You know you're a narcissist if....

You know you're a narcissist if...

Most everything you see is a reflection of yourself

Most everything you say is related to yourself

Most everything you read comes back around to yourself

Most everything you write contains more “I”s than “we”s or any other pronoun

Everything in the universe is organized around you with constant reminders of that

Everything you express is infused with entitlement, however unrecognized

Your needs come first and foremost.

There are countless narcissists in this world, and the only surprise lies not in their banality but when something is not about them.

I had a frightening but revealing dream recently which the video below relates to.  It's synchronicity that I found it soon after my dream.

I've had only a few scary dreams in my life, but this dream had me quite scared and desperate to get away.  I dreamt that I suddenly realized that my former sweetheart, whom I was visiting, was a vampire, and I learned I was the only one who didn't know it.  In the dream I had the sense that he was the kind of person to suck the life out of anyone who cared for him.  A couple of years ago I realized he is a narcissist.  One evening, early in our affair, he had a lack of self-awareness -- or a slip of the tongue -- and freely shared with me that his ex-wife, who had studied psychology, diagnosed him as a narcissist, and he chuckled when he told me.  I, naturally, thought she didn't understand him, but turns out she was correct.  According to Dr. Orloff in the video below, narcissists lack an emotional chip.  My guy often professed to being confused about figuring out how to satisfy another person's (or mine, as the case may be) emotional needs, and that led to much anguish for me.  I remember telling him more than once, "If you don't know what to do, what to say, or how to act, just do what you think a normal person would do."  That didn't really help.

Two years later, sending him out of my life was both the most emotionally painful experience I had ever endured and was the most healthy step I could take.  At the time I believed that pride was behind my decision to break up, but I now believe it was more than that.  I was honoring my own truth.  It was my self-survival and self-caring that I was honoring.  I learned that I can indeed trust myself, and that I deserve true love, not a confusing, unsatisfying narcissistic type of "love."  I'm not that desperate.

Anyway, the video below contains some keen and very interesting and accurate insights into the narcissist (aka an emotional vampire).  According to Dr. Orloff, narcissists lack an emotional chip.  .

I answered yes to four of the questions she read.  Life is full of lessons.  I'm happy to still be living and learning them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxTddQM-d08&feature=share&list=PL841ACBAB19254949    

The Authorized Use of Military Force and giving up power

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/29/187059276/why-obama-wants-to-change-the-key-law-in-the-terrorism-fight

“Almost all of the federal government’s actions against terrorism – from drone strikes to the prison at Guantanamo Bay – are authorized by a single law: the Authorization for Use of Military Force.  Congress passed it just after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.  Now, President Obama says he wants to revise the law, and ultimately repeal it.”

If you consider the president a war criminal, I challenge you to listen to this NPR story above.  The vote in 2001 on the AUMF law was nearly unanimous and that president used it for all it was worth.  You can ignore that this president is working to roll it back and ultimately repeal it despite pressure not to, or that he’s cutting back on drone strikes and devising an official policy, and you can pretend that presidents routinely voluntarily give up power and authority, or you can give Obama some credit.  He tried to close Guantanamo early on and will try again.  People like Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald and other know-it-alls, who have built careers around criticizing Obama, will probably never admit it, but the speech last week and the policies he’s proposed and is committed to are a big deal and positive steps, and the repeal of this law is almost unprecedented. 

I’ve listened to Scahill’s Town Hall lecture three times now, including tonight, and I grow more and more impatient with the selective way he views politics and national security and the excuses he makes for poor, put-upon Anwar al-Awlaki and the sympathetic way he portrays him while ignoring what his mission was, but when you have a book, a movie, or a column dependent on that characterization, you’re not likely to call it into question or admit that perhaps you didn’t have it right after all. 

If you prefer to see the president as a war criminal, that’s your choice.  If you can hear the president say, "We can't keep doing what we're doing because that's not who we are" and not appreciate what that represents, perhaps your inability open your mind means you have a personal agenda that you can't or won't see past.  For some people it's monetary in basis.  Whatever is behind it, you're not alone, but I'm happy not to be included in that crowd.  I wasn't included in the love fest in 2008 and I won't be included in the whine fest this year.

You could give Obama some credit for the patient way he listened to and respected self-aggrandizing Medea Benjamin (who also has a new book out).  Contrary to the view of some, I don’t believe the president is entitled to respect just because s/he holds the office -- we learned this with Bush -- but s/he does deserve it when the president's policies are mostly right and above-board.   And when is the last time YOU heard about somebody in power voluntarily giving some up?
  

SPD answers to the DOJ & the federal court now lol

http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/Cameras/WesternDistrictofWashington.aspx

USA v. City of Seattle, Case No. C12-1282JLR, Status Conference, 3/12/2013, Seattle Courthouse, Seattle, WA, Judge James L. Robart presiding.

Judge Robart is overseeing the Dept of Justice reform of the SPD, and there was a hearing today after weeks of “distractions,” he called them, public fighting between the mayor and city attorney -- deliciously, in the press.  The mayor seems to think he doesn’t have to listen to anybody because he’s a lawyer and he knows best and his lawyer is telling him he doesn’t have to listen to the city attorney.  The city attorney disagrees, naturally, and believes that IT is the precise agency to ensure that the city (police, mayor, et al) are following the law.  Mostly, the distractions are Mayor McGinn and Chief Diaz dragging their feet, kicking and whining instead of signing on to the agreement, as if they can wish it away, as if they aren’t part of the problem in the first place and why a consent decree is now needed. 

That settlement agreement is an agreement to submit to reform or have to give up control of your police department entirely to the federal court, which has been done in several other cities, presumably for the improvement of their police force.  Not so sure about LA…

I love legal stuff, so this is probably more interesting to me than to most, but this video is a rare glimpse into the workings of a federal court right here in Seattle, which, happily, has some proceedings televised. 

The proceedings in this video speak for themselves, but to save time:  There was a presentation by the police monitor, and then advisors to the process (not sure of their roles), a junior DOJ attorney, and the assistant city attorney, and then the judge spoke.  It was the judge’s comments that are, of course, the most interesting, since they control and since he’s a wry wit, but more than that, he seems like a good guy and will oversee the serious reform of the SPD for the first time in its history.  Reform means the police are going to have to fucking change the way they do things and it had better start pretty soon.

It was -- DELIGHTFULLY -- mentioned today that the LAPD found success in its reform around the same time that their police chief was replaced.  I was sitting behind Chief Diaz when I heard that and stole a peek at him as he sat impassively. 

I also found it interesting that City Attorney Pete Holmes did not address the court, leaving that to the assistant city attorney, and so did not grab the spotlight in a setting when it would have been really easy to do so, and that says something about him, what, I’ll leave to you to decide.

Beyond today’s hearing, I got there early and sat in on a public but somewhat personal parole violation hearing of a 54 year old man, on probation or parole (I don’t know which is which) for some kind of bank fraud, cashing checks not his, setting up fraudulent bank accounts to do so, which was all adjudicated, and he’s back in court because he failed to keep up with restitution payments.  He’s doing all the other right things, getting a degree, counseling on his own, is employed supervising others, joining a church community, has a girlfriend, lives near his kids and grandkids – all the right things and more for a black man with a felony.

I sat there listening as unobtrusively as possible, troubled that this man is in trouble for bank fraud when the real criminals in banking who committed unfathomable fraudulent acts on millions of us ruining millions of lives who haven’t set one foot inside a courtroom, and that is the grossest injustice of all.  I thought please don’t let this judge be harsh with this man.…  Please.  I also knew that it would be a case like this where it would be really difficult for me not to show emotion if I were reporting the testimony.  It was difficult just sitting there.

For the government’s side, the probation office lady in the beginning was kind to the defendant, remarking how laudably he’s been living his life.  Later in the hearing, when asked his opinion, the 35 year old male probation officer shared his view, that in spite of all that, we must set an example and there must be consequences for being deceptive, that punishment is needed.

I wish I had recorded this part.  The judge didn’t take too long to tell the defendant that he didn’t see much good in sending him back to jail (his words), so he is going to go easy on him this time, but if he comes back to court, it will go a year back in the detention center, and he wished the defendant a good day.  Very very very happy to hear that and to be reminded that some of our judges believe in redemption and compassion.  Then I had to rush out to the parking meter certain I had a ticket and I didn’t.

This is the same judge who later reminded the Seattle Police Department and everyone that HE alone is in charge of this process and HE is in charge until he says he’s not, so (me paraphrasing) the Seattle Police Union Guild can file all the lawsuits it wants in state court, as it did just yesterday, and that he “awaits with interest” what that court decides to do with it  HA HA  Their timing in filing the lawsuit yesterday, just in time for the judge’s comments today, is HILARIOUS.

The bald-headed guy on the left is Barry and he’s the court reporter and super nice.

That memo on the use of drones

Coming into clearer focus for me is a nagging sense that it’s a bit arrogant to give special protection to an American person, who’s an avowed combatant devoted to harming US citizens, just because he’s American, while we feel freer from a moral standpoint to kill a non-American who threatens us.  What makes an American human being more special than a human being from someplace else?  And further, what makes an American?  In my opinion, someone who’s born in New Mexico and joins al Qaeda and vows to destroy the US and carries out plans to that end is an American in name only.  They have for all intents and purposes renounced his/her citizenship.  A person has a human right to declare their loyalties however they want, which should be respected, and conversely, shouldn’t their vow to renounce their loyalty be taken just as seriously?  Another side of the same coin.

I’m more hawkish than most and don’t wring my hands too much about having to thwart threats with lethal force.  Until war is no more I expect lethal force will be necessary unless we’re willing to capitulate, concede, and surrender.  It’s obvious that combat has changed with technology.  The countries and regions where terrorist plots are hatched, funded, and carried out are very dangerous places, both to civilians (especially women) and soldiers.  So assuming we are combating credible, verifiable threats against the US and our interests, is it reasonable or moral to put our soldiers at risk when we have the technology not to have to do so?  The world has changed, let’s not pretend it hasn’t.

I’m not one to trust my government and never have been, but I’m enjoying this rare moment in history when I do trust this administration, far more than I would another (depending on who it is), so the trouble to me lies in what the next president does with this power.  The courts repeatedly have said it’s up to congress to address this complex situation, and as long as we keep electing Tea Party wing nuts and bigots and obstructionists, and as long as our politicians are beholden money and special interests in order to campaign seriously, nothing will get resolved, not even this most troublesome and pressing issue of the morality or usefulness of drones. 

We need to do more than complain about what we don’t like.  We need to work to get money out of politics and overturn Citizens United.  We need to communicate with and pressure our representatives, and we need to elect pols who will do what they’re hired to do rather than just enriching themselves and feathering their own nests for the future.

I appreciate the administration not lying about or trying to hide the drone program.  With national security, I hope it’s obvious to everyone how important secrecy is and that we shouldn’t expect the whole program to be made public.  However, there could be a oversight panel consisting of administration officials, select members of congress, and federal judges that oversees the program.  But again, if congress can’t be trusted to do their jobs, where does that leave us? 

I hope the upcoming discussions will include in an honest way what we should and will do about threats, before and after they occur.  I’ll be watching the Brennan hearings.

"There's More to Life Than Being Happy"

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/theres-more-to-life-than-being-happy/266805/

^^ I really enjoyed this article: "There's More to Life Than Being Happy," by Emily Esfahani Smith.  It resonated deeply with me and is exactly in line with my thinking on a topic I’ve thought lot about over the years. There are lots of talk and websites and books and FB pages about happiness and how to achieve it and how much we deserve it by virtue of our humanity, and that’s made me cranky because it has always felt to me like an easy cop-out in a privileged life.  Why do we deserve to be happy?  Because we want to be?  Do people who are unhappy due to desperate conditions deserve to be unhappy?  It’s got to cut both ways to be true.  To some, the answer is obvious:  We should be happy because the universe wants us to be.

I believe the universe doesn’t care one way or another.  The universe just is.  We contribute to it, but it exists with or without us.  Our lives and the meaningfulness we make of our lives are our responsibility, but the search for happiness for its own sake is narcissistic and selfish, bluntly put.  And ironically, seeing to our own happiness does not lead to happiness.  Well, it does momentarily, but reality inevitably creeps in.  When we look in the mirror, what do we see if we’re honest? 

The Journal of Positive Psychology authors wrote, “Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life.”  This goes against the popular meme of, Just determine to be happy and the universe will reward you.  I believe if you are giving to others and honor your obligations even when difficult or uncomfortable, your own sense of pride and meaning will reward you.  Viktor Frankl, in “Man’s Search for Meaning,” makes the point that seeking to satisfy our own needs is selfish and serving others and honoring our commitments, even when inconvenient – especially when inconvenient – is what gives our life meaning, and that meaning brings us a deeper kind of happiness in the long run than the momentary pleasures of having fun. 

A lot of today’s popular gurus encourage us to be happy through the power of affirmations and positive self-talk, but affirmations ring hollow if they’re just words without deeds. There has to be something behind them.  “I am a loving (smart, creative, positive) person” must be demonstrated through acts or it’s empty; pablum.  We want more from our lives than pablum.  We want to feel proud, not to stoke our egos but because it helps give our lives meaning; pride in meeting obligations.

So if you’re slogging through life meeting an obligation when you’d rather be doing something else, know that honoring your commitments and living your life authentically may be more difficult in the short term, but in the longer term, you will feel better about yourself, and you should, than if you found reasons not to honor your obligations, distracting yourself with fun.  I am prouder of myself when I do something I should even when I don’t want to.  That kind of pride is valuable.

Find why you are here, what is your gift, what gives your own life meaning, and celebrate and pursue that and share it.  Leo Tolstoy said, “The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity.”  He didn’t say it would be easy.

Protecting Wolves in Washington State

I went into the hearing last night at Sand Point Way concerning Washington State Dept of Fish and Wildlife's wolf management program with a pretty bad attitude, knowing that an entire pack of six (or seven?) wolves were gunned down last year by state officials at the behest of one cattle rancher.  My attitude wasn’t helped when I discovered the warehouse we were in was very cold, nor did learning that the government officials there (state and fed) weren’t taking comments and were only taking written questions.  I complained out loud about all of that.

Over the course of the three hours we were there, to my surprise, I was encouraged by what I perceived to be the knowledge and commitment of the three government biologists and animal experts.  In fact, by the end I was even not annoyed by the four presenters and came to like and admire them and that wasn’t easy to do, especially when I go in loaded for bear, as they say.  There were lots of slides, which I took pictures of and will share somewhere if you want to read them.

Washington State’s wolf management policies are, surprising to me, relatively new, five or six years old.  Wolves were delisted from the federal Endangered Species Act in April 2011, returning management of wolves to the individual states.  In the 1930s wolves were nearly wiped out in North America.  They were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies in the mid ‘90s, over the objections of ranchers and hunters.  Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Minn among other states, are not as humane or farsighted as Washington in managing their wolf populations.

(Ken Salazar stepping down as Interior secretary is probably a good thing.  He’s not been good for wolves, and the president hasn’t been very good on this issue either.)

That being said, I was moderately encouraged by the willingness of state and fed officials to use a variety of non-lethal measures to corral wolves and the success gotten from those methods (whoever heard of fladry and why does it work!?); also their willingness to engage ranchers on a personal, one-on-one level to gain their trust and cooperation.  I listened carefully to the language they used and I appreciated hearing “protection” and “flourishing,” rather than just “management.”  I didn't care for the "bump in the road" describing the killing of the Wedge Pack.  I was encouraged most of all by a couple of frank, off-the-record comments made by the officials after the hearing.  The federal official said that citizens need to keep after state officials and that that isn’t being done enough.  He believes that makes a difference.  (That’s been a common theme this week in my endeavors!)  The state official said (or I interpreted it this way) that the killing of the Wedge Pack last year was a mistake and was handled badly and they learned from it.  We can only hope.  Those killings were also done with no notice to the public, and I was left with the impression that that was illegal or at least against policy.  I hope that officials will not be pressured by ranchers like they were in that awful case.

Both state and federal officials encouraged us to keep in touch with the commission that makes decisions.  I’ll find out information on the commission and will share it.

From the slides we learned that wolves are extremely smart (as we know) and tenacious and hearty, and those characteristics mean they will survive and thrive if even moderately protected.  The officials also acknowledged that even when wolves are eliminated from an area, others fill in in pretty short order.  Today there are wolves in the area where the Wedge Pack lived and were killed; the message to ranchers being there is no point in killing them because others will take their place.  The officials acknowledged that there’s more ranchers need to be doing proactively to mitigate their losses and that they can’t blame every dead cow on a wolf.  There can be cost sharing for some measures.

The long and short of it is we need to keep up on what’s happening and let our officials know our opinions.

On a personal note, as is my lot in life, I am always, without fail, sitting next to the loudest, most obnoxious person at any given venue and last night was no different.  Behind me was an older, overweight man with a grey and white camouflage cap hissing and grumbling when “wolf protection” or “reintroduction” or information of wolves thriving was mentioned.  Two other women around him became annoyed and glared at him while I did my best to ignore him, but when he shared uttered an enthusiastic “Yeah” at a picture of a hunter with a rifle propped up against a dead wolf, I’d had enough.  I turned around and said, “Do you mind?  I’m trying to hear this.  Have some respect!”  And to my surprise he said nothing in response.

Later on, his cell phone rang and he carried on a few minutes of a loud conversation.  I turned around again and “shhhhhh’d” him very loudly.  He didn’t respond but he did hang up.

Later, when the hearing was over, a woman across the aisle said to me, “I’m glad you said something because I was about to throw something at him,” to which I replied, “I’m always the lucky one seated next to the a-hole, everywhere I go, so I’m used to speaking up.”  “Well, I’m glad you did.”  She and I chatted and hugged.  She shared with me the Facebook page listed below, “Howling For Wolves.”

Later, while talking to the officials, said obnoxious guy said to me “I wouldn’t want to run into you in a dark alley,” smiling, to which I replied, “Nah, I’m harmless,” and, feeling generous mostly because I was encouraged, I shook his hand, and I felt we ended the night on a positive note.

Carter Niemeyer was one of the retired federal officials.  He’s retired but still active, sharing his expertise and commitment.  At the end I shared with Carter and Donald and another gentlemen that I came into the meeting pessimistic and skeptical and then was encouraged in ways I had never expected and thanked them for their involvement and commitment.  Here’s Carter:

http://vimeo.com/53829916

Join up and keep informed:https://www.facebook.com/HowlingForWolves


Photos of presentation slides:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151233069848173.464337.655678172&type=1#!/media/set/?set=a.10151233069848173.464337.655678172&type=3

“Better Off Without ‘Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession”

Chuck Thompson at Town Hall in Seattle, Jan 7, 2012

In an effort to win over the audience Thompson gave out gifts, souvenirs from his travels through the South, for answering questions correctly: t-shirts “The South Was Right, Our School is Wrong” (“they’ve got a real stick up their ass about education”), “Unreconstructed Confederate,” “Secede,” a rebel flag bikini (I won the bottoms*), and bumper stickers, “We’re In It For Life,”  “It Ain’t Over,” “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012” from Lynchburg, TN -- he didn’t give that one away because “that just makes me feel shitty.”

Some of the book, he said, is played for laughs, which some people miss, but there’s also a serious angle.

There’s a chapter on economics.  Something many people don’t know: The Boeing Company, since 1947, has been the single largest exporter in this country and remains so today.  Last June the State of AL handed Airbus $60 million in cash and tax breaks as an incentive to build a plant there.  SC, FL, TN have also been trying to get Boeing’s biggest competitor in their states.  Unlike Washington and most other states, AL (and other Southern states) is allowed by their constitution to give Airbus and other corps public funds, i.e., $60 million.  “Right to work” laws, as we know, mean the right to work for less.  Between 1973 and 2007 private-sector union membership went from 34% to 8%.  In that same period, the disparity between ownership and labor grew by 40%, in ownership’s favor.  SC recently won a Dreamliner assembly plant.  With a cheaper labor force and compliant state and local governments, companies are moving there in large numbers, and more people are moving into the South than moving away from it and its rapidly expanding its population base.

For most of history, the South had a broken economic model, but since WWII that’s changed with industries invested in oil and coal.  Thompson shared that he is unapologetically pro-union. 

Religion is the first chapter in the book because as far as the author is concerned, it’s the foundation of a lot of social thought, policies, and politics, and religion seems to seep into virtually every aspect of Southern life.  It’s what separates Southern states from Northern states.  The obvious argument is there are religious kooks in all 50 states, and there are, but only in the South can people run for office campaigning on explicitly religious grounds with a reasonable expectation of winning.

The Southern Poverty Law Center in AL looks like an impenetrable compound.  There have been twenty-six attempts to bomb it since it was built in the ‘70s.  On that same street is the first white house of the confederacy, along with the state capitol building.  Most SPLC employees are under 24-hour security at work and at their homes.

Thompson interviewed John Howard, a former grand dragon of the KKK, who runs “The Redneck Shop” in SC across the street from the county courthouse.  Thompson has been criticized for including Howard in the book and for being too harsh on Southern culture.  Thompson recounted several recent stories of hate crimes and racist statements by public officials.  A 2011 poll of SC republicans revealed that 46% said interracial marriage should be illegal.  (Thompson wonders why the question was even asked.)  In 2012, in a poll of likely voters, 34% said either it should be illegal or they weren’t sure.  Thompson:  “Fuck it.  I’m not going to be all polite and sit here and ignore this stuff.”

Five storefronts from John Howard is an African American barbershop.  Thompson asked one of the patrons if Howard is an anomaly, or does he represent popular thinking.  The answer is in the book J on p. 112 or thereabouts.  In the South, if you ask a question of a white resident and the same question of a black resident, the answers reveal it’s as though you’re living in a different country.  This experience was replicated over and over for the author.**

Around 2001 there was a controversy about the confederate flag being on top of the SC state capitol.  It was ultimately removed and the compromise included moving to fly in front of the capitol in what looks like a shrine, enjoying a more conspicuous location and lit up at night.

The author showed pictures of statutes and memorials to the confederacy and white supremacy, one of which included a memorial to former SC governor, Ben Tillman, one of the most vehement white supremacists this country has ever produced, who publicly advocated lynching and voter suppression.  “We have scratched our heads to find out how we can eliminate every last one of them.  We stuffed ballot boxes, we shot them.  We are not ashamed of it.”  To be fair, there are Southern memorials to civil rights, just not as many.  The “it ain’t over” and “we were right” mentality is very much alive.

The Japanese American Memorial to Patriotism in Wash, DC and dedicated by President Reagan in 1988, is inscribed: "Here we admit a wrong.  Here we affirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law."  That is how you achieve healing and brotherhood.

The South didn’t always believe all government is evil.  Louisiana Populist Huey Long’s campaign slogan twice was “The Great Share Our Wealth Society.”  Southerners do love their highways and bridges and hospitals and football stadiums, all built with public funds as though they appeared out of nowhere.

Defenders of the necessity of the Civil War insist that it was fought over states’ rights, but Thompson points out that right was the right to own slaves, to protect an economy based on slave labor.  According to “Apostles of Disunion” by Charles Dew, the secession documents of virtually every Southern state mentions slavery in the first line or paragraph of their proclamation.

Thompson took many questions, one from a man from NC whose family has been there since before the revolution and grew up hearing about secession and glories of the war and knowing first-hand what war does to a culture, everyone, not just the slaves but those who fought.  His relatives were confederates.  “I’m not saying it was right, but… war is an awful thing and the effects last for generations and generations.  They came through and burned my hometown to the ground.  They weren’t doing good things there, but this rhetoric that inflames people – and this right here with the joking and everything like that, that we should secede from the Union, that’s really dangerous.”

Thompson responded politely, that the majority in a society should be able to govern their society in a way they see fit.  “I’m sick and tired of people like Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor and Newt Gingrich having such an impact on ‘my country,’ similar to others being tired of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but shouldn’t the majority opinion matter?  This country is in gridlock and I’m sick of it.  You know what?  You want to secede?  Fine, do it.  I’m frustrated.  At the same time I know it’s not going to happen.”

One audience member noted that successful secessionist movements are not unprecedented and cited Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, South Sudan, Slovakia, Soviet Union.  Thompson said this book discusses the practicalities of how it might work here, but was mostly interested in showing that the South has become a very different society than the rest of the country. 

Another audience member said it’s not a north-south thing so much as a spiritual bankruptcy in the US that allows and permits peace-loving people to be assassinated while Lindsey Graham and others who are obstructionists can prevent the rest of us from living our lives in the way we would like to live.  “They are the problem and they are spiritually bankrupt.”  (There was much applause.)  The author agreed.  This isn’t an entirely Southern problem, but that is where the stronghold comes from, a Southern ethos hardwired into those states since the 1700s.  Btw, there was a lot of Southern resistance to joining the US early on.

When asked what surprised him the most in his southern travels, Thompson said how impossible it is to study the South as it exists today without including the Civil War, reconstruction, or Jim Crow, as Thompson initially wanted to do.  He quoted William Faulkner: “The past is not dead.  In fact, it’s not even past.”  “You can’t avoid it and I was forced to deal with it.”  The Civil War stays with people, as the gentleman said earlier.  Thompson noted that he and other Northerners had ancestors killed in the war, “but we don’t feel it as personally as Southerners do.”

Thompson isn’t urging people to do any particular thing.  The book is “just a big frustrated bitch about secession.”  He’s not trying to crusade to get people to do anything, except maybe to buy the book.

*I won the bikini bottoms but tried to wave it off because I really dislike that symbol.  I gave it away, and wouldn’t you know, a half hour into the talk I was a little sorry that I had.  When the talk was over, the gentleman I handed it to left it behind on the seat, so maybe he guessed I might want it back.  So I have that ridiculous souvenir.

**It is noteworthy and bitterly ironic that the video making the rounds today (January 10, 2013) comes out of Tennessee, the angry Mr. Yeager ranting about his guns and threatening "another civil war" if they're "taken away."  "Fuck that" he says.  One inch closer and he's ready to kill someone.  (ETA: his permit to carry firearms has today been revoked by the feds. lol) 

Meeting Chuck Thompson

Addendum later that same night:  I started the book this afternoon, am about 20 pages in, and it's quite hilarious.  I've chuckled or laughed at every page.  It's also skillfully written and rigorously researched, and I would not call it mean-spirited.  I call it a frank look at a part of the country which is and has always been, let's just say not our highest selves as a nation-state. Most of all, it's HI-larious.



You'll not be seeing me in this lol