Drumpf's gop

           

             

                Political conventions are meant to create a narrative. In other words, they're organized to tell the story of the political party's vision, as embodied by its hero.  A convention should be first rate myth-making, each speech (or chapter) building up to the overarching climax of the hero's emergence. Or, in some cases, it's the hero's vision, imposed on the party.

Elephants, Republican icon

           I confess that I was  unable to watch the GOP Convention. (For folks outside the U.S., the GOP acronym stands for "Grand Old Party," another name for the Republican party. True, there's little "grand" about the Republicans' current incarnation, so the acronym becomes just a vaguely Teutonic sounding one syllable word, "gop," reminiscent of "glop," defined rather fittingly as a "sticky and amorphous substance, typically something unpleasant." But I digress....) It's been said that the GOP is dead and has been replaced by Trumpism. Whether that's true or not, it's pretty clear that the candidate is running on his own platform, and dragging the party along with him.

            I did dip my toe in, so to speak, by looking at a veritable sea of clips and listening to commentary and discussion. But the thought of listening to a Ben Carson or Chris Christie speech in full caused anticipatory earaches. The recitation of anger and sadness on the first night, the general nastiness on other nights, the pure ignorance of some attendees (including the candidate), were just too depressing.

            I did force myself to listen to the nominee's acceptance speech. He seems to believe he's the only person who can solve all of the problems we face, at home and abroad. He doesn't seem willing to tell us how, but he does ask that we believe him.

            Seriously?

            Evidently we should do that because we can't believe his opponent. The over-riding theme throughout the days leading up to the coronation of the Donald was the insistence on the alleged dishonesty of Hillary Clinton.

            Does Hillary over-simplify or distort facts to frame issues in a way that leads to the point she's trying to make? She does; it's an advocacy trick well-known to litigators, politicians, and debate teams.  I think it's a mistake in this election cycle, but it's a well-worn technique in a country generally unwilling to examine the complexities of cause and effect.

            But the allegations of her "crookedness" are over the top. There isn't a lot she can hide after some 25 years of scrutiny and public service. There's just nothing of substance to find--some bad judgment, maybe, and some arguable carelessness, but no malicious intent or criminal action.

From pixabay.com

            What's hard for me to fathom is how the Donald (with the help of the demagogic manipulation of Chris Christie) managed to convince his people to cry out for her to be jailed; he excoriates her for lying, but he himself has little  apparent relationship with truth-telling  and in fact has engaged in practices that come so close to fraudulent that it's surprising he's not yet been charged.

             The difference seems to be that Hillary knows (or should have known) what she's doing, according to her critics. While the Donald believes he's telling the truth, or is able to convince himself that his fantasies are real.

            So that's the story that I heard come out of the gop convention. The vision  revealed the hero, who turns out to be a self-deluding narcissistic bully.

            This is a tale best tossed in the trash, but it looks like it could be a best seller...

          

Media Stories

            News stories.

            These are the stories from real life... or are they?

            On social media and at social gatherings, you hear a lot of complaints about "the media."

            For example, I recently heard someone cheering the U.K. for "taking their country back" by leaving the European Union.  This particular framing of the issue was challenged by discussion of some of the concessions the U.K. had wrested from the E.U. in  its initial negotiations for entry way back when.

            In the wake of these points, someone observed: "The Media don't tell us these things! We don't know the realities."

Media's birth: Gutenberg printing

            It is true that the media in the U.S. tends to focus on the U.S., some outlets more than others. People who spend a lot of time with Fox News jabbering away in the background may not be getting the best information. Still, at least as the Brexit vote was approaching, CNN had fairly good coverage of both the campaign and concerns (if the archive listings can be believed), as did NBC news. The Public Broadcasting Service offered several discussions about it, though apparently not a lot before the vote.

            That's the passive side of it, what turns up if you just turn on the radio or T.V.

            But we live in a world where you can actually learn about something if you're curious about it. In the case of Brexit, if one were truly interested, there were ample discussions available from videos of debates on line, and from British newspapers. I was in the UK not long before the vote, and recall some exhaustive pro and con articles in British newspapers.  I suspect these articles were on line at the time, as well. The New Yorker did some first rate reporting on the issue, and so did (not surprisingly) The Economist.

            I'd have to say that the media did do its job.

"Gift Horse," Trafalgar Square, London, U.K.

            Did the voters do their job? There's some question about that in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.  Not a few voters reported their vote was meant as a protest; they didn't really think Britain would leave the E.U. In fact, they weren't sure that's what they wanted, really.

            Surprise!

            Here in the U.S., the current presidential campaign has several story lines running through it, but from what I've seen, the echo chamber is working overtime. That is, people seem to be listening only to those who agree with their preconceptions.  There doesn't seem to be a lot of thinking going on about substance.

            Some of the statements being made by candidates or surrogates don't sound quite right if you do think about it. I've started trying to find out what they might mean. Turns out there are web sites that let me do that! With a little typing, I can go to PolitiFact.com or FactCheck.org and look at what researchers have determined to be the truth or lack thereof. These are non-partisan sites; they've no ax they're grinding. (For a line-up of fact checkers, go to http://www.technorms.com/454/get-your-facts-right-6-fact-checking-websites-that-help-you-know-the-truth)

            If we want the media to do its job, we need to do ours: we need to support the fact checkers and the news organizations that do the hard work of reporting and telling the true stories, even if this reporting contradicts our preferred view of what is happening.  We need to listen to other voices. We need to listen with a critical ear.  We need to see memes as reflections, NOT as fact or news.

            We need, in short, to write our  own political story. Whether it's a farce or a tragedy is in our hands. There's no do-over.

A Pause in Seville

            I'm feeling a little guilty about leaving my main character in the lurch.

            He's been stuck near a plaza in Seville for three or four weeks. He's approaching a house: "Gonzalo hesitantly approached the house from the narrow street, admiring its facade." It belongs to a former school mate of his and the well-off merchant she's married.

            The street, I've decided, is Borceguinería (now called Mateos Gago, after a fierce 19th century   priest and professor at University of Seville who was--it sounds like--fanatically opposed to Darwin's theories... but that's another story).

            The street was named Borceguinería until 1893, though precisely why is a mystery. Since the name goes back to the middle ages, perhaps it refers to a street of sandal-makers? That's how the Royal Spanish Academy dictionary defines the word borceguinería: a workshop where sandals are made or a neighborhood where sandals are sold. At least, I think a borcegui is a sandal; one source says "shoelaces," but the same Royal Academy dictionary describes it as footwear reaching to the ankle, open in the front that's adjusted with cords or laces. Which sounds to me like a sandal, right?

Entrance to Royal Palace

            The street's proximity to the cathedral and the royal palace make it a likely location for successful merchants of the time, I would think. It wouldn't have been as  fancy as one of the broad avenues where the nobility had their palaces. In fact, for centuries it was so narrow and twisty that there were complaints about it. Then in the 1920s, when Seville was preparing for the extravagant Iberoamerican Exposition that was to take place in 1929,  major work was done on the street to turn it into a more user-friendly thoroughfare--though today it's one-way and hardly suitable for drag racing.

Cathedral wall, by plaza

            Despite its age-old twists, it did end on a plaza beside the cathedral where new money at the turn of the 15th century might well have met with folks who had names, the hidalgos, the children of somebody (as opposed to nobody).

            This is how my story goes, and why it's the never-ending novel. My characters roll along, moving through their lives according to their wishes (mostly), and then the main character gets stuck.

            Or do I? Niggling questions crop up, like: what's the name of the street? Where exactly is this house? While digging into possibilities of street and location, in the background are questions about what the characters have to do to accomplish the actions they're considering. Gonzalo hesitates on the street because he's not sure what will happen when he enters the house. That's because I'm not sure how the young adults about to confront each other will react.

            I do know that shortly, my character is pretty well decided he'll head out to the newly discovered lands, on an expedition leaving in February 1502 (he's stuck at the edge of the plaza in January of that same year). The story bridge between the plaza and the voyage is a reunion of childhood companions, some of whom may, or may not, go with him on the expedition headed by Nicolás de Ovando--who was a real and not very appealing person.

Cathedral: Orange Tree Plaza

            Stories have their own logic. I'm not entirely sure why Gonzalo is hesitating before going into the house; it may be that this whole sequence should be torn up and thrown away. The characters are being a little coy with me. Maybe they want a summer vacation? They've been doing their jobs pretty steadily since January, despite a number of short interruptions surrounding changed location as I've moved about.

            Or maybe, they just don't want to leave Seville.

            I can sympathize with that.