1. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
2. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
3. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
4. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
5. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
6. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
7. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
8. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
9. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
10. It was the only time in American history a president refused the peaceful transfer of power.
Check out this blog’s public page on Facebook for 1-minute snippets of wisdom and other musings from the world’s great thinkers and artists, accompanied by lovely photography.
Deep appreciation to the photographers! Unless otherwise stated, some rights reserved under Creative Commons licensing.
Elizabeth Haslam, whose photos (except for the books) grace the rotating banner at top of page.
Library books photo by Larry Rose, all rights reserved, contact: email@example.com
January 6 insurrection photo by Blink O’fanaye, Washington, D.C. https://www.flickr.com/photos/blinkofanaye/
Dove of peace by Leo Reynolds, Norwich, England https://www.flickr.com/photos/lwr/
And still the Elephants walk behind one another attached from trunks to tails, except for two who have been ostracized from the herd.
I’m tempted to use words like “incomprehensible,” but at least as far as the non-rabid leadership goes, it’s quite comprehensible: it’s simply a monumental failure of conscience and courage. They had the opportunity with impeachment last year to finally say, “Enough,” but they passed, and will likely live in infamy for it.
Nice to see an esoteric point of debate so well fleshed out.
In sports, when things go wrong we often talk about getting back to basics: Shelve the misdirection plays and other fancy stuff and focus on blocking & tackling or setting a decent, whole- body screen. In politics, that translates to calling things what they actually are, shorn of hyperbole, cause or convoluted rationalization. We forget or memory-hole What Actually Happened at our great peril.
Descriptive words gone wild during the regime of TDump. Ludicrous, inconceivable, nightmarish, and so on. Because he and his ilk used terms like tremendous, perfect and “huge” to describe things which obviously weren’t, the other side had no defense except to resort to extreme vocabulary. We lost the ability to “temper” our language, which has cheapened discourse and discouraged those seeking cooperation. And this comment comes from me, Moon, the last guy you’d expect to take such a position
I agree Moon, but I do think more than the hyperbole and extreme language it was the relentless lying that was almost impossible to deal with (though I suppose one can view lying as hyperbole run wild…). It was an intentional strategy—Bannon’s “flood the zone with shit” approach, causing the opposition to stay so busy and get so exhausted trying to correct the record that it is left sputtering and spent. Also, crucially—it causes less attentive and informed voters to throw up their hands in disgust and call a pox on both parties’ houses, so they lose trust in the entire system of governance. Which is, of course, the perfect setup for demagoguery and authoritarianism to take root. Worked chillingly well for five years, and we are still seeing its corrosive effects now, as dangerous as ever.
I very much appreciate the clarity expressed here in Andrew’s statement(s). “Just the facts, ma’am” as Jack Webb would say….and the facts bear out what caused the violence and that it was a violation of the Constitution…in plain speak: it was WRONG. A morally egregious WRONG.
Since they now simmer constantly in our culture, I have no need to bring back to (more) vivid life all the horrific images of that day, unfolding a year ago now, almost to the very minute. Everything about that violence is with us, and will be with us, both in memory and, unfortunately, in living legacy, forever.
Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.
Thanks, Mary. A few days ago I found myself musing on what I might say on this day, given how appalled and shaken—though actually not surprised—I was sitting in front of the TV all day a year ago, transfixed. Then I realized so many people would be saying so much that I may as well take a crack at saying as much as I could in as few words as possible. Kind of composed itself from there…
And yes, if there is a defining historical event of our own lifetimes, I would think this has to be it. It’s probably Vietnam for those who were there or who lost loved ones there, but Watergate and the Great Recession, et al—mere sideshows compared to this. (But then again—the Cubs winning the World Series…???) :-)
Thanks, Andrew, for your always insightful commentary. I found point #3 to be the strongest, but #7 and #9 were also powerful. However, I’m somewhat puzzled by your choice of an anti-Covid lockdown anthem to accompany your post. Am I missing something? (Probably) Please enlighten me.
I dunno, Robby, I don’t see how you could have missed the overarching power of No. 4. I suggest you go back and read it again; I’m certain you’ll realize your oversight…
As for the song, unlike with my Brilliant Songs series, I don’t always do a deep dive with the songs I consider accompanying these posts, so it’s news to me that it was part of a Clapton Covid rant. I thought its general tenor of stopping the madness of our times, with clever and compelling visuals showing competing megaphones, bickering crowds, the whole cacophony of modern media, fit pretty well and made for a good listen, aided by a typically catchy Clapton tune. That was enough for me. Hope that’s enlightening enough for you!
Well, the so-called “madness” that Mr. Clapton would like to stop is the government’s attempt to limit the destruction of lives and communities, but I guess that’s ok if the tune is catchy. (Sarcasm intended.)
Not sure what to say here, but I’ll give it another try, Robert: thought I made clear I didn’t understand the song that way until you pointed it out and I looked deeper. I don’t think the lyrics scream obvious “Covid rant” (Rolling Stone mag even says it’s “apparently” about that, but also alludes to global warming, another reference I didn’t get). But lyrical exegesis was not the main point here in any case. Glad you pointed it out, though; always helps to deepen understanding of any piece of music one comes across.