CSotD: Now then, where were we?

(David Fitzsimmons)

(Drew Sheneman)

And so here’s a juxtaposition of where we’ve landed, which is a strong message of partisanship and power over justice and mercy.

We’ve had, in addition, a large helping of whataboutism, which requires ignoring the timeline and ignoring the number of progressives who have said that, had Bill Clinton’s personal flaws come to the fore in the present day, the response would have been different.

The intelligent thing to do is to set the divider at Harvey Weinstein and go from there, because there are all sorts of people whose behavior would be disqualifying today but was not in their own, as well as those whose unacceptable behavior was never reported.

There were rumors about JFK and Judith Exner, but the press never dug in very hard on the story, but, then, they never reported on Babe Ruth’s beer-drinking and gluttony, either.

Whatever their complicity in creating heroes, they weren’t in the business of knocking them down.

 

Knocking down heroes, after all, is a thankless game.

Marty Two Bulls prepares for the upcoming holiday by noting the Lakota view of Columbus, which seems awfully harsh if you were raised on Washington Irving’s heroic biography of the man, which set the tone and is largely horseshit.

And times were indeed different. When I was researching the Beaver Wars — a 17th century conflict between native people who needed furs to continue to purchase European technology — I came across a piece by a Tuscaroran historian who noted that, while the conflict certainly seems brutal by modern standards, it was roughly comparable to what Europeans were doing to each other at the same time.

He wasn’t justifying it. He was simply pointing out that “savage” is applicable to all sorts of people and that history must be understood in context.

What is more important, in the case of Columbus, is that Irving’s glorious hindsight was more palatable than Barolome de la Casas’ contemporaneous objections to how the Conquistadores were behaving towards the natives.

And the moral of the story is that history is complex and does not boil down either to the simpleminded glories of Washington Irving and Mason Weems nor to the evil, elitist plots of Howard Zinn and James Loewen and that you’re probably best advised to read everything, take it all with a grain of salt and use your head for something other than a hat rack.

 

 

Which brings us to this piece of nonsense, which has been popping up on social media recently in one form or another and is either Russian propaganda or just some general idiocy, depending on the source.

I’ve blotted out the name on this particular iteration because he styles himself a contributing editor at a reputable news publication, which would suggest it is his fault there isn’t more coverage, except that I’ve also been a “contributing editor” and it’s generally a fancy word for “freelance writer we pay by the month instead of by the piece.”

Otherwise known as “title in lieu of raise.”

And why anyone would expect a complex, buried-behind-a-paywall, loaded-with-math-and-business-jargon story like the piece in the Times to be digested, reformatted and spat out again within 24 hours is a mystery, but I refute him thus:

 

(Matt Wuerker)

(Adam Zyglis)

(John Cole)

(Pat Byrnes)

… and on and on.

There are many others commenting on the report, if not analyzing it in depth, and you’d think a contributing editor would certainly be in a position to contribute or perhaps commission some of that in-depth analysis and thus break the silence that so disturbs him.

Unless, as said, you’d been one.

Meanwhile, he’s had lots of likes and shares on that comment, probably from the same people who, two years ago, liked and shared the premise that Clinton and Trump were the same and it didn’t matter who won, but that backing Dr. Jill would fix everything.

 

Juxtaposition of the Day

(Patrick Chappatte)

(Ed Hall)

And the bottom line is that I’m less concerned with the divide Patrick Chappatte notes than I am with Ed Hall’s split.

After all, if the Supreme Court did overturn Roe v Wade, it would throw the matter back to the states and that’s a more fertile grounds for grassroots action.

Or, at least, it would be if we had a nation of true progressives and true conservatives, which would be the actual result of “Making America Great Again.”

And we can’t even agree on that, given that a lot of the people wearing the ball caps assume that “Making America Great Again” means reversing Brown v the Board of Education, outlawing same-sex marriage and so forth.

If you asked others, it would be going back to a time when CEOs plowed profit back into the business instead of skimming it off, and a time when one salary was sufficient to feed, house and clothe a family.

But even they don’t want to go back to one car, one bathroom and doing dishes by hand.

Trump may be the wedge, but we’ve all been swinging the hammer.

 

Meanwhile, back in the Middle Ages …

 

Fans of Wiley Miller’s old “Homer” stories will be delighted to know that he is launching an extended, continuous story in the Sunday “Non Sequitur.”

Knowing Wiley, but not knowing his specific plans for this story, I suspect there will be, in this medieval setting, some parallels to contemporary issues and modern behaviors.

Which will still be a pleasant diversion from living in contemporary, modern times under medieval moral standards, right?

Right.