And the Award for Schmuckiest Schmuck Goes to ... Ethan Coen!

I've never been a big fan of the Coen brothers. I've enjoyed some of their films (although I enjoyed "Hail, Caesar!" far less than I expected to ... meh, despite a few bright spots), but none of their films is among my favorites. I don't think I've ever watched a film of theirs a second time; I don't like them enough. Wait, I'm wrong. I did watch "The Big Lebowski" again a year or two ago. I wanted to find out what all the fuss was about (at least in certain quarters). I concluded that all the fuss is largely undeserved, but, hey, it's a free country. Ha ha. Ha.

But I'm sure there are some big Coen brothers fans among my readers. So I strongly advise you not to read this remarkably heavy-handed, not very clever op-ed. This one, right here. Don't read it if you enjoy the Coens' films a lot. This one. I'd avoid it.

I have too many objections to this piece of drivel to catalogue them all. So I'll merely point out that it's fairly amazing to see so many standard, bromidic, dishonest, unthinking liberal talking points crammed into such a short article. Impressive, Ethan! Another big problem -- also a problem in all of their films that I've seen -- is the air of smug self-congratulation. Not only are they the most moral and bravest people in the room -- they're also the cleverest!

Oscar Wilde famously said, when asked by a customs official if he had anything to declare, "I have nothing to declare except my genius." If you make such statements, you had better be a goddamned genius. Wilde could get away with it, and easily; the remark is delightful, clever, and true. The Coen brothers, and Ethan in particular in this piece, makes love to himself for qualities he has yet to attain. At this rate, those qualities will forever elude him. (I regret to note that it appears likely that Wilde never made this comment. Pity.)

Given the impenetrably thick air of moral self-love that suffocates any and all attempts at cleverness in this piece, Coen's first two points are perhaps the most objectionable. He mocks all those who voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson for their feelings of "moral superiority" and "warm self-approval," feelings which he knows -- he just knows, don't ask him how -- are far more important to them than what he considers to be the disastrous political consequences of their choice. It is apparently impossible in Coen's world for anyone to hold political views in a principled and serious manner when those views differ from his. Coen's sneering condescension toward those who dare to disagree with him is utterly sickening.

As for his defense of Hillary Clinton ... well. To admire one's own moral rectitude and courage when one supports a murderer and war criminal, a person who has worked tirelessly to advance the entire program of the ruling class, including the neverending destruction of those abroad and at home who are disfavored and of no value to the monsters who rule us -- what can one say? Also impressive, Ethan!

Oh, yeah, and Clinton is also a vicious racist. I mentioned that in my post yesterday, and Tarzie has a post today that effectively amplifies the point.

Cuddle up with your Schmuck Award, Ethan. You can put it where your soul and mind ought to be. (Line adapted from "All About Eve," for those who might wonder.)

Calm Down, for Christ's Sake

So we live in a country (and a world, for that matter) populated by a horrifyingly high proportion of hysterics. If you're one of the many, many people having nervous breakdowns of various kinds and of varying intensity: get a grip. And people accuse me of being a drama queen.

It's bad enough that scads of not terribly bright individuals now display screeching hysteria in the wake of Trump's election. What is worse is that so many of these hysterics proudly flaunt their hysteria: they appear to think it signifies how sensitive they are, how much they care (about racism, misogyny, the climate, the possibility of war, etc. and so forth and so on), how deeply they wish to steer the United States away from disasters that have overtaken other states in the past.

But their hysteria doesn't reveal or confirm any of that. To the contrary, it reveals a deep failure of understanding, beginning with a grasp of the nature of the authoritarian-militarist-corporatist system that now dominates and consumes our lives. Here are a few clues, which I urge you to consider carefully. These examples are, as they say, ripped from the headlines within the last few minutes.

First, Vice President-Elect Pence will now lead the transition, replacing Chris Christie in that role:

The president-elect told advisers he wanted to tap Mr. Pence’s Washington experience and contacts to help move the process along, according to people familiar with the discussions. An executive committee, which will include members of Congress, will advise Mr. Pence as the process moves forward.

Mr. Christie, along with Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, and Michael T. Flynn, a retired lieutenant general who has been a top campaign supporter, will serve as vice chairs of the transition, the sources said.

The funniest bit in that story is this:

The latest name to be swept into the speculation maelstrom is Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase. He is said to be a candidate for secretary of the Treasury, according to a report by CNBC, although the banker — who was close to President Obama — has repeatedly denied being interested in the job.

The story goes on to point out several reasons why it may not be Dimon, and it might well be someone else. But I guarantee you this: Trump is not going to pick a Treasury Secretary who is determined to put scads of Wall Street criminals in jail, or even one of them. And he will most likely pick someone who, like Dimon, is intimately familiar with and closely connected to the existing financial regime.

And then there's this: Team Trump is already filled with Washington insiders:

To shape his administration, President-elect Donald Trump is drawing squarely from the "swamp" he has pledged to drain.

Trump's transition team is staffed with long-time Washington experts and lobbyists from K Street, think tanks and political offices.

You can read the rest if you want the bloody details.

So what about all of Trump's talk about "draining the swamp"? Well, he is draining the swamp -- directly into his own office.

All of this was entirely predictable. The system that is killing us -- and if it's not killing you, or at least hurting you a lot, you're probably reading the wrong blog -- has a life of its own, and it places enormous constraints on anyone who becomes even, yes, President. It is indisputably true that Trump is a disgusting, vile human being. It is also true that his election gives tremendous support to certain very ugly strains in our country. But the terrible reasons for which certain people voted for Trump are not the only reasons that other people voted for him.

It may be the case that Trump implements some of his campaign promises about immigration, for example. That would also be disgusting and vile -- but I implore you to remember that our entire national discussion about immigration is disgusting and vile. How could it be otherwise in a nation which is fundamentally racist, and which has its origin in racial genocide? Tragically, that article about immigration and racism is as timely today as it was nine years ago; not so coincidentally, Ann Coulter had a starring role in that long ago post -- and Coulter, of course, has been one of Trump's biggest boosters from the very beginning. Whenever racism seeks to extend its deadly reach, Coulter is sure to be nearby, cheering and whooping for further persecution and destruction to be visited upon those people.

And honestly, people, Hillary Clinton has a vicious racist streak herself, and the same is true of many (most) of those in the ruling class. And if the election had gone the other way, what ugly strains would Clinton's election have served to strengthen and endorse? It is almost certain that a Clinton presidency would have led to military confrontation with Russia at some point. We might actually be safer with Trump on that score. Which is not to say he won't get us into some viciously stupid war of "choice," even though he has promised not to; again, the constraints of the system might well lead him inexorably into conflict. And I seriously doubt he would mind all that much, if at all, since he could demonstrate how manly and strong he is. I also remind you that anyone who wants to be president is deeply and irreparably damaged psychologically. We might say that all such people are deranged. I do not use "deranged" as hyperbole, but in the strict clinical sense.

I have a confession. I had accepted the conventional wisdom that Clinton would win, and shame on me for that. On election night, about 11 PM, when it began to become clear that Trump might win, I felt a small sense of relief. Not that I was or am at all happy that Trump has been elected. I didn't vote at all, since I am Against Voting in a system such as ours, and my strong preference is that the national government dissolve in a fine mist. But I found the prospect of a Clinton presidency unutterably depressing. I didn't know how I would withstand four years of it, let alone the possibility of eight, God help us. And when Trump actually won, I thought: "Well, at least it might be a little more interesting, and perhaps it will offer some unexpected developments in some ways." As indicated above, I think the likelihood for genuine surprise is severely delimited and, if there were to be a genuine surprise, it would probably be an awful one. But Clinton ... years of gray, lightless, airless drudgery, slowly grinding us into the dirt. At least, Trump holds out the promise of not being entirely boring and predictable. Given the nauseating spectacle of our national politics, I admit that that is not nothing to me. Hate me for it if you want to, but there it is.

I'm working on a longer piece about all of this, which I hope to complete in the next few days. But I wanted to get a few initial thoughts down, and I mainly wanted to urge everyone to calm the fuck down. Have a drink. Some some pot. We can do that legally in California now! It's pathetic that change on an issue of that kind should be viewed as a great advance of enlightenment, when it's obvious to a bright six-year-old that such matters are none of the government's goddamned business.

So, much more to come on all this.

(I have a number of posts in the works. I've been slowed down by yet another heat wave, which still continues today. It's been in the nineties most of this week. And then my rotten health, and a few other issues that have distracted me mightily. But I'm writing again now. New posts should be coming fairly regularly at this point. Some will be long; some may be very short. I also happen to be almost completely broke at the moment. Seriously: I'm down to my last hundred dollars. No money for some bills that have to be paid, no money for food when what I have runs out in several days, no money for anything at all. If you have some extra money sloshing around, Sasha and I would be hugely grateful to be its recipients. Yes, Sasha is fine, and wonderful, and sweet beyond description. If any claim to sanity remains to me -- I'll let you be the judge -- Sasha is the reason.)

Golly Gee, Thank You, Mr. Snowden!

Snark about the non-disruptiveness of Edward Snowden's non-leak is far too easy at this date. Even to call the non-leak "non-disruptive" fails to capture the putrid core of what has transpired in the last few years: Snowden's non-leak has enhanced and bolstered the existing Security State, which has steadily grown in pervasiveness and reach ever since Snowden first broke into the headlines. As a result, snark on this subject ought to be beneath me. Sadly, and predictably unsurprisingly, it is not. But I have never claimed to be a person of noble character, always ready to extend a helping hand (and, of course, offer a shoulder to lean on) to those who may have erred. As I calculate the benefit or damage caused by a person's actions, certain damages which flow from their choices deserve searing condemnation. To strengthen the already existing Death State and, ultimately, to legitimize it, while simultaneously convincing an audience willing to be deluded yet again that Snowden's non-leak has improved our circumstances ... well.

Those individuals who played critical roles in this charade are lucky to get off with snark. They deserve far worse. On a closely related matter: I continue to be appalled by the number of "dissenters" who still sing the praises of Snowden and his clown posse. I suggest that all such "dissenters" give up their wan attempt at personal bravery, and immediately go to work for the State itself, perhaps in some defense or "intelligence" capacity. It's steady, easy work, and God knows it's a growth industry. I'm sure any feelings of dissonance they might experience -- but in my usual way, I'm probably being too generous in assuming they would feel any dissonance whatever -- would vanish after five or ten minutes. No doubt enjoying a coffee break and swapping jokes and gossip with murderers (or, at minimum, accomplices to murder) and spooks will make them feel cozily at home.

While I firmly push aside any claim of courage or nobility in connection with my political commentary, there are other terms that I hope do apply to me. Here's how I described the issue four years ago:

If you're a person who writes or speaks regularly about politics at this particular moment in the lamentable history of the lamentable United States, and if you are not "mad, bad and dangerous to know," you aren't worth shit. All you are is another prop holding up a constantly expanding, ever worsening system of colossal brutality, oppression, dehumanization and murder.

I reread that article this morning, for the first time in a long time. One quality struck me more than any other: if anything, the major arguments are more true today than they were in 2012. I had the same thought recently about one of my personal favorites among my essays: The Tale that Might Be Told. If ever there was an election for which that fable might have been written, the nauseating spectacle that currently engulfs us is it. I am arrogant enough to note that commentary which becomes more accurate and more relevant with the passage of time is ... well, not bad.

Let us return to the snark we wish to visit upon the radiant Mr. Snowden. How ever can we thank him properly for sharing with us -- but only in bits and pieces, strung out over an extended period of time, carefully selected and redacted by equally radiant and responsible journalists -- information that the State would prefer we not possess? In fact, we now cannot say even that much: one of the lessons of the Snowden charade is that leaks of this kind, which become non-leaks directly as the result of their method of publication, are no threat to the State. Their worst effect might be to cause some temporary, minor discomfort to a few individuals. More significantly, the State is not deterred in the slightest degree from pursuing its chosen goals.

Snowden's focus was surveillance. Here are two examples of recent articles describing where we are with regard to surveillance, post-Snowden. You have probably seen a fair number of similar articles. First, from "No Matter Who's Elected, Surveillance Powers and Programs Unlikely to be Scaled Back":

After the attack in Orlando, Clinton joined Trump in calling for expanded watchlists and denial of Constitutional rights to those placed on them. She has occasionally hinted at vague surveillance reform, but has also made it clear Snowden should hop on the next plane home and spend some time in prison. She has also suggested tech companies partner with the government to create backdoors in encryption -- but in an imaginary "safe" way that won't threaten their customers' security. And she's made it clear that deploying the military is a perfectly acceptable response to state-led cyberattacks.

Either way the election goes, the surveillance business will remain as usual. This is troubling, due to the fact that Section 702 -- which authorizes the NSA's internet backbone-based surveillance dragnet PRISM -- is up for renewal at the end of next year. With recent revelations about Yahoo's very proactive surveillance assistance generating some interesting questions about what the NSA can or can't do under this authority, it would be nice to have someone in the White House that would amplify these concerns, rather than help drown them out.

For more about the Yahoo revelations and their implications, you can take a look at this: "Say 'Hi' to the NSA in Your Next Email":

[I]n early October, Reuters reported that Yahoo secretly allowed a massive government surveillance program to scan all incoming emails to Yahoo accounts. The custom software program was reportedly built by Yahoo at the behest of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI, at the direction of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge. ...

[T]he hacking of Yahoo-user account data is small compared to recent revelations about the company cooperating with government surveillance. It's unclear what exactly the NSA and FBI were looking for, but sources told The New York Times that some Yahoo tools to scan emails for spam and child-pornography had been modified to scan for email signatures linked to a state-sponsored terrorist groups. ...

This represents a novel public-private surveillance partnership. Tech companies have collaborated with government snooping in the past, of course, when required by law. But this has typically been limited to the searching of stored communications or the targeting of a limited number of accounts for detailed scanning. In this situation, Yahoo allegedly allowed software to scan the contents of all emails sent to Yahoo accounts in real time, including those sent from within the United States.

Intelligence agencies are subject to relatively stricter limitations when undertaking surveillance that affects what's called a "U.S. person." Some NSA watchers believe that reports that this program was a "directive" suggests that this program may have been authorized under Section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which is not supposed to intentionally target communications of U.S. persons.

Anyone who is at all surprised by any of this has not been paying attention for at least the last ten years; if they have been paying attention, they didn't know how to think about the information they learned. (Several friends of mine can tell you that I've "been saying 'hi' to the NSA," and to various agencies and individuals in government, for more than ten years. I concluded long ago that anything and everything I do on the internet is there for the State's perusal, if they're interested.) And given developments of the last decade (and longer), we can be certain of one further fact: if we have now learned these specifics, the truth -- or a version that is closer to the truth -- is much worse, more pervasive, and broader in scope.

So what exactly are we supposed to thank Snowden for? As individuals who value privacy and liberty -- including the right to be left alone -- there is nothing whatsoever for which to thank him. The State, on the other hand, has a great deal for which to be grateful. I described the issue as follows, in a post from almost three years ago, God help me:

Consider the enormous value of the hugely restricted publication of the Snowden documents to the various States involved. Rusbridger, Greenwald, et al. all trumpet the great triumph represented by the "debate" publication has engendered -- the clamor of public voices demands "reform," so committees will be formed, investigations will be undertaken, and when the dust has settled, life for the States involved will go on almost exactly as before (remember: if the NSA were disbanded today, identical surveillance would continue via other agencies and institutions of power) -- and the States will be able to claim that the public knows the "truth," and their activities now have the full blessing of informed public consent.

Gee, it's almost as if someone planned it that way. Thanks, Ed.

Snowden's clown posse of "journalists" have certainly raked in lots of awards (to say nothing of cold cash) because of the non-leak. But I think Ed himself deserves recognition of a different kind. Some people are clamoring for a Snowden pardon before Obama leaves office. That's a non-starter: appearances must be maintained. But if we were to dispense with the concern for appearances, perhaps Obama could properly reward Snowden's invaluable service to the State -- and give him a fucking Medal of Honor.

Some Help, Please

I had deeply hoped I could avoid this before publishing some new work; unfortunately, I can't. With just a few days to go before the first of the month, I have only half of what I need for rent. And I have nothing at all for anything else -- internet, phone, electricity, food, etc. I have some basic foodstuffs (bread and the like) that will minimally sustain me until next week, and then ...

So the donation bowl is out. I would be tremendously grateful for anything people might be able to contribute. As I indicated earlier in the week, I am working on some new posts. I've been slowed down by this awful heat wave, which has been truly unbearable, but the heat should be dissipating over the next several days. So next week looks good for further thoughts on tribalism, "politics" in our time (I begin to feel that quotes are necessary when speaking of "politics" now, because I'm not entirely sure what the hell that word designates any longer -- it feels as if we've all been locked in a continent-sized ward for the criminally insane), and other matters.

Many, many thanks for your understanding, and for your great kindness.

While You're Watching Torture Porn ...

Tonight, you can, if you choose, join many others in watching one of the most important events of your lifetime. Indeed, it may be the pivotal moment that will determine our future. All our leading and best-known commentators, without exception, solemnly announce the event's significance, which it appears is not to be questioned, at least not by those who are "informed," "knowledgeable" and "civilized." Tonight is crucial to, like, everything. A few lonely contrary wags might be heard to mutter their view that it will make no measurable difference in the long run (by which they mean longer than the next year or two, or even five or ten!). One or two of these opposing voices might offer their opinion in cruder terms, perhaps noting that this universal insistence of the transmogrifying, metaphysical import of Monday night is akin to observing that everyone urinates and defecates. They then look at you, baleful contempt and defiance in their eyes, and sneeringly ask: "So what?" A few of these party-poopers will undoubtedly use still cruder language to denote urination and defecation. We would never use such language here. Mercy me, certainly not. Fuck, no.

Alright, my friends. You want transmogrifying and life-altering? You want your soul to be shattered? Would you like to immerse yourself in an event that had and continues to have countless effects, large and small, on music, theater and culture generally, that made much of the century (and more) following its first performance possible and inevitable? If so, fuck politics. Politics, certainly in our time, is where the soul, the intellect, and culture go to die -- or, if you prefer, where the long-decaying remnants of once-living things will be found in a nausea-inducing, fetid mass suffused with the blood of countless victims. Say it with me: Fuck politics! That's it. You may be ready for our counterprogramming.

The Metropolitan Opera opens its season tonight with a new production of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. It stars Nina Stemme, one of only two or three worthy exponents of Isolde today, and, more importantly to me (and to many others), it is conducted by Simon Rattle. Advance reports are unanimous in ecstatically proclaiming that Rattle is working miracles of a kind rarely encountered. And, lucky you, lucky me, lucky us: you can listen to the opening night performance absolutely free: right here. (That page contains a schedule of the free broadcasts, which are offered once a week for the duration of the season.)

As you will see, the broadcast begins at 4:55 PM EST. Now, you might think that the performance will therefore be concluded long before the 9 PM EST start time of that fetid farce. Ah, but this is Wagner, and this is is perhaps the most famous example of long-delayed gratification in all art (certainly sexually, but not only sexually). Depending on the length of the intermissions (which Met management unforgivably allows to stretch unto eternity), 9 PM will probably put us somewhere in the midst of Tristan's death (which also takes a long, long time), that is, in the middle of Act III. And you can't abandon the opera performance until you've heard the famous Liebestod, which concludes the work. Here's one performance of the Liebestod from recent years which has become very famous, with Waltraud Meier. And for those who may not know Tristan, here's a brief, very beautiful excerpt from Act II (this is Brangaene's Watch, as Isolde's servant warns the lovers to beware of those who seek to find and separate the lovers, performed by the divine Christa Ludwig).

Here's a synopsis of the opera. If you want to read the full libretto, or -- even better -- the score, you can find both of those easily enough in just a minute of internet searching.

Oh, I'll see the whole debate fetid farce, but on my schedule, not theirs. I'm sure I'll have some comments on it, so I will need to see it, unfortunately. (I admit that it does hold a certain grim fascination, but I find it's on the order of torture porm: that is, something I would not voluntarily choose to see except in extraordinary circumstances.)

And don't worry: I'm working on several other posts. Given my continuing extremely rotten health, it's taking me longer than I had anticipated, but some new posts should be ready for publication in the next week or so. Also, a hideous heat wave has descended on Los Angeles. It's going to be over 100 today. O joy! O wonder! O shit. It's supposed to be gone by the end of the week.

I realize that many of you will choose to watch torture porn tonight. I understand. A pity, but I understand. Chances are, it will be deadly dull. If both of them had total meltdowns ... now, that would be fun! I'm also sure many will watch hoping that will be precisely what happens. Extremely doubtful. I bet on boring.

However you choose, I'll see you on the other side.

Status Update

I'm deeply sorry for my long silence. I'm especially sorry with regard to those people who so kindly responded to my last cry for help, five awful months ago.

The explanation for my silence is very simple: I've been a bedridden invalid for most of this period. On several occasions, I thought I might well be dying. That didn't happen, so ... yay, I suppose. I say "I suppose" only because I still feel so godawful most of the time. But not quite as awful as I had been feeling. I manage now to get out of bed for a few hours each day, although I can't accomplish all that much when I'm up.

But goddammit, there's still some writing to be done. Just recently, I discovered -- quite by accident, as it happens (where are my spies when I need them? I can't believe no one told me about this book) -- Tribe, by Sebastian Junger. I've just begun reading it, and -- oh, boy. The short Amazon description accurately provides the book's perspective:

We have a strong instinct to belong to small groups defined by clear purpose and understanding--"tribes." This tribal connection has been largely lost in modern society, but regaining it may be the key to our psychological survival.

Those readers familiar with my work will know that this subject is one I've addressed in some detail. They will also know that Junger's perspective represents the complete inversion of what I consider the correct and psychologically healthy approach.

Once I've finished reading Junger's book, I expect to have quite a few articles to write, to clear up confusions, to explain many issues he appears to neglect entirely, and to offer some new material to build upon my earlier argument. (For that earlier argument, see this essay and this one in particular. They contain some of the best analysis I've ever offered here, in addition to which I am convinced that my thesis is both true and important.) I suspect that reviews of Junger's book might also provide illuminating material for analysis. If any of you come across reviews that strike you as particularly interesting, please let me know. Junger's book has been very successful, and most readers think his ideas are absolutely swell. That explains a lot.

So there's that to be done. And I suppose I should try to offer a few words about this Marx Bros. election. I apologize: what a terrible insult to the Marx Bros. They were inspired and wonderfully funny. This election is merely ridiculous and nauseating, although not for the reasons offered most frequently.

Now I have to go back to bed, and try to regain some energy for this work. I must add that I only was able to survive these last months because of a few dear friends, as well as all those donors who have been so generous -- and among that last group, I also must especially mention the few individuals who continue to make donations even when silence prevails here. And, of course, my financial situation remains extremely dire, so any and all assistance is greeted with tremendous gratitude, as always.

P.S. Here is something that is very cool. Be sure to explore the map for at least a few minutes.

Eviction, Starvation and Other Unlovely Things

I've always said (along with many others) that, if there is a God, He is one unbelievably nasty, sadistic SOB. It would be just like God to have arranged events in this manner. After all this time, when I am finally able to write again -- and when I am eager to do a lot of writing once more -- I will be unable to pay the rent. After publishing a new essay several days ago, I put up a comparatively brief post offering a few observations about this and that, at the end of which I mentioned that I only have enough money to pay about half of this month's rent. I have no money at all for anything else: internet service, a few other bills and, oh yes, non-essential items like food. I offer my sincere thanks to the seven people who responded. They made donations totaling $220. I still can't pay the April rent.

If I'm still unable to pay the rent by the end of tomorrow, my rent will officially be late. (It's not considered late until after the fifth, but if I don't have the rent payment by the end of tomorrow, the landlord won't get it until the sixth or later.) The new owners may well decide to begin the eviction process as soon as I'm late. They are definitely planning to demolish this building and the one next to it and then to construct one big new apartment building, with many more units than the two small buildings now contain. That's the business they're in; we know these buildings are on their list of projects, but we don't know exactly when they will get around to them. It appears most likely that it will be sometime in the next year. A local ordinance mandates that owners must pay tenants certain amounts as relocation expenses when they tell the tenants they must move so that the building they live in can be torn down. Given my age and the length of time I've lived here, they will have to pay me about $20,000. I'm one of only three or four tenants due to receive that much. I think we can assume that the owners might well be delighted to avoid that payment in my case. If I hand them an easy excuse to get rid of me, they might pounce on it eagerly.

I'll also be unable to pay the internet bill. So in a couple of weeks, that will be gone. I have four or five days' worth of food. After that, nothing. A couple of weeks from now, I'll be in very bad shape. I can't buy other items, either --- like toilet paper. Almost out of it. Well, I have some notebooks where I sometimes write down ideas or issues I'm thinking about (I make lots of notes on the computer, but yes, I occasionally still make notes with an actual pen on actual paper). I can tear some pages out of those notebooks, and use that paper to wipe my ass. I won't be able to flush it down the toilet, so I guess I'll collect it in a bag and throw it out with the garbage.

Donations to the blog are my only source of income. If I'm unable to gather sufficient funds to pay these basic expenses, this is over. I obviously won't have money to move anywhere else, so ... Well, I've known for quite a while that this day might come, if I lived long enough. Frankly, I expected to be dead by now, given the number of physical ailments I contend with, starting, but hardly ending, with a steadily weakening heart. But I am unaccountably still here. And after a long absence, I'm ready to do some writing.

I suppose I could point to some of my articles to try to convince people to make donations. The posts listed under "Major Essays" in the right-hand column should take care of that. And all of those articles contain many links taking you to still more essays. That's what I have to offer. I'd like to offer more along those lines.

Hey, God! Here's an idea: go damn Yourself, you sickening bastard. Now, now, don't worry. I was going to Hell anyway.