Poem: Tujunga Arroyo

 

Tujunga Arroyo

 

willow and nicotiana

hobo along the arroyo,

leafy plumage of anemic jungle birds.

strata stash squashed stones in the banks,

catastrophe upon extinction,

sabertooth pupils, long-slitted in black veins,

gazing above shark teeth.

 

my sandals, lost in the aftermath,

sink into dry quicksand

to kick up blossoms of dust.

empty orchids and not-really-there mallows

ogle me with their two-seconds of life.

 

i come to a place

where crows interpenetrate shadows,

both seeking shelter, scrutinous,

demanding proof that their feathers

really exist.

 

the gulch has ruptured here,

warded by the fronds of an old pepper--

a place where coyotes take rabbits,

and burrs cast hooks,

anglers at a waterless stream.

 

not so deep in the sand-hissed heat

minnow eggs bide their time.

yes, one day, algae will wave, the real thing,

victorious in immersion,

while frogs swell sleek backs,

harrumphing about the short shrift

of amphibian orgies.

 

=======================

"pepper" referenes the pepper tree

10/16/25.. eds

10/12/24 removed a word, modified a word

9/5/24 ... slight mods

Poem: Deselection

 

Deselection

 

it was the age of wired golems,

a construct of cold electronic nests.

cell by battery by cell 

human smiles became emoticons while

screens transformed into the consiglieri of dreams. 

 

it was a marketplace for mothy hearts

seduced by googol spiders in fire-fast webs. 

colorful saviors on pedestals of pixels 

rushed to rise from luminous cryptos and

commenced to flagellate transfixed eyes.

 

idols invoked a mouse-magic 

of clickety-quack-prattles.

lurid in networks 

of lighspeed, lust-laden, multilayered online conspiratorial dungeons

they razzle-dazzled

us.

 

no ancient psalm in the sacro-

sanct of the pre-circuit-world bible had predicted

such a contagion of connectivity.

the great servers of the telecommunicated temples

proselytized so so so so so so quick 

to infiltrate infinite--

urgent to hawk a new kind of mind.

 

==============

11/3/25 ... 

9/8/25 don't ask me what's going on

8/12/25 ... 

10/10/24  eds

emoticons

mmorpg

clickety = mouse clicks

 etc.

Trump Can Never Be A Winner. It is Logically Impossible.

 

Whether Trump takes the election or not, he can never be a winner.  It is logically impossible, under the rationale and auspices of what this country is all about, its Constitution, evolutions, and precedents. 

Trump certainly likes to fashion himself a winner.  And, yes, by some standards he is successful (others not).  However, the word "winner" is commonly associated with someone who came in first in a competition, following certain rules and standards of ethics, and in that way proved themself to be the best.  

In this sense, Trump is in no way a winner or potential winner.  And it is this sense that is far-and-away the most relevant to the race for the presidency.

When Trump calls himself a "winner," he hopes we will subconsciously slide from seeing him as successful (in certain ways, such as fame) to seeing him as a moral person who is the best possible leader because he won fair and square.

This is false framing.  A devilish slide of semantics.  But so far, we have let him get away with it. 

Call him a devastatingly wicked influencer.  Call him a superb con man.  But it isn't rational or sensible to call Trump a winner.  For one thing, if he achieves the Presidency again, we all lose.  Moreover, he cannot be the best person to manage our country from the White House, not in the way a marathon runner shows they are the best in a competition.

My argument for this conclusion--that it is inconceivable that Trump could be the winner (even if he gets enough electoral votes)--has a couple of steps.

First, Trump is evil.  Evil, of course, can have many meanings.  In theology, it can apply to natural phenomenon like tornadoes and diseases.  But the evil I'm talking about is human-based.  No one can see into another's heart.  But we can judge behaviors and actions, and when those are numerous enough to form a reliable pattern, a point is reached where it becomes common sense to call someone evil.

So, when you use racism to divide a country, it is evil.  When you use that dark influence to shred basic norms of decency--of principle, democracy and virtue--to create a throne for yourself, it is evil.  When you have no respect for human rights, as in separating infants from mothers, it is evil.  

The above adds up to a hate-mongering tyranny, a force that can wreck our country on the world stage, and perhaps permanently besmirch its once-admired values.  Hundreds of years of ideals, gone in a flash.   This, too, is the product of evil.  

For all we can see, that product, the destruction of the republic, is Trump's narcissistic intent.  Dictatorship is what he admires and what yields maximum self-aggrandizement and adulation.

One galling trait of evil is cowardice.  Such evil never admits what it is doing and instead blames those who seek justice (racists who call others the racists).  In this way, rationality, the light of reason, itself gets wrestled down into the impotence of ignorant darkness. 

All the above indicts Trump, and is apparent enough in his behavior, after four years of evidence.  If you don't like calling him evil, it is enough that he is grossly unethical.

Now that I have established Trump as evil, I want to move on to the next step.  The point is simple:  a person who acts in evil ways in a rule-based competition can never be the winner.  If they come in first, it is because they cheated.  Competitions have standards.  And if you act with evil in pursuit of victory, you have, by definition, broken those standards. 

For some reason, in the common parlance of politics, we Americans are still talking as if Trump could be the winner--the projected winner, or possible winner of the 2020 election.  This despite his efforts to subvert the moral fabric of the nation and defy the Constitution.  Needless to say, this moral fabric, which includes the Constitution, is part of the rules.  

So, our common parlance is quite nonsensical.  Why consider a cheater a potential winner in a rule-based system, when they are clearly cheating?  

>>>>>> What???

The moral fabric of a republic is necessary for its existence.  If someone shreds the moral fabric, while claiming to honor and defend it, they are no more a winner than someone who cheats at sports--and of course the outcome is far more important.

Again, how does Trump "win" if he destroys the republic?  An overthrow makes him successfully evil.  If you rip out a country's heart, when it is your oath to protect that country's lifeblood, you are not a winner.

You are a destroyer.  You are a traitor. 

You might say that, when watching movies, for instance, we sometimes say that 'the evil side won'.  For example, in The Empire Strikes Back.

I would again point out, in response, that the race for the presidency has rules, and that the most relevant sense of "winner" is the one that requires following the rules.    

Actually, there are two sets of rules in relation to winning the presidency.  First, there are the electoral rules.  Now, by this standard alone, if we exclude all other factors from consideration, the nominee who gets the most electoral votes is the winner. 

However, and here is the catch, there is another set of rules that applies to the race for the presidency:  the rules embedded in the moral fabric of our society.  These rules reside in our Constitution and in our two-hundred-plus years of cultural progress and precedent. 

A political competitor must abide by both sets of rules to win the presidency.  They must satisfy the electoral rules, yes, but also the moral rules.  Without these moral rules, there is no republic.  There is no decency.  There is no winner.   

Therefore, Trump cannot be the winner in 2020--no matter what.  Judged by his pattern of actions, he is evil.  And by despoiling our most cherished values, he has broken the rules.

Call him a successful cheat.  Call him a fantastic con artist.  But he is not a potential winner in any sensible or logical way.  We abet his ability to be thought of as a winner, or potential winner, by falling for the trick of framing discussed above.

I think the American people have been so gullible, so lacking in vigilance, so ready to be ambushed, our freedoms so susceptible, for just one reason:  We have forgotten how lucky we are to live in a republic.  

Again, because we have become so blind, so deceivable, so gullible before awful illusions, I repeat myself:

Trump is no winner, and he cannot be a winner.  Even if--god help us--he gets enough electoral votes.   He is still a cheater and a con artist, a traitor who seized control by ripping apart the moral fabric of our nation through evil, selfish means.

If that happens, we all lose.

 =========

Why the NYT Analysis of the Last Presidential Debate Was So Wrong

 

To read the NYT analysis of the last debate between Biden and Trump is to imbibe complicity in our national decline.  The NYT offers up a polished centerpiece of what has gone wrong in this country:  the exile of ethics and, in its place, a staid acquiescence to the rulership of demagoguery and deceit. 

Impressive in organization and voice, the NYT analysis showcased the views of no less than nineteen opinion writers.  It even arranged pictures of their faces on a visual scale, from left to right.  The scale went from 10 blue (pure Biden victory) to 10 red (pure Trump victory).  In the middle, at zero (as two writers were) resided the opinion that the debate was a tie:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/opinion/debate-trump-biden-who-won.html

Only four of the nineteen opinion writers came down on the Trump half of the scale.   But that's not the point.  The point is that, in terms of who won, ethics was hardly a consideration for the writers at all. 

Perhaps the statement by Liz Mair brings this out the best. 

On 'who won', she writes:

Trump. The debate rules worked in his favor, he was more disciplined, and even though he lied through his teeth for much of the debate, he did it and often does it in a way that is convincing for anyone who doesn’t believe he is always lying. For better or for worse, that remains a decent chunk of the electorate.

 

There it is.  It's okay to lie, as long as you're convincing.  Winning is about convincing voters.  Ethics is nugatory. 

"That's how the world works," someone might say, even adding a shrug. 

In response, I assert this:  we Americans have been acculturated to accept that winning has nothing to do with ethics.  We've been acculturated not to react with disgust at this conclusion.  Furthermore, we've been trained to think that winning is, overall, more important than being ethical.

Think about that.

Here is the Orwellian breakdown.  We've been taught to shrug.  And, we've been taught to not even realize that we're shrugging. 

And we've forgotten that we've been so taught.   

Why?

Mair's statement reveals itself as fully shocking when you realize that the problem is not just that Trump is lying.  It is what he is lying about and how much.  He lies in huge, incessant ways about absolutely horrible things.  Kids in cages on his watch?  He lies.  The advancement of racist fascism?  Lies.  Unnecessary deaths due to covid?  Lies.  Economy hobbled due to his covid response?  Lies.  Subversion of the Constitution.  Lies.

And on and on and on.  See David Rothkopf's new book, Traitor for the latest ethical analysis of Trump.

Now, Mair it is clearly aware that Trump is lying.  She says so.  She doesn't say whether she's aware that he is lying at the Darth Vader level.  But that consideration doesn't even seem to matter, you know, because, when it comes to winning a debate, what is important is simply getting votes.

Are you still shrugging?  It is, I admit, easy to accept that debates are just about getting votes.  All else is irrelevant.

But let's take that deeper.  Such an attitude leads to horrible things. 

I hate to say it, but I get the impression that Mair and many opinion writers, if presented with the equivalent of an early stage Adolf Hitler, who is in a debate with some fictional opponent, in a tottering democracy, would claim that the Hitler-type won the debate.  Why?  Because the Hitler-type was more convincing.

Sure, maybe the Hitler-type advocated racism and anti-Semitism, stoking hate.  But they convinced people to vote for them, right?  So, they're the winner, right?

Doesn't that sound just a bit awkward to you? 

We should never be calling such a person a "winner."  If we do, we have bought into the trap of Arendt's "banality of evil." 

Now, someone will surely say that Donald Trump is not like Hitler.  Fair enough.  But Trump is already evil.  See Rothkopf's book.  Or maybe just acknowledge that Trump is a full-bore hate-monger who is relentlessly pushing for violence.   "LIBERATE MICHIGAN."

Evil should be a consideration in deciding who gets called a "winner."  If you call someone a winner, it has implications.  Calling a demagog a winner hides their evil.  If you do this, you are helping to sow a fabric of banality over a monster.

How about this, a compromise:  run another article, right alongside the one I reference above, the one where Mair and three other pundits say that Trump won. In this second article, point out that Trump is evil.  Call a spade a spade.

Call Trump a devastatingly wicked influencer.  Call him a talented con man.  But don't, whatever you do, call him a winner.

As soon as you call him a winner, you've bought into the false framing, the framing that Trump has been trying to sell to you and to everyone else.

Frankly, even jaded voters, not that long ago, would've been horrified by Trump's lies.  We Americans used to have better standards.  We would never have let someone like Trump be called a 'winner' in any way that promoted him as a potential leader of our country. 

What happened to us?  What happened to the US? 

We need to fix this.  It can be done.  In fact, here's the happy part of my blog.  One of the NYT analysts did give an ethics-based opinion. 

Will Wilkson shines a torch, leading the way where this country needs to be going.

Here is what Wilkson said:

 

Biden won. Character is on the ballot, Biden said, repeating a theme of his campaign. He’s right, and the contrast was evident all night. When Trump again scurrilously smeared Biden’s son, Biden honorably refused to take a shot at Trump’s kids. It can be tempting to think he missed a ripe opportunity to hit back, but the basic decency of Biden’s restraint did not go unnoticed and made the case for his candidacy in a way that Trump is completely helpless to rebut.

 

Character.  Decency.  Virtue.  These are a good start.  They are part of an ethical palette, the palette of rights, principles and genuine concern for advancing the common good.

Winning, when it comes to our leaders, should never be about brute force or brute persuasion.  Look, even in football, despite all the bookie joints, there are rules.  You don't break those rules, not without repulsing your fan base.

Politics is far more important than football.  And yet we act like there are no rules in politics, none that shouldn't be broken, if you can get away with it.  There's a name for that in the philosophical canon:  nihilism.

If Trump succeeds, if he turns one side of the country against the other, such that our collective house cannot stand, there is no winner.  We all lose. 

In fact, even if you don't think Trump is evil, it should be enough that he is grossly unethical.  Call him out.  Again, we all lose if he succeeds in dividing us. 

In conclusion, I ask the writers at the NYT to think about this.   In fact, let's all think about it.  Why do we shrug, qua analyst, when we think that someone might become president by riling up hate?  

If we want to keep our republic, our best thinkers cannot pen opinion statements that are the equivalent of a written shrug. 

We have to start thinking--believing--with passionate conviction, that no one who stirs up hate should be called a winner.  We need to allow that belief to affect what we do. 

 

=========

 

Poem: Dust

 

Dust

 

an outcast had no choice

save to wander, a mere shroud,

and to hawk a snakeoil powder

that robbed the skin of its vim

and tarnished the rest,

a slow emaciation of luster.

 

it was a granular affair, this

sandglass sort of compulsion--

to conjure a feast which

feted the outlandish etiquette of vultures 

and banqueted an assortment of worms. 

 

the outcast, so successful, built mansions wherever,

from the Sahara to the Marianas Trench,

even in outposts that lurked in lungs:

lungs of lovers, of criminals of relatives,

and ants and despots and clowns and masquers and 

sheep and even in the hallowed ecclesiastic receptacles   

that tickled the nostrils of saints.

 

it made sense, perhaps, that the outcast

was maligned as infernal, 

while life strived and bred and waxed and 

suffered and toiled around the pules

of the latest, greatest infant-wave.

 

perhaps there was something 

of a connoiseur in the outcast, 

tinged by a penchant for the cruel:

which hope, which thrill, which future, 

which sinful succulent nature,

could dissolve sweetest

in the latté dunes of time?

===========

8/2/25 ... massive edits awful ... 

10/13/24 eds

Napoleon's Aphorisms Chillingly Describe Trump

 

Is Trump like Napoleon?  The aphorisms below, written by Napoleon, argue that, in some ways, the answer is yes.  Before getting to the quotes, I have a few comments.

 First, this should scare us.  Napoleon, as Emperor, launched the world into over a decade of war, with all the associated horrors.  In the end, all he captured was lost and he was miserably jailed and exiled.  If something like this happened today, fueled by a self-aggrandizing Trump, it would be the end of civilization.

Second, in some ways where Napoleon was arguably great, such as military tactics [1], we see no skill or complete incompetence from Trump.  Whatever Trump shares in common with Napoleon, such as persuasiveness, it in no way makes him the 'equal' of Napoleon in general. Indeed, the fact that Napoleon could write so well, and so much, is an important distinction from Trump.

Third, it could be argued that the main takeaway, from the quotes below, is that we need a completely different way of looking at the world today, than the one embodied in the quotes, if humanity is to survive and protect our beautiful planet.

In other words, if self-centered traditional notions of alpha masculinity remain the enshrined standards for national power, then humanity is doomed.  We must mature.  We must learn the lessons of therapeutic psychology, developed over the last one hundred years or so. 

Indeed, Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist, has written a book explaining why Donald is the most dangerous man in the world (Too Much and Never Enough).

About the Quotes

These aphorisms are taken from Napoleon In His Own Words (1916).  All but one of the quotes are taken from the first chapter, which is titled Success.

https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/napoleon-in-his-own-words-napoleon-1916.pdf

I comment in brackets after some of the quotes.  The quotes use masculine pronouns.  In fact, Napoleon might have only been referring to men, as women were acculturated and coerced to have very different and subservient roles.  Either way, it is sexist. 

The Quotes

Without further ado, here are the quotes:

1. A sovereign ought always to confiscate publicity for his own profit.

2. The superior man is never in anyone's way.

3. A Prince, criticised by his subjects, should never attempt to justify himself to them.

[The above three really describe Trump's arrogance and craving for the limelight]

4. There are only two forces that unite men—fear and interest.  All great revolutions originate in fear, for the play of interests does not lead to accomplishment.

[Trump focuses on making his populist base as afraid as possible.  Is he seeking revolution?]

5. Men are more easily governed by their vices than their virtues.

6. Political liberty is a convenient fable invented by governments to lull the governed.

7. Noisy festivals are a necessity.  Blockheads love noise, and the multitude are blockheads.

[The above three map well with Trump's contempt for his followers, and people in general.]

8. There are so many laws that no one is safe from hanging.

9. By taking for your justification the pretended principle of general utility you can go to whatever lengths you want.

[Trump doesn't care about the law, except as a tool to serve his goals].

10.  The man fitted for affairs and authority never considers individuals but things and their consequences.

[Trump doesn't care about people any more than laws, except as means to an end]

11.  Success is the most convincing talker in the world.

[Has Trump ever said that he was wrong?  Isn't he always successful, in his eyes?]

12.  The only thing to be done with those one is no longer able to recompense, is to disgrace them.

[Those Trump can't manipulate, he disgraces, such as the whole Democratic Party]

13.  Force is never anything but force ... But persuasiveness endures and imprints itself on the heart.

[The need to be charismatic and capture followers' hearts.]

Are there Exceptions in Napoleon's aphorisms? 

Just two of the aphorisms seemed to contradict the general theme that I found.  Napoleon writes, "The most dangerous counselor is self-love."  Note, however, that danger doesn't necessarily dissuade a superior person in the Emperor's view.  In fact, often the contrary.

Maybe harder to align is this aphorism:  "A lie is useless since it deceives but once."

However, the bulk of Napoleon's conveyed philosophy indicates that this is an anomaly.  One chilling example is, "To be believed, make the truth unbelievable."

Isn't that exactly what Trump does with his followers?  Make the truth unbelievable?  One small example is Kelly Ann Conway's "alternate facts."

Overall, Napoleon's aphorisms in the Success chapter of the book provide scary resemblances to what Trump seems to embrace, based on his words and actions.

This resemblance is not a compliment to our current President.  Napoleon's ego flaws, one could argue, took the world into bloody chaos.  Some historians say he initiated the strategy of "total war," leading to new standards of extreme violence that influenced the US Civil War and WWI (which in turn influenced WWII).

Frighteningly, Napoleon's status as Emperor is inimical to the basic premise of our Founders.  His ideology, held by anyone who swore an oath to the Constitution, is that of a traitor.   

One positive thing said about Napoleon is that he established "equality" as a legal standard.  But Trump's flagrant racism is the direct enemy of an egalitarian standard.  If anything, Trump is even more narcissistic than Napoleon, while, at the same time, being not only less talented but also manifestly incompetent.

 ==========

Footnotes

1. Some historians posit that Napoleon wasn't great at military strategy and tactics.  Instead, he benefited from luck and also incompetence from the other side.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/was-napoleon-really-a-tactical-genius-or-was-he-just-lucky.409807/#:~:text=Napoleon%20Bonaparte%20is%20oftenly%20famed,part%20of%20the%20enemy%20commanders.

Poem: Traffic Jam

 

Traffic Jam

 

cars hunker,

such orderly rubble,

bricks from a shattered biome.

 

surely this is progress,

viewed through a cookie-cutter,

laid in strips to cube a valley’s waist--

 

and so the city gets cinched,

until the night-smog looms,

cowing the sun to slouch under crimson.

 

then the many windshields

gleam as if to gasp,

painted by the tarnish of such uncertain blood:

has someone or something 

been murdered? row after row, 

line after line, lane upon lane,

do they wonder?  

could it be, somewhere,

deep within the miles 

of the arteries composed of cars

that the hidden, tired, trapped people,

just for a moment,

know?

 

==============

5/26

11/16/25

10/15/24 ... 

San Fernando Valley, LA circa 1990

Poem: Desert Walk

 

Desert Walk

 

mushroom clouds

kicked up

by the warhead of my shoe.

 

i rile the parched landscape

alkaline of ruinous scroll,

so many dunes

 

which incant without fortune,

waking at sunset

to play chess with shadows.

 

no god or gold,

no shatterer of worlds

peturbs the infinite tomb-motes.

 

only my gait.

no god or gold.

no shatterer of worlds.

no slaughtered cattle bleached to bone.

nothing

disturbs the amorphous adobe

of despoiled razorbacks 

and disintegrated castles.

 

no Midas bankers

or Medusan profiteers 

turned to stone.

===============

10/15/ ...  

Democratic Senators Could Have Neutralized Barrett's Use of the Ginsburg Rule -- Easily

 

From the perspective of basic logic, the Democrats could've done a much better job questioning Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court Seat.  Her main defense was a simple 'I won't say' when it came to hot-button topics. 

The adoption of the mis-named 'Ginsburg rule' has become a typical and annoying tactic in SCOTUS nominee hearings.  The underlying dodge is this:  if something is likely to come before the court, a justice can't, in advance, give an opinion.

At times, though, it is utterly obvious that you should give an opinion in your nomination hearing.  Otherwise you look like a party tool or, worse, someone willing to shred the Constitution.

The issue of whether a President can self-pardon came up in Barrett's hearings.  Barrett did the 'I won't say thing'.  This is what she said:

That question may or may not arise but it’s one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is. So because it would be opining on an open question when I haven’t gone through the judicial process to decide it, it’s not one on which I can offer a view.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-barrett/trumps-court-pick-barrett-calls-presidential-self-pardon-an-open-question-idUSKBN26Z1BP 

Here is what any Senator, Dem or Rep, all of them oath-bound to protect the Constitution, should have said to her, based on simple logic:

"Justice Barrett, if a President can self-pardon, what is to keep them from committing treason?  A self-pardoning President could commit a treasonous act, couldn't they, and then turn around and grant themself immunity from repercussion?

"Suppose President Trump self-pardons himself, under the aegis of a favorable SCOTUS ruling that allows such a thing.  Let's suppose Congress tries to punish him for his misdeed.  Couldn't Trump then have the members of Congress arrested, then pardon those who did the arresting?  And again, pardon himself, for neutralizing Congress?

"In fact, a rogue President could have any dissenting voice jailed.  All with the wave of a magical executive wand!

"Do you have any way to counter this simple logical conclusion, Justice Barrett?

"If the States themselves tried to enforce their Criminal statues against a rogue President, couldn't that President, again, have the governors and the attorneys arrested?  Or killed?  Again, such a rogue Executive could pardon themself, and also their lackeys. 

"Shall I remind you that President Trump has expressed a right to do whatever he wants, by misrepresenting Article II of the Constitution?  If he can self-pardon, he can flout the Constitution at will.

"As our founders warned--emphatically--monarchic overreach is always a threat to our democratic republic.  Justices and legislators should be ever vigilant.  So, I ask you again, should a President be allowed to self-pardon? 

"Frankly, Justice Barrett, any answer besides 'No' shows an unwillingness to stand up for the essential framework of our Constitution.  There is no feasible way to assert that a President can self-pardon, while, at the same time, safeguarding our nation's principles.

"Simple logic, then, insists that, as a nominee for the Supreme Court, you stand up at this perilous juncture in the history of the United States.  So, I will give you another chance to say what is logically and ethically necessary.

"What will it be?  Will you bow down, as so many have done already, before the looming specter of tyranny?  Indeed, I ask you this question before God.  As I am sure you know, God is watching.  And the only wise and reasonable answer is very clear.

"Justice Barrett, Will you allow a President to self-pardon?"

...

I think such a line of questioning would have seriously challenged Barrett's rushed nomination.  But not a single Senator went this way.  Sad.

There are other examples, too, of situations where a nominee can be seriously called out for using 'I won't say,' using simple logic.  However, tempus fugit.  

==========