Category Archives: Politics

Bob Shell: Civil War-Part Two

Civil War

Text by Bob Shell, Copyright 2020


Civil War-Part Two


As I write in September of the end of the second decade of the Twenty-first Century, there is much talk in the media of a second civil war. How this will turn out is anybody’s guess right now, but if the unrest descends into war, it will not be a second civil war, because there is yet to be a first civil war on American soil. Yes, you heard me right, the war in the 1860s was NOT a civil war. A civil war is, by definition, a war between opposing factions within one country.

”The War Between the States’, or as it is often called here in the South, ‘The War of Northern Aggression,’ or, as I prefer, ‘Lincoln’s War,’ was fought between two sovereign countries, the United States of America (USA) and the Confederate States of America (CSA). The CSA was recognized, and had treaties of alliance with numerous other countries, England and Russia in particular, and had a properly ratified peace treaty with the USA.

Before the USA was formed, each state was essentially a separate country, like the countries that make up the European Union (EU), sometimes called the ‘United States of Europe,’ today. It is a well-established historical fact that when Virginia joined the USA, she reserved the right to leave the Union at any time.

If you’ve paid attention to international news for the past few years, you know about BREXIT, the decision by Britain to leave the EU. Britain, like Virginia, reserved the right to leave the EU when joining.

You don’t see Brussels sending an armed invasion force across the Channel to England to force them to come back into the European Union, do you? But that’s exactly what Lincoln did when he sent troops across the Potomac to invade Virginia. It was an illegal invasion of another country, a country with which the USA had signed a peace treaty. Bet you didn’t learn those uncomfortable truths in your history classes, did you? I did, at Virginia Tech in the 1960s.

Napoleon called history “a pack of lies agreed upon by the historians,” and that’s what history as taught in American schools today is. It is as factual as the history that used to be taught in the old Soviet Union, or in China today. I’ve seen the history books used today and sat down with young family members to talk about history. The pure PC nonsense our children are being taught today is both inaccurate and dangerous. If I had children, I would not subject them to this so-called education. The downfall of the USA may well be caused from within while our enemies laugh at our ignorance. Knowledge is power, but only when it is real knowledge. Belief in myth is weakness.

As George Santayana is so often quoted, “Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.” Our educational institutions today are engaged in a wholesale revision of history having damned little to do with truth.

My several times great grandfather, Hugh McCracken, enlisted in the 33rd Virginia Infantry at the start of Lincoln’s War. He fought bloody battles, saw horrible sights, and came home to his farm to raise a family. I wouldn’t be here otherwise. My family has his war diary, and I’ve read it. There’s a word that appears nowhere in that bloodstained diary: slavery. Hugh was not fighting to preserve slavery, he was fighting to protect his homeland from foreign invaders.

My ancestors were Appalachian farmers, mostly so-called Scotch-Irish, who’d come to America to find new lives without a King’s yoke around their necks. They didn’t own slaves, couldn’t afford them if they’d wanted them. Ours was not the South of massive plantations, it was the South of small subsistence farms.

There is such a thing as Southern Heritage, and it pains me deeply to see it systematically destroyed by ignorance.

When I lived in Richmond in the late 1960s, I used to walk around Monument Avenue to appreciate the heroic statues and monuments. I was particularly impressed with the Robert E. Lee monument and statue. Lee, my namesake and distant cousin, was my childhood hero, a genuine gentleman.

After the war a big publisher offered Lee a lot of money for his memoirs. Mark Twain had been hired to co-author them. Lee turned down this lucrative offer because he said it would not be proper to make money off the blood of his men.

The publisher then took the offer to Grant, who took the money. That tells us the measure of the two men.

It is well-known that Lee welcomed a Black man to his church in Lexington, and knelt to pray with him before the scandalized congregation.

It is wrong to try to judge men of the past by the standards of today. Almost none would measure up.


About The Author: Bob Shell is a professional photographer, author and former editor in chief of Shutterbug Magazine. He is currently serving a 35 year sentence for involuntary manslaughter for the death of Marion Franklin, one of his former models.  He is serving the 13th year of his sentence at Pocahontas State Correctional Facility, Virginia. To read Bob Shell’s, first essay on civil war, click here:

Editor’s Note: If you like Bob Shell’s blog posts, you’re sure to like his new book, COSMIC DANCE by Bob Shell (ISBN: 9781799224747, $ 12.95 book, $ 5.99 eBook) available now on . The book, his 26th, is a collection of essays written over the last twelve years in prison, none published anywhere before. It is subtitled, “A biologist’s reflections on space, time, reality, evolution, and the nature of consciousness,” which describes it pretty well. You can read a sample section and reviews on

Also posted in Blog, commentary, Documentary, Men, Popular Culture

Pat Breslin: How The Left and Right Are Born

Photo: Tony Ward, Copyright 2020


Text by Pat Breslin, Copyright 2020


Inside The Partisan Brain


Difference of Opinion

Coke versus Pepsi. Ford versus Chevy. Conservative versus Liberal. The first set of choices matters little in the grand scheme of things except for those who manufacture, market, sell, and drink carbonated beverages. The second set of choices is more significant since the products are machines containing live human beings moving at high velocity which must be kept safe. The third set reflects the way people want to be led and governed, and the kinds of freedom they desire. For this, there are many more issues to be considered than the obvious: candidates and their policies.

It’s not an oversimplification to say that all opinions and decisions about politicians and their actions, along with opinions on any subject that human beings can ponder, arise within the brain. That angle seldom occurs to most people. Also, the impact of the culture in which people live, and their own personal growth within that culture, influence how the brain develops and by extension how people think about everything, including the decision of who to vote for. Few people think about that either, but these considerations carry enormous impact in politics. We will look at a couple of experts’ opinions on the brain, personal development, and politics.

Cognitive Science

George Lakoff, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at the University of California at Berkeley, has written several books analyzing brain function with regard to persuasion and political disagreement. He notes that people live their lives according to narratives that define how they see themselves and the world around them. According to Lakoff, the roles and contexts within which we characterize ourselves are frames. Inside of your own frame, you might define yourself as Parent, Spouse, Professional, Sibling, Student, Christian, Jew, Republican, Democrat, Hero, Victim, or any number of labels. The frame “Hero” may be projected onto a soldier, a celebrity, a frontline worker during a pandemic, and so on. Depending on the situation and context, the frame “Victim” might apply equally to these same individuals. Meanings and labels shift when context changes.

We create connections in our brains that construct the components which determine how our framed concepts apply to people or circumstances. We view the world and our place in it according to many conceptual metaphors supported by frames. For example, the notion of a left-to-right scale in American politics is a metaphor.1


When we think about our roles and the roles of others—what it means to be a parent, spouse, hero, etc.—, we forge physical links between the brain cells that sustain the concepts themselves. This is called neural binding.2 We create brain structures that support and then become our worldview. “Neurons that fire together wire together.” The more time and energy we devote to thinking about the connections we understand, the more deeply ingrained those thinking patterns become because we strengthen their links every time we contemplate them.

Suppose I strongly believe that, as a member of my political party, I should support a certain stance on an issue. When I think about the issue, and if my thinking is reinforced by input from like-minded members of my party, I embed those opinions into my mind. If I think about them so often that my brain self-wires around a belief supporting a specific side of a controversy, my perspectives will become strongly entrenched within that particular view. In the process I may mentally construct a neural framework so tightly wound that it actually blocks rational rebuttal. If I am then presented with a factual and statistically uncontestable counterargument disproving what I’ve believed, I may be genuinely unable to process it or recognize any validity in it, and may immediately toss it aside as nonsense or, to use a more recently popular label, fake news.3 If the data don’t support concepts I already trust, I may see them as worthless. Lakoff states that

“Concepts are not things that can be changed just by someone telling us a fact. We may be presented with facts, but for us to make sense of them, they have to fit what is already in the synapses of the brain. Otherwise facts go in and then they go right back out. They are not heard, or they are not accepted as facts, or they mystify us: Why would anyone have said that? Then we label the fact as irrational, crazy, or stupid.”4

A person’s automatic rejection of a fact that doesn’t line up with an existing worldview would fit Lakoff’s definition of what constitutes a reflexive response—a knee jerk reaction—rather than a reflective response that involves setting aside one’s biases to look deeper into the subject and to consider a different perspective.5

This inability to cognize or consider the value of others’ view crops up in the minds of those who occupy the far left and the far right on the political scale. Most of those afflicted with polarized vision don’t even know that they suffer from it. Dismissing partisanized information that they regard as nonsense feels like a perfectly normal thing to do.

One of the first frame structures we come to understand, according to Lakoff, is family: the combined concepts of parents, siblings, and one’s own role as a child. As we grow up and our view of life expands, we may come to project the Family metaphor onto a larger group. We often see our nation as a family, and the government, or our President, as the parent.6 In his studies on how this framing of Government-as-Parent might relate to partisan views, Lakoff determined after extensive research that one’s perspective often reflects an individual’s own family, or their concept of what a family is supposed to look like: The nation is the family, the government is the parent, and the citizens are family members.7 In 1970, upon the death of the longtime and well-loved former President of France, Charles de Gaulle, his successor, Georges Pompidou, announced, “Charles de Gaulle is dead. France is a widow.”8 This is a powerful example of the family metaphor applied to government.

In examining people’s values, Lakoff examined political differences with regard to the Nation-as-Family metaphor, and he discovered that people adhere to one of two basic frames. One is the Strict Father model. This is based on the concept that the father must protect the family—because the mother cannot—, so he works hard to take care of them and imposes strict authority to keep everyone safe. To ensure that his potentially wayward children learn to properly navigate and prosper within our competitive world, they must obey first the father, then the mother, and adhere to family rules. For the child’s own good, punishment is administered when rules are not followed.

The other model is the Nurturant Parent. In this approach both parents equally support the children with guidance and empathy, teaching self-responsibility and caring for others. The father and mother are equal partners; one person does not dominate the other. In this model, both parents empower and protect their progeny, and teach them the value of empathy.

According to Lakoff’s detailed research, conservatives project the Strict Father model onto official authority. The government, or the President, becomes the Decider who issues the rules. (In a 2006 interview, George W. Bush famously referred to himself as “the Decider,” and it stuck.)9 Citizens comply with authority in order to uphold the security of the nation. Obedience is mandatory, and disobedience is punished. Liberals, on the other hand, project the Nurturant Parent model onto government, envisioning an administration that provides protection, empowerment, and community, and requiring those who disobey to redirect their energy to the support of the community.

Lakoff notes that this is not his opinion of how things ought to be. Years of research and analysis on his part indicate that this is how things are.

The essential difference between the two camps is this: conservatism emphasizes authority and obedience to rules, while liberalism emphasizes empathy and self-responsibility. The concept of empathy is a necessary precursor to the ideal presented in the Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal,” though even today the intended outcome of that ideal has not been fully achieved (ask any black American).

Discussing the metaphor of moral order, Lakoff observes an emergence of power hierarchies in history. These align with the Strict Father model, and lead to attitudes such as “… Western Culture above Non-Western culture, America above other nations, Men above Women, Whites above non-Whites, Straights above Gays, Christians above non-Christians,” and so on.10 These are dominator hierarchies: one group attempts to rule, control, or suppress another.

Interestingly, Lakoff’s research on these polarized perspectives and hierarchical views of human behavior and government/family metaphors align perfectly well with, and are fully substantiated by, the work of another researcher whose writing focuses on something completely different.

Levels of Development

Philosopher Ken Wilber has written more than two dozen books on the study of the phenomenon of consciousness. He has created a format of understanding to provide a context for all human experience. He calls it “AQAL,” an acronymical contraction of “All Quadrants, All Levels, All Lines, All States, All Types.”11 Each of these perspectival categories is well worth learning about and provides enormous insight into everyday experience. But for this article, we will look at just one of them: the Levels.

Wilber has extensively reviewed the studies of developmentalists who research the stages of growth that individuals and societies pass. This has taken place in the context of psychology, linguistics, ethics, history, anthropology, and religion, all synthesized by Wilber into a comprehensive and overarching framework. Whether you look at individual or societal evolution, the stages remain the same and run mostly parallel from one field of study to the next. Researchers commonly identify seven to nine levels of development, and these can be grouped into three primary categories: Egocentric, Ethnocentric, and Worldcentric.

Egocentric:  From early infancy until around the age of seven, most children’s awareness occupies the level known as Egocentric.  For youngsters, the world is all about me and my things; “I’m a superhero; I’m a princess; I’m a dinosaur; here are my toys, my bike, my family, my friends,” and so on. The child’s perspective is largely unidirectional, seeing the world primarily from one point of view. Usually, children have not yet learned how to see the world as others see it; they are not “other-oriented.” (Occasionally, some children fail to outgrow this Egocentric perspective. These are often the individuals who later become bullies, and, perhaps much later, criminals.)

Ethnocentric:  Beginning roughly around the age of seven, and continuing through the teen years and beyond, most people occupy another stage: Ethnocentric, the belief or conviction that the group to which they belong is the best and most desirable. This is an expansion of compassion, in which the child’s awareness shifts from me to us. “Our family, our friends, our school, our team, our religion, our race, our nation.” Oftentimes this view takes on an exclusivist stance: “Our group is the best in the world, better than all the others.” The majority of adults—70% of the world’s population—function within this perspective from adulthood to the grave.12

Worldcentric:  Some people at the Ethnocentric stage experience yet another growth of compassion that lets them transcend their own group, and shift to a more inclusive level known as Worldcentric, in which an individual’s perspective evolves from “me” to “us” to “all of us.”  A person looking at humanity from the Worldcentric perspective sees commonality between all the peoples of Earth—“We all bleed red”—, and empathically acquires a more pronounced other-oriented perspective.

Different terms have been coined by developmentalists to refer to these three levels:13

—pre-rational, rational, trans-rational

—pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional

—selfish, care, universal care

Note that each level in the above image grows into the next one as an elevation and expansion of compassion. We may also state that each level transcends and includes those that precede it. These are regarded as nested hierarchies.

Hierarchies take two forms. One, noted above in Lakoff’s example, is a dominator hierarchy: Men above Women, Whites above non-Whites, Straights above Gays, Christians above non-Christians, and so on. The other is a growth hierarchy, as seen in everyday transformations: caterpillar to butterfly, acorn to oak, fetus to baby to child to teen to adult, and—culturally and psychologically—, Egocentric to Ethnocentric to Worldcentric. One hierarchy oppresses, the other evolves. For now we will examine the top two developmental levels, and return to the lowest one later.

Wilber and the researchers summarized in his studies14 say that people in the Ethnocentric category see the world in terms of authority and purpose. They believe in an authoritarian entity, such as a king, a God, or a controlling government, which wields power and decrees that rules be followed and laws be obeyed for the good of society. Historically, this perspective dominated human culture from approximately 5,000 years ago 15 until the dawn of the European Enlightenment in the 1700s.16

Lakoff and Wilber both note that the Enlightenment gave birth to Liberalism.17 This came about as a reaction to dominator hierarchies. The Enlightenment rebellion was supposed to free us from the dictates of religions and kings, and also to recognize the importance of reason as the guiding force of human affairs. Reason was destined to make us all equal and free, allowing for the creation of government based on “the rational interests of all citizens;” it would allow government to follow the luminous guidance of science and to structure itself in democracy.18  Lakoff states that “Our Constitution is in large part based on the intellectual tools and ideas inherited by its framers from Enlightenment thinkers.” He adds, “Those tools and ideas are no longer adequate.”19 We’ll revisit this shortly.

The characteristics of Wilber’s Ethnocentric level match up with Lakoff’s Strict Father/Conservative Government model. Pre-Enlightenment government functioned under the control of a king, who in turn was nominally ruled by God; this was a nearly universal metaphor for a monarchical hierarchy. Most people living in this environment would not have entertained the thought of any alternative parental model to the Strict Father, or the system of government that it reflects. They were accustomed to the dominator hierarchy.

The Strict Father/Conservative Government model fits into the Ethnocentric framework like a door into a wall. The latter fully supports the dominator hierarchy that the former promotes.

Post-Enlightenment Compassion

Liberalism born of the Enlightenment gave people the initiative to think in terms of reason, to employ logic and science, and to seek answers rationally rather than emotionally or under kingly command. It also gave them societal permission and impetus to fight injustice because they felt compassion for those oppressed, for those held down by dominator hierarchies. If this expansion of compassion were to be mapped alongside Wilber’s levels, and if you were to add the customary left-to-right political metaphor rotated 90 degrees clockwise to reflect the levels of compassion within it, you would get this:

Please note that the placement of “Conservative” at the lower end of the spectrum on the right is not meant to be an insult. It is a measurement of available compassion, historically and psychologically proven to be in short supply at that stage. Like acquiring vocabulary, it increases over time. We don’t start out in life with a surplus of words or compassion. We all begin at the lowest end, the Egocentric level, where “Everything is all about me.” Attaining the next level up, identifying with “people who are like me,” requires that you first acquire compassion for those people, which comes naturally to most of us. Within the context of that level, it almost makes sense to try to ensure an ongoing supply of compassion for oneself by distrusting outsiders who might take it away—a less than mature view of emotion, but basic survival supersedes the understanding of feelings.

To take the next step up, to cultivate global compassion for those outside of one’s group, requires immersion in or exposure to an environment which provides multiple perspectives on living, an environment which teaches and promotes that differentness is acceptable and even desirable. You become Worldcentric only when those around you are already there; otherwise, you remain embedded in the Ethnocentric worldview of your contemporaries. (Rare exceptions occur; Jesus comes to mind.)

These are all stages of growth, and we attain them sequentially. In the process, we see that those who occupy the lower stages that we’ve outgrown may need nurturing and support. You wouldn’t belittle a small child for being a small child, and you wouldn’t berate a 20 year old for not having the same life experiences as a 40 year old. If the small child is misbehaving, an adult would hopefully step up and humanely correct the problem. However, if an adult maligns or mistreats specific groups of people solely because they’re outsiders, and does so within a community that doesn’t think mistreatment of outsiders is a proper approach, conflicts will arise. This is where Ethnocentric and Worldcentric clash.

A side note: If you haven’t already suspected it, the levels don’t understand each other, and therefore don’t get along well. Egocentric individuals regard Ethnocentrics as fools for not solely looking out for number one and for focusing on the wellbeing of others in their own group instead. Moreover, they see Worldcentrics as tree-hugging hippies. Ethnocentric individuals disdain Egocentrics as selfish brutes, and Worldcentrics as, again, tree-hugging hippies. Egocentrics are seen as selfish brutes by Worldcentrics, who also regard Ethnocentrics as discriminatory and oppressive.

But there is a place where the latter two groups overlap, in what amounts to Worldcentric Part One. Before the current egalitarian version of Worldcentrism—the tree-hugging hippie phase—made its debut, a preliminary component took the stage for a couple of centuries. (A developmental timeline on this will be provided shortly.)

The description of levels was interpolated from the Psychological Map of Dr. Clare Graves, adapted by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan, creators of the Spiral Dynamics(R) program. They used colors as a type of visual shorthand. Wilber followed suit, assigning amber to the Ethnocentric level and green to the broader category of the next level up. This latter stage, prior to blossoming into its current form, was presaged by a slightly different incarnation which could be called Achievist, with orange as its assigned hue. For the moment, we’ll refer to the phase that grew out of that level as Egalitarian or green. To clarify, Achievist and Egalitarian are the two levels within the Worldcentric domain, which is one step up from Ethnocentric.

With the rise of the European Enlightenment came the idea that people could do things differently than before. They could cast off the yoke of oppression and explore new possibilities in work and personal attainments. This was the Achievist level. Empowering and empowered by the oncoming industrial revolution, with the scientific revolution thrown in for good measure, many members of society flourished in a newly discovered mechanistic universe that promised material gain. Laws of science were applied to the economy, politics, and human activities.20 Those who worked smarter in this domain succeeded. The falling away of Ethnocentric oppressions freed many to reach for new horizons.

The authoritarian Ethnocentric level had created mighty civilizations during the preceding centuries, and its members are defined by more than their occasional repression of outsiders. They were also highly industrious. For this reason, Ethnocentrics had good reason to celebrate this new Enlightenment-based impetus to thrive. The idea that hard work will produce success for oneself and hence for the family that one supports is a perfect moral frame for the Achievist level of consciousness. Lakoff states that “…the strict father model links morality with prosperity. The same discipline you need to be moral is what allows you to prosper. The link is individual responsibility and the pursuit of self-interest.”21 Here within the Achievist stage, the controlling self-discipline of the Strict Father/Ethnocentric level and the freedom-from-oppression mindset of the Nurturing Parent/Egalitarian level found common ground for a long time.

But not forever. As the decades passed and empathic people saw that oppression still existed, most notably against women and people of African descent (though many other groups suffered as well), changes seeped into Western society. Beginning in the mid-1800s, abolitionists and women suffragists made their voices heard in a gradually ascending howl. Newly emerging Egalitarianism was gearing up for a fight.


Lakoff discusses the Enlightenment view of reason: “conscious, literal, logical, universal, unemotional, disembodied, and [it] serves self-interest.” Many of these characteristics have been internalized by liberals, especially Neoliberals, who see them as indispensable guidelines for making decisions and for justifying behaviors. But cognitive science shows that the brain doesn’t automatically follow such guidelines. Lakoff’s research indicates that 98% of thought is unconscious, much of it embedded as metaphor, and based upon frames, all tied into feelings.22 To put it another way, it becomes visceral: you feel it in your gut. It’s not a form of abstract thought, and hence not consciously manipulated. The type of thinking by which people decide what’s important doesn’t happen on the surface of awareness, though we like to pretend otherwise. Many liberals, and especially liberal politicians, try to employ logic structures as tools of influence, and many don’t succeed at it.

A liberal himself, Lakoff is frustrated with the lack of understanding on the part of most liberals as to how this works, or fails to work. He is disappointed that his cohorts are unskilled at the art of persuasion, especially when contrasted with the effective way political conservatives manage to pull it off.

He notes that during the second half of the 20th Century, conservatives began joining forces for their common benefit. Setting aside their differences, they became well organized, and over the years they created conservative think tanks, funded university professorships, established foundations, trained conservative spokespeople, and generated entire bodies of literature explaining and justifying conservative values. They stumbled upon and then ultimately mastered the science of structuring vocabulary around the values that hit home with large numbers of people.23 Many Americans on the receiving end of conservative messages have embraced those values, which often refer to patriotism, authority, freedom, and family, ideas all laden with emotion—embedded within frames—, which are inescapably interior. Right-wing American citizens, in the process of absorbing and aligning themselves with this, have developed a unified identity whose burgeoning solidarity has caused the national metric of partisanship to shift toward the right for the last few decades. What used to be moderate is now seen as leftist, and what used to be somewhat conservative is now centrist.24

It didn’t occur to most liberal politicians to try linking their ideas to emotions. Even though their primary motivation has always been compassion—an interior emotional trait—, they’ve tended to be well-educated logical thinkers who prefer to employ tools of reason—exterior attributes—to get their points across. But they didn’t relate those points to people’s feelings or to the metaphorical images that make up the foundations of people’s worldviews. They assumed that stating ideas logically was enough. It wasn’t. Liberals have been largely ignorant of ways to connect their platforms to value-framed emotions, which lie at the core of decision making. Focusing on exterior concepts and ignoring interior feelings, they didn’t know how to bind lofty thoughts to people’s hearts.


During the last few decades while conservative politicians cunningly swayed people’s perspectives with framed emotions dressed as political narrative, and liberal politicians were wondering why more people weren’t listening to them, our country was evolving its way through a cultural revolution. Years of simmering discontent beginning in the mid-1800s led up to the culture wars of the 1960s, where protests were fueled with revolutionary zeal. Women’s liberation, black power, gay rights, and other initiatives came to a boil, with liberal green Egalitarianism turning up the heat. Laws were passed, obstructions removed, and justice established in places that had not known it before. Women’s rights were expanded to include greater access to equal pay and reproductive options, African-Americans achieved desegregation in businesses, gay Americans advanced anti-discrimination legislation, and other marginalized citizens experienced new degrees of inclusiveness.

Recall that these changes reflect and are driven by the growth of compassion, which focuses initially on oneself, then one’s group, then the world. In order to manifest this in society, compassion had to be converted into policy and law. But in the moment compassion is legislated into legal directives and sent forth to transform the world, it becomes an exteriorized feature which is unmindful of the significant interior factors that generated it in the first place.

Liberal inclusiveness mandated that no one should be left out, that everyone should be equally valued and cherished. This created a problem. Liberalism’s belief that no group’s values should be disrespected or devalued, and that all should be on equal footing, reveals the failure of almost all liberals to recognize that the compassion which empowered this enterprise did not exist in the lower levels to which equal value was now granted and to whose members the idea of reciprocating in kind was entirely alien. Wilber defines this as a performative contradiction, 25 a structurally flawed initiative which, in the process of carrying out its mission, shoots itself in the foot. He states that

“From the beginning, liberalism therefore misunderstood the genesis of its own stance. It failed to grasp the fact that liberal values arise only through a series of interior, nested, hierarchical stages of growth—and liberal values are fairly late-emerging values at that (…red to amber to orange, at which point liberal values begin to emerge…). Therefore liberalism—because it was in fact a postconventional, worldcentric, universal wave of fairness, justice, and tolerance—immediately extended to all the other stages the status of equal value, even when those lower stages, such as red and amber, had no intention of returning the favor—and, in fact, were they in power, would crush liberalism as soon as they possibly could. And every time those lower stages do come into power today, the first thing they attack and attempt to eradicate is liberal freedoms.26

Borrowing from the vocabulary of Beck and Cowan, Wilber labels each of the growth hierarchy levels as memes. The green Egalitarian meme has its own fringe element. This subset of Egalitarianism which demands that the noninclusive world immediately and fully embrace universal inclusivity is called the mean green meme.27 Lakoff, from his unique vantage point within the field of linguistics and cognitive science, recognizes the exact same phenomenon and identifies it with the more verbose yet equally poetic moniker of authoritarian antiauthoritarianism.28 Green Egalitarian liberalism, possessing greater compassion, should be able to promote universal fairness and guide society to more advanced stages of development. But the attempt to force inclusiveness upon individuals who lack the heart for it, who don’t feel or grasp the compassion behind it, creates backlash. Trying to compel people to climb to higher ground when they can’t understand that their lives would be better up there is like herding cats. They don’t comply because they don’t see a reason.

While all this is going on, amber Ethnocentrics fight other amber Ethnocentrics—ethnic groups, races, nations, factions, religions, denominations—, and then they clash with green Egalitarians who want to fix them. Amber yells, “We’re right, we’re superior because we’re right, and you are guilty of not being us!“, while green demands that everyone love everyone else, and then becomes exasperated when no one listens. For this reason, Wilber feels that green is broken.29 But there are other levels yet to discuss, and other contexts to consider.

The developmental level you occupy is one that you’ve grown into from the level below it. Compassion tends to increase in the heart of the average person, and so we move up. We don’t regress downward except in crisis. Many Worldcentric Americans took a step back to Ethnocentric on September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by Islamist terrorists. For months thereafter, rallying cries of “USA! USA!” were ubiquitous. Flag vendors made a fortune, patriotism swept the land, and anti-Muslim bias was omnipresent, because almost no one at the time knew the difference between Muslims who, like most Christians, are good people, and Islamists who don the cloak of religion to justify war. (Amber within amber: you can’t get more Ethnocentric than that.)

Within the two domains of amber Ethnocentrism and green Egalitarianism—that is, among conservatives and liberals —there are many wonderful people (a majority, in fact) who love their country and society. Two superb examples in American government in recent memory have been, respectively, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Good people such as they constitute the mainstream population on both sides of the aisle, despite their myriad detractors. But each category, each party, is afflicted with its own uncivil fringes and offshoots whose members and whose media describe the other group in hateful terms that, if believed, become part of the neural binding and cognitive dissonance of those who absorb the message as truth.

We often hear individuals in the media, and in our own communities, using generalized, derogatory vocabulary against those who they consider to be their political opponents, slamming the entire group as essentially evil or unpatriotic—“The Left wants to destroy this country!” “Right-wingers want to stamp out human rights!” If you hear someone claim that most if not all of American conservatives (121 million) or liberals (79 million)30 are misguided, mistaken, unbalanced, unhinged, and flawed human beings, then pay close attention to how you react. If you question what you hear, and if you recognize that the rhetoric doesn’t provide an accurate picture of the people being described, then your objectivity is intact and you can trust your reasoning. However, if the sweeping deprecations aimed at the other group sound plausible to you, be aware that your sensibility has been compromised, and fairness and objectivity are not presently part of your mental wiring. In other words, if you feel only antagonism, antipathy, general dislike, or even hate for millions of “them,” the problem is you—meaning that you don’t know enough about “them” or you.

Sadly, there are many citizens, and the occasional rare politician, who dwell on a lower level, functioning within a red Egocentric domain, and hauling down multiple amber Ethnocentrics with them, while completely (and intentionally) alienating green Egalitarians. When they feel they’re under attack, they exhibit two behaviors: (a) shifting blame for negative repercussions of their actions onto others, and (b) hurling multiple insults at targeted individuals on an endless basis. This latter behavior, name-calling, is their super power. If you see someone demonstrate an ongoing pattern of badmouthing multiple people, you have identified a denizen of the lowest developmental level. Listen to them at your peril; if you buy what they’re selling, you may be seduced into a feeling of righteousness which is just hate in drag.


As previously noted, one characteristic shared by all the levels is that they don’t understand each other. Occupants of each level don’t grasp the worldviews of outsiders. Subjectively, everyone feels justified in their beliefs, and often resent all the other people who “just don’t get it.” This applies not only to the summarized “big three” categories of Egocentric, Ethnocentric, and Worldcentric, but to the sublevels that comprise them. They are depicted here as strata:


To summarize their perspectives:31

—The bottom beginner level, Archaic/Instinctual, applies to newborn infants, Alzheimer’s patients, and mentally ill street people,  who focus on food, water, comfort, and basic survival. This also constituted the perspectival level of consciousness in human survival bands around 100,000 years ago.

—The Magical/Kinship level pertains to toddlers up to the age of 3. It’s seen as belief in fairies, Santa Claus, good luck charms, and witchcraft. It had its origins in human pre-cultures 50,000 years ago.

—The Power/Impulsive level appears in childhood tantrums, epic heroes, gang leaders, Darth Vader, Marvel/DC super-villains, and out-of-control rock stars. It was seen in warlord empires 10,000 years ago.

—The Authoritarian/Mythic level sees life that has meaning and purpose directed by an Order that strictly defines all rules and punishes rule-breakers. It includes rigid social hierarchies and characterizes not only fundamentalist religion but also atheist totalitarianism. It began in nation-states 5,000 years ago.

—The Achievist/Rational level views life in a scientifically defined universe where laws of logic apply to everything. It values materialism, earnings, Wall Street, and corporations. It started with the Enlightenment 300 years ago.

—The Egalitarian/Pluralistic level focuses on equality, caring, relationships, and the Earth. It favors antihierarchical and multicultural systems. It began around 150 years ago

When you watch a reality show or sitcom, you are presumably aware that the people whose lives and drama are on display for your entertainment are not the only ones at the scene. Others behind the camera record it, edit it, and broadcast it. They watch it from the outside as you do. Wilber and the researchers on whose work his own analyses are built have observed the interactions of the above-noted levels from a vantage point outside those levels because Wilber and company had evolved far enough to arrive at a higher stage from where they could turn around and see where they’ve been. One must grow beyond the levels of one’s origin in order to be able to see that these are actual stages of evolution and not merely attitudes or groups that disagree. We observe similar stages in ourselves individually when we recall the way we saw the world during our childhood and compare it to the world we see now. But we’re not generally inclined to juxtapose this growth of outlook onto other groups of people, or onto the world at large.

Individuals and cultures usually evolve through stages without realizing that that’s what they’re doing. These are the people who don’t recognize that they occupy developmental stages rather than merely different cultures, ethnic groups, races, political parties, or religious persuasions. This characterizes all the groups we’ve looked at thus far, and they are collectively referred to as the First Tier. But a small percentage of those who have outgrown these levels by virtue of their own studies, researches, or personal experience move up to what is called Second Tier. People who make it this far realize that they have risen through hierarchical phases. This perspective can be labeled Integral. This, like other levels, transcends and includes those that precede it within a nested hierarchy of growth. The concentric depiction looks like this.


In general discussion, the Egocentric level (Power/Impulsive) at the bottom end of the compassion spectrum is referred to in terms of the color red, even though two more rudimentary levels with their own corresponding hues are subsumed within it. The Integral level is represented by the color teal, though it, too, contains subcategories. The latter pertain only marginally to this discussion, but they merit a brief review.

The stratified image of Integral is seen above.32 Describing it from the bottom up:

—The Integrative level possesses awareness of nested hierarchies and the necessity of stages of development. The individual who arrives at this level respects people where they are, recognizing that they’re on a journey of growth and learning. This began around 60 years ago.

—The Holistic level is a shared “We” perspective of a universal integrative system and interactive dynamics. People at this level possess awareness of nested hierarchies and the necessity of stages of development. This began around 40 years ago.

—The Intuitive/Nondual level sees everybody as an extension of oneself. The ego expands to include the world. Though sporadically appearing in unique individuals during the last few dozen centuries, this stage has manifested more often in the context of Integral awareness during the last 30 years.

The top two higher stages embody an outgrowth of Ken Wilber’s personal search for spiritual enlightenment which drove him to study these matters ever since he was a college student. He immersed himself in meditation and spiritual studies which contributed to his creation of the AQAL curriculum. (My own modest journey within the same fields led me to his works.)

A teal Integral person will appear to be a green Egalitarian. The rest of the world will see them as liberal. But this person won’t try to impose psycho-emotional evolution on those who aren’t ready for it, or shove inclusiveness down anybody’s throat. Because they recognize the growth stages in other people, they will attempt to communicate within the level of the listener, hopefully guiding others in the direction of increased compassion. Lakoff promotes this when his students ask him

…[W]hat to say at Thanksgiving dinner? …Ask your aunt or grandfather what they are most proud of that helped other people. Those of my students who have done this report that, to their surprise, their grandfather or other relative did a number of good things to help others and show some important social concerns. My next bit of advice: Keep talking about those things.33 [Italics mine.]

If you prompt people to think about their own acts of empathy, you may contribute to their orientation towards compassion and away from bias against categories of outsiders, and thus towards Egalitarian, and potentially closer to Integral. Perhaps 5% of the world’s population occupies an Integral stage. Wilber notes that in the past, civilizations moved upward when the stage containing the next new level of compassion reached 10%. That number seems to be the tipping point. Integral is not there yet, but it’s coming.

Deliberative Dialogue

Arguments often polarize along liberal and conservative lines. These may cover a wide range of topics: gun ownership, the economy, health care, death penalty, gay marriage, immigration, religion, taxes, welfare, budget deficit, global warming, and more.34 Yet very few people adhere to only liberal or conservative perspectives on every issue; more often than not, an individual’s attitudes may vary from one topic to the next. For example, some liberals are anti-abortion, and some conservatives are pro-choice, bucking the trend of their cohorts.35 Lakoff uses the term “biconceptuals” to define those whose liberal or conservative affiliation (Nurturant Parent vs. Strict Father) may fluctuate from one issue to the next.

They use both models actively—but in different parts of their lives. They may be strict at home but nurturant on the job, or the reverse. There are a lot of blue collar workers who are strict fathers at home but nurturant in their union politics, and professors who are nurturant at home and in their politics but strict in the classroom. One may be an economic progressive and a social conservative—or an economic conservative and a social progressive. Or one may be a progressive on domestic policy and a neo-conservative on foreign policy.36

How is this possible? Lakoff states that neural binding occurs differently around different issues. For each issue, mutual inhibition may take place: one system in the brain switches off and another becomes active. The two cannot dominate simultaneously; you can’t be “for” and “against” the same thing at the same time.37 Even though many people identify as moderate, Lakoff feels that there is “…no morally based political ideology common to all moderates.”38 In our increasingly extremist culture, some self-labeled moderates avoid aligning themselves with either wing, and by calling themselves moderate they merely mean non-extreme.

For people to understand one another, especially with regard to controversial topics, they must listen to each other. Thinking about opposing views reflectively, with measured consideration as noted above, rather than reflexively, as an automatic rejection of an idea that doesn’t feel right (or an instant acceptance of one that does), requires mindful consideration. It can be cultivated in a process called deliberative dialogue. This communication method differs from debate. According to John Theis with the Center for Civic Engagement at Lone Star College, “The purpose of deliberation… is to frame the type of decision that might ultimately have to be made. Debate can settle where to build a bridge. Deliberation determines whether or not a bridge should be built and, if so, for what purpose.”39 The process is collaborative rather than confrontational. It assumes concern for others, seeks meaning in agreement, and looks for common ground. And it applies extremely well to individuals with opposing views on controversial topics.

The underlying beliefs of personal narratives come to the surface in this process. This allows individuals to see what others are feeling, what they can empathize with, and what they have in common.40 The process also reveals hidden assumptions—the conceptual underpinnings of Lakoff’s frames—that can be scrutinized and discussed. Participants can then see the world through others’ eyes. This leads to the growth of empathy and compassion.


Remember that, as Wilber’s research indicates, 70% of the world’s population functions at the Ethnocentric level (or below); in the U.S., it’s around 60%. Amber Ethnocentric conservatives tend to prefer their politics served up with values framed as connections to the heart: home, family, faith, authority, patriotism, and so on. Liberals have much the same value preferences—they deeply love their country (who doesn’t love the idea of home?)—, though their communication style still tends to hover up in the lofty realms of reason and logic, and most of them haven’t gotten the hang of bringing those down to earth. Consequently, messages generated by liberal politicians still sometimes fail to resonate with the current conservative amber majority.

We all know people who prefer their political perspectives neatly summarized in a clever slogan or at most a brief paragraph that packs a punch. Many would not read an article as long as this one that ventures into apparently nonpolitical terrain unless it praised their preferred candidate or party, or badmouthed the opposing team. These basically good people are fenced in by a small knowledge base that doesn’t allow for reflective exploration or expansion.

But for the thinking person, the consideration of nonpolitical information provides politics with context. It allows one to understand the systemic origins which evolved into the culture that surrounds us today and which contributes to our partisan perspectives. Politics is not just a statement about which good or bad action is committed by this individual or that political party. Politics is an expression of evolving cultural dynamics that span thousands of years. It’s part of a centuries-old cumulative manifestation of history, language, literature, religion, philosophy, and science, all of which accompanied humanity’s expansion across the globe. Civilizations have risen and declined, nations have proliferated, reshuffled, and been absorbed into other nations, empires have appeared and vanished, rulers and royalty have conquered, succumbed, and transformed into multiple machinations of government. All the while, neurons in human brains created pictures of what they wanted the world to look like and who they wanted to be in charge of it. Built upon the bones of millions upon millions of past lives, human political history culminates in the consciousness of the present-day voter who casts a ballot that asks, “What’s in it for me?” Everyone seeks support and acceptance while avoiding rejection and hate.

Depending on an individual’s family life and personal surroundings, hate is learned at red Egocentric. Love is learned there also. Both may expand within amber Ethnocentric; love can get better, hate can get worse. But if you weren’t brought up with hate, you probably won’t consciously choose to immerse yourself in it, though you might be tricked into doing so if you become convinced that your survival depends on it. Societies which promote hate have been known to elevate it to the status of a virtue. When this is experienced in the context of the group consciousness or environment that encourages it, hate can feel like focused love: “We raise ourselves up by putting outsiders down.” When dealing with a person whose consciousness dwells deeply within the Ethnocentric or even the Egocentric stages, considering all the hate and non-inclusiveness that that entails, Wilber says 

For such an individual, our appropriate response is to feel not a gloating moral superiority, but a truly deep compassion for someone living within the unbelievably constricting, suffocating, and suffering-inducing stages that these are—and from an integral view, compassion is the only judgmental attitude we’re allowed—the only one.41 

The quantity of compassion needed to graduate from amber through orange to green is indispensable to bring this about. At the green Egalitarian level, maturity is as crucial as compassion, especially if one is to continue on to Integral.

Lakoff mentions hypocognition¸ a lack of ideas or terms briefly summarizable in a word or two which convey an important concept that can be readily addressed.42 Most liberals don’t have a word for what they should do next in the world, or where they might go beyond the inclusive space they try to create. The question doesn’t cross their minds. Moreover, in our current political climate the definition of one’s partisanship doesn’t allow for discussion of Integral level awareness; few people have heard of it. If I were to tell people that I am integral, it may sound as if I’m anti-segregation (correct) or that I see myself as a crucial part of some organization (questionable). But if I state that I’m teal, they might recommend matching shoes and accessories. These two terms probably won’t be trending in the media anytime soon. Therefore, when asked if I’m a liberal, I reply yes, in the same spirit that I would answer yes if asked whether I wear a wristwatch. “Liberal” is not a club I belong to, nor a characteristic on which I base my identity. But in the context of political pigeonholes, it’s less incorrect than others.

To work around the lack of a recognizable second-tier political designation, within the severely limiting vocabulary of partisan language which screens out far more significant components of life than it reveals, I default to calling myself “a conservative liberal, about one-third of the way from mid-point to the Left.” I then try to address people where they are, at their own level of development, in their own terms, in hope of enhancing awareness of compassion in their lives. My political perspective is also my view of being human: I’m a believer in and promoter of reflective compassion. I endeavor to demonstrate empathy toward any human being who bears me no ill will, and even some who do; and to the extent that my resources allow, if it’s within my power to do so, I will help anyone who asks. First, I listen.


  1. George Lakoff, The Political Mind (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 46
  2. Ibid., 24, 25.
  3. For a fascinating analysis of this, read Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2018)
  4. George Lakoff, The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing), 15,16
  5. Lakoff, Mind, 129
  6. Lakoff, Mind, 85
  7. Lakoff, Mind, 86
  8. Brownsville Herald Newspaper Archives November 11, 1970
  9. NYTimes, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, 12/24/06
  10. Lakoff, Mind, 98,99
  11. Quadrants refer to a categorization of experience into four modes: interior singular (I), interior plural (we), external singular (it), and external plural (systems). Lines refer to an individual’s personal development in areas such as Moral, Interpersonal, Self-Identity, Values, Cognitive Development, etc. States refers to the temporary condition of awareness that might be experienced in a highly emotional event, a meditation session, a peak experience, an intoxicated buzz, and so on. Types may pertain to personality categories such as those in Myers-Briggs, or Masculine and Feminine. The interested reader is referred to Ken Wilber, A Theory of Everything (Shambhala Publications, 2000)
  12. Ken Wilber, Integral Vision (Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc.), 2007
  13. Wilber, Vision,34; 48
  14. Jean Piaget, Jean Gebser, Robert Kegan, Carol Gilligan, James Fowler, Clare Graves, Abraham Maslow
  16. Wilber, Theory, 9,10
  17. Lakoff, Mind, 6; Wilber, Theory, 81
  18. Lakoff, Mind, 7
  19. Lakoff, Mind, 13
  20. Wilber, Theory,10
  21. Lakoff, Elephant, 5   
  22. Lakoff, Mind, 2, 3
  23. Lakoff, Elephant, 13-15
  24. Lakoff, Mind
  25. Ken Wilber, Trump and a Post-Truth World (Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc.), 2017), 7
  26. Ken Wilber, Integral Politics: A Summary of Its Essential Ingredients ( ) 16
  27. Ibid., 75
  28. Lakoff, Mind, 73
  29. Wilber, Trump, 75
  30. Interpolated from
  31. Wilber, Theory, 8-11; AQAL Integral Map Version 9
  32. AQAL Integral Map Version 9
  33. Lakoff, Elephant, 158
  36. George Lakoff, Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America’s Most Important Idea (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006), 71
  37. Lakoff, Elephant, xiv
  38. Lakoff, Elephant, 41
  39. John Theis, Moderating for Deliberative Dialogue (Gainesville, FL: Workshop, Santa Fe College, 2017), 3
  41. Wilber, Trump, 119
  42. Lakoff, Elephant, 21, 22


Pat Breslin

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Pat Breslin is a professor of speech and rhetoric, and co-founder of the Empower Speakers Communication Group.

Also posted in Blog, commentary, Men, Popular Culture

Bob Shell: Civil War?

Civil War


Text by Bob Shell, Copyright 2020


Civil War?


I decided to write about a touchy topic this time, the American “Civil War.”. Why do I put that in quotation marks? Because there never was a civil war within the United States. A civil war is, by definition, a war between different factions within one sovereign nation.

Let me point out some uncomfortable facts.

First, Virginia, my home, when she joined the United States, reserved the right to leave it at any time, that was in writing. Choosing to leave the Union was Virginia’s right. This was no different than Britain’s current decision to leave the European Union. You don’t see the European Union threatening to attack and invade Britain, do you? And if they did, would it be a civil war? Hardly.

Virginia chose to sever her ties to the United States of America and, instead, join the Confederate States of America. That was her right, and in doing so she broke no law or treaty.

The CSA was recognized by many countries, European and elsewhere, and had a binding peace treaty with the USA. Although not well known, one of the CSA’s allies was Russia, which sent warships to break the USA’s blockade of crucial ports, and deliver supplies.

But northern business interests wanted to prohibit the CSA from buying cheaper goods from elsewhere, so they started their blockade, and ultimately strangled the CSA. Before the separation they had been charging Southerners ridiculous prices for their goods while buying southern goods, primarily cotton, at very low prices that they dictated. High tariffs discouraged importation of goods from Europe, Russia, and others.

You’re probably asking, what about slavery? Wasn’t that the reason for the war? Not really. Slaves were expensive to buy, house, feed. The great majority of southerners could not afford them. My own ancestors were poor farmers and couldn’t have afforded slaves, even if they’d wanted them. And if southern states hadn’t left the Union, slavery probably would have continued, simply to hold down the cost of southern cotton and other agricultural goods. But the big plantations with hundreds of slaves were not the norm for the average southern tenant farmer, who was little more than a slave himself to the land owners. At the surrender, General Lee asked for only one concession, that his men be allowed to keep their mules. They were all poor farmers and without their mules they could not plow their land. Lee kept his men’s welfare ahead of all else.

Lincoln’s vaunted Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves, only those in. the southern states. Slaves in northern states remained in bondage. That’s a fact.

Lincoln was not much concerned with the slaves. He was concerned with preserving the Union. He famously said that if he could save the Union by freeing all of the slaves he would do that, but if he could preserve it by freeing only some of the slaves he would do that, and if he could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves he would do that. He didn’t care about the slaves, only his precious Union.

Certainly slavery is a despicable evil, and I’m not defending it in any way, but it was not the cause of the war. The 13th Amendment to our Constitution outlawed slavery, right? Wrong! The Amendment contains an exception. Slavery is allowed as punishment for crime. So, slavery is alive and well in America today. I know; I’m legally a slave.

The formation of the CSA allowed southerners to ship their goods overseas where they got better prices, and to import cheaper manufactured goods. And that was the problem. Northern industrialists wanted to keep the South captive to supply them raw materials cheaply and buy their manufactured goods at higher prices than a global free market would have allowed.

People who don’t know history don’t know that my namesake and distant cousin, Robert E. Lee, was offered command of the Union army by Lincoln. After some soul searching, he turned it down. His loyalty was to Virginia, he said. He could not betray his Commonwealth.

After the war Mark Twain approached Lee with a publisher’s high offer to co-author Lee’s memoirs. Lee turned down the offer, saying it would not be right to make money from the blood of his men. Twain then went to Grant, who accepted the offer. That shows the difference between the two men.

It was Lee who brought black men to worship with him in his church in Lexington, Virginia, where he settled after the war to head up Washington College; which is now Washington and Lee University, where he lies entombed in Lee Chapel.

My several times great grandfather, Hugh McCracken, joined the Virginia army and fought under Lee. He survived the war and went home to his farm, where he raised his family. I’ve read his war diary, and it is pretty graphic. He speaks of having to get water from a stream with dead men and horses upstream because it was the only water to be had. Amazingly, he was never wounded or contracted disease, even though he saw action in several major battles.

So I am proud of my simple southern farmer heritage, and refuse to be intimidated by the PC fools who besmirch the memory of good men who fought to save their country from an invading foreign army.


About The Author: Bob Shell is a professional photographer, author and former editor in chief of Shutterbug Magazine. He is currently serving a 35 year sentence for involuntary manslaughter for the death of Marion Franklin, one of his former models.  He is serving the 13th year of his sentence at Pocahontas State Correctional Facility, Virginia. To read more letters from prison by Bob Shell, click here:

Editor’s Note: If you like Bob Shell’s blog posts, you’re sure to like his new book, COSMIC DANCE by Bob Shell (ISBN: 9781799224747, $ 12.95 book, $ 5.99 eBook) available now on . The book, his 26th, is a collection of essays written over the last twelve years in prison, none published anywhere before. It is subtitled, “A biologist’s reflections on space, time, reality, evolution, and the nature of consciousness,” which describes it pretty well. You can read a sample section and reviews on

Also posted in Blog, commentary, Documentary, Men, News, Popular Culture

A.H. Scott: Flags of Our (Mythical)Fathers

Flag. Artwork by Tony Ward, Copyright 2020

Text by A.H. Scott, Copyright 2020


Flags of Our (Mythical) Fathers


Observing the daily dumpster of disaster which is the Trump presidency, a constant refrain which swirls in my brain is this: WHAT THE FUCK, AMERICA?!!

‘God is gonna shake His mighty head

He’ll either say I’m pleased where man has been

Or tear it down, and start again

In the year 9595

I’m kinda wonderin’ if man is gonna be alive

He’s taken everything this old earth can give

And he ain’t put back nothing

Now it’s been ten thousand years

Man has cried a billion tears

For what, he never knew, now man’s reign is through’-   

“In the Year 2525 (Exordium and Terminus)” – Zager and Evans, 1968[a]

Musical duo of Denny Zager and Rick Evans’ hauntingly, eloquent melody from 1968 taps into the sparks of an oncoming apocalyptic desolation which mankind has brought upon himself.

When I was a young girl in the 1970’s and heard this song on the radio I just kind of bopped my head to the beat of the tune. As I have gotten older through the years and think about this song from all those decades ago, it’s the vision of the lost soul of humanity that I’ve come to absorb.

What could a symbol mean? It could be a piece of fabric, brick of stone, or just a long ago memory. Or, is it only a fallacy crafted by cynicism which holds no true allegiance.

Thus, “Flags of Our (Mythical) Fathers” was born.

Ensemble of sky blue cashmere dress made for a statement of elegance as she stood holding an object in her hand, as he began to raise his right hand to take the oath of the highest office in the land of America:

“I, Donald J. Trump, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017 [b]

Unseen in the shadows is the ghost of Marie Antionette, as she claps politely at the lady in blue and a lady in black, each holding a common item in hand – a Bible.

But, I’ll get into the lady in black a little further later. For now, it’s the coy beauty of European mystique[c] in sky blue, standing by the side of a certain man of the moment.

2017 seems like four centuries ago, but its’ only been four years since Donald J. Trump assumed the presidency of the United States of America.

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”– President Abraham Lincoln

A person can focus, propagate, and drift in attraction towards certain things. For some it could be an admiration of the written word, like yours truly. For others, it might be a plethora or leisure sports.

You see, a child isn’t as easily adaptive to choosing something positive or negative. But, as for an adult, that’s a whole other ball game. And, yes, all pun intended.

Adults make choices for good or bad reasons. Done once, it can be casted off as a mistake of misunderstanding of the elements of a subject at hand. Maybe it is a fluke of association or an unfortunate use of a phrase. Repetitively done, it’s a revelation of a person’s basest essence.

It is exactly whom they are, right down to the marrow of their bones.

So, when a person chooses to engage in a shameless flirtation with an ugly underbelly of the American patchwork; then the hushed tones of civility dissipate and the bullhorn of righteous response is raised for what a person faces from other American citizens.

We all make choices. We make them from the moment we awaken to the moment we retire off to sleep.

But, when a President of the United States makes a conscience choice to stand on the wrong side of history in ardent affection for the Confederacy, he has abdicated the mantle of being a leader.

“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.”– President John Quincy Adams

American carnage? American choice.

President Donald J. Trump is absent without leave to the American people. He is vacant of humanity. He is vacant of compassion. He is vacant of leadership.

Constantly in a front-facing battle of attempting to drape himself beneath a boastful banner of ‘his Generals’, President Donald J. Trump hasn’t the deft skill of using a simplistic rah-rah in some sort of bravado’s folly in being such a pretender. Wannabe warrior of military might is he, as a screaming eagle of victorious conquest is only a tweeting chirp of puny poultry.

The truth of his stewardship of the ship of state has not been that of a sail which stands tall in reality, but a flaccid wave of a white flag from his own self-indulgent delusions of granite.

As if being in the presence of those men and women who have dedicated their lives to the American military could change who he is in an act of osmosis of transferring their glory onto him Donald Trump falls short of not even greatness, but the most underwhelming of that which is mediocre. Honor can’t be bought or rented for a temporary image boost.

Besmirching men who have served with honor for the benefit on the behalf of a grateful nation, President Trump hammers anyone who dare have opinions other than his.

Childishly he tweets about Presidential harassment when other branches of government hold him in legislative or judicial check, as if anything that does not go his way is a slight to his oh so fragile ego. This is how he chooses to act, time and time again.

For him, a flag is just a prop in his phony play of being the tough guy who beats his chest and howls of uber-patriotism.

Funny thing about the length of one’s life is that over a certain ten-plus year period in the younger years of Donald John Trump he had his chance to prove his level of making a sacrifice on behalf of this country. But, it just wasn’t one chance, but five of them.

Maybe bone-spurs are just like Coronavirus in the magical thinking of Donald Trump and ‘will just disappear’, especially when he’s on one of his golf courses almost every weekend.

Then again, sacrificing himself for his country ain’t his thing either. Trump’s way is to attack those who have done what he wouldn’t or couldn’t have the backbone to do.

Anyone who dare speak the truth about the absence of leadership of President Donald J. Trump is snarled at by him as being ‘overrated’. Such is the esteemed former Marine General James N. Mattis, who was Secretary of Defense in the Trump Administration.

Always in a calculated cloaking of himself as a conqueror, President Trump’s zeal in clinging to using a certain nickname for former General James Mattis is based upon a moniker continuously promulgated by the press during their coverage of this military man.

Never has Donald Trump once called the General another nickname[d] those marines who respect and have served with and under him refers to him as. But, I guess the nickname of the “Warrior Monk” isn’t as snappy for the twitter feed as “Mad Dog”.

The image of a military man who studies history and lessons in the art of war is a snore to Donald Trump; as he always craves that myth of the lowest common denominator of bloodlust.

President Trump gleefully propels presentation to accelerate that which he lacks himself – courage, wisdom, or forethought of consequence.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people – does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” – General James Mattis, former Defense Secretary [e]

Even the American heroes of the D-Day invasion of decades long ago that are buried on hallowed ground in Normandy, France aren’t safe from the debasement of his constant hunger for getting an apt image for his campaign scrapbook of crassness.

Once seated with an interviewer from his favorite news channel, with the white marble crosses dotting the greenery in the background behind him, President Donald J. Trump derided Robert S. Mueller[f] as being a ‘fool’ and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as ‘Nervous Nancy’. Even on foreign soil, he demeans the office of the president with juvenile snarkiness.

Another one of such men which became a constant target of vileness was former prisoner of war, Senator John. S. McCain, who was belittled by then candidate Trump as not being his type of ‘hero’ because he was shot down and captured during the Vietnam War.

Victim of another in President’s odious odyssey of bullying is the courageous Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, driven to the point of retirement, months after his steadfast testimony about the Ukraine shakedown for Trump’s petty political gains.

Impeachment of a President would seem to sober a man drunk on hubris and enlighten him to humility in being chastened by the ramifications of his own actions that led to a judgment which only two other men holding that office has faced.

But, oh no, never his thumbs are taken off that accelerator of arrogance. In fact, getting impeached was like getting a shot of adrenalin into his veins.

Donald J. Trump is unfit for the office of President of the United States, as his dereliction is laid bare before the stopwatch of this moment in time.

He is the man who has tossed in the towel on confronting the challenges we face in this country, as it teeters into an unknown future.

Our national health, our national security, our national narrative; these three issues are held in the palm of his hand.

In the dichotomy of grasping at the cords of security, are the frayed strands of insecurity. The crash of the American prospect has been a long time coming and the catastrophe of a pandemic has hastened the culmination of insecurity in this moment.

Economic insecurity in this era of recession is aligned with the housing insecurity of whether rents and mortgages can be paid in the coming months from citizens who have lost their jobs due to business closures, furloughs from businesses waiting to re-open, and that final nail of impatience from landlords, both small and large.

Intertwined in the economic realm is the healthcare crisis we all face. If a person doesn’t have a job or hasn’t a roof over their heads and a tragic illness comes to pass; they cling to a lifesaver which only the Federal Government can afford them to survive.

Then, there is food insecurity, which none of us are immune from if the first brick of our own budgetary walls of security crumbles. Food pantries around the nation have been stretched to their limits, as families that have been whiplashed by the past six months are trying to keep their bodies nourished and souls revived by experiencing the open hand of their fellow Americans.

Does he live up to the oath he took on January 20th, 2017?

A trio of words listed in the Presidential oath rings out like a bugle blaring at reveille:  preserve, protect, and defend.

Preserve the health and wealth of fellow Americans by using all levels of power in your wheelhouse of Presidential directives and executive orders; such as the Defense Production Act to enlarge the national stockpile with Personal Protective Equipment and a simple mandating for the wearing of masks.

Protect the rights of all citizens in this country with an enforcement of equality and justice for all, using the enormous power of the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute and hold authorities accountable for violations of civil rights.

Defend this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. President Trump’s inaction is an action of sorts, as he constantly seems like a puppy in need of a belly rub when he is given any blink of attention from the Russian President.

On that foreign front, Vladimir Putin has free reign to take out murder-for-hire contracts on our men and women on the frontlines in Afghanistan and not a peep of objection drifts from Trump’s lips. But, more threatening is the internal tide of terroristic orthodoxy based on nationalism that has been courted and arisen by the winks of affirmation which is given by the President of the United States of America and his Oval Office minions.

The health of the American people cannot be pushed to the side in a misguided attempt to reopen the economy of this nation. And, make it seem like life in this country is back to normal, just by willing it away with some magical Trumpian thinking.

In a mega-ego showdown of the Wall Street economic axis of Trump-Kudlow-Navarro-Kushner versus an invisible Coronavirus – the virus wins like a penny tossed into the sputtering machinery of American industry.

Pandemic of virus, financial upheaval and racial reckoning is on the platter of tasks. And, it is this meal Donald J. Trump has been served up and is obligated by oath of his office to chew on, one damning bite by one.

America needs a leader. We have Donald J. Trump.

“Heroes may not be braver than anyone else. They’re just braver five minutes longer.” – President Ronald Reagan [g]

In the wake of his abdication, we as the American people mustn’t abdicate our role in this society. The hero is the person we see in our own mirror.

If we wait for President Donald J. Trump to save us; we will be dust. 

Oh, and of course I am not in any way saying Coronavirus is his fault. But, the aftermath of its’ spread and how he has decided to deal with it, is his duty.

Two elements he could do right now, could be to put on a mask, wear it continuously in public, and tell everyone to follow his lead. But, then again, it would mean he would have to lead others beyond just thinking about himself.   

Down to the small things which each and every one of us can do on a daily basis – Wear a face mask or covering. Practice social distancing. Wash your hands.

Of course this is a small thing each and every one of us can do. But, until a vaccine for Coronavirus is found, we can show courtesy in keeping each other off this deadly disease’s grid.

Whenever around others, show that little bit of courtesy in caring about them, as much as you care about yourself.

It is evident that he can’t even craft a thin veneer of faking comprehension of the enormity of what’s going on, as he revels in ignorance like a pig in mud; which is an insult to swine.

Parroting words of confusion over his years in the public eye show the contradiction, hypocrisy, cruelty, and just downright nuttiness of message conveyance.

Allergic to the principles of science that is driven by analytical theory, he comes up with his own bizarre remedies. In Donald J. Trump’s Presidential Medicine bag of misery are screwball pandemic panaceas of taking a swig of disinfectant cocktails and illuminating yourself with shoving of light-bulbs up your nether-regions.

“And then I said, supposing it brought the light inside the body, which you can either do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you’re gonna test that too, sounds interesting. And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it’d be interesting to check that. So you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me, so we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it goes in one minute, that’s pretty powerful.” – President Donald J. Trump, April 23, 2020 [h]

The reckless way he speaks, as casual about a lethal disease as if it were a game of Wheel of Fortune; with lives of Americans in that black hole of existence’s bankruptcy for another year.

Caution is the melody that should be heard by us all. But, that ain’t his thing.

Dancing with hate has never been a danger to the political existence of President Donald J. Trump, until the pulse of the American people has started shifting to the rhythm of a different tune.

The choir of chaos played a vicious screed of nationalism in Charlottesville, Virginia during that first August of the Trump presidency in 2017, leaving a young woman named Heather Heyer dead from injuries after being run over by a white supremacist.

Among the participants of the “United the Right Rally” was David Duke, a former head of Ku Klux Klan. He was not ashamed to speak to the cameras that were there that day. In fact, Mr. Duke beamed with joy in knowing a man represented his point of view on racial issues was in the highest office in the land.

“We are determined to take our country back, we’re going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump, and that’s what we believed in, that’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back and that’s what we gotta do.” – David Duke, August 12th, 2017, Charlottesville, Virginia[i]

Mr. Duke’s statement of support for the current occupant of the White House was not denounced or rejected by the President.

But, Donald Trump probably just needed a few days to say how he really felt in being put in the same category as a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Of course, he would say what happened was the fault of those nationalists at this tragic event. And, not doling out comparisons of guilt to the counter-protestors who were standing up for what we all proclaim American values are.

There are the right words to say. There are the wrong words to say. Well, then there are those uninspiring words of Donald J. Trump.

Then, in case of President Trump, there is that dance between the raindrops of his racist supporters and the rest of America. He chose to dance in the dark once again.

“I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame object both on both sides. I have no doubt about it. You don’t have doubt about it either. If you reported it accurately, you would say that the neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville. Excuse me. They didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis. You had some very bad people in that group. You also had some very fine people on both sides.” – President Donald J. Trump, lobby of Trump Tower in New York City, August 15th, 2017 [j]

Boy from the New York City borough of Queens, whose grandfather hadn’t touched a toe upon the shores of the United States of America until 1885, which was decades AFTER the Civil War had ended, firmly plunges himself deeply into the adoration of the trappings of the treasonous secessionists of the South.

Mr. President, you are not Donnie from Dixie. You are Donald from Queens.

So, when he speaks so passionately about the Confederate flag and the monuments of granite and steel; it is not from the position of a son of the Southern states of America. He is only a son of a Trump from Queens.

For me, I might not agree with a native of the South speaking about his or her forefathers or foremothers’ participation in the Civil War; but, it would be something I could comprehend in giving them enough respect in their family history. At least they would have the link of their bloodlines to the events in those days gone by.

But, one thing that does stump me is someone who hasn’t any droplet of lineage to the South. I guess it is a mystery; just like the never-ending audit of Donald Trump’s taxes.

It’s just ironic that he is so enamored with symbols of those on the losing side of the Civil War. But, yet I can only voice my opinions on what I see a public official gravitate their time, effort and vigor towards.

For this occupant of the White House, he might have been more comfortable in Jefferson Davis’ homestead rather than Washington.

Public funding of iconography of the Confederacy is something which many taxpayers, both white and black know little about.

Taking a moment to touch upon the President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis, his Presidential Library located in Mississippi is a bucolic place of Southern yesteryear and funded by taxpayer dollars of its’ white and black citizens.

Beauvoir was where Jefferson Davis wrote his memoir, which featured his thoughts on the beneficial aspects of slavery to the enslaved Africans he owned; which included the following –

“Their servile instincts rendered them contented with their lot. Never was there a happier dependence of labor and capital upon each other.” – Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America[k]

Now, this is one of the sages of the losing side of the Civil War, which President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump has decided to embrace in his cockeyed craving of appeasing those with similar beliefs in this present day. 

This is just one of the patches of poison which President Trump has insidiously attempted to meld into the fabric of being normalized and even heralded as a note of a tradition all Americans should be proud of.

Unexpectedly, it is a level of isolation which Americans are dealing with during this pandemic. The hustle and bustle of the daily grind of our busy lives have been slowed down so much over these past months, that a moment May 25th, 2020 on a street in Minneapolis would be the latest marker of sorrow in the story of America. More precisely it was 8 minutes and 46 seconds.[l]

Contrasting the beating of Rodney King in the darkness of a California night, George Floyd’s life was taken from him under the light of the blue sky above. Man of nonchalant malevolence held knee on neck and causally placed hand in pocket of his uniform pants, as he stole George Floyd’s humanity in those final breaths as he pleaded to maintain his life. In daylight, he gazed directly at the camera which was filming him with that chip on his shoulder as a cape of carefree in thinking this was just a black man and no one would care. Even to the extent of that look on his face as if to act like someone who figured this person is nobody; someone that no one will bat an eyelash of thought over. 

Era of pandemic’s side effect of stillness in having nothing else holding our undivided attention has proven to be a transformative moment in this country. If only a bully could use his pulpit for progress, than retreat.

Disunity is the defining markers in the signposts of the presidency of Donald J. Trump; from David Duke to George Floyd.

“Hopefully George is looking down, right now, and saying, “This is a great thing that’s happening for our country.” This is a great day for him.” – President Donald J. Trump, June 5th, 2020 [m]

He doesn’t strive to bring us together, as he relishes tearing us apart in words and actions.

Being a man who is void of any modicum of mutuality for others is just a walk in the park for him.

Park? Park? Hmm, that reminds me of something.

Oh, hello Lady in Black! Don’t think I could forget about you and a certain walk you took along with President Donald J. Trump on the first day of June 2020.

Maybe he was going down memory lane of standing at his Inauguration with a hand on Bible which was held by the demure lady in sky blue.

“The Bible tells us, how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity”. – President Donald J. Trump, January 20th, 2017[b]

Pulling it out of her stylish satchel, a dutiful daughter hands her father the perfect prop[n] for a tear-gassing of peacefully protesting citizens in Lafayette Square in one of the most scatterbrained, cynical and downright sinister events in the history of the United States of America.

Standing there with a Bible in his right hand so amateurishly, President Donald J. Trump held it upside down and with the attitude as if he’d ordered a cheeseburger and the waitress had given him a tossed salad instead.

Nobody should be fooled whenever this madness of an administration comes to an end, that the scion of the royal house of Trump and their spouses should be held to the same scrutiny of vocalized ostracism from their previous lives of social privilege. If the princess of this putrid parade handed her daddy a prop as those peaceful Americans were tear-gassed, then she shall not be forgotten by history either.

“I am your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters.” – President Donald J. Trump, June 1st, 2020, The White House Rose Garden

Complicity is not chic!

Fancy threads can’t cloak the funky fragrance of fascism.

This daughter of the President isn’t a moderating influence, but just another collaborator in this circus of cruelty. 

“It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.” – President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017 [b]

Well, I guess one flag of a unity can be obscured by another of stars and bars.

Historians of lofty principle have debated the pros and cons of monuments to leaders of the Civil War for many years. Relics should be placed in museums with their history in context and not venerated in public squares. Part of me feels that would be a suitable solution. Yet, from the coolness of giving these articles of the past a soft adieu into the marble halls of an institution, my thoughts have slowly shifted towards that feverish nod of impatience towards these objects of  becoming vanished without regret. And, I wouldn’t go on a scavenger hunt to find them.

“Those who seek to erase our heritage want Americans to forget our pride and our great dignity, so that we can no longer understand ourselves or America’s destiny.” – President Donald J. Trump, July 3rd, 2020 [o]

Appointing himself as the pseudo-intellectualist of a cause lost in the bowels of racism, President Donald J. Trump adorns the garb of victimhood and martyrdom. As if he is a member of a persecuted group, his speeches at Mount Rushmore and from the south lawn of the White House on July 4th, 2020 should have had the cameras get a super-duper close-up of an invisible tear rolling down his cheeks.

A man clinging to the myths of yesteryear was on full display as he dribbled drabbled about maintaining some sort of vanished pride.

“Those that are lying about our history, those who want us to be ashamed of who we are, are not interested in justice or in healing.” – President Donald J. Trump, July 4th, 2020 [p]

At some point, the question of debating and debating and constantly debating what should be done can come to a time of finality.

In some ways, that dismissive shrug of apathy among some white Americans have fed into the rising tide of protest and even going into hands-on actions of taking statues down without consent.

Like it or not, this is America’s reckoning of sins, both past and present.

Black Lives Matter!

Now is the time! Deal with it, America!

I will leave it up to those far wiser and eloquent to muse upon theories and thesis, and dissertations on the long line of history of this land called America.

So, I’m going to short-circuit it and say the following to anyone who might have their interest peaked with my observation.

The United States of America from 1619 to this date in 2020 has had over 400 years to do something of permanent transformation about the problem of race in this country.

I believe there is a need for an Agenda of Atonement in this country. Okay, okay, I know what you’re thinking; here’s another white glove commission that gets announced with fanfare at a press event that will lead nowhere and only benefit the paper and book-binding company that gets the contract for publishing the final product. Ugh! No, I think this time, it definitely cannot be that. But, in this moment of the uncertainty of this country being on path of partnership between black and white; you’ve gotta start somewhere.

And, if I may say a short note of advice on anyone who might be putting together an agenda on this issue; please, please, please follow a one-word rule – FOCUS.

Specifying what needs to be done is crucial; as if it is amorphous, it will become something so diluted that its’ potency of impact is moot.

Make the plan as plain as it can be. If it is a plan that is interpreted as scattershot, then anyone in the corridors of power that oppose it will be able to weasel their way out of doing anything at all in furthering the country.

We barely speak about race, until a person of color is killed by the hands of authority. If a viral video has a racial slur or stereotype of a white woman falsely accusing a black bird-watcher of attacking her, then we all go bat-crazy in outrage. Now, of course the outrage at the woman is more than well deserved. But, after the temporary roar of a couple of days or weeks, we all return to our corners of comfort and continue on with our lives until something else grabs our attention.

And, God forbid if we ever want to get into some kind of in depth conversation about the history of slavery in this country. Oh, damn, some people would rather go clean out a cesspool with their toothbrush than ever have to listen to a person talk to them about that part of our American history and the residual realities which people of color are still stained with right now.

If not atonement of some sorts in the form of an acknowledgement or admittance of the problem, then there is another avenue which could be taken.

Reckoning with the past is here in the present. No matter who the person is in the White House, he (until there is a woman holding that office) is the man of the moment. It is not history’s obligation to verify or amplify a man’s ability to rise to the occasion that is now.

The reckoning is here and the chime of fate rings for the man in the office – President Donald J. Trump.

For sins of others in days long gone past, he who sits behind the resolute desk has to deal with those smoldering ashes of today.

Of wearied bone and denigrated soul, the true victims of American carnage in the United States of America from 1619 to 2020 have come a knocking and will not exit from the portico of that house of white; until they are allotted a miniscule grain of respect and recognition in their timeline of existence within this country. 

And, no, the mealy-mouth words of tossing ‘all lives matter’ into the mix of this misery which only a certain segment of this country has faced ain’t gonna cut it in this moment of life in America.

Now, that is the reckoning that all Americans have to come to terms with and the President of the United States of America has to deal with. Like it or not, this is the moment.

Can history change a man? Or, can man change history?

“So, I think I’ve done more for the Black community than any other president, and let’s take a pass on Abraham Lincoln, cause he did good, although it’s always questionable,” – President Donald J. Trump, June 6th, 2020 [q]

Well, from all which Donald J. Trump has revealed to the world during his years on the public stage, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

And, neither should anyone else.

Either we stand in solidarity beneath the American flag or we shroud ourselves under the white flag of surrendering to the bitter devils of division.

For me, Old Glory blowing in the breeze of freedom’s notion and a promise for a continuation of this experiment known as America is what I shall salute and honor.

Now, that is NO MYTH!


JULY 2020


a. – In the Year 2525 – Songfacts –

b. – Presidential Inaugural Address –

c. – Why Melania Trump Wore Blue Ralph Lauren – Harpers Bazaar –

d. – Meet James N. Mattis –  Military Times -

e. – James Mattis Denounces Trump – The Atlantic –

f. – Democrats Have Been Going After Me – Real Clear Politics –

g. – Ronald Reagan Speech – Reagan Library Archives –

h. – White House Coronavirus Task Force Press Conference -

i. – David Duke on Charlottesville Protests – The Hill –

j. – Trump Press Conference – Vox –

k. – The Costs Of The Confederacy – Smithsonian Magazine –

l. – Man Pinned Down By Minneapolis Police Officer Dies – The Cut –

m. – Trump on Jobs Report, New York Times –

b. – Presidential Inaugural Address –

n. – Trump’s Photo with His Loyalists Was A Vulgar Mess – Washington Post –

b. – Presidential Inaugural Address –

o. – Mount Rushmore Fireworks Celebration –

p. – Salute to America –

q. – Trump Criticizes Lincoln – CNBC –


About The Author: A.H. Scott is a poet based in New York City and frequent contributor to Tony Ward Studio. To read additional articles by Ms. Scott, go here:


Also posted in Art, Blog, commentary, Documentary, Erotica, Fetish, Film, Glamour, lifestyle, Men, Models, News, Nudes, Photography, Popular Culture, Travel, women

A.H. Scott: The Bridesmaid Question

Mike Pence: The Bridesmaid Question

Text by A.H. Scott, Copyright 2020


The Bridesmaid Question
Maybe it’s the question spoken in hushed tones. Or, just the obvious one which has some wondering out loud.
Why isn’t Mike Pence good enough to be the President of the United States of America?
Mike Pence can save America and put this country out of its’ misery right now, if he steps up to marry himself to a certain amendment and not a snotty brat with a constant pout.
After all, he’s a conservative’s conservative. Upright, uptight and potently pious is he. So, the question of him being the bridesmaid to a bride ever so shameless is an obvious one to take a peek under the tarnished, silken slip of this administration at hand.
An Evangelical base is more aligned with the life traveled by Mr. Pence. But, then again, it seems he is not the beloved one to stand in first place at the electoral altar.
Never the bride, but always the bridesmaid is Mike Pence.
Second-hand Mike!
Second-hand Mike!
Exactly what is it about you that people really don’t like?
Second-hand Mike is sanctimonious beyond anyone else on par
Yet, the one they love more is the boorish reality television star
Second-hand Mike wonders with stoic stare over why isn’t he worthy enough?
Amendment 25 is chiseled there in concrete
But, nobody’s calling in that bluff
Jobs may come
And, positions may transform
But, a certain bridesmaid sheds a tear when knowing that brass pinnacle is so near
Seems no matter how sincere you apply your gaze
Or, how earnest to the ideology you praise
Second banana is your finality of place
Choirboy or fornicator is the choice on the evangelical’s silver plate
Which will they cling to when the sins hit the fan?
The good boy who abides by all the perceived rules
Or, the problem child who kicks the golden can?
The answer is clear and Second-hand Mike weeps on his Missus’ shoulder
One spouse limit is his, as the bride’s been in triple-wedded bliss
At the head of the aisle one hand brushing another is a pliable second-hand job
Oh, Mother – clutch your pearls, if that be true
Let them pearls of fallacy scatter
When you couldn’t have that proclaimed Christian fortitude of humanity to say Black Lives Matter
Lacking a pair of spheres and absent a clue
You will never be the cream on top, because being the bride is just not you
Mike Pence is a bridesmaid, through and through
About The Author: A.H. Scott is a poet based in New York City and frequent contributor to Tony Ward Studio. To read additional articles by Ms. Scott, go here:
Also posted in Art, Blog, commentary, Documentary, Men, Popular Culture, Portraiture, women