infinitebutterlogjam

[infinitebutterlogjam]

Massimo Girotti, 1918-2003

The blue eyed Girotti, who enjoyed a long career in Italian cinema and television, notably starred in “Ossessione,” Luchino Visconti’s directorial debut. The 1943 film was based (unauthorized and uncredited) on James M. Caine’s 1934 novel “The Postman Always Rings Twice,” and unlike the better known 1946 Hollywood version starring John Garfield and Lana Turner (now considered a classic of film noir), contained elements of homoeroticism.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

Ronald Colman, 1891-1958

In costume for “The Winning of Barbara Worth,” 1926, costarring Vilma Bánky and Gary Cooper.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

Ronald Coleman, 1891-1958

[infinitebutterlogjam]

A reminder: “they” told us if we don't pass laws and further stigmatize the trans community and outlaw drag queens, a wave of men would surely begin putting on dresses, slip into women's restrooms, and begin sexually assaulting.

It turns out, men only have to say, “I'm from ICE," abduct women off the street and toss them in a van. No uniform or ID is required, no reading of rights, no accountability or documentation, just a hoodie and a mask.

In broad daylight, even.

Much easier than putting on a dress, right?

And those vocal alarmists who railed against trans women and drag queens not only don't object to these abductions, they really like them.

This is what they voted for.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

Donald Trump’s scattershot approach to tariffs has left the stock market plummeting, while people are seeing their retirement savings accounts shrivel in a matter of days. We are experiencing the worst market drop (upwards of 5 trillion dollars) in several years, and this is a direct result of the seemingly random approach to global trade and the inherent uncertainty attached.

For anyone still not aware, tariffs are essentially taxes on goods and equipment imported to the United States. The effect of implementing such taxes is estimated to hit the average household with about $4000.00 in added costs. I characterize these tariffs as “scattershot” because they seemingly lack focus or any apparent sense of strategy, and without consistency in the percentages charged to some nations/products versus others. There is at least a 10% hike for all imports, while in some cases the tax is 50%. That cost, in one form or another, will absolutely be passed along to American consumers, you and me.

16 Nobel prize winning economists authored an open letter prior to the election warning of the vast pitfalls of such a plan; the very volatility and economic upheavals we are now experiencing and will continue to experience without a change in course. It’s worth noting these educated experts, with hundreds of years of accumulated expertise in such matters, were not privy to secret plans or documents. They did not rely on telepathic methods to divine Donald Trump’s intent and the subsequent economic disaster for millions of people. The fact is, Trump trumpeted his plans in speeches and tweets to anyone who cared to pay attention, and apparently rarer still, bothered to consider the lasting consequences. For anyone who voted for Trump but now declares, “I didn’t vote for this,” I’m frankly not sure how to respond.

To be clear, I am no one’s idea of an economic expert myself. I’m not a savvy investor, nor am I particularly prescient when it comes to the stock market or economic trends in general. It wasn’t simply the fact that Donald Trump very clearly stated he would impose broad tariffs that led me to regard his economic plan as a Very Bad Thing, it was also other factors like his notorious dishonesty, his six bankruptcies, and the way he infamously left dozens and dozens of vendors unpaid and ruined.

Stuff like that.

In the midst of such calamities, there has been speculation that the loss in value is in fact a calculated ploy to allow foreign oligarchs and other billionaires to sweep in and buy up stocks, American corporations, land and infrastructure at bargain basement prices. As Warren Buffett has said, smart investors will “be greedy when others are fearful.” Even if not part of some Machiavellian scheme, this seems a likely scenario.

In any case, it’s been interesting to witness Trump’s steadfast supporters pivot and shift to reclaim some degree of footing, to grab onto a narrative to justify personal financial ruin.

“Just wait, he’s playing chess,” I’ve read, “we don’t need other countries anyway,” and more outlandish, “it’s worth being broke to get rid of the degeneracy in our society.” Huh?

The temptation is to respond with something biting regarding “winning,” but I prefer to bear in mind the words of Rudyard Kipling “…keep your head when all about you are losing theirs…” and that’s never a bad idea.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

Knud Rasmussen, 1879-1933

Greenlandic-Danish Polar explorer and anthropologist.

Rasmussen initially pursued a career as an actor and opera singer, but began embarking on expeditions in the arctic, and wrote and lectured about his exploits. Regarded as “the father of Eskimology,” the study of Inuit cultures, Rasmussen was the first European to cross the Northwest passage via dog sled.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

It is a false assertion that the U.S. Constitution only applies to citizens. I even saw Ted Cruz on television recently repeating this falsehood while being referred to as a “Constitutional Expert.” Regretfully, the interviewer did not correct him

For further context, the document does contain passages which explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote, etc., however when the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of “citizen,” it is understood the rights and privileges enumerated are meant to apply to citizens and non-citizens alike, including undocumented immigrants.

Both the 5th and 14th amendments mention “due process.”

The 5th amendment (understood to apply to the federal government) states a prohibition against “any person” being denied “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” while the 14th amendment (applicable to states), says no state government shall deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Plyer v. Doe, 1982, that undocumented immigrants are “people” as stated in the 14th Amendment, and under the Equal Protection clause one’s immigration status is not a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits and rights. The 14th amendment also prohibits discrimination, and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that includes non-citizens.

In fact, the 14th amendment was always intended to apply to “all persons,” not only United States citizens. John Bingham, the 19th century representative from Ohio, and the principal framer of the 14th amendment, made a point to emphasize one of the purposes of the amendment was to ensure “that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property.”

Of course assuming the United States Constitution will continue to be recognized, adhered to and followed is another matter entirely.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

I was introduced to Charles Dickens in high school.

By which I mean I was assigned to read his sprawling 1859 historical novel “A Tale of Two Cities.” The tale itself is set before and during the French Revolution and the chaotic, bloody Reign of Terror, while the protagonists navigate, literally and figuratively, the span between the two great cities of London and Paris, and the tumultuous events of the era.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” the book famously begins, “it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness…”

I’ve thought a lot of these anaphoric lines lately, and the contrasts they highlight. In Dickens’ story there are certainly heroes and villains, good and evil, and love and hate, along with well-earned wisdom and stubborn foolishness.

As always with Dickens there is also a focus on the gulf between classes of people, those who assume the power and privilege of wealth and the many who struggle with the crushing oppression of poverty. In both extremes there exists kindness and cruelty, and the various characters choose one or the other based on their personal, sometimes dawning, morality. In Dickens’ world, villains are not necessarily born bad, but some are led to do harm out of desperation and despair and a perverse sense of justice, both righteous and foul.

The hefty novel had an equally weighty impact on me at the time, and perhaps influenced my own emerging understanding of how circumstance and context might propel someone to particular extremes of thought and behavior. I don’t think I necessarily knew a lot about the politics depicted, capricious and convoluted then as now, but I understood how fear and prejudice, set against hope and optimism, can be powerful enough to shift both individual lives and the fates of nations.

Once again we are at a time of extremes, and the challenges they present. Wisdom and foolishness battle daily, and there is no foreseeable shortage of incredulity. Technology exists, literally in our hands, far beyond the steam-powered advances of Dickens’ time, while “updates” regularly occur as we sleep. The tools which, ostensibly, promote greater connection sometimes have exactly the opposite effect, numbing us to our immediate environment and those who inhabit it. We contend with “virtual,” “real time,” “chat,” and “reality,” as concepts separate from (or even the opposite of) what the terms have traditionally meant, while artificial intelligence, or “AI” potentially redefines our perceptions to a degree yet to be fully recognized. We are met, often engulfed, by a wave of information which can deliver knowledge or promulgate drivel, and a very great deal in between. The delineation between fact and fiction becomes muddied, and far too often conspiracy theories, rather than crucial critical thinking, fill the voids in available knowledge. Of all the extremes which have become evident, the most appalling for me at least, is the yawning gap between questioning intelligence and confident ignorance.

In another work of Dickens, the novella “A Christmas Carol,” the iconic character of Scrooge is unwillingly guided into his past, present and future to confront his own assumptions, prejudices, and moral failings. At one point he is shown two wretched figures, a boy and a girl who represent, in the author’s estimation, the worst of humanity:

“They are Man’s….And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. The boy is Ignorance. The girl is Want. Beware of them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.”

Will the writing be altered? I do not know. I continue to believe hope is available and appropriate, as is kindness, and the need for both has seldom been greater.

As in Dickens’ age, of course, there are those today whose wealth and power, sometimes inherited, has placed them outside the sphere of daily worry or want, while conveying faulty assumptions about their relative intelligence and the “rightness” of their position. It has always been so, and I suppose will always be the case, while Edmund Burke’s well-known observation, “those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it,” has never felt quite so apt.

And yet, hope and kindness are present and persist. They are always options available to each of us, and the time to exercise them is now.

We carry on, we stay informed, we make meaningful communities. We value creative thinking and we absolutely must honor true expertise, whether in science, or the arts, or in world affairs. Injustice ought to be recognized and exposed, and bigotry denounced. That is, I believe, how we move forward as caring humans in a functioning society.

“….. it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

[infinitebutterlogjam]

I’ve noted lately the postings of various Republican politicians showing a map of the oval-shaped body of water situated along our southern border with the headline “Winning!”

I confess, in practical terms I honestly don’t much care what Trump and company call it. Frankly, I’m not impacted by whether it is named “The Gulf of America,” “The Gulf of Mexico,” or “The Gulf of Ruritania.” What is more, I’m not sure I personally know of anyone who does truly give a rat’s patootie… vand possibly because I don’t know any cartographers. The name itself isn’t actually the point as far as I’m concerned, and isn’t what is ultimately so exasperating and concerning. Trump himself stated that the name change was enacted to “restore American pride,” the hubris and irony of which I can barely fathom.

What is excessively wearing, however, is the silliness and the petulance behind the change. It is the fact that the president of the United States, ostensibly a grown-ass man, can be so stunningly childish, petty and unhinged all the live-long day. And while I likewise do not believe Canada will become the 51st state, or the United States will purchase Greenland, I do rather hate that the current occupant of the White House, with all the power that conveys, continually demonstrates the intellectual and emotional maturity of a disturbed toddler. I hate that he has monetized the presidency, I abhor that he is susceptible to flattery, and I loath that he is openly, brazenly corrupt. That he has such disdain for the rule of law and even democracy itself, I find terrifying. What is particularly scary and continually shocking is that anyone who has the ability to dress themselves could still believe he is even remotely competent for any position which requires measured decisions and adult interaction.

Winning? Really?

I’ve sometimes been accused of fear mongering, but the reality is we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. We are not on the road to authoritarianism, we are there. We have arrived.

Elon Musk, speaking of hubris, has been given the keys to the hen house and allowed to root about in search of “fraud and waste.” He did not employ accountants, auditors, organizational or economic experts to achieve this goal, instead he gathered a gaggle of young computer hackers. He, and they, are subject to no scrutiny, oversight, accountability, security clearance or consequences for illegalities. Given the government contracts Musk currently holds, the conflict of interest itself should be immediately disqualifying, and yet he is allowed to bypass Congress and all established checks and balances while dismissing agencies and employees which do not serve his personal purposes or which have imposed regulations or fines on his own businesses. In any other context, this would be merely shockingly corrupt, but given what this means for national security, it is alarming in the extreme.

And still there are people, many in fact, who blindly insist this is all to the good. That somehow cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and social programs designed to alleviate poverty and ensure literal survival is quite okay.

“He’s not even taking a salary.”

“He has nothing to do with Project 2025.”

“It wasn’t a Nazi salute.”

“He’s making America great again.”

Donald Trump (and Musk for that matter) are not seriously pretending to be anything other than what they plainly are. Trump’s business dealings, racism, misogyny, fraud and ineptitude are matters of public record and have been for decades. What is ultimately most disturbing about their unlimited power is the fact that it has been given so freely. I’m daily gobsmacked that over 70 million citizens could conceivably regard this administration as anything other than odious and destructive.

Granted, we’ve all likely seen the videos of Trump voters who claim to regret their choice in hindsight. Fine, whatever. What galls me is they have seen the light only because it turns out some enacted (and openly promised) policy impacts them directly. I’ve yet to see a video confession in which someone tearfully disavows their racism or the targeted harms vulnerable and marginalized people continually endure. Speaking of racism, I’ve also been told not everyone who voted for Trump is racist. I don’t care. The fact is, blatant racism wasn’t a deal-breaker, so the distinction is incidental as far as I’m concerned. The impact is unmistakable regardless of the intent.

Where do we go from here? I’m not certain, and nothing is off the table. Amid the welter of information regarding rapidly occurring national events, it’s natural to feel overwhelmed and helpless. The responsibilities, routines and challenges of daily life do not take a break, after all, despite the onslaught of news-worthy happenings taking place. What is more, so much of what is occurring has a surreal, seemingly fictional quality, heightening our disbelief and conflicted impulse to disengage. Information saturation is a real thing, and deflection can feel self-protecting.

In fact, some political observers theorize overwhelming the public and the press is the point. The assertion is that Trump has enacted a flurry of executive orders precisely to deflect focus and forestall the ability to question and examine any one in detail. Quite possibly this is true, as the net effect has been a fusillade of directives (some clearly unconstitutional) met with a counter avalanche of outrage, such that one can barely keep track.

As for me, I try to focus on real, immediate harm. As previously mentioned, I don’t foresee annexing Canada as an immediate worry. I do not think anyone will seriously refer to Greenland as “Red, White, and Blue-land,” and I don’t wish to invest too much attention and energy in those proposals. I’m directing my money and attention to those voices, including independant journalists, which counter the narrative being peddled from the right. I’m holding out hope for federal judges still willing to stall the full destruction of the Constitution, and I’m embracing any opportunity to resist, however small.

Knowledge is power, and as always, I’m open to information, input and suggestions.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

Robert Donat, 1905-1958

[infinitebutterlogjam]

Tuskegee Airmen, circa 1944

[infinitebutterlogjam]

As promised, Donald Trump has targeted trans citizens for particular discrimination. The steps he has taken are not simply reflective of an effort to make their lives more difficult, but to actually deny their literal existence and the means to assure that existence. The harm to come will be undeniable and achingly cruel for children, adolescents, and adults.

I recently was told by a gay male Trump supporter (such creatures exist) there should be no “T” in LGB, because being trans is a “psychological condition,” as opposed to a sexual orientation. Huh? Setting aside, if one can, that such a statement reveals a deep, frankly stupid bigotry, it simply makes no relative sense. The fact is, the same people who were very happily casting stones at gay folk a very few years ago have simply shifted their condemnation to those they perceive as less socially acceptable, an easier target to fear and demonize. And the fear mongering has been extensive and pervasive. I can assure you, despite Trump’s outrageous claim, elementary schools are not performing gender reassignment surgery.

Some facts regarding the “T” in LGBT:

According to a recently published retrospective cohort study in the JAMA Pediatrics, children who receive gender identity support are at a greatly reduced risk for negative mental health outcomes, including suicide attempts. The study included 18,303 transgender adults, aged 18 years or older, who had initiated at least one gender identity milestone between ages 4 and 18 years. This is important to note, especially for those who claim they wish to “protect children.” Not only are they not protecting anyone, restricting access to crucial and essential care is stunningly destructive, and will certainly lead to incalculable harm, even death.

Would it surprise you to know the rate of regret for those who transition is less than 1%, while the rate of regret for those who have, for instance, knee surgery is 6%? Among the vanishingly few who express regret for gender reassignment, the reasons given typically center around negative societal reactions, exactly the kind of demonization and ostracism being promoted by Donald Trump and the political right.

I realize the idea of someone being born in “the wrong body” might seem strange and foreign, and that attempting to change one’s gender/identity seems extreme. Some people also have an especially strong reaction when children are involved, and that can feel alarming. As for myself, I can’t fully understand the experience of being trans, as that’s not my reality, nor would I presume to speak for anyone who is. I do, however, have recognition and immediate empathy for anyone who has been “othered,” as I most certainly have been. At the very least, we are obliged to listen to trans individuals in an attempt to understand their respective lived experience and to those professionals who have gained expertise through years of concentrated study and experience in a specialized field.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

John F. Kennedy inauguration, January 20, 1961. East Portico of the United States Capitol.

Tomorrow Donald Trump takes office once again, and while the inauguration of a president is always momentous, this particular reinstatement is especially noteworthy. The fact that Donald Trump is a convicted felon several times over, as well as an admitted sexual assaulter, makes his presidency perversely “unique.” While previous occupants of the White House have engaged in questionable acts, both personal and official, Trump’s level of criminality is not only unprecedented, it is well beyond the limits of acceptable behavior for a potential next-door neighbor, never mind the “leader of the free world.” Setting those qualities aside (as enough voters chose to do), he has also been remarkably open about his desire to subvert and discard the established tenets of democracy itself and establish a type of authoritarian government, for which he has abundant help in the form of several billionaires not particularly known for their largesse.

That is not a small thing.

When faced with the potential of another Trump presidency, I have consoled myself in the past with the knowledge that our nation engaged in a literal civil war, and emerged, if not unscathed, at least eventually intact. It occurs to me now, however, there are possibly worse things than civil war, particularly when the president is unfettered and all intended checks and balances are pointedly discarded. But the unlimited power given to Trump and his handlers (including de facto co-leader, Elon Musk) isn’t necessarily that which I find most disturbing; it’s the absolute willingness on the part of his acolytes to dislodge and discard honest discernment and critical thinking.

I’ve pondered this a lot.

Prior to his entry into American politics, I thought of Donald Trump as merely a kind of attention seeking buffoon, if I thought of him at all, vulgar and crass and wholly disingenuous. I could detect zero degree of self-reflection but a very great deal of self-focus. That he was not intellectually curious I did not find especially surprising, nor the fact that he was apparently unencumbered by any sense of empathy or guiding morality beyond self-preservation and self-promotion. Later, finding that he habitually left a trail of unpaid bills and ruined lives in the wake of his numerous failed businesses (and they are quite numerous), seemed also not surprising. In every way, in fact, Donald Trump appeared to epitomize the most loathsome sort of American, a kind of hubristic caricature of capitalist greed, openly corrupt, wildly misogynistic, engaging in the sort of double-dealing and underhanded machinations, personal and professional, to make a Medici blush.

But Donald Trump has never sought to conceal his basic persona. He has never been any more nor any less than exactly as he appears, and for me that is the most unsettling aspect of his looming presidency. That anyone could observe his unvarnished character, have an inkling of the nature and substance of his documented business dealings, be aware of his stated ideology and personal history, and witness his frank lack of acuity, while still believing he is suitable as president is both astounding and appalling. Even more disturbing is the realization that the motivation behind so much denial and deflection springs largely from his status as a white male. Apparently it is fairly easy to toss away the trappings, teachings and pretense of “Christianity” when choosing such a leader, hypocrisy be damned. Judgement in this case is reserved for others, or more precisely, “the others,” i.e., those who are not white males.

As for me, I feel deep shame not to have recognized and acknowledged much sooner the degree to which racism and other forms of bigotry permeate this nation. I’m particularly galled at my own lack of full awareness given the fact that this country was undeniably founded and built on genocide and enslavement, while the continued marginalization and demonization of vulnerable people, including immigrants and members of the lgbt community is a daily reminder.

I’m not sure where we’ll go from here. I’m uncertain into what future we might find ourselves propelled, and I’m even less confident as to how those of us who are lately “Woke” might combat a potentially undesirable and destructive outcome.

But I’m open to ideas.

At the very least, I’m going to try clinging to kindness (between bouts of outrage), writing, reading, painting, music, theater, and my loving and infinitely patient community of friends.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

Charles Stanley Gifford, 1898-1965

father of Marilyn Monroe.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

John Lupton, 1928-1993

[infinitebutterlogjam]

John Lupton, 1928-1993

[infinitebutterlogjam]

photo by me.