Tenet, a movie I can't recommend

Tenet is the latest movie from Christopher Nolan, who wrote and directed it. It stars the talented John David Washington (Denzel's son), a charming Robert Pattinson, Kenneth Branagh in a brutal role, and Elizabeth Debicki in a strange role. Did I like the movie? No. I'm sure there were many people who did. But it's hard to believe this is the same Christopher Nolan who made the fantastic Interstellar. 

Tenet is billed as an action and sci-fi film, but in my opinion, it doesn't work well as either. Or rather, it should have been one or the other. As an action film, it's entertaining to watch--fast-paced and good action sequences. Like a modern Bond film. I'm willing to suspend my need for a totally logical plot if action movies are entertaining. But they have to make some sense. Tenet should have remained an action thriller without the added sci-fi element, because the idea of inverted time made no sense to me, was not well-explained, and simply served to muddle the plot. As Collider.com explains, "the basics of time inversion is that someone in the future invented some doodad that allows time to flow backwards. Therefore, certain elements are flowing backwards through time. Their trajectory has become inverted." Oh kay. My question is why? Why is this interesting? Toward the end of the film, when the blue and red groups of soldiers (regular time and inverted time soldiers) are advancing and retreating multiple times, it was enough to cause whiplash. It made me dizzy. I kept wondering when it was all going to end. I kept thinking--please stop. I kept wondering how many times we needed to see fire and smoke pulled back into windows and doors, like what happens in backdrafts. Except that this was to illustrate inverted time? How many times did we need to see that? One or two times was ok, more than that, no. I have no desire to sit through this film again trying to figure it all out. Once was enough. And that was NOT how I felt about Interstellar, which I've seen at least three times at this writing. It is not enough to throw the idea of inverted time out there for us as moviegoers to figure out. That's the moviemaker's job. Better luck next film, Mr. Nolan. 

FDR, the New Deal, and socialist programs

I am currently reading Franklin and Eleanor: An Extraordinary Marriage by Hazel Rowley. It’s a very well-written account of Franklin D and Eleanor Roosevelt’s marriage, which cannot be described as conservative in any sense of the word. The backdrop for a good portion of their marriage is of course a major era in American history. FDR was an ambitious man, and set his sights on the governorship of NY State and on the presidency of the USA (with tremendous support from Eleanor, loyal employees and friends) at a time in the USA when the Great Depression had just about decimated society and normal living as the country had known them up to that point. The stock market crash in 1929 led to the collapse of banks. People lost their savings and homes, jobs were scarce, unemployment high, and there was widespread poverty. His weaknesses as a husband do not detract from his strengths as president--strong leader with excellent ideas for how to renew America. But I imagine he would have been an impossible man to live with--huge ego, very ambitious, wilful, jovial, charming, used to getting his way, aided and abetted by a mother who interfered royally in his marriage to Eleanor. Eleanor was also headstrong, but her obstinacy evolved out of the disappointments that she faced living with a man who mostly put himself and his needs first, even more so after he developed polio. She liked people, as did FDR, and surrounded herself with them. Many of their employees and friends lived in the same house as the Roosevelts for shorter or longer periods; 'they both enjoyed communal living' as Rowley writes. FDR lived his life as he saw fit, and extended the same courtesy to Eleanor, who did live her life as she wished once her children were mature. But I leave that to you to discover when you read the book. Suffice it to say that theirs was an open marriage in the true sense of the word. At the same time, they had a lot of respect for each other, were good companions, and were supportive of each other’s ambitions and professional desires. Theirs was a modern marriage that most of us would never opt for, even in these modern times, likely because divorce is more acceptable in our era than it was in theirs. But money also helped smooth their life together; they lacked for nothing. If they wanted to purchase a new house or a cottage, lack of money was no hindrance. Yet, they were very empathetic to the plight of Depression America and to the poor, and their legacy bears that out.

Herbert Hoover was the president before FDR. He believed in raw capitalism without any government intervention whatsoever. At that time, there was no bank deposit insurance as we have today (the FDIC--thanks to FDR), no federal welfare, and no unemployment relief. Hoover was adamantly opposed to these types of ‘socialist’ programs that would weaken/destroy American individualism and self-sufficiency. Hoover felt strongly that FDR’s ‘socialist’ agenda (minimum wage, old-age pensions, farm relief, unemployment relief through public works, bank deposit insurance) would destroy the country and warned the public that America under FDR would lead to the USA embracing Communism. FDR believed the opposite, and set about remaking America under his New Deal, instituting the National Recovery Administration (minimum wages, maximum weekly hours of work), the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (aid to the poor), the Public Works Administration (building of bridges, roads, schools), the Tennessee Valley Authority (building dams), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (planting trees, digging reservoirs). We can thank FDR for many of the ‘socialist’ benefits that we enjoy today. FDR knew that some people, despite their best efforts, simply don’t make it, and his point was that it was the duty of government to help them. This attitude is, dare I say it, almost Christian.

The USA did not become Communist under FDR. It strikes me that many of the current arguments used against President Biden at present are similar in tone to those used against FDR. The Trump supporters I know are constantly screaming about how the USA will become a socialist country under Biden. And I have to ask--how will that happen? What does he stand for that is so ‘socialist’? Increasing the minimum wage? About time, if you ask me. Basic healthcare for all citizens? About time, if you ask me. Cheaper college education? About time, if you ask me. At present, the only people really doing exceptionally well in America are the exceptionally rich--who have no problems buying homes, owning property, buying planes or cars or boats, traveling, educating their children, or buying the best medical and legal care they can find. The middle class, which most people in my parents’ generation belonged to, has changed dramatically. It’s hard to know where most people fit these days. Most people I know own their own homes or apartments, can afford to travel, can afford to eat out, and can afford basic medical care. But exorbitant medical costs due to medical emergencies (e.g. expensive cancer treatments) might wipe them out, likewise outrageous legal fees in connection with a lawsuit. Most of the people I know have good medical insurance, but they still watch their expenses (do they need that dental appointment or MRI now or can they wait?). The children of some of them attended college on scholarships, as I did when I went to college and graduate school. I additionally received tuition assistance (TAP) from NY State because my father was unemployed at the time I started college. Thank God for that socialist program. Without such programs, many of us might not have gotten the educations that we received. Yes, God helps those who help themselves. Everybody knows that, and most people want to work and make a life for themselves and their families. But God forbid your father or mother or both became sick or died, when you were about to start college. In Hoover’s time, most people would have said to you ‘tough luck, you’re on your own. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop feeling entitled’. And you probably would not have attended college, because only the rich could afford it. Nowadays, you can afford college thanks to the social programs that are in place to help you. I think it’s much better to live in a country with ‘socialist’ programs than to live in one run by someone like Hoover. That’s just my opinion. But before you disagree with me, think about some of the benefits you've enjoyed courtesy of 'socialist' programs. And then I'll be willing to talk to you. 

The long road to where we are now

I think we have to go back to Watergate and Richard Nixon’s resignation in order to gain some perspective on the controversies that defined Nixon’s presidency and how that influenced the political atmosphere henceforth. I believe there is a lot to learn from our past, because the two-party polarization we see now has always been a part of American politics to some degree. But in recent times, it has been magnified and strengthened by social media and a relentless press, and at present, is simply out of control.

I was a teenager when the Watergate scandal unfolded. I sat and watched the Senate Watergate hearings in 1973 together with my father, who was at home on sick leave at the time. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached for his role in the Watergate scandal. The Republican president Gerald Ford pardoned him in 1974, a pardon that was quite controversial; Ford justified the pardon by saying that he did not want to subject the USA to a trial that would only have further polarized the American people, who had already endured the Watergate hearings. After Ford came Democrat Jimmy Carter, who served only one presidential term (1977-1981); he was a forward-thinking president when it came to energy and conservation policies. He was followed by Republican Ronald Reagan who served two presidential terms (1981-89); his oratory skills and charm served him well, even though he was sometimes considered a lightweight because he had formerly been an actor. His economic policies--Reaganomics--introduced Americans to ‘supply-side (trickle-down)’ policies that supported decreases in taxes for corporations in order to stimulate economic growth. The intent was that corporations, since they would now ‘save money’, would use those savings to create jobs and to benefit the rest of the economy ("trickle down" theory). His economic policies were controversial. His foreign policies were rooted in anti-Communism ideology and quite bold, especially his challenge to Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall. Conservatives in both political parties embraced him when it came to his economic policies; I have to wonder if this was because he was a skilled orator and good communicator. I can remember heated arguments among the people I know/knew about his presidency; I was not a Reagan fan at the time, but when he challenged Gorbachev, my respect for him increased quite a bit. After Reagan came Republican George H.W. Bush, who served one term only (1989-1993); perhaps the most controversial decision he made was to involve the USA in the Gulf War. But his presidency did play a major role in the reunification of Germany. Bill Clinton became Democratic president in 1993 and served two presidential terms (1993-2001); while he enjoyed high approval ratings for his economic policies and his attempts to broker peace deals as part of his foreign policies, he was impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives (but not by the Senate) for perjury and obstruction of justice when he lied to conceal his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He did complete his second term in office. The Lewinsky affair overshadows most of what otherwise occurred during his presidential terms. Clinton was followed by Republican George W. Bush who also served two terms (2001-2008); some of Bush’s most controversial actions would have to be the invasion of Iraq in the futile search for weapons of mass destruction (that were never found), and his handling of Hurricane Katrina. He was followed by Democrat Barack Obama who served two presidential terms (2008-2016); perhaps his most controversial policies are ‘Obamacare’ (the Affordable Care Act) that a number of my friends were opposed to since they were afraid of losing their private health insurance policies, and his support for same-sex marriage and gun control. While I do not think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it was not of his doing; the Norwegian Nobel peace prize committee nominated him for the prize. I don’t know if anyone has ever turned down the prize before. His presidency was responsible for the capture and death of Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks on the USA on September 11, 2001. ‘Republican’ Donald Trump became president in 2016, defeating Hillary Clinton; she won the popular vote but he won the Electoral College. It was not an optimal start for his presidency, which has been riddled with controversy since day one.

I bring up this timeline of the presidencies (with help from Wikipedia) in order to make the point that something went majorly wrong in American politics during the Clinton presidency in terms of the rise of (morally scrupulous) fanaticism. One has to wonder about the underlying reason. It is hard to fathom just how ridiculous the Clinton impeachment, which was televised in 1998, looked to the rest of the world. It is hard for me to fathom how it gained the momentum it did. Internet was still in its infancy, and social media did not exist. Had it existed, it would have been even more unbearable for all involved. My husband’s father (Norwegian) labelled it a farce from day one. You’ve got to wonder what happened to the minds of intelligent people who essentially impeached Clinton for lying about a sexual affair he had with a young woman working in the White House. His lying about it pales in comparison to the current occupant of the White House, who lies about most things, forces others to lie for him, spouts fake news and demands that his followers buy it and be loyal to him. While I don’t condone Clinton’s infidelity, the infidelity itself was a private matter for him and his wife to deal with. If Hillary wanted to remain with him; that was her choice, and ultimately it was her choice. The actual impeachment proceedings were a joke; when you look at them now your first instinct is to cringe. And I can imagine the rest of the world cringed as well, for how it embarrassed the USA. Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s role in the entire sordid mess, Linda Tripp’s betrayal of Monica Lewinsky--taping the conversations Lewinsky had with her and turning them over to Ken Starr (who was already investigating the Whitewater scandal that involved the Clintons), bringing in a blue dress with semen stains on it in order to further the case. Starr was obsessed with taking down Bill Clinton, with destroying him personally, and you’ve got to ask the question--WHY? He managed to humiliate Clinton and Lewinsky; Lewinsky found herself nearly unable to live down her affair and have a life afterward, and it didn’t help that Clinton never apologized to her for essentially misusing his position and taking advantage of her. Yes, she could have said no and should have said no. But she didn’t. However, she didn’t deserve the life that ensued following the revelation of the affair. But Starr managed something else--he managed to humiliate himself and to ensure that his legacy will be the story of a fanatical man obsessed with personally destroying Clinton. At least that’s how I see it, and I’m no historian or political scientist. 

If one behaves like Ken Starr did toward Clinton, one must expect repercussions in the political arena for years to come. Tit for tat. Revenge politics. There are many Democrats who never forgot how Clinton was treated and humiliated, and how the USA was humiliated on the world stage. For a country that prides itself on ‘separation of church and state’, it certainly seemed as though the ‘tar and feather’ brand of religion (religious zealots) had overtaken the government, aided and certainly abetted by the evangelical movement, most of whom seem to be greedy charlatans. The moral finger pointing had started. Some few people decided that they had the moral qualifications to decide how others should behave. Christ would probably have called them Pharisees.

During the two Bush administrations, there was partisanship, criticism, bitter disagreements, and controversy. But Bush junior was never treated the way Bill Clinton was treated. He was faithful to his wife and honest about having had an alcohol problem when he was younger, so the Democrats and the press couldn’t exactly accuse him of immorality. Both the Democrats and Republicans criticized him for his handling of Hurricane Katrina as well as for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But he had to contend, like the rest of the USA, with the 9/11 attacks. There was no time for frivolous attacks/attempts to destroy a man’s life and character when the country was united against an external enemy.

Trump started the fanaticism ball rolling again when he questioned whether or not Obama was born in the USA (the Obama birtherism conspiracy theory). He did this long before he even became president. He pushed this fake news story for all it was worth. He played the public humiliation game--let’s humiliate Obama--a game he was already quite skilled at from his earlier dealings with NYC politicians, his own family, and other businesspeople. It’s his favoured technique for inciting the masses and gaining loyal followers. In this case, followers who are white supremacists, racists, would-be racists, and those who simply were looking for a bully pulpit to speak for them. He forced Obama to produce his birth certificate to confirm that he was born in the USA. Trump’s alliance with the Republican Party meant that the Democrats had to fight against a man who revelled in being a pathological liar, pusher of fake news, and an inciter of many forms of bad behaviour, right from the start. When you start off by personally attacking your opponent, you know exactly what you are doing. You are taking the low road, and defining for your followers the road they are to take as well. The low road enables the disenfranchised, the downtrodden, the bullies, and the underbelly of society, to come out into the open. And they did, in droves. What we see at present is the culmination of years of drinking at the poison well by Trump’s followers--a well that provided a steady intake of fake news, conspiracy theories, white supremacist ideology, fanaticism (aided and abetted by evangelical charlatans), Christian churches that refused to stand up against him, an alt-right and conservative press that lapped up his every word and that enabled him. While Trump can often come across as rather stupid, he was intelligent enough to know exactly what he was doing during these past four years. He exploited the polarization in American politics for all it was worth, for his own ends. ‘Divide and conquer’ is a tried and true technique used by despots to gain power and to keep it. He may not be responsible for the huge chasm that exists between liberals and conservatives, but he certainly exploited it with his outrageousness and lack of boundaries. The Democrats may have fed into this narrative by going after Trump and the Republicans with claws out and fangs bared, to destroy them as they felt the Republicans had tried to destroy Clinton. It’s definitely a real possibility that some of them think and feel this way; I cannot help but think that their hatred of Trump is a response to how Republicans treated Clinton. Perhaps for some, these past four years have been payback time. But payback comes at a high price--the ripping apart of America.

And here we are, in January 2021, wondering whether or not Biden, who is trying to take the high road and to focus on the crucial issues at hand, will succeed. Washington DC is an armed camp, tensions are running high, and violence is expected. One hopes that there will not be more deaths. You can ask whether all of this enmity is worth it, but you’re not likely to get a rational answer from anyone. The situation is out of control, and everyone knows it.

Picnic at Hanging Rock--the movie and the series

Picnic at Hanging Rock--the movie--came out in 1975 and was lauded as a great film. Indeed, its director, Peter Weir, of The Last Wave fame, went on to make some hugely popular movies, among them Witness, Master and Commander, Green Card, and The Truman Show. The Last Wave, with Richard Chamberlain, is a masterpiece of a film about a lawyer defending several Aboriginal men accused of murder, who falls under the spell of the Aboriginal culture; he begins to have premonitions about a last wave, which may or may not be a huge tidal wave or a tsunami. The film was released in 1977, two years after Picnic at Hanging Rock, which I never saw until recently. I watched it after I had seen the BBC television series of the same name (now available on the streaming channel Cirkus here in Norway). Although most reviewers and viewers preferred the film, I preferred the television series. 

I have not read the novel by Joan Lindsay on which both the film and series are based, but I plan on doing so. That said, I found the series to be quite good, and I liked it better than the film version, probably because it was longer and viewers could get better insights into the characters and what made them tick. Additionally, I had read movie reviews that kept mentioning how eerie the film was; I thought the series was far more so. It really got under my skin. I do agree with the naysayers that the series could probably have been shortened to four episodes instead of six, but regardless, it held my interest throughout.

I liked that series viewers learned a lot about the main characters--where they came from, their backstories. The series got the chance to really flesh out the characters. They took liberties with the actual story, I am sure of that. But it worked. I liked the dreamy atmosphere that hovered between the natural and the supernatural, I liked the flirtation with subtle horror and madness. Was satanism or witchcraft involved in the disappearance at Hanging Rock of four women from a Victorian era girl's school? Were there evil spirits there, or spirits protecting the rock against trespassers? Was there a time warp into which they slipped, never to return? Why did watches stop in the vicinity of the rock? Were they murdered by local men in the area, or did they commit suicide? Their bodies were never found. One of the women does return, but unfortunately, she cannot remember anything that happened, and that by itself unnerves most of the townspeople as well as the school staff. A run of bad luck ensues, and the wealthy parents whose daughters go to the school begin to withdraw them, one by one, which leads to a crisis for (and eventual suicide of) the headmistress Mrs. Appleyard (played by an excellent Natalie Dormer). 

There are many theories as to what could have happened to the girls. The film and the series tantalize us with possible answers, but never really make clear what actually did happen to them. Apparently that was the ending in Lindsay's book as well, although she purportedly wrote a a rather bizarre ending that never made it into the published book. The ending of the film and series give viewers some ideas of what probably happened to the missing girls, but it remains up to the viewers to intuit how large a role the atmosphere at the rock and legends surrounding the rock played. The series moved slowly in terms of building up to the reality of the horror that occurred; a creeping sense of creepiness as it were. I do not agree with the critics of the series that the focus was not on the picnic. It was, in every episode: it is the backdrop in every episode. The fact that the girls went missing affected just about everyone at the school, and each episode revealed that in one way or another. Bad fortune found a number of them. The music was a good accompaniment to the goings-on--eerie at times, dreamy at other times. 

I suggest watching the 1975 film first, and then the television series. The acting in both is very good, but I prefer the acting and cinematography of the television series, as well as the ever-present intense atmosphere of foreboding in the series, even in daylight. I did not get that same feeling from the movie.  

When people think they are god

Time moves us on, away from unpleasant events and unpleasant people. Given enough time, chaos evolves into calmness and life begins to feel more normal. Balance is restored. That is the way of the world. Nature for example, continues to do what it always has done. Provide us with beautiful views of sunrises and sunsets, of pristine lakes, of snow-covered mountains, gorgeous gardens and green forests. But where there is beauty there is also brutality. Where there is life there is also death and decay. Where there is paradise on earth, we know that there is also hell on earth. We know that from all of the nature documentaries that drive those points home. We are careful when we are in nature, because it is wild and unpredictable. There are earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, landslides--natural catastrophes that we cannot prevent or warn about with 100% effectiveness. We cannot just wander onto a mountain covered in snow and ignore avalanche warnings. We would not sail a boat out onto the ocean in the middle of a hurricane. We use reason to create a relationship with nature that we can live with, in order to co-exist peacefully with it. Sometimes we try to subdue it and sometimes we are successful at it. But we cannot tame it. 

Nature is a reminder that there is good and evil in the world. Both exist independently of man. If humans had never set foot on the earth, there would still be gorgeous sunsets and hellish volcanoes and tsunamis. There would still be gentle animals and brutal ones. There would still be life and death. 

Human beings did set foot on the earth. Mankind became a part of nature, and has even tried to dominate nature. But humans will never succeed at that. Human beings have tried their best during all the centuries to dominate nature and other humans in the quest for power and greed. Many humans don't understand this obsession with power and greed; I am one of them. When this obsession gets out of hand, as it has especially during the past decade, nature supplies a correction that we are forced to focus on because if we don't, it means that many human beings will die. The current pandemic is a good example of such a correction. A vaccine may help to control it, but there will come other pandemics. There have always been, and always will be, bacteria and viruses that infect animals and humans. They exist in nature, independently of man's existence. Sometimes human beings make critical mistakes, that lead to bacteria and viruses getting the upper hand. Sometimes those mistakes are made in the name of greed and power. Hubris is a major failing in human beings, and has far-reaching consequences. Hubris says that man can do whatever he likes in and with nature. He cannot. 

I bring all this up in light of the current political situation in the USA. Nature does not care about Donald Trump, nor does he care about nature. That is a problem by itself. Corrections will continue to come regardless of whether he cares or not. But if he was more respectful toward everything, he might contribute to a world where respect for the power of nature increased. As it stands now, he does not understand his role as leader or even why he exists. He has abused his position and disgraced our country. His gods are greed and power. The irony is not lost on me that it is under his administration that a pandemic arose. From a scientific point of view, I know that it is merely a random event in nature; it could just as well have arisen under Biden. But its emergence in the age of Trump is simply one more reminder of the importance of having respect for nature, for its wildness, its unpredictability, its brutality. It is a reminder that we cannot ignore the natural world because it doesn't 'fit' with our plans. He is not a person for whom respect is important. I would imagine that if he could, he would bend and destroy nature to suit his purposes. He thinks he is God.

The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten's coverage of the US Capitol invasion by Trump's thugs

 

This was the Friday January 8th coverage in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten of the invasion of the US Capitol by Trump's thugs on Wednesday January 6th, a day that will live in infamy. The first fifteen pages of the newspaper that day were devoted to this news story. On Thursday night, the main television news show at 7 pm on NRK devoted the first 35 minutes of its newscast to the same story.

Anyone who thinks that the USA lives in a vacuum or can live in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of the world, is deluded. Like it or not, what happens in the USA affects the rest of the world, which by the way was horrified at the events that unfolded in Washington DC on Wednesday January 6th. This is not supposed to happen in the USA. 

To all those who participated in the invasion, remember--the deaths of five people are on your consciences. You are pathetic individuals just like your leader. You have dragged the good name of the USA through the mud. You showed the world just how deluded and evil you are. You embarrassed the country and committed major crimes, and my hope is that you all rot in prison for years to come, together with the man who incited you to action--a pathetic piece of shit and an evil man. I feel sure that there is a special place in hell for men like him. My hope is that his future suffering befits his crimes. 

Bullying and mob mentality

I remain surprised by the lack of self-insight that I experience when I interact with some Trump supporters on social media. I remain surprised by their rudeness, their ‘in-your-face’ aggressiveness, their refusal to accept that Trump lost, their loyalty to a man who would normally not give them the time of day, and their lack of loyalty to their country. Because if they were really loyal to their country, they would never accept Trump’s behavior, his public statements, or his blatant disinterest in the wellbeing of the country. They would never accept his sedition if they were really loyal to their country. 

Those I am referring to are ‘friends’ on Facebook that I know from earlier times in my life. They were kinder people then. They no longer strike me as kind people now. They strike me as bitter people, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why. They have ALL the material things one could want--big houses in the suburbs or out in the country, several cars (all new), well-paying jobs, and good educations. They travel where they want, when they want. They’ve raised families and have had an amount of privilege that many people will never experience in their lifetimes. Have they worked for it? Yes, they have. Do they deserve their nice lifestyles? Yes, they do. I would never question any of that. What I question is their lack of self-insight when it comes to the blessings that they have. I know people who have worked just as hard as they have, many at their own businesses, who simply have not been successful for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they worked hard enough or not. They struggled or have struggled all their lives to make it in American society, without a safety net. Most of them managed to just break even; they managed to pay their bills but never had a fraction of the material goods that I’ve described above. Unfortunately, success in America is defined by how much money you make and by the amassment of material goods over the years. In my parents’ generation, if you had poor health, or lost your job, or never owned your own home, you were a loser. Society was harsh then too. But harsher now. I’ve said many times before that it’s nice to have money and a comfortable lifestyle. But it does not make you better than those who do not have what you have. That is the uncomfortable message of Christianity. If you have a problem with the message, then perhaps you should choose another religious persuasion that suits your narrow views, or no religion at all. Christ said that ‘the poor you will always have with you’. He meant poor in the material sense, but I’m sure he also meant in the spiritual sense. Because his message (The Gospel of Mark 8:36) was also ‘For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’ Also an uncomfortable message. If you have all you want, and become unkind and unchristian (spiritually poor) to others less fortunate than yourself, you have lost your soul. There is a lot of spiritual poverty in society at present. There is a lot of meanness that surprises me, given the amount of material wealth that most Western societies enjoy.

One of my friends on Facebook says she loves Trump because society is ‘unfair’. This somehow implies that Trump has done a lot to rectify the unfairness that she sees in society. She doesn’t elaborate, but I can guess that she means that he stands for overturning the federal and state programs that help the needy/those defined as needy or those looking for a better life. She means that she does not get the privileges that some of these people get. I’m sure there is an element of truth in what she says, and if so, those problems should be rectified. Perhaps she does not qualify for some of the federal and state programs set up to help the needy. In her case, I don’t know enough about her economic situation to say whether or not she would qualify as needy. But she is one of those that posts aggressive and bitter memes, and fake news memes, like so many of the Trump supporters I know on Facebook. You would think their lives are awful, but it’s quite the opposite in most cases where I know about their lives. They have so many material blessings that they should be on their knees thanking God for them.

I am not a member of or loyal to any political party or to any specific politicians. I am loyal to my country, even though it is pretty messed-up at present. I try to think for myself amid the cacophony of constant news programs on television, social media, and printed media. I have never been a ‘group’ person and never will be. I dislike groups because many of them end up with a mob mentality, as in ‘let’s bully those who don’t think like us’. It’s not just Republicans who do this; Democrats have also gone down that road. Just check out some of the more liberal tweeters on Twitter. Neither side is free from blame. We are where we are in society because of the lack of self-insight on both sides of the political spectrum. Trump came along and exploited the widening gap, making it even wider. It served his political aim, which was to be a king of some sort--a benevolent bully as it were. I remember a girl with whom I went to school who was bullied mercilessly by the ‘cool’ girls in the class. I have never forgotten how they treated her, and all these years later, I still remain sceptical to the personas they present publicly on social media. It’s perhaps unkind of me to say this, but I can't help thinking ‘once a bully, always a bully’. Of course, they can have regretted their earlier behavior and become better people. I hope so. But I knew at an early age that one's behavior was a choice; you chose to be a bully, or you chose not to be a bully when faced with the possibility. If you chose to bully others, you knew exactly what you were doing. Just as Trump does. Just as his supporters do. Mob mentality. 

I would never post and have never posted hateful memes concerning conservatives and Trump supporters. I am not planning on becoming a rude person in response to rude people. I will continue to try to take the high road in most situations. Of course it has happened that I have gotten angry or lost my temper and taken the low road. We are human and we fail. But we can make amends and the important thing is to be able to say that you’re sorry. I’m waiting for some of the Trump supporters I know to say that they’re sorry they supported him and that they were rude and aggressive to family members and friends. But I don’t think they will publicly. Many of them may be privately ashamed that they supported someone like him. That’s a start. I think many of them need to work on self-insight, on trying to figure out why they needed a bully to be their mouthpiece for their nagging discomfort with themselves. They need to figure out why they lined up behind the bully. They need to figure out why they harbor so much hatred and anger. That would go a long way to restoring some kind of sanity in society.

Good riddance to a bad leader

Those of you who know me and who have followed my blog during the past decade know that I have written frequently about bad leaders and bad leadership. The definition of a bad leader can certainly vary from person to person, but in my book, a bad leader is one who does not appeal to the best in people, but to the worst. A bad leader is one who finds the basest character traits and behaviors in all human beings, including himself or herself, and elevates them to something noble. Traits and behaviors such as narcissism, selfishness, egotism, aggressiveness, violent talk, bullying others, harassing others, greed, cowardice, making fun of others, being deceitful, lying, and lack of accountability for one’s actions and speech. I could go on, but you get the picture.

All of these traits and behaviors I’ve mentioned describe Trump very well. They perhaps describe his supporters to some degree, but I have a problem with this aspect, because many of the Trump supporters I know call themselves Christian, are good people, would never think of behaving the way he behaves, and would not teach their children to behave in this way. So what is the explanation for Trump’s popularity? I think it is horrifying that half of the US population voted for this man. It wasn’t just that they didn’t want Biden. They wanted Trump. They like him. They see him as a great leader. They see him as a Christian. This is what I don’t understand, and what I would like them to explain to me. How is he Christian? Is it so simple as to say that because Trump says that he is anti-abortion or holds a bible (upside down, no less), that this is enough to label him a Christian? What about his making fun of a man with cerebral palsy at one of his rallies? What about his vulgar view of women, of wanting to grab women by the pussy? What about his making fun of John McCain, who served the country in Vietnam and suffered greatly as a POW, something Trump never did? What about all the lying, the lack of accountability, the chaos around him, the lack of reflection, the lack of interest in a peaceful life? What about the constant aggressiveness and anger in tone, speech and behaviour? How come there exists such a huge disconnect between what he says and does, and what his supporters want to believe about him? Because there is a huge disconnect, there is no denying that.  

I have written a number of posts about him. I had his number a long time ago. He is a bad leader and a dangerous one, because he basically encourages others to do his dirty work for him. I’m guessing he’s always been like that, so it’s nothing new. He is a mouthpiece for the disgruntled in our nation, but they in turn do his bidding. It’s a sick and abusive relationship he has with his supporters. Unless you’ve been bullied/harassed yourself, you will not understand the dynamics of such a relationship. You can fight a bully, or you can cave in to him or her. If you fight a bully, you risk being physically attacked, verbally attacked, threatened, having your name dragged through the mud, and having your family suffer consequences as well. If you cave in, you ‘make a deal’ with the bully that if you do his or her bidding and keep your mouth shut, you will be left alone. You will not be attacked or hurt. The bully controls you because you fear him or her; the bully brainwashes you to think that he or she is your protector or savior, that your behaviour prior to caving in was what caused the bully’s aggressiveness toward you. You learn not to say anything that may offend the bully. That’s a sick relationship. Trump exploits others--their weaknesses, their cowardice, their lack of motivation. That’s why he is a dangerous leader, just like Hitler was. Trump uses the people in his administration as his personal lackeys; their loyalty is all that matters to him. In a similar way, Hitler rose to power because those who worked for him turned a blind eye to what he said and did, and did not stop him. Those that tried to stand up against him were fired or re-assigned to positions in places where they could have little impact.

We should learn from history. There is no guarantee that the USA must remain a democracy; the only guarantee we have is that good people stand united to fight those who want otherwise. Trump wanted to be a dictator. His followers don’t see it that way. He is a bad leader; his followers don’t see him that way. The good thing is that our founding fathers drew up a system of government that divided political power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Power is not concentrated in one place. The president is not a king or a dictator; he or she does not have absolute power. That is a good thing and that is what will save the USA from becoming a fascist country. Trump has been a test of how well that system works. In the final analysis, the system has taken a severe beating but has survived, in no small part due to the judicial branch that rejected most of his attempts to undo the election. Trump himself is nothing more than a failed president, a bad leader, a bully, and a coward. That is his legacy, and history will not be kind to him. 

The appeal of science fiction

I'm a diehard sci-fi (and sci-fi horror) fan--books, films, and series. I don't remember the first sci-fi book I read that got me hooked on the genre. Perhaps it was A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle when we were children. The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells was another book that fascinated us as children. My parents were good at introducing us to different literary genres. The Andromeda Strain was published in 1969 and I probably read it around 1970 or so. I also read C.S. Lewis' The Space Trilogy when I was a teenager, and This Perfect Day by Ira Levin. To enjoy sci-fi, one must be able to let go of one's own world and enter into new and unknown worlds created by the authors and accept that those worlds may be nothing like one's own. That was never a problem for me. The appeal of sci-fi is likely different for each person, but there are some common elements. Part of the appeal was likely escapist when I was younger; now the appeal is more a fascination with dystopian themes and with other worlds, unknown worlds, the universe, time travel, parallel worlds--in short, fascination with stepping outside of the natural laws and our world (outer and inner) in order to experience other worlds. Judging by the interest in sci-fi, I think we will always be fascinated by the possibility of doing just that. I think man has always looked up at the stars and wondered what was out there. Or looked around at ordinary life and happenings and asked--what if they were different or changed, or completely unlike what we could ever imagine? Man has always been both fascinated by and afraid of the unknown and of the dark. Monsters and aliens may live there, and they may not be friendly to mankind. Even so, I would love to be able to travel through time to other worlds if I could do so via a transporter or through a wormhole, just as long as I could return to the safety of my own world when I wanted. That's asking a lot, but in the sci-fi realm, anything is possible.  

Some of my favorite sci-fi authors and their books are as follows:

• Ray Bradbury--The Martian Chronicles, Fahrenheit 451
• Stanislaw Lem--Solaris
• Philip K. Dick--Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
• Michael Crichton--The Andromeda Strain, The Terminal Man, Timeline
• Neil Gaiman--Coraline, The Ocean at the End of the Lane, The Graveyard Book
• John Wyndham--The Day of the Triffids
• C.S. Lewis--The Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, That Hideous Strength)
• H.P. Lovecraft--The Best of H.P. Lovecraft (falls into the horror fiction genre, but many of his stories would qualify as sci-fi horror)
• Isaac Asimov--Fantastic Voyage, The End of Eternity
• David Lindsay--A Voyage to Arcturus 
• Aldous Huxley--Brave New World
• George Orwell--1984
• H.G. Wells--The War of the Worlds, The Invisible Man
• Ira Levin--This Perfect Day

Some of my favorite sci-fi films and series are:  

• Forbidden Planet
• The Blob
• 2001: A Space Odyssey
• Soylent Green
• Close Encounters of the Third Kind
• Star Wars
• The Man Who Fell to Earth
• Westworld
• Alien
• Invasion of the Body Snatchers
• Aliens
• Blade Runner
• Brazil
• Deep Impact
• Event Horizon
• Jurassic Park
• The Lost World: Jurassic Park
• Men in Black
• Alien3
• Alien Resurrection
• The Day After Tomorrow
• I Am Legend
• WALL-E
• Jurassic Park III
• 28 Days Later
• District 9
• Pitch Black
• Minority Report
• Solaris 
• Another Earth
• IO
• Extinction
• I Origins
• Prometheus
• Interstellar
• The Martian
• Oblivion
• Edge of Tomorrow
• Alien: Covenant
• Arrival
• Ex Machina
• A Quiet Place
• Blade Runner 2049
• Jurassic World
• Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
• Raised By Wolves (HBO series)