How Miami Beach Officials Get Away With Torture

Umberto Boccioni, The Street Enters The House
Michael Grieco, Commissioner
Miami Beach, Florida

Plea for Formal Remediation of Unreasonable Noise and Maladministration

Dear Commission Grieco:

I have posted this letter on the Web for your easy reference. You have said that my letters are too long for your cell phone, so I am hoping that you have access to a desktop or laptop computer. I am also hoping that your colleagues have the equipment and power of continuous concentration to consider this document and act upon it. If I do receive a response, I shall provide voluminous factual information to support my thesis upon request

This is my petition for legislative and administrative action to mitigate unreasonable noise, vibrations, exhaust fumes, and other pollution in construction projects in the City of Miami Beach by requiring contractors to include statements of probable pollution impact and their remediation program in their bidding documents, and by requiring owners and developers to provide temporary housing to residents whose lives are unreasonably impacted by construction pollution in all events, and especially when the city waives the charter provision of a civil right against such disturbances.

The need for such legislation was made evident to your neighbors during the horizontal drilling of a 2/3 mile long redundant sewer line. The noise, vibrations, and fumes around the entry and exit holes can only be described as torturous, of the nature that terrorists and other criminals are subjected to by the police power in other parts of the world in order to drive them out of their buildings or to confess to their crimes.

The only expression of concern was that the customers of Joe’s Restaurant, frequented by the affluent and vested interests, not be disturbed.

The charter protection was waived by the city because the drilling contractor had contracted to be present on the North Dakota pipeline. A responsible city official for that reason declared that the project was “time sensitive,” but implied that the city was in imminent danger of being inundated by sewage, which if expressly stated would have been a bald-faced lie. There was no emergency. In fact, an engineering report stated that there was a very small chance of a break in the existing sewer main, and that there was no imminent danger of it failing. The drilling team left town a year ago and the redundant project is just now winding up.
Many complaints and pleas were submitted by victims to the mayor, commissioners, and administrative officials. Responsibility for the outrageous disturbance on weekends and evenings was shamefully shirked by administrative officials, with the exception of Eric Carpenter. The mayor was too important to receive the victims at city hall; the commissioners, who were notified time and again of the issue, were unresponsive.
The rule of thumb when only a small number of people are disturbed is not to provide for their general welfare but to ignore them the best one can. This usually works politically because of the local culture: with some remarkable exceptions, people not only do not love their neighbors but they do not even want to know them unless there is something in it for them. Further, traumatized people tend to be concerned with their own predicaments to the exclusion of others.
The duty to address the complaints was delegated to the general contractor and his public relations employee. Shutting down the project until adequate sound protection could be obtained was out of the question due to the drilling team’s scheduling needs. The general contractor slapped together a wooden box for the gigantic engine to reduce the decibels. That project created more noise in the evenings and took all too long for a minimal result. In fine, it was too little too late, including too late to file for an injunction in circuit court, and the racket dragged on for months. The public relations sophist did what she could, which was to simply shine people on with specious rhetoric.

A meeting was held by your powerful neighborhood association. A public works official finally publicly addressed the ongoing nuisance. As an engineer he had no sympathy with the people suffering the unreasonable pollution due to a drilling process that is usually employed out in the boondocks and not in the residential neighborhoods of small cities such as ours. I have an account of that meeting if you have a personal computer and the time to consider it.

That account includes the tearful complaint of a woman who was being tortured by unreasonable vibrations and noise at 419 Michigan Avenue, near your home. She apparently thought David Mancini was the city’s official contractor, and that the 419 Michigan Avenue project was his responsibility, which he has nothing to do with.
As you know, the groundwork at that site for a small hotel, across Michigan from the healthy Vibe studio, seemed almost interminable due to water conditions. I estimated that the entire declared valuation of the hotel construction was absorbed by the groundwork, although a superintendent told me the extent of the groundwork was expected. Still, I have asked the building department to collect affidavits and documents upon completion to make sure that a correct value is declared and all permit fees are paid, which has not always been done in the past under the city’s Rob Peter to Paul to Breakeven Policy.
I hope that woman has recovered. I shall never forget her tearful plea for relief from the awful noise and vibrations. But manly engineers and city officials are deaf to such pleas from small minorities. There is always collateral damage in the fog of war against nature. The fact that there are so many complaints in our city creates a din that tends to deafen city officials unless, again, there is something in it for them if they respond to it.
There were so-called activists around town who could have raised enough hell to get some relief. Unfortunately, they either had their noses in the wrong place, or they were afraid to speak up because they had their own needs. After all, His Honor the Mayor said after the last election that people who complained about things would have to wait until the next election to be heard.

Therefore, I hope you will at least respond with your position on what you can do to make sure that city officials in instances such as this provide for the welfare for all stakeholders, not just the welfare of those represented by the power elite’s political bureau on the commission.


David Arthur Walters

Are Miami Beach Politicians and Lawyers Dishonest?

Dan Gelber and Michael Grieco for Mayor of the City of Miami Beach
The Fake Poll and Fake PAC Episode

by David Arthur Walters
June 4, 2017


Dan Gelber stooped to conquer his opponent, Commissioner Michael Grieco, in the race for City of Miami Beach mayor by casting the first stone, or at least Grieco says so, out of sheer desperation, using an unethical “push poll” to push voters into believing that Grieco is a political prostitute.

Up to that point in the campaign, Grieco had been saying that “Gelber is a good man.” He might have remained silent now rather than lower himself to the traditional political mudslinging that Gelber is an old hand at in his professed career of fighting corruption, yet he took the bait and strenuously denied the charge.

He called Gelber “Dishonest Dan” for using a fake poll to advance himself to the coveted position of mayor by suggesting that he, Grieco, was using a friend’s political action committee to raise money from people doing business with the city. Hypocrisy was apparently afoot, for he countercharged Gelber with using an unregistered PAC to his own ends. He admitted to having “many friends who chair or participate in political committees, campaigns, and other forms of political free speech,” but denied that he had any control over or raised money for a PAC by the time he made the statement to the Miami Herald, which did not name the PACs alluded to.

We recall that Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon pioneered push polling, an unethical practice condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants and the American Association for Public Opinion Research and ethics activists who like to see it outlawed. Democratic voters received telephone calls during Nixon’s 1946 run for the U.S. House against Democrat incumbent Jerry Voorhis: “This is a friend of yours, but I can’t tell you who I am. Did you know that Jerry Voorhis is a communist?”

The negative aspersion does not have to be stated as a fact with push polling. When George W. Bush ran for governor of Texas in 1994, voters were asked whether they would be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if they knew that lesbians dominated her staff. During Barrack Obama’s presidential candidacy in 2008, callers insinuated that he was a Muslim or hostile to Israel.

So would you be likely to vote for Grieco if you knew he benefited from a dirty political action committee and then lied about it? If Grieco were a Machiavellian politician, he might ask, “Would you vote for Gelber if you knew he was a bigot and hypocrite?” Or he might have just said, “Gelber is a good man, and certainly is a better than thou bigot and hypocrite,” knowing that people tend to forget the “not” and would then associated Gelber with bigotry and hypocrisy when his name came to mind.

The greatest sin around Miami Beach, a city already infamous for its corruption over the decades, is the use of soft-money political action committees, whether technically illegal or not. The sordid reputation of such PACs was pioneered on the beach by Mayor Philip Levine when he got on the horn to hustle money for Relentless For Progress, a “dirty” PAC headed by sitting Commissioner Jonah Wolfson, a clever lawyer with a sense of humor—the initials of the committee, RFP, were also the initials of Request For Proposal, the name of the process used for obtaining bids on government contracts.

Levine is loaded, but the self-made businessman in him apparently did not want to lay out more hard-earned money out of pocket to be reelected to a position paying a pittance. He had already spent over a million dollars out of pocket for the mayor’s seat and seats for the bevy of commissioners that purchased him a “reformist” majority on the commission and rendered him a strong mayor in a city with a weak mayor charter.

Relentless For Progress raised hundreds of thousands of dollars right off the bat. Its success was obviously due to the fact that many of the contributors were somehow doing business with the city. Wolfson is not an incompetent lawyer: There was no definite quid pro quo, or promise made to earmark the contributions for the benefit of a certain candidate, therefore no apparent violation of ethics laws. Taxpayers were howling blood murder, as if politicians are charged with working for the whole community therefore are not supposed to do anything to favor particular contributors. The high regarded city attorney, Raul Aguila, opined the PAC was legal, but Wolfson folded the PAC, anyway, and refunded the unspent portion. The city commission slightly amended its political contribution ordinance.

So it seems that Gelber is playing on the public fear that Grieco is a miniature Levine. Both candidates are using their families and careers as prosecutors and politicians to bolster their credibility. Gelber emphasizes fighting corruption as usual. Grieco has the edge, however, in the minutia of city politics, and is well known lately for his battles against massive crowds that would float or hip hop and trash or shoot up Miami Beach.

Grieco says he has “evolved” from serving Mayor Levine, a wealthy developer and public relations mogul, as his right-hand protégé, and has often bitten the hand that once fed him on the dais, yet he wholeheartedly backs the continuation of the mayor’s epic struggle against the Great Flood, which is expected to wash away the Sins of South Beach anytime within the next fifty years, perhaps before the end of this year.

There may or may not be PACS, and any existing PACS alluded to may or may not be in compliance with the elections laws, but dishonesty in all its forms including outright lying is definitely corrupt. Gelber seems to have reasserted his claim in an email blast, so I asked Grieco if Gelber is a liar. Grieco responded with an “?” He did not respond when the charge was more fully described to refresh his memory. Joey Flechas has been asked for his fact-checking documentation of the PACS referenced by both sides. Gelber’s campaign has not yet responded to requests for documentary proof.

June 7, 2017


Estimado Aguila:

I hope you are enjoying business as usual.

Below is a link to a recent Miami Herald article in reference to allegedly “dirty” PAC activity on the part of Commissioner Grieco that supports Candidate Dan Gelber’s notion that it is prohibited by city ordinance.

Curiously, the behavior alleged seems almost identical to that of Mayor Levine/Jonah Wolfson that you deemed legal. A minor change was made in the ordinance later that did not make sense to me at the time.

Attached is a pdf of an article about the first incident.

I happen to be quite fond of Michael, but since I have covered the PAC issue in a recent article, with a title asking if lawyers and politicians are dishonest, I am duty bound to find the truth in this instance the best I can

A pdf of my query about honesty is also attached.</

I am hoping that you will look in to the subject, and render your opinion on it

David Arthur Walters


UPDATE June 6, 2017

Dear Fellow Miami Beach Resident,

Today The Miami Herald chose to publish an article about a political committee that has raised money to engage in political speech. In a clearly coordinated effort, Dan Gelber’s campaign immediately sent an Eblast attacking me over it. However, thus far, the only documented communication attributed to that particular committee was an Eblast the day after the Memorial Weekend Holiday attacking me and my effort to make the Air and Sea Show a new attraction for our city. Many of you received it and called it out for the smut it is. That was a part of Dan Gelber’s coordinated effort

I want to thank in advance so many of you, Miami Beach’s residents, who have contacted me with support and encouragement. I appreciate you seeing the truth and opting to ignore what is a clearly my opponent’s attempt to distort my record, attack my character and avoid talking about substantive issues of the city

Since last year, political consultant Christian Ulvert, and those who pay him, have embarked on a smear campaign to attack my character and falsely attribute The Herald story’s political committee fundraising to me.  As I’ve stated for the record and full transparency:

“I know the chairmen of many political committees, such as John Morgan, Ben Pollara, Brian Abraham, Stephen Bittel, Adonis Garcia and others through my political, personal and professional relationships over the years, so the premise of your question and this article itself merely makes this publication an accomplice to a dishonest attack on me by my political opponent, his consultant, and developer backers. As I have demonstrated, this is a textbook case of character assassination, and in any other arena this would constitute an act of slander/libel.

Unfortunately, rather than report my quote within its original story, The Herald opted to place it at the end with the preface, “Michael Grieco statement, After this article appeared online, Michael Grieco contacted the Herald and asked that the following statement be published:” Yesterday, in person, I made it clear to The Herald reporters that this anticipated written quote should have been my on-the-record response to begin with. In short, and in truth, Dan Gelber’s attack on me is founded on a false accusation based on one person who I’ve never solicited money from, a Chair of a political committee raising money independent of me (which is anyone’s right to do), and the attack by an disgruntled developer who wants Gelber to be Mayor. The truth – Dan Gelber has devolved into either a bad lawyer or an outright corrupt liar, or both.

The Herald article quotes the developer Bradley Colmer, affiliated with Deco Capital. This developer tried to strong-arm me to support a height increase and spot zoning application in Sunset Harbor. I stood up to the developer in defense of The Lofts residents and in opposition to the illegal act of spot zoning. This height increase was mired in scandal, as Mayor Levine himself had to recuse himself because he stood to directly profit from this height increase due to his ownership of neighboring property.

Evidence reveals that Gelber, developer Colmer, and developer/absentee-Mayor Levine share the same political consultant, Christian Ulvert, and the evidence reveals they are illegally coordinating to attack my character and falsely accuse me of raising money for the political committee addressed in today’s article.

I remind everyone that it was Mayor Levine who spearheaded the fundraising controversy in 2015 for the Relentless for Progress PAC, which I had nothing to do with. Perhaps this is Gelber’s way of deflecting or playing defense because he, in fact, is Levine’s puppet and hand-picked candidate.  Powerful people truly do have powerful connections, and will stoop to the lowest levels just to win the Mayor’s office.

I am trying to run my campaign to be your next Mayor mainly on a platform of independent leadership, experience, achievements as a Commissioner, and vision for our city’s future. But Gelber (who only this year surfaced in our city politics) and his henchmen have taken this election season down a path that leaves me no other choice than to fully reveal Gelber’s dishonesty, hypocrisy, and bad positions on issues that adversely affect our local quality of life.

Very soon, I’ll begin my campaign communications to the public. Because of Gelber, it will contain a lot more comparison messaging about us than the predominantly purely positive advertisements I had intended. But we’ll have to thank Dan and his henchmen for that.

Please visit my campaign website and join our effort by hosting a Friend Raiser, signing my candidate petition, placing a yard sign, or volunteering.

Thank you.
Your City Commissioner for Mayor of Miami Beach

JUNE 8 From Dan Gelber

Despite my opponent’s continued lies and denial about his secret PAC, the Miami Herald has just published a second investigative piece that confirms that Michael Grieco is indeed behind it.
As the Miami Herald wrote, “ evidence suggests otherwise: Handwriting on a public document filed by the group — People for Better Leaders — is identical to handwriting on paperwork the commissioner filled out for city elections, according to two well-regarded forensic document experts.”
Here’s the bottom line.
deserve to have the truth from your elected official. There is a pattern of behavior that follows Michael Grieco and the truth is unraveling when it comes to his secret PAC.
“It is my professional opinion within scientific probability and in accordance with industry standards, that Michael Grieco is identified as the author of all the extended writing appearing on [the PAC document],” Flores wrote in a sworn affidavit.”
So far Michael Grieco’s response to these very telling stories has been to accuse the newspaper of a conspiracy, and then somehow blame me for the Herald’s report of his misconduct ––attacking me and my record of service.
I’ve spent a good deal of my life in service to my community – as a long time federal corruption prosecutor, a big brother, a state legislator.  No one – ever has accused me of anything even remotely close to what my opponent has said about me.
I appreciate that some people — when they feel cornered — will panic and display their worst side.
With evidence mounting that he is behind this PAC, my opponent should drop the name-calling and come clean with the voters.
– Dan



For months, Miami Beach Commissioner Michael Grieco insisted he was not involved in a mysterious political group raising money from developers, lobbyists and city vendors, just as he launched a surging campaign for mayor.

“It is absolutely untrue,” Grieco told the Miami Herald on Tuesday. “You can look right into my soul.”

But new evidence suggests otherwise: Handwriting on a public document filed by the group — People for Better Leaders — is identical to handwriting on paperwork the commissioner filled out for city elections, according to two well-regarded forensic document experts.

Their findings directly link Grieco to the political action committee he has repudiated.


Michael Grieco

So far, People for Better Leaders has raised $200,000 from Beach residents and special interests. The political action committee, or PAC, is run by Grieco’s friend, Brian Abraham, the former manager at King of Diamonds, a Miami-Dade strip club.

Abraham’s signature appears on a document filed to state election authorities by People for Better Leaders. But the rest of the form was filled out by the same person who completed Grieco’s city campaign paperwork, according to Thomas Vastrick, a forensic document examiner based in Central Florida.

Vastrick conducted a side-by-side examination of letters from Grieco’s handwriting and the PAC document, as is standard industry practice. Differences in handwriting make each person’s script unique.

“The evidence brought me a very high level of confidence that they were written by the same person,” said Vastrick, who has 40 years of experience in the field and worked for the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service for more than a decade.

He has testified as an expert witness in federal and state courts around the nation, written books and held a research position at the University of Central Florida. He also sits on the board of directors of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

On Tuesday, the Herald published a story outlining Grieco’s connections to the PAC. The article included an interview with a Miami Beach real estate investor who said Grieco recommended donating to the PAC. Another donor said he contributed to the PAC at a Grieco fundraiser in South Beach.

Grieco said earlier this week he had nothing to do with the PAC, and that people who claim otherwise are lying.

Last year, the city passed a law to prevent campaigns from soliciting special interests for PACS. People for Better Leaders has become controversial because it accepted donations from a Miami Beach vendor and a lobbyist, as well as others with business before the city.

Emailed a copy of both handwriting reports Thursday, Grieco said he needed 48 hours to respond.

“Note that my calendar doesn’t and won’t revolve around yours,” he wrote.

Writing on the wall

Grieco’s fingerprints may not be all over the PAC, but his handwriting appears to be.

The Herald hired Vastrick to perform the analysis after it was given a previous expert examination also linking Grieco to the PAC document. That analysis was paid for by a longtime ally of Grieco’s opponent in the mayoral race, Daniel Gelber, and performed by handwriting analyst Dianne Flores of Miami. Like Vastrick, Flores is considered an expert in the field of forensic handwriting analysis.

“It is my professional opinion within scientific probability and in accordance with industry standards, that Michael Grieco is identified as the author of all the extended writing appearing on [the PAC document],” Flores wrote in a sworn affidavit. She declined further comment.

Vastrick’s report represents an independent confirmation of her findings.

In order to ensure Vastrick came to an unbiased conclusion, the Herald did not tell him any details about the controversy surrounding Grieco and the PAC, nor did it inform him of Flores’ earlier conclusion. His examination was based on the same documents used by Flores.

Flores was commissioned by Miami attorney Samuel Rabin, who has donated $1,000 to Gelber’s mayoral campaign, the maximum allowable, according to campaign finance records. Rabin donated an additional $1,000 through his law firm, records show. He did not respond to a phone call Thursday.

The PAC document examined by Vastrick and Flores is a request to the Florida Division of Elections for credentials to use its website, dated Nov. 6, 2015. The form names Abraham and accountant Brian George as the PAC’s officers. Neither man has any political experience. They have not responded to messages. Abraham was not at his family’s Coral Gables office Thursday morning.

The Grieco campaign documents include candidate statements, financial disclosures and campaign-finance filings. All bear his writing.

Expert analysis

The accuracy of handwriting comparison is sometimes contested, as are some other forensic sciences. But courts around the nation allow expert testimony from handwriting analysts, and judges and juries use their findings in reaching verdicts. In Florida, state courts allow witnesses to testify to the authorship of disputed handwriting.

Rumors about People for Better Leader’s connection to Grieco started circulating in January. Outside political fund-raising groups are unpopular on the Beach because of former Commissioner Jonah Wolfson’s Relentless for Progress PAC. Wolfson and Mayor Philip Levine raised money from city vendors and lobbyists for the group before the last Beach election.

In response, commissioners passed a new campaign-finance law in January 2016. The law’s intent was to prevent elected officials and candidates — and people working with them — from shaking down special interests for political access. The commission, including Grieco, voted unanimously in its favor.

Two of the donations to People for Better Leaders came from city vendors and lobbyists. If Grieco or someone acting on his behalf solicited those donations, he could have broken the new law.

An additional Miami-Dade County ordinance, implemented in 2017, would have required Grieco to register to undertake any fund-raising activities for the PAC.

In an interview before the Herald’s original story was published, Grieco doubled down on his denial, emphatically stating that he had nothing to do with the PAC. He and his political consultant, David Custin, said his political enemies, including Gelber, are conspiring to discredit him.

The commissioner then responded angrily to the story once it appeared online, asking if a reporter was on Gelber’s payroll. He later sent out an e-mail blast to supporters thanking them for “opting to ignore what is clearly my opponent’s attempt to distort my record, attack my character and avoid talking about substantive issues of the city.”


The PAC is already causing fallout on the Beach. Its activities were raised at a city meeting on Wednesday when Marc Lawrence, one of the owners of the Angler’s Resort hotel, appeared before the commission.

The hotel is seeking a zoning variance at its Washington Avenue location. It contributed $15,000 to People for Better Leaders last year. Grieco sponsored the zoning item on the agenda.

At the meeting, Commissioner Ricky Arriola asked the purpose of the donation. Lawrence replied that he did not know anything about the donation or how it happened.

A corporate affiliate of the hotel’s management company, San Francisco-based Kimpton Group, made the donation. Kimpton did not respond to a request for comment.


Ricky Arriola

Arriola said he would not support the project of any donor to the PAC until it was clear who was behind it and why it was raising money. While Mayor Philip Levine and Commissioner Joy Malakoff expressed similar concerns, Commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez questioned their stance.

“Why are we being mean like this?” she asked. The hotel doesn’t “need to suffer because of any interpersonal conflict you guys are having with Grieco. … Why don’t you guys just put on some gloves and go at it outside?”

Several of the PAC’s other donors also have business before the city.

“It smells like quid pro quo,” Arriola later told the Herald. “That’s why we ban these kinds of donations.”

Grieco left the meeting shortly before its final vote of the

Miami Beach Wages War on Black Week



Fewer Arrests, Two Dead

May 31, 2017

By David Arthur Walters

The City of Miami Beach has been waging war on the annual descent of hip hopping, pants-down gangsta rappers and their followers onto the beach every Memorial Day weekend for more than a decade.

The event is a derivative of the outrageous “Freaknik” celebration Atlanta managed to eradicate some years ago simply by towing cars moving at less than five mph. The anecdotal horrors there are legendary, including narratives of how young girls were raped on the hoods of cars to the cheers of the crowds. Freaknik wound up on South Beach, and was renamed Black Week. Then, to avoid racist overtones, it was dubbed Urban Beach Week.  Despite the fact that the majority of the attendees have been law-abiding, the bad apples turned it into a massive, disrespectful, and frightening racist event.

The high hopes of the city’s generals for peace, especially Mayor Philip Levine and Commissioner Michael Grieco, were punctuated this year by a murder over a parking space, a related police shooting leaving one man dead, shots fired into a taxi van, and a seaside melee where one celebrant stabbed another with a broken bottle.


Michael Grieco was especially crestfallen. His strategy to diminish the pernicious influence of Urban Beach Week by calling in the Air Force and Navy in the form of the glorious ‘Air and Sea Show,’ which he sponsored and got passed by the City Commission, seemed to have failed albeit the roaring fighter jets flying upside down and doing loop de loops over the beach were indeed impressive and reminded everyone of the real meaning of Memorial Day. Outraged by the crime reports, the criminal defense lawyer and former prosecutor said there would be no more Urban Week on the beach, and threatened to have bars and restaurants shut down at 5 pm for the last two weeks of May in coming years.

Philip Levine, who happens to be a self-made man who rose from hawking tours on ships to an untold fortune, called a press conference, where he proposed a more moderate solution to Urban Week, banning liquor sales after 2 am on and near Ocean Drive. He indicated he had little respect for inherited fortune when he responded to the shouts of the owner of a belly dancing night club on Ocean Drive that the mayor should have respect for the industry that created the South Beach cache. The mayor shouted back to the effect that the club owner was the only business bellyaching, only because he would lose revenue if he did not stay open until 5 am as usual, and that he should try building a business from scratch instead of inheriting one and being stupid about the meaning of branding.

Now the de facto strong mayor and his commission majority have already managed to roll back drinking on sidewalk cafes to 2 am. A ban on sales both inside and outside Ocean Drive facilities might drive problem drinkers to other areas of the city, so the ban should be citywide. And if alcohol is the cause of trouble in general, why not make it midnight? Why not ten? Why not just have a dry city?

The mayor’s critics may cut him a break since he has decided not to run for reelection and they will soon not have him to kick around anymore. He has a legitimate concern with branding, and branding has been part of his successful business. ‘South Beach’ is in fact a brand name created just a few years ago although the daughter of one of the founders of Miami Beach used the name to denote the south end of the beach. The culture has changed over the years as the Anglo-Saxon population became mixed with Jews and Hispanics, and the brand has followed suit.

Blacks were not supposed to be on the beach after dark in the late 60s and early 70s; some were clubbed by cops for overstaying their welcome. There was a time when Jews were limited to the ghetto now called ‘South Pointe.’ When Cubans arrived in droves, signs could be seen that read, ‘For Rent – No Spics.’ The beach was blighted or suffered the doldrums at times for one reason or another, but it is crowded now, traffic is horrendous, real estate prices are sky high; the mayor’s inferiors, who have utterly failed to build their own businesses and get rich, are being squeezed out. And the mayor, who was supposed to get lots of credit for saving the city from the Great Flood with new pumps and road-raising as every cubic foot of remaining space was being over-developed by his fellow devleopers, is naturally blamed for the city’s ills.

Police Chief Daniel Oates made the only scientific remark at the press conference. He noted that the number of arrests were only half of those last year. That may well be because the crowd was smaller, but a smaller crowd does not necessarily mean well behaved. According to an employee of a Washington Avenue liquor store in the shooting zone this year, “the people were fewer but there were more bad apples.”

What Chief Oates knows is that, even with the best policing, a bomber may blow up your plans. You may make a good statistical guess at the number of minor crimes that will occur during an event, for those are many, but it is impossible to predict in any given year how many murders there will be, especially over parking spaces, for they are few in number if any at all in any given year and are not necessarily related to an event. That is, an argument over a parking space resulting in a shooting is a random or chance event that may occur despite the occasion for a particular event, and may happen on a normal day when some otherwise respectable person gets angry and loses his mind.

That the shooter who caused this body count was a 19-year-old rapper from Brooklyn with friends in a white Mercedes with New York tags down here to perform north of South Beach may be coincidental. Finding parking on Ocean Drive is not easy on normal weekends, and lots of nice people in Florida have guns because Florida is a dangerous place what with so many guns around. Gang bangers abound in South Florida urban areas, and they like to bring their guns and knives wherever they go, including South Beach. A shooting or knifing or two on South Beach ever so often is the norm. Should we blame whatever event that brings people to town for a random shooting?

True, disinhibiting alcohol is the cause of a great deal of trouble whenever it is served, and having a few drinks on Memorial Day Weekend is all the rage. There is a reason armies used to provide prodigious daily alcohol rations to troops; it helped them deal with the horrors of war. Jets roaring overhead inspired persons remembering brave warriors this Memorial Day. It made them feel powerful. Alcohol augments that feeling.

Certain “urban” areas of Chicago have become a war zone; violent crime spikes in those areas on Memorial Day Weekend, reaching a new high this weekend with a body count far higher than South Beach. The key to understanding Urban Beach Week is the socio-cultural meaning of “urban” and the anti-authoritarian celebration of violence of its music.

Philip Levine is right about having the right brand, but no matter how righteous it might be, he is waging a losing war against the very urbanism he has been promoting with advocacy of mass transportation from mainland Miami to the beach. Miami happens to be almost as urban as you can get, and it might not be long until his wealthy peers go elsewhere as the beach is urbanized.

Curbing liquor sales by two or three hours will have negligible effect. That assessment may be wrong, but where are the statistics during this prolonged battle for truncated hours, that the murderers were drinking at a particular place on Ocean Drive after 2 am before shooting someone, and that they had come to South Beach because the bars were open until 5 am? Where are the statistics that strongly indicate that more murderers come to South Beach for Urban Beach Week?

Never mind, killers or not, residents do not like Urban Beach Week because they are disrespected at that time, and many cheered when police officers fired 116 bullets into Raymond Herisse’s car in 2011, with 16 of those bullets striking him dead. That was the Tipping Point. Barriers to a replay were set up, crowds diminished, this year the beach had a more salt-and-pepper crowd as real Memorial Day events were promoted; and now this: two dead, one stabbed—not bad actually.

What we have here in the blaming of restaurant hours is the attribution of effects to a wrong cause. It’s not the restaurants, it’s not the hours during which alcohol is sold, it’s the culture, “stupid.” Well, people are not as stupid as it might seem. They just do not know how to stop the violence because it is rooted in the fabric of our society and human nature.

Protecting the residential areas with barriers, checkpoints with license plate readers, running cars in a circle, crawling the area with cops, calling in the Army and Navy—all that helps in one way or another, but there are still going to be shootings from time to time.

Thanks for all that security, dear city officials and police officers. It was not so bad this year. Cry not in your beer, Commissioner Grieco, we loved the Air and Sea Show. Relax, Mayor Levine, you have our sympathies. Maybe Urban  Beach Week will go to another area, or we can all get together and sing America the Beautiful next year.

Somehow we must stop the violence within ourselves, wager the Inner Jihad, before all hell breaks loose. Let us not kid ourselves about the truth of the matter, and what we must teach at home and in schools lest our decadent nation disintegrates and winds up in the proverbial dustbin of history sooner than expected.



Good and Evil and Women in Saudi Arabia





And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women. Noble Quran 2:228

U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a rousing speech and danced a traditional tribal war dance with Arabs during his visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia this month, where he described the war against terrorism as “a battle between Good and Evil,” and “not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations.” Rather, “This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it.” He emphasized that everyone must “fight together, because united, we will not fail.

We may recognize the distinction he would make between religion and morality because the long history of the religious cults of the so-called People of the Book i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, demonstrate the underlying crisis or hypocrisy of their adherents, between the ideals they profess and their conduct, especially when they murder each other in the name of supposedly the same one-god, and justify it as legal killing instead of illegal murdering, the winners being mysteriously blessed by that same god for the moral improvement and temporary peace after the destruction of countries and the death of millions of people, the most of whom are civilian “collateral damage,” but are still deemed guilty instead of innocent because they deserve the leaders who govern them.

It would seem that religion is an excuse for doing what people want to do in the first place, that it is in fact morally neutral, that it constitutes the worship of the absolute power everyone wants, the power to live forever without resistance, yet a person cannot have it all by himself because the individual is described by its limitations and would have no existence without opposition. At best, the Good or ultimate ethic of such religion identifies naked might and right. Religion worships absolute power of the All, and politics, the overriding morale of a culture, distributes it.

As a matter of fact, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is an absolute monarchy, with its one archon exercising the power of the presumably singular god of the universe of discourse at least, would not exist today if its religion and mores were not one. Neither would, for that matter, a truly united Islam, for Islam, no matter what the Prophet Muhammad and his Companions actually said—which we would, if only we could, offer in contrast to the gossip or oral lore scholars accepted centuries after his presumed existence—is ideally a theocratic empire with a political religion that eschews national boundaries. Islam as we know is roughly divided between Shia Islam and Sunni Islam, each having its subdivisions or sects, and both aspiring to the realization of empire at one time or another, for good or evil in the most virtuous or vicious manner, depending on your perspective.

President Trump paid ceremonial tribute to King Abdulaziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal ibn Turki ibn Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Saud, in short, Ibn Saud, “the founder of the kingdom who united your great people.” The “Third” Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded in 1932. The founder of the Saud family dynasty itself was Amir Muhammad bin Saud, who collaborated in 1744 with religious leader Muhammad Ibn Abdul al-Wahhab at Nejd, and embraced his doctrine, an extreme puritanical version of the Hanbalism School of jurisprudence.

The continuing politico-religious alliance characterized as the Wahhabi Movement rebelled against the Ottoman Empire’s suzerainty over Arabia. After few setbacks, including an exile in Kuwait; after backing away from the Arab Revolt to create a united state; after refusing to proceed with the Wahhabi Movement in Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait, lest the British be offended; —the Saud dynasty over the decades would eventually manage, with the indispensable help of British soldiers, guns, and gold, to take over most of the Arabian Peninsula.

Undoubtedly that history of desert piracy is naturally appreciated by President Trump, who loves Success and detests “evil losers” for not putting their tails between their legs like good losers. Now it is said that history does not repeat itself, at least not exactly. President Trump announced a trade deal with Saudi Arabia including a $110 billion arms deal, and called for a united “driving out” of extremists from all countries, as if they have somewhere else to go to murder Muslim and non-Muslim infidels, destroy sacred historic sites, dynamite temples and tombs, somewhere else where women are not allowed to drive and must not show flesh lest noble men become aroused and rape them.

Enormous oil reserves were discovered on the Persian Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia in 1938 and were exploited by the U.S-controlled Arabian American Oil Company, which was eventually nationalized by Saudi Arabia and named Saudi Aramco. Billions from the proceeds to Saudi Arabia were devoted to spreading the gospel of Wahhabism throughout the world, a religious culture that preferably calls itself “Muslim” or “Islam” or “Monotheism,” or “Salafism,” the ultra-conservative reaction to colonialism in Arabia, and so on, because the puritanical doctrine professed itself to be pure Islam, with all others condemned as infidels to be “driven out,” and because “Wahhabism” had been for some a derogatory term ever since religious leaders called for the extermination of its outcast founder before his marriage of convenience to the outlawed Sauds.

The intolerance of Wahhabism was exacerbated by Taqī ad-Dīn Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, a medieval Hanbalist jurist and political activist whose interpretations of scripture have allegedly influenced the modern jihadism of Al-Qaeda and its offshoot ISIL. Unlike Imam Hanbal, he was intolerant of Shia doctrine, which declares that Allah appoints successor prophets to Muhammad, the first one being Abu Bakr, whereas Sunnis believe there is no such successor.

Whereas Imam Hanbal thought all the received schools of jurisprudence were correct in one way or another, wherefore was tolerant of diverse perspectives and loathed jurists who declared their opinion was the only right one even if he himself disagreed with them, Ibn Taymiyyah was uncompromising; he demanded obedience to his creed, based entirely on the practices of the first three generations of the Muslim community (the salaf), or else be “fought,” whether they are Muslims or not. Ibn Taymiyyah rejected “innovations” such as visitation of the grave of the Prophet and saints to pray for the intercession of the dead with the deity was strictly forbidden as an expression of polytheism; the practice was not “innovative” at all inasmuch as it was grounded in prehistoric mourning of the dead and reverence for ancestors and significant leaders.

In fine, anyone who disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah’s version of the path was a renegade unbeliever who should be punished here and now and hereafter. His earliest fatwa called for the death of a man who insulted Muhammad, and when the authority declined to execute the man, he led a protest insisting on the death of anyone who insults the Prophet, hence his first book, The Drawn Sword against those who insult the Messenger.

It should be remembered in the context of what the royalty faces in Saudi Arabia today that both Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah, were popular among the uneducated crowd for their perseverance against tyrants and their reformist jurists, influenced more or less by their contact with “Greek” rationalism, more than willing to imprison dissidents.

We would beg the pardon of the Prophet and the Companions, may peace be with them, if it were appropriate to ask them for intercession instead of directing beseeching Allah for protection for saying that Hanbalism School of jurisprudence should not be blamed for so-called Wahhabism and its long history intolerance. For example, we have this hadith or story from the “reliable” collection of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal himself, declaring that all one has to do to be a Muslim is a few simple things. Some Sunnis, followers of the path, say that if these things are done it is nobody’s business what the follower may believe.

“Malik narrated from his paternal uncle, from his father, that he heard Talhah bin ‘Ubaidullah say: A Bedouin came to the Prophet and said: 0 Messenger of Allah, what is Islam? He said: Five prayers every day and night. He said: Do I have to do anything other than that? He said: No. He asked him about fasting and he said: Fasting (the month of) Ramadan. He said: Do I have to do anything other than that? He said: No. He mentioned zakat (charity) and said: Do I have to do anything other than that? He said: No. He said: By Allah, I will do no more and no less than that. The Messenger of Allah said: He will prosper, if he means what he says.”

We find in Ibn Hanbal’s immense collection of hadiths such sayings as, “You should be truthful, for it leads to Paradise, and beware of lying, for it goes with immorality, and they lead to Hell. Do not sever ties with one another, do not hate one another, do not envy one another, do not turn your backs on one another; be brothers, as Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has enjoined you.”

In marked contrast to Augustine, who declared that evil does not exist, one of Hanbal’s hadiths claims that evil does exist. Those who do not intervene will be punished by Allah, which is to say that people who ignore evil are good for nothing. And someone said that no one who is a miser, treacherous, reminds people of his favors, or mistreats slaves will enter Paradise, but that saying is rated rather weak. In the event another Prophet appears on this Earth, we should know where to bury him when he dies; Ibn Juraij said: My father told me that the Companions of the Prophet did not know where to bury the Prophet until Abu Bakr said: I heard the Messenger of Allah say: A Prophet is not to be buried except where he died. So they removed his bed and dug a grave for him beneath his bed.” And we should know that Allah will not hear the prayers of people who appoint their favorites to office until they go to Hell.

Now there is no good absent evil, despite the monotheistic efforts of theodicists to reconcile them in one god and declare this world to be the best of all possible worlds now and forever no matter what happens including causes and their effects and mysterious miracles besides. In Islam, much of the fault finding between good and evil lies in the interpretations of the Quran and Hadith. What the Prophet, Islam’s personal example, a messenger and not god incarnate, reportedly said and did is the Sunnah or path. Sacred text can be abused to justify both good and evil; before Islam, “sunnah” meant the manner of behavior regardless of their morality.

Again, Ibn Hanbal was popular in his day for his ascetic opposition to the political inquisition of the Abbasid Caliphate, whose ruler supported the rationalist dogma that the Quran was created, and was not the uncreated word of Allah. That would naturally put the Supreme Ruler above the Quran, something we recall that Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, the Shiite founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran would one day do.

Ibn Hanbal liked the mystical Sufis and was somewhat superstitious himself, albeit he was a strict constructionist. He included contradictory hadiths and ranked them according to the proximity of the source to the Prophet and his Companions, and to whether a particular saying was repeated or not. He considered his enormous collection of stories as an imam to be consulted for guidance. He advised people to stick with the text and to avoid analogies and rationalizations.

So it appears that the harsh intolerance of Wahhabism, which claims derivation from Hanbal’s literalism and his rejection of the “enlightened” rationalists of his day, is more or less political, and rooted in the “barbaric” struggle of Arab tribes before the advent of the Prophet. That is, the difference is not so much in the religion of Islam but in the culture, the Saudi-Wahhab culture in that respect being more “primitive” than that of other Muslim nations.

Now that observation of cultural differences in respect to good and evil sheds some light on the pronouncement in Saudi Arabia of President Trump’s principal advisor and beautiful daughter, Ivanka Trump, who champions in her inimitable way the rights of women and children. After all, the progress of civilization, some historians say, can be measured by the rights of the weaker sex. Madame Trump said that Saudi Arabia has made “very encouraging” progress in empowering women, although there was “still a lot of work to be done and freedoms and opportunities to continue to fight for.”

Saudi Arabia as everyone knows has one of the worst human rights records in the world, its state religion allegedly fosters terrorism throughout the world, yet it remains the strategic ally of the United States, receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in arms. Only recently has its thousands of religious police, the mutaween known as the Commission for the Promotion of virtue and Prevention of Vice, been restrained from pursuing, stopping and arresting violators of the strict religious code, and must instead report violations to the police. The disappearance of the mutaween from the street has resulted in considerably relaxed public areas, with women wearing more colorful over-garments, and men no longer fearful they will be hounded into mosques. I-phone images of abuses and social media postings have been credited with the curbing of repression.

Furthermore, a woman since April 2017 may apply for education and healthcare without the approval of a man, although she needs permission to leave the country. Yet still she is subject to the guardianship of men in other respects. For example, she cannot drive a car, despite the fact that women could ride camels in the old days. Today there is no reason why a woman should not be seen riding a camel or a horse provided that she ride sidesaddle for convenience and not expose her legs if she does not want be gawked out. A Muslim woman may want to wear a $10,000 burka in Islam over her dress and heels on the way to a private party, or a burkini on a Riviera. Forget not that many women are pleased to be orthodox. The point is that they should wear what they want to wear, and, if they are Muslim, to remember that respect is the key, for the Prophet said that the wife is the garment of the man and the man the garment of the wife.

“Women driving is not a religious issue as much as it is an issue that relates to the community itself that either accepts it or refuses it”, Madame Trump said, and suggested that it was culture, not religion, holding women back.

Madame Trump is correct about the significance of culture. Many of the prohibitions stem from misogynist or androcentric traditions that pre-date Islam, where at times women were treated like dogs in some quarters—dogs today in the United States are often treated better than people. Islam in fact resulted in the liberation of women from barbaric discriminatory practices, rendering females equal with males while recognizing a division of labor purportedly suiting their biological differences.

A regressive interpretation of something the Prophet might have said or done according to hearsay handed down with all its variations would allow a fanatic to murder girls and their parents at music concert, excusing himself by reference to the primitive law of retaliation and the killing of many thousands of girls and parents back home who were not invited to such a concert.

A progressive doctrine advances the noble Arab in the desert as well as dwellers in the city, as all yearn for the greatest happiness of creatures in peace and prosperity. At least that is the teleological perspective, the goal of a creator who loves creatures, and in that love is the difference between good and evil.

However that may be, Ivanka Trump is up to date on the feminist perspective in Saudi Arabia. Muslim activists say the obstacle to freedom is culture, not religion, and they are correct, in an analytical sense, depending on their definition of a power that is theoretically beyond definition in its absoluteness, and their definition of religion, if it is not culture, which it definitely is; and then there is the political distribution of that absolute power every individual yearns for, deny it or not. It is all culture; the mental i.e. moral culture that from Day One unto the Final Hour distinguishes and cultivates those practices that are believed to be the best according to the good and not the evil of the family, clan, tribe, nation, and humankind. The human race demonstrates that a wholesome variety in the garden is the spice of life. Gardens must be weeded. Poisonous plants must be exterminated or safeguarded and employed as useful medicines.

The holy war on terrorism is indeed in a formal sense a battle between different faiths and sects; but it is essentially a battle against fear, the fear that motivates people to seek help in a higher power, a terrorist almighty, whether in numbers or in a god or charismatic general. The crusade against terrorism is indeed a battle between different civilizations within civilizations, because it is an inner jihad against incivility, and some civilizations are more civil than others. It is not a battle against barbarians; it is struggle against the barbarous idea that might makes right instead of the righteous notion that right makes might. It is a cultural endeavor to find and do what is best instead of what is worst.


Man Demonized by Woman

If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation. Abigail Adams
Criticism: The Demon Lover, on the Sexuality of Terrorism, by Robin Morgan, copyright 1989
Robin Morgan, born in Lake Worth, Florida and removed to New York, was enrolled in modeling school when she was two-years-old. By the age of four she had her own radio show, and by age nine she was a television star, playing Dagmar from 195O to 1956 in Mama, based on Kathryn Forbes’ Mama’s Bank Account and its theatre and film adaptations, I Remember Mama, the story of an immigrant family as told by a daughter who aspires to be a writer – Robin has acknowledged Mama’s lessons as a source of her feminine power. Robin eventually defied her own mother and dropped acting for poetry. She attended Columbia University and worked as a literary agent and freelance editor – she would eventually become a contributing editor to Ms. Magazine for many years, and its chief editor from 1989 to 1993.
Ms. Morgan, as Leftist and Yippie, contributed to left-wing, counter-cultural, and anti-war journals in the 1960s, but like other disenchanted young women she became fed up with the male domination of political wings and groups, and she committed herself to radical feminism. She was a founding member of New York Radical Women, and helped create the street-theatre ensemble, W.I.T.C.H., best known for putting hexes on both the male-led right-wing House of Unamerican Activities Committee and the male-led, left-wing Chicago Eight.
Speaking of witches, she wrote her recent, historical novel, The Burning Time (2006), portraying the Inquisition as a war on Irish witches by bigoted men, particularly Bishop Richard de Ladrede and his army, sent over for the purpose. No doubt the women were learned and the men stupid in those days, and the women would rather do without them if they could. For example, Dame Alyce Kyteler, a noblewoman who practices the Craft (Wicca), was delighted to be rid husbands in general –she had had four – and John in particular as she wallowed on goose-feather-stuffed pillows under her goose-down coverlet, and watched the “sliver of a new moon glowing through cloud wisps in a celestial game of hide-and-seek. No chilly drafts –and no complaints from John. Savoring the pure luxury of it, she stretched again, gurgling a low laugh of pleasure.”
Robin Morgan is dedicated to ‘Sisterhood’, a loosely knit, grassroots feminist coalition she sees as the network to implement the only possible solution to the traditional violence of Fatherhood, now threatening to destroy the world of humankind with its higher technology. Just as the struggle of blacks, with the help of a few courageous whites, helped to free whites from their vices, now women can help free men from their viciousness with the help of a few courageous men. If women are to lead the way, they must stand apart in feminine solidarity, a stance from which they should naturally cast a wary eye on those would-be male feminists who are more interested in seducing and perverting the female cause than in obtaining the purported justice of sexual equality.
Given the postmodern and deconstructionist cultivation of ambivalence and ambiguity, not to mention the traditional herd-like behavior of the human majority, extreme stances must sometimes be taken to get much done. Otherwise we are left with the sort of reform that amounts to tinkering with the status quo. Radical feminists deserve our gratitude for talking back and acting up, but they get little thanks since the First World banked hard towards the Right. Of course the Right has its Patty Hearsts in its top ranks, but it is still dominated by men under the influence of traditional Patriarchism. Neoconservative leaders have complained about the “feminization” of our culture, a process that allegedly makes sissies if not unpatriotic cowards of bullies. And of course the Left as we know it would be dominated by its own patriarchal models, who would gladly afford women higher education credits along with bulldozer-operator and fighter-pilot jobs.
Yes, women influenced by radical feminism have won much for both men and women, but the guard is being dropped in favor of implants, and women are being re-assimilated. Who needs liberal studies such as Women’s Studies now that liberation has been won? What library scientist needs to include Women’s Issues in his or her taxonomy now that being a woman is no longer an issue? The remaining feminist radicals are atavistic throwbacks, mere caricatures of their selfish selves; absurd clowns and dissident dikes in need of spanking, slapping around, smacking down and other reform-schooling. Feminists have broken up into more than a dozen ideological camps and are at each other’s throats – perhaps an instinctive hangover from thousands of years of competing for mates? Good women are standing behind and slightly to the left of their confident strongman again, where they smile and nod in agreement from time to time during his cock-and-bull campaigns. Wherever a great man exists, a woman is behind him; the bigger his gun, the safer she is, at least from the clutches of other men. Never mind the fact that he might be just another conman and terrorist in the sacred home and abroad.
Robin Morgan refuses to succumb to reassimilation or to the defeatism of those who say feminism or love or peace is no longer worth talking about when the world is at arms-as-usual. Blah, blah, blah, they say: Why talk things over when people are out to get you? It’s better to make a pre-emptive strike and call the horrendous results the necessary evil of a just war. But Ms. Morgan insists on fighting the good fight, the spiritual jihad that may somehow undermine the demon in man someday. That is her career, after all. She keeps saying the same things over and over again, hoping against hope that men may remember things from their repetition and eventually act on what they’ve learned. Morality after all is expressed in timeless platitudes; the sin is in not restating them in some seemingly original way for the sake of a capitalistic copyright. Sometimes her personal grammar is not clear enough for righteous thinkers. For example, instead of saying that all men are terrorists at heart, she says that our concept of terrorism today is a figment of an impoverished imagination:
“Yes, the murder exists,” Ms. Morgan admits. “The fear exists. The grief exists. But yes, the terrorist is a figment of our imagination – and more, a figment of our lack of imagination. The terrorist is the logical incarnation of patriarchal politics in a technological world. The terrorist is the son practicing what the father has practiced, and claiming to have found his identity in doing so.”
 It does not take much of an imagination to see that war is highly organized state-terrorism, and that the men who wage it are akin to the violent men whom we call terrorists because they have some cause to do violence but do not have their own state or uniform or nation. Why did not the terrorists get themselves a flag, don uniforms, climb into a truck and attack the nearest military base with machine guns instead of flying planes into the dual phallic symbol of American military and economic domination? Yet Ms. Robin’s most hysterical detractors, especially men who naturally resent being demonized, resort to their own hackneyed phrases when criticizing Demon Lover. According to them, her book reveals a confused gazpacho of jargon, feminists boilerplate, hysteria, polemics, and just plan nonsense, and when these revelations are made at college, the shrill and dreary ideology subsidized with tax dollars is called women’s studies, the bane of tradition scholarship and high civilization itself.. 
 But let us continue with our women’s studies: In Demon Lover, Ms. Morgan attributes age-old terrorism to the tyrannical-father-versus-rebellious son patriarchal system and its death-religion. She claims that our male-dominated, ecstatic death-politic approach to life is a form of group psychosis, and that its fundamentalist-based institutional religion constitutes a hateful lust for annihilation: “All organized religion… has always been a political movement, consistently articulating a politics of Thanatos, and just as consistently targeting women as the worst impediments to that politics.”
A patriarchal state is naturally a warring state, either preparing for war, making war, or recovering from war. Terrorized women, fearing for their lives, cooperate with the predominantly male terrorists, even participating in their crimes: She quotes Patricia Hearst: “What happened to me happens to women all the time. I’ve been kidnapped, held prisoner, threatened, beaten, humiliated, raped, battered. I’ve been lied to and lied about and disbelieved. The only difference between what happened to me and what happens to other women is that mine was an extreme case.”
A number of Ms. Morgan’s observations are certainly applicable to the moronic plutocracy of the United States; for instance, “When power and wealth are combined with ignorance… the result is societal violence, making almost inevitable – in the patriarchal pattern – the enforced ignorance and terrorist violence of groups like the SLA.” Since men are natural-born terrorists who only mind their manners when intimidated, they might easily be led by gangsters into doing what they would rather do, turn the world into a bloodbath. The usual either/or, friend-or-foe, “Those who are not with us are agin’ us”, attitude shall justify the mass suicide/homicide.
The F-type or fascistic – right-wing authoritarian – is well known for its either/or attitude, its intolerance for the essential ambiguity of life, hence rational man would impose his totalitarianism on his hysterical woman and terrified children at home, and terrorize those abroad with his militant state apparatus. Of course the implication that nice Americans are like Nazis is politically incorrect in the United States. Decent, law-abiding citizens of pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany were also quite nice. The German neoconservatives or Nazis agitated against the right of women to work outside of the home and to receive the same pay as men: Women belong with children, in the kitchen, in church. Of course the German New Conservatives, fathers of the current neoconservative movement in the United States, agitated against contraception, abortion, and homosexuality – abortion was banned in 1934.
Robin Morgan notes that our own Oliver North was a typical nice guy, the poster-boy kind of hero neoconservatives adore. Ronald Reagan called him a “national hero” although he was characterized by many others as a “terrorist”, a term that made him chuckle. “This is the man who had adventuristically waded through scores of illegal and covert murderous actions with a boyish grin on his all-American face. And this is the ‘born-again’ Christian who states that he has ‘a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a driving force’ in his life. This is the anti-reproductive-choice zealot, one who is ‘pro-life’ and whose car bumper sticker boasts ‘God is Prolif-ic.’ None of this terrorist tradition is contradictory in the context of a hero.”  American heroes like Oliver North are trained to cut the cord to their mothers, who represent life and who are therefore the ultimate destroyers of what a man should value most of all – death. Wherefore he must be born again, not to a woman but to a powerful father-figure. Yet he, the born-again hero, the successful terrorist, will appear to be normal; and he is normal in his terrorism, for “the hero is only the average man writ large.” The representative terrorist might even be elected to Congress or the White House.
Ms. Morgan is not mystified by the fact that “those people most enamored today of the fetus’ ‘right to life’ are usually the same people who support capital punishment, compulsory military service, and increased funding for armaments. To the ‘savage mind,’ the taboo at the core of all taboos is that blood cannot be cleansed except in the fire of male contest, whether for territory, wealth, power, fame or souls.” Women shed blood to bear children; men shed it to murder them, and must rid themselves of the life-affirming women who stand in their way: witness, for mythological instance, the sadistic Babylonian brutalization of Tiamat by her son Marduk in order to create a patriarchy.
“A lack of ambivalence cannot tolerate complexity or compassion,” Ms. Morgan unambivalently stated. “A lack of ambivalence is the hallmark of leadership – in the State-that-is as well as the State-that-would-be. Indeed, the State-that-is trains its sons in this lack.” Boys must be trained for manhood, and that includes making sure that, instead of living for a cause, they die violently for a cause – those who object to this shift from wanting life to lusting for death are deemed traitors. To be men – she quotes Paulo Freire – is to be oppressors: That is what manhood and its violent religion is all about. It would make things and people scarce hence more valuable by destroying and killing them.
“Religion is not about awe and joy…. Religion is about terror…. In the balance between these two figures – the jealous god and the satanic rebel – our lives swing perilously, and have swung so for centuries. The coming of the messiah has always meant revelations of the apocalypse: the end of the world.” The secular manuals of terror are simply the sacred texts paraphrased. Indeed, violence is the main subject of patriarchal literature – high levels of violence are encouraged in the media and fed to children while depiction of sexual love is discouraged if not banned. A man learns to behave well, publicly, on the streets of his town, while satisfying his violent tendencies behind closed doors in his castle; or abroad, where he calls the innocent murdered men, women and children “collateral damage.”
Ms. Morgan mentioned the terrorist tactics of the Sicarii and Zealots who fostered uprisings against Rome: “Their aim was to intensify Jewish lack of confidence in local Jewish authorities, and to incite such hatred between Jews, Romans, and Greeks that all negotiations would be impossible.” Today real men are not to worry too much about random killing, for they were given their mass-murder license and a religion to purge blood-guilt long ago. When their ethics are questioned because millions of innocents are killed, they shall revert to such excuses as necessary evil or collateral damage. “It’s not coincidental that random murder of average citizens, including those in no way connected to power, emerged as a strategy of insurgent struggle after the random murder of average citizens had become a ‘legitimate’ military tactic conventional wars.” We note that when push comes to shove, it is all right to nuke entire cities – many American men said they wanted to turn Baghdad into a “parking lot” just for the hell of it during the first military-industrial-energy complex war on Iraq. As for the role of women, they must cooperate in the usual crimes against humanity or else; an ancient instance: Jewish women and children were given no choice “about either the campaign of terror or the mass ‘suicide’ of Zealots at Masada, a suicide now honored as the exemplification of heroic self-sacrifice, yet they too perished in a heroism defined by their men.”
The very nature of a patriarchal state, rooted as it is in the family under terrifying fatherhood, is violent: The State bestows power on the terrorists who win. “Far from being a threat to the State, terrorism is the means by which men under patriarchy judge one another fit to succeed. Our “family man” is the Latin “pater familias,” or “owner of slaves.”
Of course the son or next generation is bound to rebel. A terrifying backlash against the State at home may follow the State-sponsored terrorism of the United States abroad. “Anti-State terrorism seems to emerge most violently in those countries where, a generation earlier, acute State terrorism and literal fascist philosophy was the rule.” We note that the aim of the 9/11 terrorists was largely symbolic, made for the media; there was a huge media uproar and the entire nation panicked. If the paters familias, the patriotic paters of the fatherland, had been watching over their brood, the “lucky strike” would not have occurred; but they were too busy backbiting and looking out for themselves, according to the competitive American Way of Gilded Individualism. We imagine that a new, homegrown generation of terrorists might arise when things go south; they may not refrain from killing hundreds of thousands of their kind, doing a great deal more damage than al-Queda by simply going after the vulnerable public facilities in their own neighborhoods –May the Patriarchs forbid it!
As fate would have it, Robin Morgan was living a few blocks from the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attack – she saw the second tower struck. She provided her “Sisters and Friends” all over the world with graphic reports of the events over the next few days, via bulk email. On Day Two, she thanked them for their condolences and for offering her places to stay, noting “astonishingly” that many of them cited her book Demon Lover as an appropriate analysis of the root causes of the demonic attack. And, “even in the midst of deep sorrow and grief you have renewed my belief that art, attempted clarity of thought, and a stubborn politics of transformation do make a contribution, make a difference. But so far, as we know all too hideously, not enough.” She asked the recipients of her email to feel free to share her communiqué with their networks, and asked them to do all they could do to educate people on why such tragedies happen:
“It is not just ‘madmen’ or ‘monsters’ or ‘subhuman maniacs’ who commit dramatic violence, but that such acts occur in a daily climate of patriarchal violence so epidemic as to be invisible in its normality – and that such acts as this attack come from a complex set of circumstances, including despair over not being heard in any other way; desperation over long-term, even generational, suffering; calcification of sympathy for ‘the other’; callousing of sensibilities, blatant economic and political injustice, tribal/ethnic hatreds and fears, religious fundamentalisms, and especially the eroticization and elevation of violence as a form of ‘manhood’ and ‘solution.’ Violence is psychosis – but it’s a psychosis that contemporary incumbent leaders of most nations share with their insurgent opponents.”
Terrorism has been commonplace for centuries, yet it serves the violent propensity of the neoconservative authorities to declare a violent, “infinite” world war on terrorism in the name of so-called democracy and the Terrorist Almighty. Mind you that every political family has defended terrorism as a bona fide principle of action, and that many are the terrorists who became heroes because they were victorious, perhaps founding their own fatherland. But terrorism is warranted today only in defense of democracy; that terrorism includes pre-emptive defense. Of course that defense, trained even to war in time of peace, is glad to have an enemy.
We recall that in 1986 ‘terrorism’ was the main concern of U.S. citizens, but in no one year in the 80s were more than 30 U.S. citizens killed in terrorist incidents. 23 were killed in 1985, yet over a hundred were killed by lightning. Seven U.S. citizens were terrorist victims in 1987 – three of them accidentally.  Prior to September 11, 2001 and the U.S. president’s declaration of an infinite war on terrorism, the world was more pacific than in previous decades. In reality, there was little political violence in comparison to period of the world wars and the so-called Korean and Vietnam police actions, even though the neoliberal globalization vaunted by American-style corporatism in the name of consumer democracy and capitalist profit had in fact wrought unprecedented social violence and inequality. Of course we should not forget that the U.S.-led sanctions in Iraq had by some estimates killed over a million Iraqis, the overwhelming majority of them women and children. At last the sole superpower had a Global Satan to replace the Evil Empire.
The Crusaders who marched East over strange lands to rid themselves of domestic crime had their anti-Christ in Mohammed: “Mohammed was seen as Anti-Christ,” wrote Michael Fox in People of the Crusade (1997), “and resistance to Islam concentrated the will of Europe into a high and holy aim, drawing together rough, lawless people demoralized by too many years of invasion. It came to seem, to many of the best reforming minds in the West, that the very stability and safety of their society depended in a large way on the resolute fight against the power and claims of Islam.”
God needs Satan; the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombing was a patriarchal-god-send to the neoconservative administration, whose presiding officer had named Jesus Christ as his political hero during his political campaign. The Crusades and the persecution of Jews in Jesus’ name proves that the Redeemer is a tribal god in the minds of his born-again worshipers; when their bloodlust contradicts the new testament, that of love, they revert to the old, and, as frustrated Jews, claim that the new must fulfill the old.
Wherefore the Terrorist Almighty has his awful, arbitrary sway over the minds of men; or rather they have created him to justify their terrible conduct. There is nothing new under the Sun, said the Hebrew imperialist whose empire wound up shrinking despite the increase in trade thanks to his camel-technology innovation. For Ms. Morgan and other like-minded women, all men are trained terrorists – men and women alike fear the sound of a male footstep behind them, and for good reason, but they fear not the dainty female footstep. The “new” terrorist haunting us is the same old terrorist armed with higher technology – the higher the technology, it seems, the lower the morality.
Ms. Morgan reported from terrorized Manhattan that she had watched sophisticated people sobbing in the streets. People had lost their jobs; they worried about their sons in the military; they were unnerved by security checkpoints; they mourned, felt wounded, humiliated and outraged. The sad scene reminded her of sights she had seen when she worked for UNRWA – the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian Refugees. “And I see my friends like Zuhira in the refugee camps of Gaza or West Bank, Palestinian women who have lived in precisely that emotional condition – for four generations.” Yet liberal New York City under attack by demonized Arabs brought out the best in people, including its mean-minded mayor; he had ignored the threats on the horizon while cracking down on jaywalking and window-washing beggars, but he rose to the disastrous occasion in the eerie limelight of Ground Zero.
In any event the Big Apple is more civilized than Jerusalem, the epitome of patriarchal residence Ms. Morgan has described in Demon Lover as hell on earth, an idolized hellhole for patriarchs of various hostile persuasions: “Jerusalem, the holy city, is for me an uncivil hell. In a smoldering populace, factions barely coexist by ignoring one another, repressing one another, or avenging themselves upon one another… Small riots, clashes, street friskings, car bombings occur each day as matters of no consequence. The secular Israelis are at civil war with the Haredim, the ultra-Orthodox Jews. The latter have been torching bus-stop shelters postered with ‘pornographic’ bathing-suit advertisements. They have also been firebombing movie theatres that stay open on the Sabbath, attacking and throwing stones at Israeli women wearing slacks, and gaining seats in the Knesset. Some secular Israeli’s have responded by bombing Orthodox synagogues…. None of the men wear veils or children. The men wear guns. The tourists wear Bermuda shorts and cameras. This makes it easy to tell them all apart. Jerusalem is the only place in the region where I encounter street sexual harassment – and it is from Israeli soldiers, catcalling and making sucking sounds…. To wander too near the Orthodox Jewish section is to invite being stoned or beaten. The suburbs boast homes that are walled compounds…. In the camps I was not afraid, yet in Jerusalem I am afraid.”
Global Sister Morgan noted in her email that a mosque had already been firebombed in the U.S.; Arab Americans were hiding their children indoors; two murders had been classified as anti-Arab hate crimes – one of the victims, a Sikh, had been killed because he wore a turban, yet “there were not nationwide attacks against white Christian males after Timothy McVeigh was apprehended for the Oklahoma bombing.” As for Christians, she observed that Christian leader Jerry Falwell blamed the 9/11 attacks on “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists and the gays and lesbians… the American Civil Liberties Union”, and others who would secularize America; another prominent Christian America leader, Pat Robertson, whose organization had campaigned for President Bush, concurred with the placement of the blame.
Ensconced in her Greenwich Village nest, Robin said she had not yet hung an American flag, nor had she pinned a red, white, and blue ribbon to her lapel in the aftermath of the attack. Instead, she wept for the city and the world and clung to a different loyalty, “affirming my un-flag, my un-anthem, my un-prayer –the defiant un-pledge of a madwoman who also had mere words as her only tools in a time of ignorance and carnage: Virginia Woolf.”
What is to be done? Again, as men fight, fight, and fight, women must talk, talk, and talk. Robin Morgan believes that women, confronted with violence, must talk back, despite the fact that they might be violently chastised by self-righteous men who, in the heat of the moment, prefer war to peace, and for that cause will dismiss any objections with the back of a hand. One of them said, “Yeah, Mohammad Atta was probably turning in his grave at the thought of radical feminists talking about the psychosexual politics of terrorism.” But Robin Morgan is not deterred by the childish patriarchal prejudice of her critic and his demented cousin in terrorism. “I urge you to write letters to the editors of newspapers, call in to talk radio shows…. Talk about the root causes of terrorism, about the need to diminish this daily climate of patriarchal violence surrounding us in its state-sanctioned normalcy….”
October 2006
Miami Beach

Like Father Like Son





“Like father like son” is not the favorite cliché of sons who “have a conflict with authority.” And they also do not care to hear the expression, “have a conflict with authority,” a painful verbal reminder of their “need for discipline.”

I suppose I was like every other rebel who thought he was being singled out for unjust discipline and who therefore took up Liberty for his or her cause. In my case, since my father obviously loved fine literature, my Liberty was Free Speech. Ever since then I have been hell bent on saying any damned thing, at the spur of the moment, that might please me, and the more shocking the effect, the more pleased I become. I recall how thrilled I was when I overheard someone say, in regard to one of my first business letters, “How dare he say this! I’ve never had anyone talk to me like this before!”

I did not realize in my youth that my father had also been rebellious and romantic from time to time, for that was a carefully guarded secret. There is nothing like being poor in the Great Depression and being a World War II veteran to discipline the savage beast in a man. It was a mystery to me how such a tough man like my dad, who was once a boxing champion in the Army, and went on long marches over bad terrain with a hundred pounds of gear, could shed tears over some silly little poem. I suppose that is one definition of a romantic, a knight-poet.

Indeed, my father loved poetry. He was inspired as a young man to write poetry. However, having experienced the sudden loss of my mother, Charlotte, and thereafter being confronted with several dire exigencies, he laid down his law degree, put aside his dreams of becoming an author, and became an electrician. And he was a proud electrician indeed. He often took me on tours of job sites to show me the excellence of his craft. He sang the praises of the art of pipe-bending, wire-cutting and -pulling and -splicing and hundreds of other things. He was a union man, and ‘Union Made’ and ‘Made in the USA’ were noble emblems of the highest degree of honor. Now that I think of it, he had not really abandoned poetry: he was living it. For him his work was poetry in motion.

In that poetry he had his rhetoric: he had his rhythm and his rhyme and his meter according to the broader scheme of things, a scheme great poets have associated with divinity no matter how mundane the details. All the elements of discipline were there to mold the temper of a soft-hearted, hot-headed Scot. Still, at home in a drawer, he kept his poems handy, and in those wee hours at night that were his alone he would read grand literature to refresh his spirits.

As for me, there was no way I was going to be like my father. Poetry was not for me, nor was electricity or electronics. That all went in one ear and out the other, like wire through the wall. Poetry and transistors were equally obscure to me, all too mechanical as far as I was concerned. I was determined to serve the cause of Liberty, and far be it from me to define exactly what the effect of that cause might be. I got up and left my home town to wander at random at a rather young age.

I left town with my prose, with my free speech. As the years went by, I learned to regulate my prose somewhat. Although it is unsuitable for publication, I take some pride in my progress. A writer very recently gave me permission to be a writer someday. Just imagine that!

The irony of not wanting to be like my father has dawned upon me as of late. It seems that, in my opposition to the very idea, the idea took hold of me and has wrestled me to the ground. My resistance was just a different motion in the same general direction. I did not take up poetry and electricity, but I literally picked up prose. That was once my greatest burden in life: I carried two footlockers of books with me on the train from New York to San Francisco, along with a little bag of clothes. Lugging those lockers around town and up the steps of a flea bag hotel over a strip joint was a real drag. Since then, there have been several occasions when I have not moved away from bad situations for years because I had too many books and could not bear carrying, shipping or leaving them.

Yes, there is nothing I like better than to curl up with a book since I like to read in bed, I sometimes even sleep with a few books. And I just love libraries. Libraries are my churches. Reading is my religion. It is as if I want to make up for all that time my father lost when he was on the job for twelve hours a day bending pipes and pulling wire, when his studies were reserved for those wee hours of the night.

As for writing, it is my yoga. Writing is my prayer. Do I write to get published? Are you kidding? Who do you think I am? Someone fond of rejection slips?

I suppose my literary fate is what some people call either a family curse or its blessing. Here I am, yet another rebel of my family, having lived with my father for only a few years, but very much like him after many more years intervening between then and now. But there are differences in several respects, one difference being that I do not write poetry. After all, a camel does not have to pass through the eye of a needle to get to an oasis. Nor does an inspired author need to be funneled through a sonnet to reach Plato’s heavenly vault.

I do love to read poetry, but I do not read that sort of poetry one must learn to like while acquiring a taste for Scotch whisky. I have lately been reading some of my father’s poetry because I am posting it onto the Internet for him. I must say I am often captivated by it. It seems to be free of formal discipline, yet it is certainly disciplined. He has invested years in a few lines. Absent the common rhetorical devices, the Muse still speaks, but with a great deal of his help. His prose has the same inner coherence and quality, an integrity I do not understand. Maybe it is really all prose with a classical sort of beauty that can be divided into a poem at will. How should I know? I am no poet!

Now I have received a letter from my father. What is this? He is giving me a lesson on the sonnet form. Oh, no! What is to become of me now?

Honolulu 2000

President Trump Is Us Gone Mad






29 April 2017

The failure of Hillary Clinton to win the presidency of the United States despite her great majority of popular votes overall may be attributed to the strategic error of her campaign in neglecting a few key states wherein she lost all the electoral votes simply because she lost the popular vote in those states by a very small margin, thereby giving Donald Trump a wide margin of electoral votes in the elector college, where electors do not vote their conscience, as was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, but almost all routinely cast all their votes for whosoever won the popular vote in their states.

That is, the Electoral College system has become a farce. The perversion of the electoral system in the United States was referred to by Walter Bagehot, in The English Constitution (1867), wherein he compared the virtues of the English Cabinet to the American Presidential system:

“The presidential system not only gives the executive power an antagonist in the legislative power, and so makes it weaker; it also enfeebles it by impairing its intrinsic quality. A cabinet is elected by a legislature; and when that legislature is composed of fit persons, that mode of electing the executive is the very best. It is a case of secondary election, under the only conditions in which secondary election is preferable to primary. Generally speaking, in an electioneering country (I mean in a country full of political life, and used to the manipulation of popular institutions), the election of candidates to elect candidates is a farce. The electoral college of America is so. It was intended that the deputies when assembled should exercise a real discretion, and by independent choice select the president. But the primary electors take too much interest. They only elect a deputy to vote for Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Breckenridge….” “The member of electoral college is but a messenger, a transmitter: the real decision is in those who chose him, who chose him because they knew what he would do.” (See Note)

President Trump, a consummate bamboozler, claimed that the election returns were skewed by fraud, that he actually won the popular vote, but of course there is absolutely no evidence of that or any of the other bizarre claims he has made before and after he was elected.

That is, after all, what a showman does. Nonetheless, many people thought the carnival would end the day he took office. It has gone on and on, and TV armchair psychiatrists have diagnosed him as psychotic instead of neurotic, the norm for most of us.

We apologize in advance for repeating the slanders in the interest of fair comment on the nature of psycho-political commentary: He is delusional because he supposedly believes that facts are fake; he is a malignant narcissist, a sort of devil who loves himself as god so much that he hates the humankind he would deceive and annihilate in a nuclear holocaust; he suffers from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, as evidenced by his pacing about the White House in the wee hours, tweeting like mad, and muttering “To do or not to do, yes I shall but no I shall not, to do or not to do, yes I shall, but no I shall not, yes, no, yes, no, tweet, tweet, tweet. ” And that is not all.

The latest poll I took from a representative sample of a dozen people at the South Beach Crunch gym has The Donald’s worst sin not as groping, something women seem ambivalent about given the man, but, all answered “Yes” to “Is the president an egomaniac?” Some added obscene words next to the box, but that is outside the scope of the poll.

That was admittedly a loaded poll question, for whom do we love but ourselves when we love others? That is made obvious by the people who love the president very much. The only thing maniacal about self-love is when it is all too obvious.

In any event, narcissism is inappropriately applied to Mr. Trump because he loves nymphs, and that was not the case with Narcissus at all. And nowadays we have huge mirrors, so there is no chance he will drown himself in a pool.

The question should also be asked of ambivalent humankind, whom do we love most of all when we hate others if not ourselves?

Why, the President has just finished his first hundred days in the White House including weekends in his Florida Mansion, and, according to Leaky Leaks, people are confessing to priests that they want him dead as soon as possible, but are tormented by the thought that Pious Pence would take over, because they believe he is an unctuous snake so do not want to pray with him, or, even worse, Wily Ryan, because they see a satanic glow in his eyes.

There is no chance of impeachment because, as President Jefferson truly observed after resorting to it behind the scenes to prevent the judiciary from being an independent branch of government, impeachment is a farce that should not be tried again. That he was correct was proved, at least as far as presidents are concerned, by the impeachment of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. As long as Spin-The-President gives Republicans more wins than losses, and President Trump is their Bully-in-Chief, there will be no impeachment. There is no way the Senate would convict President Trump, anyway, at least not until after the next election.

The President’s cabinet could appeal to Congress to relieve President Trump from his duties if he were unfit, mentally incapacitated or certified insane by a bipartisan panel of psychiatrists. Forget about that. It is best for his councilors and department heads, if they wish to keep their jobs, to keep him in invisible chains, try to minimize his appearances so the public cannot see the drooling and slobbering attended to privately by his attractive daughter, probably the only person who loves him unconditionally as she does her best to distract him from tweeting and help him clip coins.

The best thing his advisors can do at the moment is familiarize him with one of the chief merits of President Calvin Coolidge (Silent Cal), who observed that politicians do little harm to themselves by keeping quiet. That is not always true, but President Trump should learn how convenient it would be for him to just shut up; that should in part defray concerns about his Mental Age.

The reality is this: President Trump is not really in charge of anything now, not even when he goes to the toilet.

That does not mean he is insane. We like to think one person can lead us into Zion, but our presidents are enchained by innumerable organizational influences from the day they take the Oath of Hypocrisy to serve the will of the people instead of their prejudices e.g. idiotologies and theologies, when they take office. The office changes the officer. President Ronald Reagan was once a bleeding heart liberal. President Franklin Roosevelt was once a fiscal conservative. And so on.

Alas, there is no such thing as the General Will of the People other than currents upon which leaders can bob as corks, swim downstream or sink trying to go against the flow, perhaps giving a little guidance along the way as pilots as circumstances force their hands.

It is a great deal of fun to poke fun at public figures, and even to despise them, but it is not politically correct to laugh at and despise mentally disturbed people. The cause of most mental disturbances in individuals will be found in society. That society is presently hysterical and obsessed, has nearly gone stark raving mad.

If this president be a Narcissus for his blatant self-worship, the reflection he is seeing in the mirror is the huge base of supporters who love him and would continue to do so if he shot a Democratic dead in broad daylight on Broadway. They love him for the reason that they love themselves, and they believe the circumstances they hate are unnecessary and can be changed for the better. We elect the leaders we deserve. What is definitely called for in all of us is therapeutic self-improvement. Then something constructive may be done.



“It is true that the British House of Commons is subject to the same influences. Members are mostly, perhaps, elected because they will vote for a particular ministry, rather than for purely legislative reasons. But, and here is the capital distinction, the functions of the House of Commons are important and continuous. It does not, like the electoral college in the United States, separate when it has elected its ruler; it watches, legislates, seats and unseats ministries, from day to day. Accordingly it is a real electoral body. The parliament of 1857, which, more than any other parliament of late years, was a parliament elected to support a particular premier, which was chosen, as Americans might say, upon the ‘Palmerston ticket’, before it had been in existence two years, dethroned Lord Palmerston. Though selected in the interest of a particular ministry, it in fact destroyed that ministry. . . .

“The independence of the legislative and executive powers is the specific quality of the presidential government, just as their fusion and combination is the precise principle of cabinet government.” “The executive is crippled by not getting the laws it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name since it cannot execute what it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of which others (and not itself) will suffer the effects.” “(T)he cabinet can compel legislation by the threat of resignation, and the threat of dissolution; but neither of these can be used in a presidential state. There the legislature cannot be dissolved by the executive government; and it does not heed a resignation, for it has not to find the successor.” “(U)nder a presidential government a nation has, except at the electing moment, no influence; it has not the ballot-box before it; its virtue is gone, and it must wait till its instant of despotism again returns.”

“It has been said that England invented the phrase, ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition’; that it was the first government which made a criticism of administration as much a part of the polity as administration itself.” “There are doubtless debates in the legislature, but they are prologues without a play. There is nothing of a catastrophe about them; you cannot turn out the government. The prize of power is not in the gift of the legislature, and no one cares for the legislature. The executive, the great centre of power and place, sticks irremovable; you cannot change it in any event.” “(A) parliamentary or cabinet constitution possesses an additional and special advantage in very dangerous times….” “Under a cabinet constitution at a sudden emergency this people can choose a ruler for the occasion. It is quite possible and even likely that he would not be ruler before the occasion….” “By the structure of the world we often want, at the sudden occurrence of a grave tempest, to change the helmsman, to replace the pilot of the calm by the pilot of the storm…But under a presidential government you can do nothing of the kind.” “There is no elastic element, everything is rigid, specified, dated.”

“Even in quiet times, government by a president is, for the various reasons which have been stated, inferior to government by a cabinet; but the difficulty of quiet times is nothing as compared with the difficulty of unquiet times. The comparative deficiencies of the regular, common operation of a presidential government are far less than the comparative deficiencies in time of sudden trouble, the want of elasticity, the impossibility of a dictatorship, the total absence of a revolutionary reserve.”

“…a strong cabinet can obtain the concurrence of the legislature in all acts which facilitate its administration; it is itself, so to say, the legislature. But a president may be hampered by the parliament, and is likely to be hampered. The natural tendency of the members of every legislature is to make themselves conspicuous. They wish to gratify an ambition laudable or blamable; they wish to promote the measures they think best for the public welfare; they wish to make their will felt in great affairs. All these mixed motives urge them to oppose the executive. They are embodying the purposes of others if they aid; they are advancing their own opinions if they defeat: they are first if they vanquish; they are auxiliaries if they support. The weakness of the American executive used to be the great theme of all critics before the Confederate rebellion. Congress and committees of Congress of course impeded the executive when there was no coercive public sentiment to check and rule them.”