Accustomed To Assassination

 

What struck me as most curious about the shooting at the White House Correspondence Dinner was that, once I knew that no serious harm was done by the shooter, and that he had been apprehended, I felt no pressing curiosity about what had taken place.  I'd learn what there was to learn soon enough.

I watched some of the news coverage after the shooting had taken place and saw guests of the event milling about, drinking and talking together, some of them even smiling.  Nobody seemed particularly concerned.  The talking heads having described what they saw, and then they and the various pundits and politicians summoned to appear in front of the cameras began to solemnly abhor violence.  I confess I returned to watching what I was watching before learning of the shooting.

This is not to say I wasn't appalled by the shooting.  It was awful.  But in a disturbing way it wasn't interesting.

I had seen it all before, of course.  Eventually, politicians of one party began to blame those of the other party for the act; something I had also seen before.  I assume there will be talk of stricter gun control, which will be ignored.  Something else seen before.  We can accurately predict what will be done or said in each case.  I missed nothing by ignoring the immediate tumult.  

We await the next shooting.  Perhaps it's more accurate to say we expect it. We accept the violence, and are resigned to it as something regrettable but inevitable.  It's just a part of life in our Great Union.

The fact that the shooting was in this case politically motivated makes it less common than the other mass shootings which seem to take place, now, on a daily basis. But we can't say it's unique or unusual on that basis.  We have a history of assassinating political figures, orbtrying to do so.  Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley were killed.   William Seward was shot.  Teddy Roosevelt was shot while speaking in Milwaukee.  Huey Long and the Kennedys were killed.  Truman, Ford and Reagan survived the attacks made on them.  The list goes on.

Politically motivated shooting or attacks are themselves used for political purposes.  It's no longer possible to be surprised by attacks on politicians who so often attack each other.  We're jaded observers of the efforts for and against our jaded politicians, violent or otherwise.  The outrage they express doesn't even seem genuine anymore.

What have we become when violence and death are considered dull, unless they can be used for personal or political benefit?

For His Own Purpose

 

It was Shakespeare, through his character Antonio, who originated the phrase "the devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose."  The statement is made in The Merchant of Venice.

It seems we're to be treated to a kind of scriptural spectacle.  Politicians will be reciting Biblical passages for our edification.  I can't help but wonder if this is a serious effort or secretly intended as mockery of both scripture and those chosen to intone it for our delight in its absurdity.  The thought of politicians, of all people, citing the Bible brings Shakespeare's comment to mind.

Not that I mean to compare the grotesque rogues gallery which will solemnly read passages of the Bible to us to the devil or any demons of significance.  They're more the kind of nasty, dirty, potty-mouthed minor spirits with silly names which are said to whirl around the possessed, expelling foul odors and making rude noises during exorcisms. The mere thought of them citing scripture or pretending to be moral is hilarious. Whatever passages they may recite, one can assume they'll shun those most relevant to their own many deficiencies and hypocrisy.  The one about a camel passing through the eye of a needle comes to mind readily enough.

This spectacle could only happen here.  It's hard to imagine that another nation would tolerate posturing of this kind.  Can it really be that we're so naive as to think such pandering is in good faith?  Why would anyone suffer such sanctimony from people who clearly don't practice what they dare to preach?  And yet they're encouraged to engage in such shamelessness.  It's remarkable what the so-called religious are willing to do in pursuit of their fantasies of a theocracy.  It doesn't matter how contemptible spokesmen are provided they speak the appropriate words.

But this kind of lurid display is typical of a country which has always made show or circus of Christianity.  TV Evangelism, faith- healing, traveling salvation shows; we're enamored of excess in matters of faith, conscious perhaps that in most of our lives we ignore the words we recite so strenuously and emotionally when watched-- when the camera is on us, so to speak.  When it pays to appear holy.  And here it pays often.

Politics or relgion.  It's all part of the same show, the same con, at the end of the day.

"Matters Of Morality"

 

If you look up the definition of "morality" you'll find that its meaning varies somewhat with its use in a sentence, but that generally it involves a code of conduct based on conceptions of right and wrong.  The assertion made recently by a convert to Catholicism to the effect that the Pontifex Maximis, the Pope, should concern himself with "matters of morality" therefore makes perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense, though, is the apparent belief that comments made by the Pope regarding war don't concern matters of morality.  They clearly do.  Questions and debate regarding the morality of war and the conduct of war have been going on for centuries.  It's difficult to believe any adult human would contend otherwise.  But we see now that some of them can, and do, in the service of immorality.

Of course, what truly disturbs those who criticize the Pope at this time is that his comments relate to the war (or whatever they like to call it) they commenced.  A little thought on their part would make make it evident that comment was to be expected given the braying being heard about Jesus joining in the war effort, or at least being asked by prayer to seek or sanction overwhelming violence.  But it's unclear whether even a little thought is to be expected of the minions of this dreary regime.

The posting of a meme showing the President in the garb Jesus is usually shown wearing and healing the sick may have been an enormously stupid effort to justify the war he chose to wage, but this isn't likely.  For him, his actions require no justification.  It's more likely given the source that it's intended to depict him as a Christ figure; a product of his limitless self-love. Perhaps this is more evidence to be used if there is an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment.  Enormous stupidity or blasphemous hubris may support its application.

I suspect that, as far as this freakish administration is concerned, what it does and has done or will do are never "matters of morality."  It sees itself as being beyond good and evil, to which morality does not apply.  If it did apply, though, the Pope's comments would be bad or wrong, as the acts of this President and his administration must be right  Given the meme which was posted and then deleted, what else could be the case?

Some Thoughts On The 25th Amendment

 

There's much talk about the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of our Great Republic (I'm not sure it still is one, but let's pretend it is for purposes of this post) and its application to the madhouse in which we find ourselves.  I'm uncertain, though, if those who invoke it know what it says.

The 25th Amendment is of relatively recent origin, having been adopted in the 1960s.  It appears it was intended to make it clear just how a president may be removed during the time in which the president serves, and what happens at the end of the term of office.  Perhaps this became a matter of concern to Congress due to our history of assassination.   If presidents are going to be assassinated, it would be prudent to have a replacement method at hand.  It may also be the case, however, that there was a concern that a president should be removable, so to speak, in circumstances where there has been no successful assassination, or impeachment, but a president is otherwise unable to discharge the duties of the office.

That was the case with Woodrow Wilson.  He suffered a stroke after he was outmanuvered and even bamboozled by the British and French representatives at Versailles.  This would have been hard for a man like Wilson to swallow. He seems to have seen himself as a modern-day Moses, if not a messiah.

Regardless, his stroke incapacitated him, and Mrs. Wilson and some agreeable politicians or friends presided over the United States for a time.

What the Amendment says in pertinent part is that if the Vice President and a majority of the members of the cabinet believe the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of the presidency, they may submit a statement to that effect to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Then the Vice President becomes "Acting President" and assumes all the power and duties of the President. The President is no longer President. However, the President may in turn submit a declaration to the same officers stating he is capable, in which case he'll be President once more, unless the Vice President, or rather Acting President, and a majority of the cabinet within four days submit yet another declaration that the President remains incapable.

In that case, the Congress decides the issue.  But a two thirds majority of each House  must find the President is incapable.  If there is no such super majority, the President is once more President.

The language of the Amendment provides no guidance regarding how it may be determined that a President "unable to dischage" the powers and duties of the office or what that means.  So it appears it isn't necessary for a President to be incompetent or mentally ill to be removed under the Amendment.  Nothing in the language of the Amendement indicates there i. such a requirement, and it would have been easy enough to impose such a condition.  Nor would the fact that a President is unpopular or unwise be cause for removal.  One could be an inept President and still carry out a President's duties.

Would the fact that a President has deplorable taste be relevant, or that he/she uses vulgar language? Since a President takes an oath to preserve, protect and protect the Constitution, I would think that a violation of that oath would suffice, as that oath sets forth one of the duties of a President.

In any case, the language used in the Amendment suggests that if it comes to a decision of the Congress it may be difficult to establish an inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency, due to the Amendment's lack of definition..  But there are other factors which would make the invocation of the 25th Amendment unlikely in this case, in this time.

The primary factor is the fact that the Vice President, the cabinet members and most of the members of Congress lack the moral courage to proceed under the Amendment. Or, they may feel that their jobs depend on his goidwill. They're slaves, thralls of the president.  It would take a great deal of moral courage to invoke the Amendment, and that courage is lacking in those who now may make use of it.

We Are But Dust And Shadows

 

These somewhat deflating but poignant words are those of Horace, Odes 4. 7. 16.  People may know them if only because they were recited by the character Proximo in the film Gladiator, in a different order.

In this Ode, Horace describes the passing of each season, and the continual cycle of death and rebirth in nature.  The fact that in nature, what dies is, in effect, reborn-- life eternally returning after dying in autumn and winter-- seems to have been felt to demonstrate that we humans, though mortal and doomed to die, would live on after death for the initiates of certain of the ancient pagan mysteries, like those of Eleusis.

But in this poem Horace tells his friend that we don't return to life once we die.  He doesn't offer hope of a rebirth.  He says we join those already dead, even famous figures and heroes we know have lived and died, and have never returned to life.  Neither shall we.

It seems a poem which advises acceptance of our fate, without fear. 

 The poet's friend is being told that it's folly to believe or hope that the end isn't the end, and that the reasonable and appropriate course is brave resignation in the face of the inevitable.  It expresses, I think, a very Epicurean or Stoic point of view.  This is unsurprising as it seems that most educated and sophisticated Romans favored one or the other of these philosophical  schools.

It isn't a particularly cheerful bit of friendly advice.  But wise nonetheless.  Leaves and plants die in autumn and winter, and reappear in spring and summer; but what reappears isn't what died, but something different.  The same crop doesn't come back each year (the display of wheat is said to have been a climactic part of the Eleusinian mysteries). Nature provides no analogy for our rebirth.

Lucretius thought that Epicurus did humanity a great service in maintaining persuasively that we don't survive death.  This established that there need be no fear of punishment in Hades once our lives ended.  Some of us, though, find the thought that we'll cease to exist frightening as well.

It's apparent that we've always longed to survive death.  I know nothing of modern physics or quantum mechanics, but it's claimed that they suggest that consciousness is a part of the universe and so ours may continue in one way or another.  That view seems similar to ancient Stoicism's beliefs regarding the nature of the cosmos.  The ancient Stoics also believed that fame, pride, riches. self-love and excessive concern regarding our success in life were were foolish and we are, in effect, but dust and shadows, and living according to the divine in nature is the only real good.

Perhaps modern physics provides support for the ancient Stoic view of our lives and the universe.