in recognition of her good service.  It could be a slow realization that what was once in fashion has now become passé to an excruciating degree.  Liberalism for example, is out of fashion, the most progressive within the movement are well aware of it.  Imploding of its own excess, liberalism is now struggling as the full reveal of its ridiculousness is upon America.  Saving a species of smelt at the expense of water for California farmers in the midst of the worst drought in the state’s history is ridiculous on every level.  Touting jobs and energy independence while killing coal mining and doing everything possible to restrict drilling is ludicrous.  Assuming the federal government could make a go of managing the entire health care system of the United States when it has never been able to handle the least of its programs was and remains the cruelest joke of all.  Taxing everything in every conceivable way, then spending trillions more than it takes in and running up debt that is absolutely certain to cause a cataclysmic failure of the world’s economic system is completely insane.  But the one that hurts the most is being told by the President of the United States of America that we must abandon all hope because we are not exceptional in the least, we are worse than the lowest common denominator, we are evil and do not deserve all that we have or could create were the shackles of self-loathing removed.

This country needs someone to articulate on  its behalf the thinking of people who are desirous of nothing more than to share in what was once the American dream based on who we are, where we came from and what we stand for, that is, being proud of ourselves for being the soul of the greatest country in the history of the world.  Americans no longer want to be told by our political representatives and government how rotten we are, because we are not rotten, we are good, decent people looking to make our way in our country without guilt or fear of oppressive government .  Whoever presents that case to the American people in the upcoming elections will be swept into office with a mandate to remove government from our lives as far as practicable while giving us back our country and our faith in ourselves.

Americans want to awaken in the greatest country in the world, not because we say we’re the greatest country in the world, but because we know it.  Give us someone who first believes in and then delivers that message without hesitation or qualification and Americans will accept and follow all the way.

Share

Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


DISSENSION IN THE RANKS, NEW YORK’S UPSTATE CONSERVATIVE COALITION’S SOLUTION: MORE GOVERNMENT

Upon invitation from the Upstate (New York) Conservative Coalition (UCC), I delivered a speech on December 4, 2012 the subject of which was separating Upstate from Downstate New York.  The resulting new state would become the fifty-first state of the Union.  You can either read the transcript or listen to the speech, both are respectively posted on PJFOTN.  It was so well received, after a lengthy question and answer period, the audience offered two standing ovations for which I was grateful since my youngest son Carlo and my oldest friend David were in attendance.

On that evening I spoke not only from years of research and conceptual development, but from the heart.  I truly believe that the differences between New Yorkers who live within the sphere of New York City’s direct influence, i.e. economic, cultural and social, and Upstaters are so profound, to remain married is as destructive as living with an abusive spouse.  In my overly long speech, I made the case for an amicable (as far as that can ever be) divorce.

A divorce has profound implications.  It is always hurtful on some level.  The best the parties can hope for is that the settlement be fair.  Sometimes, when lawyers are not involved, the two parties can iron out better arrangements on their own, but one or both must begin the process and it is not an easy thing to broach.  Recognizing that someone must in this case, I proposed a convention of representatives from every Upstate county at which the formal declaration of the intent to separate could be put forward and the outline for a subsequent convention for the process of separation would commence.  I did not propose it at the time, but a constitutional convention would run concomitantly with the legal formalities of separation.

After my speech, several people approached me and asked how they could help drive the idea along.  We traded emails and I told them I would communicate on the details of what I’d been calling “Project 51″ since 2008 (although my research and writing on separating the two regions has been ongoing for about twenty years).  One of those individuals, John Bergener who is now co-chairman of the UCC along with Ben Potiker, contacted me later ostensibly to discuss what I proposed, but then declared my proposal would not work and that he had one which would,  two autonomous regions under the aegis of the same system we already have in New York, the very system from which Upstaters want their freedom.  He essentially wanted to piggyback on something already in the works.  In other words, he wanted to forego the tedious process of starting from the bottom and working his way up on his own.  Incapable of finding a forum for his idea, he simply wanted to co-opt mine, a kind of intellectual boorishness usually reserved for those who define plagiarism as “borrowing without asking”.

I don’t mind someone coming up with a similar or alternative plan regardless of how unprecedented, implausible and ill-conceived it may be, but I do take issue with someone who “borrows” someone else’s work without the honesty and decency of citing its origins.  Last week it came to my attention that Mr. Bergener  did an interview with the Washington Times in which he put forth his idea of dividing New York in two.  It was immediately clear from the interview, Mr. Bergener  “borrowed” the Project 51 concept as his own going so far as to use almost the exact language for its justification as what was in my speech.

Mr. Bergener’s idea for dividing New York into two autonomous regions is based on his erroneous conclusion that it is impossible to divide it into two separate states regardless of the fact that the former has never been done while the latter has.  His plan is based on sly legal subterfuge, a kind of sleight of hand where bending a simple concept to fit the prevailing legal structure is preferable than a straightforward declaration of purpose.  What he proposes is precisely what Americans have come to hate, obfuscation, circumvention, muddying the waters, unnecessary complexity and the resulting confusion that comes with it.  In this way he believes he can move his plan forward by skulking under the radar and without any conflict aside from some minor political disagreements that will be settled with an accommodating wink here and there to Downstate power brokers who understand it is all for show rather than a split of substance.

The result of the autonomous regions plan would be worse than what we have now, one state divided into two districts with two governments, two sets of bureaucracies, two state capitols, two legislatures, two executives, but all ultimately working under the rules and regulations of the one same government we have now.  It would be like a divorce in which the community property is divided equally but remains under the control of one or the other spouse.  In short, his brilliant plan is to add more government to New York without divesting any real control, something I believe 99% of Upstate New Yorkers would find as offensive as a skunk in the kitchen.

Should Mr. Bergener make as much of an effort looking around at similar movements in other states, what he would find is none of them have proposals on the table like his, and for one very good reason, they want a real divorce, not an arrangement with benefits.

In every state where there is talk of separation, it is to form a new state.  People realize the truth of the old apothegm, “all politics is local”, the more so as they see their authority and power being stripped from them by every level of government.  At no time in human history has there been an effective “arrangement” between an abusive government and the abused through the addition of another level of government.  True power must reside with the abusive government and with it the potential and willingness to oppress if for no other reason than to preclude another outbreak of liberty fever.

Separatist movements throughout the country are certainly not new, but the present volume speaks to a level of frustration that is indeed unprecedented.  In California there is a proposal to carve the state into six new states.  Few believe it has a chance, but there is another movement which seeks to separate northern California from Southern California and it may have wheels.

In my speech, I stated the reasons for separation were not so simple as a level of frustration with the command Downstate politicians have over the entire state or that Upstate is, like colonial America, effectively unrepresented in the state legislature as a result.  I said the formation of a new state would be an exercise in creating a government based on what we know works and avoiding that which doesn’t.  All the information we need to do that is right in front of us.  We know states like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and California, run the way they have been for almost their entire existence, do not work.  My proposal starts from the vantage of seeing how states like Texas do work well, if not perfectly.

My proposal centers on creating a state with a constitutional limitation on the size and scope of government including the formation of a part-time, unicameral legislature and an executive so severely limited to managing, he or she would have no legal authority to rule.  Everyone, including governor, legislators, judges and bureaucrats from villages to towns, cities, counties and the state would be term-limited.  Most of all, the foundation of our new state would be an unprecedented devotion to the promotion of private personal and commercial enterprise with extremely limited governmental authority over them; a place so welcoming of enterprise no other in the world would be like it.  The new New York would be an example to the country, if not the world, of what can be accomplished through a reaffirmation of America’s founding principles.

I asked the audience to imagine a state based on the enterprise of its people, one that would be there to help those who could not help themselves, but one that would also encourage enterprise in all its forms by steadfastly supporting and protecting the individual’s right to pursue enterprise unfettered by an overreaching government.  In effect, I proposed a new state based on the very same principles our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution only ours would have in its fundamental legal document an inviolate, iron-clad provision which would make participation in politics so filled with onerous, tedious, ill-compensated work, few but those who saw the sacrifice as a solemn duty would attempt it.

People like John Bergener, who feel no remorse when it comes to using the work of others as if it was their own, are almost always lacking when it comes to the substance of their proposals.  They churn out reams of paperwork, use arcane language and concepts, twist the words of statutes and opinions, warn against the futility of any other idea but their own and make every attempt to bury in rearranged language the work of others so as to make themselves look like statesmen rather than political hacks on personal missions of aggrandizement.  What they fail to understand is the salesman’s credo, Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).  Not that the consumer is stupid, but that the salesman must remind himself of his own stupidity in trying to make a simple concept like liberty so complex only he understands it.

After discussions with people from all over New York, the idea of separation is rather popular on its face.  Talk to them about two autonomous regions and they tune out almost immediately for several reasons, one in particular, they almost always see a snake hiding in the woodpile.  Upstate and Downstate New Yorkers may be separated by a thousand different things, but they are unified in one regard, healthy skepticism.

Mr. Bergener said my plan had no chance because it had no legal basis, but that his did.  I responded that there was no legal basis for the colonists to declare their independence from Great Britain either, but they did.  More to the point, the very arrangement Bergener, Potiker and the UCC seem to have embraced is almost the same system which was in place when the colonists declared their independence.  If taxation without real representation has a contemporary home, it is certainly cozy, comfortable and confident in New York State.  Either Bergener, Potiker et. al. failed American History or they simply don’t comprehend the idea of independence.

This is not a screed disparaging the general UCC membership.  I’ve met some of them and other concerned Upstate citizens as well.  They are more than decent, law-abiding New York patriots who desperately want what is best for their communities, state and country.  Sadly, most of them are like me, in the winter of our years, necessarily more concerned with new diagnoses by our doctors than prescriptions for Upstate’s political health.  And, like a lot of concerned people, they are more than willing to spend an hour a month participating in a meeting while leaving the work to those who have the time and willingness to perform it.  But that kind of laxity always…always leads to inviting people like John Bergener to husband efforts on the organization’s behalf for which its members have not given their informed support.

Mr. Bergener’s plan is, for lack of a more appropriate word, Byzantine.  If there is a plan to save Upstate New York from additional indifference and abuse of Downstate politicians, it must be the simplest of them all, independence as a wholly separate state.  Everyone, from those with the loftiest intellects to people of common interests immediately understands that.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , .


“HIGH CRIMES” ARE NOT WHAT YOU THINK

In his monograph entitled, “Meaning of ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’,” Jon Roland of the Constitution Society explains that the phrase derives from English common law as it applies perhaps not statutorily, but as offenses which are peculiar to the office or public position one may hold whether by election or appointment.  The term, “high crime” he states, “does not mean ‘more serious’.  It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.”

Borgna Brunner, writing for the web site, Infoplease.com, has a similar take on the phrase.  “Bribery, perjury, and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution’s stipulation of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is vast.  Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord.”

For contemporary purposes as they apply to Barack Obama, the operative phrase within the meaning of “high crimes” is “abuse of power.”  If the Framers intended for impeachment to be brought to bear on officials who violated a specific statute or statutes, clearly they would have stated such.  They tailored the language so that men of good character, putting aside their political and factional differences, would band together under unstated rules of honesty and integrity to remove those who had violated the trust of their offices.  Chief among those trusts was the prudent exercise of power.  So wary were they of power’s ability to corrupt, the Framers purposely made it easy to impeach for reasons far beyond statutory violations.

Barack Obama has abused his power.  He continues to abuse it.  In as arrogant a fashion as any tin-pot dictator, he has telegraphed his intention of abusing it in full violation of the mandates which limit his authority if not strictly as imposed constitutionally, then as reasonable people understand the limits to presidential power under our system of government.

Impeachment is seldom used to bring errant political power mongers under control not for the potential it may be abused if too often utilized, but because those who are required to bring impeachment proceedings against a perpetrator are themselves subject to it.  This is a failing in the Constitution.  In our republican democracy, while the people rely on their representatives to defend their rights against usurpation by sitting office holders, judges and other government authorities, the people have no recourse but the ballot box.  In the modern era, irreparable damage can be done by power mad officials in a matter of minutes with the stroke of a pen.  By the time an election comes around, it is far too late.  This is the situation we face with Barack Obama who, more than any president before him, has violated the meaning and the letter of the law as well as the unwritten limitations on his power as understood by the definition of “high crimes.”

If “high crimes” includes abuse of power, surely malfeasance is its epitome.  And if it is malfeasance by ineptitude, it is still malfeasance.  If a surgeon touts his abilities and undertakes an operation he is actually incapable of performing, his continuing to operate is malfeasant conduct.  Regardless of how many colleagues support the surgeon for simply being a surgeon, it is incumbent on them all to remove him from the procedure lest the patient suffer and die.  Barack Obama is inept.  He has proven it time after time and admits to same.  He has stated over and over he did not know various scandals and misdeeds were going on right under his nose.  Moreover, he refuses to answer whether or not he or any of his surrogates are responsible for wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on companies like Brightsource ($1.6 billion), First Solar ($1.46 billion), Sunpower ($1.2 billion), Solyndra ($535 million) and Fisker Automotive ($529 million) among a list of thirty-three companies receiving taxpayer money, eighteen of which are in bankruptcy.

And though it may be business as usual in politics to reward those who supported a president when he or she was a candidate, Barack Obama has taken the practice to a level that defies the lowest proprieties.  Fred Schulte, John Aloysius Farrell and Jeremy Borden wrote in PublicIntegirty.org that “184 of 556, or about one-third, of Obama bundlers[1](note and italics ours) or their spouses joined the administration in some role.  But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers.  Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took ‘key administration posts,’ as defined by the White House.  More than half the ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised more than half a million.”

As recently as January 23, 2014, in a Senate hearing on his nomination, Obama nominee for Ambassador to Norway, George J. Tsunis displayed such ignorance about the host country Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) was visibly in disbelief prompting Tsunis to retract a statement he made about Norway’s Progress Party as being “fringe elements…spewing hatred.”  When McCain pointed out that the Progress Party is in fact part of Norway’s coalition government, Tsunis responded, “I stand corrected and would like to leave my answer that it is a very open society…”  In answer to another question, Tsunis mistakenly said Norway has a president. It does not, Norway is a constitutional monarchy.  A clearly disgusted McCain closed by saying, “I have no more questions for this incredibly highly qualified group of  nominees.”

According to Yahoo News, George Tsunis “and his wife, Olga, are listed among the “top individual contributors” on the strength of having given $267,244, roughly 89% of which went to Democrats and 10% to Republicans.  In all, he raised $988,550 for Obama and gave $300,000 to Democratic super PACs and $75,800 to the Obama Victory Fund.”

That Barack Obama is abusing the authority and power of the presidency is not in question, clearly he has, is and will continue to do so.  It is also clear there is not the courage in the House of Representatives to impeach, nor are there the votes in the Senate to convict Mr. Obama, but at the very least the voice of the people should be heard, that impeachment is a cure for the lawlessness of our federal officials.  Whether by intention or out of a remarkable inability to govern honestly and effectively, Barack Hussein Obama should, indeed must be impeached on behalf of a beleaguered people for the high crime of abusing the office of the President of the United States.  If nothing else, it will act as a warning to others in positions of power and authority, that in lieu of a Constitutional amendment which provides for a less tedious and impossible means of removing tyrants from office, impeachment is a very real threat.



[1] “Bundlers” are people who solicit contributions from others so as to pool them in order to circumvent campaign finance laws which would otherwise prohibit individuals from donating large sums to campaigns.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


THE SAD STORY OF SARAH SILVERMAN

As a young Italian-American male growing up in a city whose only claim to fame was its total corruption, the idea of being a bad boy for the sake of its appeal to girls never entered my mind.  To my knowledge, none of us guys ever thought about it.  We were all pretty much bad for real, so it was a bonus when we came to understand that great failing among females of a certain ilk, they gravitated towards guys like us.  It also didn’t hurt to have that Italian look and sense of superiority even if neither were deserved.  We were who we were, the real deal, guys who got into trouble, none as much as me, but that’s another story.

And so, armed with the concept of moths to flames, I entered my college years without any anxiety whatsoever about meeting and fooling with girls.  What I didn’t know was that too much of a good thing has the same result as too much of a bad thing.  That is to say, most if not all the girls I found who were attracted to the bad boy thing were also trepidatious, Italian girls more than any of the others.  They’d seen it all before.  You could tell WASP girls had been drilled by their fathers about Italian boys, they crossed the street whenever we were around.  Occasionally you found an adventuresome one, but you had to be careful, if a blonde beauty got her hooks in you, spaghetti and meatballs would forever be little more than fond memories.

The girls who weren’t the least bit cautious about entering into a relationship with bad boys, however thin it might be, proved to be animals of an entirely different breed.  Not only did they revel in the potential for good times tinged with danger (whether real or perceived), they encouraged bad behavior sometimes to the point of depravity.  But if Italian girls were cautious about getting involved with Italian bad boys, Jewish girls had no such reservations, they hunted them down.

A perennial student of people in general, I have always been interested not so much in what they do, but why, which I suppose isn’t very unique.  And being “bold as brass” as my mother used to say about me, I didn’t hesitate to engage people, especially women in such conversations.  Jewish girls most of the time were unabashed about their appetite for the wild and crazy.  Most admitted that college, being far away from home, was like being set free for awhile knowing that the good times would end on the day of graduation.

Having no truck as they say, with political correctness at any time of my life, I can say most of the Jewish girls who corralled me or I them were refreshingly honest as opposed to most other women who are preposterous liars when it comes to the details of their pasts.  The line, “I’ve never done this before” is almost as common for women as “Don’t worry, I’ll only…(you fill in the blank)” is for men.  The most foolish among my gender will always give a woman they think they’re in love with the benefit of the doubt in that regard, something I always struggled with since if they never did it before how come they’re taking to it the first time like a fish to water?

In my experience however, Jewish girls were not of that ilk and, over time, I found out why.  They didn’t care enough to lie because there was no chance whatsoever they would even consider anything serious with you, Mr. Italian-American bad boy Gentile.  To some men that kind of chosen people superiority would be offensive, but not to an equally arrogant Italian-American.  I found it enormously liberating.  Here were perfectly fine, willing girls who had no interest in you besides having a good time in any way you could imagine.  There was an understanding about the future, there wasn’t any, but if you needed to hear it flat out you could ask and get a straight answer most of the time.  There would be a beginning and a definite end to the relationship since you were a Gentile, they were Jews and never the twain shall marry.  That Jewish girl was going to dump you as soon as graduation rolled around, or before if they were really smart, so as to get herself ready for a Jewish boy to whom she would say, “I’ve never done that before.”

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule of non-integration, today perhaps more than ever as people put religiosity between the pages of their Bibles or rolled up with their Torahs.  But the age-old prejudices remain, often exacerbated by some long buried happenstance which ripped the heart out of one or the other person engaged in such a dangerous Jewish-Gentile liaison.  Because, while in the very general sense resulting from the totality of my own admittedly limited experience, Jewish girls can be hurt as easily as Gentiles.  Which brings me to Sarah Silverman and her hatred for all things Christian.

You remember her, that girl in college, not a great beauty, but good looking enough even with the extra gums and those oddball eyes, one distinctly larger than the other, the smaller ever so slightly game which made her rather endearing in a weird kind of way.  But what she lacked in great American beauty she more than made up for in personality, so outgoing, funny in fact, witty definitely, engaging on that basis alone.  You’re that Italian kid though, you could have most any girl you wanted.  You’d do her, but it wouldn’t be the foaming-at-the-mouth, got-to-have-her sexual thing, it would be more of an occasional courtesy poke, like a bonus which added a slightly pleasurable dimension to the good time she was in the overall.

That wasn’t the way she saw it though.  She never expected you who exuded careless, arrogant masculinity from every pore to pull her out of the shadows.  She was just a little Jewish girl from a small New Hampshire town where there were maybe five other Jewish families living lives restricted to interaction with each other.  She not only didn’t know she was kind of pretty, but she didn’t know it so much she overcompensated on the personality side of things thinking it would be the only way she could fit in anywhere.  Kind of like what you would imagine Barbra Streisand’s college experience would have been if she went as Fanny Brice.  That’s Sarah Silverman, or at least that’s what Sarah Silverman seems to be except that in her quest for acceptance she’s been used like a fifty cent hooker in a two dollar Shanghai bordello by every wannabe bad boy Gentile from there to New Jersey.  She as much as admits it, but underneath her admissions there is an undeniable contempt for those Gentiles who had her.  She hates them and by extension their faith.

Her hatred for Christianity is not hatred for the faith though as much as it is a need to get back at those Gentile boys who treated her the way she allowed them to treat her except, along the way she fell in love with one of them.  I’ve experienced it before, only once, but in my case there was no way I could bring a Jewish girl home to a father who equated Sicilians to Puerto Ricans and a mother who believed anyone from outside Bari ate cats.  Likewise, in true Romeo and Juliet style, my Jewish girlfriend could no more bring me home to her parents than sit to a meal of pig’s knuckles.  But even in light of those facts, she blamed me for being who I was, especially for coming from a rigidly ethnic Italian Catholic family.  The end was bitter because I think we really cared for each other.

So it’s best to understand poor Sarah Silverman rather than disparage her.  Sad kid, so desperate to stab out at Christianity as the culprit behind a heartbreak or two.  It’s no wonder when pressed about why she hates Christianity so much, that maybe her being Jewish fuels her hatred, she pulls up what seems to be the shibboleth for all Jews who hate Christians, “I mean, I talk about being Jewish a lot,” she says.  “It’s funny because I do think of myself as Jewish ethnically, but I’m not religious at all.  I have no religion.”

But the truth is in her background.  IMDB’s bio of Silverman includes a trivia blurb which states, she “has three sisters: Susan Silverman, a feminist rabbi (and co-author, with husband Yosef Abramowitz, of the book ‘Jewish Family & Life: Traditions, Holidays, and Values for Today’s Parents and Children’); Laura Silverman, an actress; and Jodyne L. Speyer, author of ‘Dump ‘Em: How To Break Up With Anyone From Your Best Friend to Your Hairdresser’”.

To therefore buy into her religious disclaimer requires a full dump of brain cells.  Of course she grew up in a radically liberal household.  Of course she was brought up strictly Jewish with all the prejudices and hatreds that go along with a lot of upbringings, mine included.  It’s not an excuse for her, just a little sunlight on what appears to be a very unhappy life.  It begs the question, if religion is not the motive for her hatred, why is it Christianity is always the target of her “comedy”?

At least the Jewish girls I knew were up front about their prejudices.  And there was practicality in the way they approached relationships with Gentile boys, precisely the same kind preached by my Italian parents.  Fool around with them, but marriage is out of the question.  You are far better off marrying someone of your own ethnic and religious background, that way you pretty much know what to expect right from the start.  You do away with years of figuring each other out.

Sarah Silverman is a poor little girl who’s been trained to hate, a hurt child desperate for attention and approval, a sad copy of all such girls who allow themselves to be used and abused and then, when they find themselves alone in front of a mirror become self-loathing to a pathetic degree.  But instead of coming to terms with the why and wherefore of her life, Sarah turns to the oldest shtick in the book, outrageousness.  But outrageousness is not a talent, it’s a cry of desperation from a not so nice Jewish girl who, if she could turn the clock back, maybe could have found a nice Jewish boy who would believe her when she said, “I’ve never done this before”.

Share

Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .