Dark Fantasy (4): more e-mails? seriously?

      Just when I thought polishing and posting were all I had left to do to finish my dark fantasy, to finally escape the weight of this presidential campaign season, James Comey of the FBI revives the e-mail question.

       The surreal becomes even more so: the media, even responsible outlets, fall over each other to get the story out first and in the jumble somehow there's a whole new investigation of the Clinton e-mails.  The truffle-scandal hogs are snuffling around for more delicious fungi growing on the donkey trail.

        No one has ever explained--to my satisfaction, anyway--any actual harm allegedly posed by the Secretary's use of her e-mail server. In the case that emerged yesterday (28 October 2016), I don't quite understand how Secretary Clinton's mishandling of anything is involved when the handling was apparently done by her aide, Huma Abadin.

        By all accounts, Comey is a highly regarded official with a reputation for integrity. But in the light of the status of the campaign and past practice, and given that the FBI apparently doesn't even know what these emails are (only that they exist), Comey's report to Congress smacks of at best, sorely faulty judgement, and at worst, sabotage of Clinton's campaign.

       For those who are so disturbed at Secretary Clinton's alleged corruption--none of which is proven, remember!--why are you not equally concerned about the Donald's corruption, which is well documented? The Secretary doesn't seem to be defending lawsuits alleging fraud, as in the case of Trump University,  nor is there a documented history of racial discrimination applicable to Mrs. Clinton, while the same cannot be said of Trump and his properties.

        If one is troubled by a nexus with corporate America, the Donald's financial disclosure documents filed for his presidential run (though clearly his tax returns would be more helpful) should raise all kinds of red flags. Reading through the form (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2838696-Trump-2016-Financial-Disclosure.html), it's pretty clear that election of the Donald would be equivalent to letting a fox loose in a hen house. His varied investment interests, with an emphasis on real estate, suggest that the Bundy acquittals in Oregon would stand as the harbinger for a full-scale invasion of public lands managed by the federal government, if such lands weren't turned over to the private sector entirely.

         I hear much moaning about Secretary Clinton's ties to big banks and multinationals. Again, I don't quite understand how these connections compare to the Donald's involvement in corporate America. The Secretary gave speeches for which she was handsomely paid, true. She  apparently suggests that big business--banks or whatever--contribute to the national dialogue, that they be part of solutions rather than the problem.  She then paid tax on the handsome fees.

         The Donald uses every tax loophole available without, so far as I know, lobbying at any time to close them. Even though he now says "close the loopholes." In other words, I see no indication that he's ever engaged in public interest lobbying or public service. But now, in his new guise as possible president, he'll fix the system because he knows it so well. One looks in vain through his fifty years in business for evidence to support this sudden desire to fix a system that's been so beneficial to his interests.

          Does he get a free pass because he eschews "political correctness" and "tells it like it is"? "Like it is" is often not "like it should be" if we wish to be a  civilized society. Does anyone remember the foundation of political correctness? Civility? An effort to adjust attitudes to a respect for difference and diversity?  Should we not aspire? Must we wallow in our own short-comings?

          Awhile back, I posted a blog entry written by Spanish poet-philosopher Alejandro Martín ("The Fox and the Grapes" on 3 September 2016) which raised Nietzsche's spectre of a "hatred born of impotence that changes the value of things." As I understand his position, the animosity that can grow out of a sense of powerlessness often translates into an insistence that everyone is the same and, effectively, into a projection of our own secret failings on others to explain how they rose above us, whether their rise be social, financial or political. The Donald instinctively knows this; it's why he speaks to the worst in us rather than trying to excite our aspirations. Secretary Clinton appeals, instead, to our better selves, ignoring (apparently to her peril) the anger and resentment of those who have not fulfilled the hopes raised with the promise of transformation by Obama's election.

            Secretary Clinton is exceptionally well prepared and knowledgeable. She has worked hard to achieve her position. I might have preferred another candidate, but I have no doubt that she truly believes we all do better when we work together, and that we all have an obligation to contribute what we can to the national community. Her greatest failing may be that she seems tone deaf to the clambering cacophony from a populace that wants comforting--I applaud her for trying to recruit the nation, but the Donald's promise to protect everyone and fix everything is a siren song for many. How much better we feel if someone as flawed as we are beats someone from the elite! (How the Donald has managed to pull this off escapes me: maybe it's the exceedingly bad taste of his gold-embellished decorating? Gold is expensive so it must be good and more must be better?)

Three Fates (Mantheniel Photography)

               So as we look at the current landscape, I cannot see how the handling of emails has caused harm, either those already examined or those recently found but not yet examined.  These latter may have caused harm, but since we don't know what they are, how do we know their effect?

                I can see how Wikileaks and Julian Assange have injected shipworms into the hull of the ship of state by their handling of stolen emails. There's already been a Trump voter found who tried to vote twice because she feared her first vote was being changed to a vote for Hillary. Ah, the irony.

          Who could have imagined this election? It's enough to imagine there really are three fates with  very warped senses of humor manipulating these strings. Happy Halloween, everybody!

Dark Fantasy (3) ? Black Snake Poison

            There are no clown sightings on Atlas Obscura's map in the North Dakota Plains near the  Missouri River, where an indigenous encampment has been growing since April 2016.

            The camp exists to protect the waters of the Missouri River from a pipeline being built to transport crude oil from the Bakken oil fields. The campers claim the mantle of water protectors and call the pipeline the Black Snake.

Standing Rock Sioux Camp, ND

            The immediate reason for this direct action, begun by the Standing Rock Sioux, a Native American Tribe, was a change in the route of the pipeline. The pipe has to cross the Missouri River; the original route was a little north of Bismark, ND, but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rejected that route. "One reason mentioned in the agency’s environmental assessment is the proximity to wellhead source water protection areas that are avoided to protect municipal water supply wells," according to Amy Dairymple writing in the Bismark Tribune on 14 August 2016.  The changed route brings the river crossing close to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and threatens the reservation's sole water supply, which is apparently not a concern (unlike the case of the Bismark water supply). The new route also disturbs land held sacred by the tribe though it doesn't have legal title to this land.

            Media coverage is mostly focused on the gathering of native nations in North Dakota. In addition to environmental concerns, a multitude of complex issues relating to indigenous rights, as well as constitutional guaranties, are being highlighted as the effort to stop the pipeline continues. (http://time.com/4548566/dakota-access-pipeline-standing-rock-sioux/  has a summary of the pipeline story as of 28 October 2016.)

            I've seen little attention given to the source and effect of the fuel to be transported. But there are troubling and broad-reaching issues involved in the Bakken oil and gas fields, if scientific reports can be believed.    

            It seems that beginning around 1984, and continuing until 2009, global ethane levels were dropping. The main source of ethane is extraction of oil and gas; venting and flaring in the production fields release it, and when it reacts with sunlight, surface-level ozone results. Ozone, needed in the upper atmosphere to protect us against ultraviolet sunlight, at surface levels acts as a toxic substance and as a greenhouse gas.

            A mountaintop sensor in Europe detected a reversal of the downward trend in ethane levels in 2010.  The increase continued, so a study was launched to locate the reason. After taking air samples over Bakken for 12 days in May 2014, "airborne measurements from directly over and downwind of oil production areas show that the [Bakken] field's ethane emissions of 0.23 teragrams per year, or roughly 250,000 U.S. tons, effectively cancel out half of the global decline rate," [emphasis added] according a report by University of Michigan in its Michigan News. Video posted on You Tube by Michigan Engineering shows the changes in surface ozone  from the Bakken Field emissions.

https://youtu.be/D-Dvm0MTpNo

            The report continues: "'These findings not only solve an atmospheric mystery—where that extra ethane was coming from—they also help us understand how regional activities sometimes have global impacts,' said co-author Colm Sweeney, a scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, and NOAA. 'We did not expect a single oil field to affect global levels of this gas.'"[1]

           

            You may ask, how does this all fit into some dark fantasy story of the presidential campaign?

            In the middle of the northern plains, an ever-increasing number of indigenous peoples and their allies gather in prayer to defend the natural world against what they interpret as a Black Snake foreseen in prophesy.  State police agencies are pushing back where the confrontation has escalated. The creator of the Black Snake is a single fossil fuel extraction operation that supplies roughly 2 percent of ethane emissions in the world.

            Meanwhile, the Donald (who has a fairly substantial investment in Energy Transfer Partners  LLC, the pipeline's developer) in increasingly strident tones denies the influence of human activity on climate change. Aside from personal financial interest, this position gives him a solid edge in the oil and gas producing states. (Native Americans make up only about 2% of the US population; it's a negligible voting block.) Energy Transfer has not surprisingly supported his campaign with significant contributions.
         
            But the climate change problem he rejects has global reach and requires international cooperation--and a willingness to face down fossil fuel interests and honor our international commitments. While Secretary Clinton has not directly addressed the DAPL, she at least accepts the science of climate change and the threat it presents.

            The GOP candidate's polemic strives to harness the apocalyptic foursome: fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear. But this exploitation in no way serves the national interest. 

            Sightings of red-maned clowns sprout where he campaigns.

            Even in Maine.

           

           

             

                       

           

---

[1] The study is titled "Fugitive emissions from the Bakken shale illustrate role of shale production in global ethane shift." Also contributing were researchers from NOAA, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University, Stanford University and Harvard University. The research was funded primarily by NOAA and NASA.

Dark Fantasy (2)? Clowns

 

            Then there are the clowns.

           

            All over the United States there are reports of sinister clown sightings. Clown sightings seem to come in waves:  one rolled through in the 1980s, another in the 1990s.

            Shira Chess, a folklorist at the University of Georgia, writing in the New York Times (14 October 2016) argues that the current crop of clowns originally emerged from the internet. She believes they started out as stories that, cut and pasted until their authors no longer recognize them, take on a life of their own. "These stories are written, shared, reshared and rewritten to express the things that all horror (online or offline) is meant to express: fear of the uncanny, and universal existential anxieties."

            As near as I can tell, the first offline clown sighting in this wave in the U.S. was in Greenville, South Carolina during the dog days of August. According to a report written by Matthew Teague in The Guardian (U.S. edition), a little boy saw the clowns near a low income apartment complex where he lived.  The child described "two clowns in the woods, both brightly dressed and made up. One with a red fright wig and the other with a black star painted on his face." His mother reported they were trying to lure him away.

            No clowns were found in the environs, but the mother remained convinced that clowns had threatened her child, even attacked the door to her home.

            The clowns rapidly multiplied. From Greenville, reports of sightings spread out to other parts of South Carolina, then to other states. By October 6, Atlas Obscura could publish a map of reported sightings that showed activity from Orono, Maine to Los Angeles, California. Yet rarely were actual clowns found.

            Canada experienced clown sightings, as did the UK. Indeed, across the pond, according to the Mirror, concern about the clowns was expressed by the Russian embassy in London. Britain's foreign minister, Boris Johnson, in a stare-down with Russia over the situation in Syria, had called for Brits to protest outside the Russian embassy, in itself somewhat surreal.  The Russian embassy then issued a warning to Russia's citizens in the UK to beware the "antics" of "killer clowns," which were intended to cause "fear and bewilderment."

            University of Georgia's Chess sets aside the reality of the clowns. She writes, "The question, 'Are the clowns real?' is beside the point. The question we should be asking ourselves is, 'What are we really afraid of?'"

            A campaign advertisement in support of the GOP presidential candidate  doesn't mention clowns. It does offer dire predictions of the future before asserting: "Donald Trump will protect you. He is the only one who can."

           Still, I can't help but note that many of  the clowns described seem to sport a mop of red hair... .

                       

           

           

Dark Fantasy (1) ? Four Horsemen of Calumny

            The U.S. presidential campaign has become a journey into the surreal. It colors other stories vying for attention on the political landscape.

            One such involves a relatively minor character on the political scene, an ally of the GOP candidate, in the state of Maine. I've always been proud of Maine politics: remarkably clean, tainted only occasionally by corruption scandals, blessed by usually competent and sometimes even outstanding political figures.

            For instance, Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine), the first woman to serve in both houses of the U.S. Congress. She served in Washington from 1940 to 1973.  She was still in the early days of her first Senate term (1949-1973) when she challenged the hysteria then rampant in the United States that thrived on fear of Communism. Sen. Joe McCarthy was whipping up a witch hunt based on innuendo and intimidation; Sen. Smith had the courage to stand against him.

Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME)

             "[I] don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear," she said, and went on to express her doubt that her party could win on such a basis, "simply because I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest." 

            The Senator represents Maine's political reality... or so thought I. 

            But in present day Maine, a Republican governor named Paul LePage heads our state government. "Fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear" are Gov. LePage's hallmarks. True, he has never won the governorship with a majority of all voters; his victories have come in races where the vote was split, letting him take office with less than half the votes cast. But his total vote increased by 75,000 plus votes for his second term, despite an often apparent intolerance of others' opinions, beliefs, or cultures.

The Donald and Gov. Paul Lepage (R-ME)

            Mr. LePage characterizes President Obama as a dictator but describes the GOP presidential candidate as "a very powerful personality" and "a very authoritative persona." He continues, “When [the GOP candidate] is in a room, people notice. He does not have to go behind closed doors with community activists to get things done and hurt American people." (If this seems disjointed and incomprehensible, you've read it correctly; the statement is a head-scratcher.) Originally, Mr. LePage had used the word "authoritarian" to describe the GOP candidate, but corrected himself in a later press conference--even as he complained that the press should have known what he meant instead of quoting his actual words.

            Those words were: “Sometimes, I wonder that our Constitution is not only broken, but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we’ve had eight years of a president, he’s an autocrat ..., and every single day we’re slipping into anarchy.”

            The dissonance is that, so far as I know, the U.S. Constitution is fine and the rule of law still prevails in the real world. Though it's true there is also, in the real world, a dysfunctional federal Congress and a Supreme Court that's short one justice because of that dysfunction. Nevertheless, thus far, the rule of law still governs.

            I am worried, though, about the strength of the barrier between my reality and that of Governor LePage and the Donald... .

,

The Fox and the Grapes (Ressentiment in Politics)

 Guest Post by Alejandro Martín Navarro [translation S.V. Lowery]

            There's an old fable attributed to Aesop that tells of the strenuous attempts by a fox to reach a bunch of grapes that was too high up. After repeatedly failing, the fox moves off and cries, disdainfully: "They're still green!"

            I use this story in class to illustrate the concept of "ressentiment" [roughly equivalent to "resentment" or "bitterness" in English] in Nietzsche: the hatred that we express toward that which we secretly want but which we aren't capable of reaching, hatred born of impotence that changes the value of things.  Another example I sometimes use is of a person who falls in love but is not loved in return, and so ends up saying: "I don't know how I could have fallen for someone so ugly and stupid!" Daily life is full of examples of this perverse value change that lets us overcome frustration but is only a simplistic psychological mechanism for emotional survival. "From their impotence," says Nietzsche, "hatred grows in them until it becomes something immense and sinister, in the most spiritual and poisonous sense."

            However, it happens that this reversal of values (disdain the good that isn't within our reach, esteem the mediocre that is) affects not only external things (mature grapes, pretty girls, hard assignments, deserved fame) but also the internal: thus, the fool tends to disdain intelligence; the ignorant, culture; the weak, strength; the crook, honesty. Max Scheler, another of the great theorists, says that resentment is psychic self-intoxication: in the depths of our dark psychological cave, we avenge ourselves on a reality that insists we are not up to the mark.

            Resentment in this sense is a disguised hatred of life: a life that doesn't give us what we want, that fails to unfold according to our will. Thus, resentment necessarily leads to a psychological scenario where no one is better then me, where nothing valuable exists unless it pertains to me, where the mature grapes are never too high. Hierarchy, difference, is offensive to one who is resentful. As G. K. Chesterton suggests, it may be that a good definition of mediocrity is to stand next to greatness and fail to notice it.[1]

            Apart from embracing resentment, one has two options with regard to greatness: one can strive to reach it by effort and perseverance, or one can simply admire it, recognizing that it's far beyond oneself and enjoy the fact that at least others can reach it: one can aspire to intelligence, to wisdom, to virtue, or one can at least admire them in others. Both options respect the hierarchical nature of values: they are where they should be. "A sensitive soul," says Nietzsche in Human, All Too Human, "feels annoyance in learning that it must be given thanks; a vulgar soul, in learning that thanks must be given."

            Nietzsche was the first to see how resentment was capable of framing value systems throughout history and also the first to notice that this mechanism permeates, alarmingly, the whole spiritual life of modern Europe. His intuition was developed, along different lines, by Scheler and by Ortega. Das Ressentiment im Aufbau der Moralen [English translation: Ressentiment] by Scheler appeared in 1912, and La rebelión de las masas  [English translation: The Revolt of the Masses] by Ortega y Gasset, in 1929. Both were published when the social and political symptoms of an illness diagnosed by Nietzsche twenty years before the end of the 19th century were already clear in Europe, an illness that has now reached its full development in our own time. “Ye higher men," cried Zarathrustra, "Learn this from me: In the market-place no one believeth in higher men. But if ye will speak there, very well! The populace, however, blinketh, answering: 'We are all equal'."

            The dominant morality denies differences, excellence, merit, along with moral and intellectual nobility. What Ortega calls the "mass man"--the individual undifferentiated from any other due to any special quality--becomes the prototype for existence. "What is characteristic of the time is that the common soul, knowing it is common, has the boldness to assert the right of ordinariness and imposes it wherever." This is confirmed whenever one takes the trouble to note what human type, what paradigm of existence, is modeled in television programs, social media, political party rolls, sports idols.  Everywhere, occupying the primary spaces of ordinary life, there are vulgar persons convinced that their vulgarity is the measure of all worth. As he says in España invertebrada [English title: Invertebrate Spain], "the romantic revolt of the masses, the hatred of the best [of men], the scarcity of these--here I have the true cause of the fall of Spain. " And this phenomenon reaches all European public life: "The European who begins to dominate, in relation to the complex civilization into which he was born, would be a primitive man, a barbarian emerging through a trap door, a 'vertical invader.'" This vertical invader is also the person who, in contemporary political terms, appears in the pervasive dogma of direct democracy: everyone is as good as everyone else, policy needn't be entrusted to any representative because representation is in itself a hierarchy, and thus the last remnant of inequality.

            Another of the characteristics of political resentment is historical amnesia. There has never been, in the history of mankind, such a long period of peace, prosperity and freedom in the world as the present liberal democracies enjoy, among all the numerous religious, moral, political and social organizational systems that have existed. But the embittered are unable to accept something that would imply acknowledgement of their own conditional nature: that the simple fact of existing puts us in a position of inferiority and dependence in relation to the past. We are always an effect before being a cause. "Those who belong to the rabble," says Nietzsche, "have memory reaching only to the grandparent, time ends in the grandparent."

            This leads to what Ortega calls "the radical ingratitude toward how much has made possible the facility of their existence." There is a childish belief that historical achievements, the rights acquired, are innate in existence itself, rather than that they are something won, and consequently, subject to a constant risk of loss. Civilization as nature, not as endeavor. It would seem that, in his general intuition this is the terrain on which the moral and the political condition of our time is in play: between negation of the past, at

US News & World Report: Charlie Leight/Getty Images

times clothed in false progressivism, mediocrity elevated to a collective virtue, and refusal to acknowledge the value of the best among us, the true aristocracy of merit and of condition--not that of blood or social class--which has always guided the great historic endeavors of humanity.

              

            

[Alejandro Martín Navarro is an award-winning poet who teaches philosophy and ethics at the secondary level in Andalusia, Spain, often using finger puppets to depict the great characters in philosophy. Please see my comment below for further information on this post.]

---

[1] Unable to find the source of a Chesterton quote to this effect, I've restated it because retranslation almost never works, and I didn't want to misquote Chesterton.

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.