The unknown book that was my reprieve- a personal review of "Hope for the Troubled"

To say that this book was meaningful to me is an understatement.  At the age of 18 I had concluded that my own life was hopeless.  Early one night, driving the used Plymouth my dad and I bought since he would not paint over his taxicab that was our family car -- so I could use it, I was on a road near my home in Washington D.C. I came to an open convenience store. and pulled over.  I noticed a book rack, and started to browse the paperback, as if its title, "Hope for the Troubled" was  a personal invitation.

"Troubled" didn't quite capture my feelings, as I had decided that night that my life was so hopeless that I visualized picking up speed along the dark twisting road, how with only a slight turn into a tree  I could end it all.  No one would have to even know it was suicide, just another reckless teenager whose life was snuffed out by carelessness. 

As I turned the pages of the paperback book, it was like a long letter from someone who was sharing her experiences with finding succor by the wise comfort of psychoanalysis.  Lucy Freeman was a writer, with no professional training in psychology,  which may account for her confidence and competence in explaining how much she benefited from the experience of opening up to someone who would mostly be a patient listener -- non judgemental and understanding.   After maybe an hour reading, since the woman at the counter was not bothering me, I sprung for the 35 cent price, and took the paperback home to finish reading.

After an extensive search, I now find only a single review of this book on the internet at this link
http://www.unz.com/print/SaturdayRev-1953aug15-00017/
And found nothing about the life of Lucy Freeman, who was born around a century ago and is probably gone.

Lucy Freeman, by this simple description of her own experience, including the least bit of background in the development of psychoanalysis, just may have allowed me to experience the last sixty years, which of course even after the blessing of reading her book, were far from untroubled.  Shortly afterwards,  after only a few months of college I  moved to N.Y., and eventually did go into psychoanalysis with the kind of caring erudite man that she had described.  Dr. Payne, complete with a Germanic accent like Freud's,  tried to make it work, but even the founder knew his treatment could not reach most people in despair.

I can't know that I actually would have driven that car to my death, but I am certain that I genuinely felt that way at the time.  My older sister having just finished college was on a six month tour of Europe,(it could be done cheaply when the dollar was strong in those post war years)  and unlike the future, otherwise known as "now," she was beyond the reach of a quick call on Skype.  She could have been there for me, providing the encouragement that would have allowed me to continue at George Washington University, probably ending up with a law degree, and of course becoming a person with no awareness of this individual now writing this, having gone through a very different life.

But I survived, and more found some pleasures in the midst of challenges that I struggled with, and still do.  Maybe that was Lucy's goal in writing that book, hoping that it would be a lifeline for some, even knowing it would be a very few.

 




     

" In God We Trust"- The Established Religion of the U.S.A.

President  Donald J. Trump, after only two years in office, has divided our country among those who revere him and those who, with equal passion, revile him.   This article from Steven J. Gould's website from two decades ago is the perfect preface for a thesis that I am offering as a way of thinking about this crucial time in the history of the United States of America, entitled Will we ever figure out how life began

His answer, written in accessible compelling logic, is maybe we can for our planet, but never the general causation in the universe.  Humans have a need for answers, so cultures have gone in two directions.The most ancient, and deterministic in our country is that God did i --, to ask why being blasphemous.  

The other is scientific exploration with the hope and inherent belief in the unlimited capacity of this way of knowing.  Gould's article is ultimately unsatisfying, and destructive of this alternative to religious belief, as he explicates why there could never be a scientifically confirmed answer, never, ever! 

Believers in an all powerful God, who not only created us, but reserves the right to enforce his plan of human behavior on us, have become dominant in our country.  This has occurred, ironically, when the procedures and products of scientific research are growing at an exponential rate, to the point that few can transcend accepting the findings on, well there's no other word for it, on"faith."

Liberals, even atheists  who as of now must disguise this for a political career, don't see this as a problem, and are actually deferential to this widespread belief, and even hold it "sacred"  We have ignored the "Elmer Gantry" danger, that a skilled charlatan could not only amass a devoted congregation, or in the case of Jim Jones a massive following, but gain enough votes in a national election to become an autocrat of the most important country of our era.

One aspect of the explosive Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh was the consensus that his religiosity, which is certainly more relevant to the cases he would decide than his teen age sex life, was never even alluded to.  There was one exception in the very last question of the hearings by Senator John Neehly Kennedy of Louisiana in a tone of a caring father, - "Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe in God?"  Kavanaugh's thoughtful response, "Yes I do Senator"

It was clear, that his affirmation of such a belief was to negate all of the evidence of the vivid recollection of the woman who accused him of an act, whatever the actual details of the interaction, that were devastating enough for her to remember, and to relive the terror she felt decades previously. There had been numerous articles that explained that traumatic interactions are processed idiosyncratically, so it's to be expected that the very actions under debate at the hearings would reasonably be accurate to both parties, even if inconsistent.

There was a bigger issue at play, one that is not amenable in a zeitgeist of priority to emotional sensation.  The taxonomy, the public ratings at this moment in time is the very bottom is the excruciating cerebrial evaluations known as either the Scientific method, or academic arrogance.  Sex, as a human imperative that is on the list, but now overshadowed by sexual aberrancy -- either lionized or condemned. We all know this, but what is invisible, and more fatal, is the ultimate deference to God ---  not because it is politicized, but that it is not.

The Kavanaugh hearing is water under the bridge, to be replaced by other shocking events of late 2018, like the murder of Jamal Khashoggi the firing of Jeff Sessions, or the closing of the border from Mexico.  It's a daily dose of endorphins and serotonin, so how do we dare not follow every event, to be ready to run or fight should heated conversation become internecine war.



       






  

Trump's Nacisstic Personality Distorder -- Can be pitty and condemn him at the same time?

Narcissistic Personality Disorder,  described on this Mayo Clinic website, and been discussed by professionals (see first link)..   His career up to his activities of late 2015, when he chose run for president, were ideal for one with his disorder.  Most of his interactions where with other’s who chose to deal with him, either buying into his soon to be bankrupt Casino’s or attending his “University.”   Others he dealt with, were the N.Y. city construction industry, which many maintain is a den of corruption, both in ownership and unions, and are able to take care of themselves.  Trump and John Gotti spoke the same language and deserved each other.
He used his august office to “request” networks forego hundreds of millions in revenue that could have been distributed in dividends or gains that ultimately redound to shareholders, who would spend that money on buying better Scotch, or some food for their kids.  Ironically, the most harm of this shutdown are to the poorest of the close to a million people who may extend their credit cards, with fines and 25% interest rates.  But this is invisible to one with Trump’s condition.
I actually have sympathy for Trump, as I do for every fellow human being,  as much as I can have contempt for his actions at the same time.  Pelosi and Schumer had the opportunity to respond to this character for what he is, display some human outrage that could have been tempered even with understanding.  I’ll illustrate my feelings about Trump, from the L.A. Times article about another person, Charles Manson.

In 1967, he was scheduled to be released from Terminal Island with no friends or family on the outside who wanted to see him, no trade and no prospects for a job.  “I told the officer who was signing me out, ‘You know what, man, I don’t want to leave!,’” Manson wrote. “‘I don’t have a home out there! Why don’t you just take me back inside.’ The officer laughed and thought I was kidding. ‘I’m serious, man! I mean it, I don’t want to leave!’ My plea was ignored.”

Donald Trump told the American people who he was before he was even nominated: "You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible,"
The opposition missed the context of this statement and still do.   Trump was pointing out a reality, that his popularity was then, and is to this day, based on a God-like reverence that his supporters have to this individual.   It’s turning out that the public had never had a thug, a mafioso king pin, or a maniacal murderer run for the presidency.  Somehow, by the time he had won the nomination of a major political party,  the general public assumed that they had vetted his character, that if he did gain this position he would inherently absorb the demeanor, the values, the responsibility of the office.
Donald Trump never said that he would do anything of the kind, but it was assumed.   During the election there were hundreds of times he was solemnly described as “unfit” for the office.   Perhaps there should have been some more graphic language.  How about, “Look, this guy say’s he could shoot someone on fifth avenue without losing a vote, well if you elect this maniac, he will still think he could launch a nuclear missile without any reaction from his countrymen. “
As far as last weeks taking control all of the media when he in his demented thinking he will be calling all the shots after he declares a National Emergency, he still made the threat as this headline in WaPo:  President Sets threshold for Declaring Emergency on Border
Pelosi and Schumer are rational polite individuals, and pitting them against a powerful thug with a personality disorder isn’t going to connect with the public.  Trump has intimidated every Republican Senator, attempted to do so with the Chief of the Federal Reserve, and fired all of his top level officials who do not succumb to his Charles Manson like power.
Trump having been reared among wealth and privilege does not mitigate the seriousness of this personality disorder.  It results in his inability to acknowledge his own limitations, which would open him to the expertise of bureaucrats and scholars in every area that is under his domain.   He is emotionally incapable of doing so. Hostility, even threats of prison, will only exacerbate his patterns or aggressive defensiveness.
It’s no longer killing an individual on fifth avenue that he feels he could do -— but destruction so great as to be unimaginable

NY Times comments

Democrats Are Blowing It, Again

Liberals have become Donald Trump’s unwitting allies.

 Bret Stephens   NY Times   10/13/18

My trenchant comment 

template for blog interactive

Call Me Al

California |

2/25/2019
.

This is essay is prompted by an article from N.Y. Times Columnist Jamelle Bouie,   The Administration You Save May be Your own. The thrust of the article is recommending that those Democrats running for President espouse eliminating the filibuster in the Senate.   The following is my response:

 ----------------

Mr. Boule misses the spirit of the segue from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. It was meant to get us to something close to the European Union of today, not to "One nation under God." The tenth amendment spells this out clearly.
.

The rules of the two houses of the legislature were intentionally not defined, and left up to the members themselves. Political parties were never anticipated, which is why only after the 12th amendment did the man who came in second, rather than be forgotten, become Vice President. Clarence Thomas still argues that any state may establish an official religion, as the Constitution specifically limited the only federal congress from doing so. And technically he's right.
.

The partisan hatred that is burgeoning over the last decades, won't be solved by removing the filibuster, a vestige of the ideal of common values among the states.  I'll posit that national survival may require a reversal to "originalism."   Roe v. Wade would be eliminated, but most states will enact something similar, while other can make abortion a crime. Sure, there will be dislocation, as many people will move to the states that reflect their values -- on this issue and on others. Some will choose to live in the Christian State of Alabama , while others will opt for the Humanist State of California. 

.
Sounds absurd, but no more than the illusion that a Democratic. victory in 2020 will quench the raging fire of hatred that is consuming our country.
-----------------
Comments are not only welcomed, but appreciated.

Kavanaugh affair analogy to l'affaire Dreyfus

Our country is in the midst of something similar to l'affaire Dreyfus,  a multi-year event taking place in France around the turn of the 20th century.  Like so much in our world, a concise  overview can be accessed by the Wikipedia link that is one of the wonders of our age,  a true “university” that by conceptualization and realization is a hallmark of our era.

I use the analogy, because at this pivotal moment of the unfolding of the Kavanaugh affair  we, like France of 1900 are/were nations divided, with the chasm going through all segments of society, all focused around a single individual.  Dailykos, a website I've been posting on for twelve years,  is a bastion of one segment, while Fox news is its virtual antipode, yet this divide includes families, friends, organizations and every aspect of society.

As I write this it's only hours since Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in to become one of nine individual in the court of last resort, and final arbiter and shaper of laws created by those who must first win and then retain their authority by votes of the citizenry.  It's uncontested that, in defense of his nomination he openly accused one of our two political parties of collusion based on a conspiracy of lies, a proclamation of his deep bias that under other circumstances would universally negate his becoming a "Justice."  (a title only used for Supreme Court judges)

There are two directions that can be taken.  One is to  acknowledge the fact that, no matter the injustices that brought him this authority, he now has it,  until impeached for cause or his retirement.  In spite of removal by impeachment being politically impossible, the Democratic head of the House Judiciary Committee, just promised to investigate Kavanaugh should his party prevail next month.  Thus, rather than this being, "case closed" it is being kept alive.

What makes this noteworthy is that Kavanaugh is hated for his politics, yet despised for his purported sexual related assaults that he has been accused of when he was a teenager.  None of these were actual rape, but actions that, given the recent movement that has caused a cultural tsunami under the rubric of #metoo where aggressive sexual advances by men towards women have become both culturally and to some degree, legally, a more serious crime. 

At this point the ball is in the Democrats hands, currently the opposition party.  It could be that the newly configured court could not be the nightmare that the left fears.  Historically, predictions often fall short, but even if this occurs, optimists feel there is still hope, that could be as immediate as the General election of 2020.  At that time, the Supreme court could be expanded, even if only temporarily, to have a more balanced makeup of both parties. This could be by Democratic control of  only a majority of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.


Could it be that a society can only absorb so much stress before it breaks apart, the norms and traditions that had been functional devolving to such a state of uncertainty that individual ambiguity is unacceptable to either faction.  I refer to the Dryfus Affair as this seems to have happened in France, and could occur here.

Dailykos has provided me with a platform, one that is the best that I can find for my own personal needs.  There is intellectual stimulation and camaraderie that I want to preserve, even if it means I keep certain observations to myself.  I still don’t know the rules that define acceptable deviation from the norms even after twelve years, as they have varied somewhat over the period of my participation.
This period of “affair Kavanaugh”, is so intense that after 35 years of marriage my wife and I feel the stress.  

The sharing of my “intellectualisms,” such as this, are not appreciated, as she feels a visceral antipathy towards Kavanaugh as representative of the Trump cult, that is more intense than mine.
So, perhaps we are all on Howard Zinn’s metaphorical train, the one that it’s impossible to be neutral on while it is barreling forward.  You either try to stop it, or by relaxing and enjoying the view, you will be taken to it’s destination and then he implied, “you can’t then complain that you are distressed by where you have to get off.”