I have posted this elsewhere as a specific reply to Michael Bates’ comment that Carlson is not changing any minds. With whatever logic Substack applies, it did not appear here so did not look the least relevant. I am reposting in a second effort to place it properly. I apologize to those who notice it twice if this is considered bad form…
I have posted this elsewhere as a specific reply to Michael Bates’ comment that Carlson is not changing any minds. With whatever logic Substack applies, it did not appear here so did not look the least relevant. I am reposting in a second effort to place it properly. I apologize to those who notice it twice if this is considered bad form.
---
I couldn’t agree more - with your first sentence. To wit: he is also not changing the minds of tens of millions of Trump supporters. He is merely strengthening a narrative they clutch to without reserve, and providing video documentation. This will be used, incredibly I might add, to continue to prop up America’s most powerful and despicable lie. Carlson is amplifying a view that will coax from willing martyrs a terroristic response at some point when the fuse has been lit by some other relatively insignificant action.
How this got from the government to the media this easily is a total shock to me. The comparison may be inapt and I apologize if it is. But, on the one hand the law allows lengthy stays of justice based on the most specious, absurd grounds (I’m thinking at the moment of Pence’s “I’ll have it both ways” challenge in order not to testify). On the other hand, a government official can simply hand over raw American history unchecked by any rule to a single entity which is now probably the most corrupt media outlet of power America has ever been subjected to.
The legal system is fast becoming a dangerous joke for its inability to avoid twisting itself into knots allowing appeal after appeal after appeal. Justice delayed through too clever by half appeals to the nooks and crannies of the laws is justice denied.
I am reminded of Ernest Wilde’s play Salome grossly orgiastic and profane written in the depths of his libertinism being banned from Germany at the turn of the 20th century. When public demand for this spectacle became intense, the Kaiserin managed to get the authorities to evade the ban by the simple expedient of insisting that the Star of the Magi appear at the end of each performance, symbolizing the triumph of good over evil. Two hours of blood-soaked orgiastic wallowing was redeemed by a one minute appearance of the star. This is the kind of hypocrisy American law now excels in.
I have blamed and continue to blame Merrick Garland for his tortured waste of time at the beginning of his term, using valuable effort and resources to try to convince those whose ears are stopped to him that he really was an even-handed good guy who would apply the law equally to both sides. It was a cowardly failure. And now we are reaping the results as Trump promises to run if indicted. *Of course* he will. What does he have to lose. Rachel Maddie’s utterly lame comparison of Trump to Spiro Agnew last night was a joke. These are far far more turbulent times - the zeitgeist is completely different.
Professor Cox Richardson’s piece seemed a bit overblown to me until I thought for two seconds. It is one of her darkest warnings yet, in a quiet but unmistakeable tone that she rarely uses. From her vast experience and knowledge, she sees a probability that is deeply unsettling. Best we listen.
I have posted this elsewhere as a specific reply to Michael Bates’ comment that Carlson is not changing any minds. With whatever logic Substack applies, it did not appear here so did not look the least relevant. I am reposting in a second effort to place it properly. I apologize to those who notice it twice if this is considered bad form.
---
I couldn’t agree more - with your first sentence. To wit: he is also not changing the minds of tens of millions of Trump supporters. He is merely strengthening a narrative they clutch to without reserve, and providing video documentation. This will be used, incredibly I might add, to continue to prop up America’s most powerful and despicable lie. Carlson is amplifying a view that will coax from willing martyrs a terroristic response at some point when the fuse has been lit by some other relatively insignificant action.
How this got from the government to the media this easily is a total shock to me. The comparison may be inapt and I apologize if it is. But, on the one hand the law allows lengthy stays of justice based on the most specious, absurd grounds (I’m thinking at the moment of Pence’s “I’ll have it both ways” challenge in order not to testify). On the other hand, a government official can simply hand over raw American history unchecked by any rule to a single entity which is now probably the most corrupt media outlet of power America has ever been subjected to.
The legal system is fast becoming a dangerous joke for its inability to avoid twisting itself into knots allowing appeal after appeal after appeal. Justice delayed through too clever by half appeals to the nooks and crannies of the laws is justice denied.
I am reminded of Ernest Wilde’s play Salome grossly orgiastic and profane written in the depths of his libertinism being banned from Germany at the turn of the 20th century. When public demand for this spectacle became intense, the Kaiserin managed to get the authorities to evade the ban by the simple expedient of insisting that the Star of the Magi appear at the end of each performance, symbolizing the triumph of good over evil. Two hours of blood-soaked orgiastic wallowing was redeemed by a one minute appearance of the star. This is the kind of hypocrisy American law now excels in.
I have blamed and continue to blame Merrick Garland for his tortured waste of time at the beginning of his term, using valuable effort and resources to try to convince those whose ears are stopped to him that he really was an even-handed good guy who would apply the law equally to both sides. It was a cowardly failure. And now we are reaping the results as Trump promises to run if indicted. *Of course* he will. What does he have to lose. Rachel Maddie’s utterly lame comparison of Trump to Spiro Agnew last night was a joke. These are far far more turbulent times - the zeitgeist is completely different.
Professor Cox Richardson’s piece seemed a bit overblown to me until I thought for two seconds. It is one of her darkest warnings yet, in a quiet but unmistakeable tone that she rarely uses. From her vast experience and knowledge, she sees a probability that is deeply unsettling. Best we listen.
Apologize for length.