The Not So Invisible Worm

The Sick Rose

O Rose, thou art sick!

The invisible worm

That flies in the night

In the howling storm,

Has found out thy bed

Of crimson joy:

And his dark secret love

Does thy life destroy.

Yankee Stadium, The Bronx, April 2, 2018

    

When the snow covered the field and forced the teams to postpone the game, young fans, who might otherwise have enjoyed a day of building snowmen or sledding down hills, felt frustrated that nature had ignored the calendar’s  command for winter to depart. But nevermind. Spring is here and summer isn’t far behind. Soon enough baseball and languid summer afternoons and evenings will repress the memory of an early April snow and we’ll forget nature, or more precisely, weather’s casual indifference to our plans and desires.  

If only we could oblige nature to accommodate our schemes.  To induce the skies to dismiss clouds and beckon the sun at our pleasure.  And yet there are things we do that seem to pressure nature to change her climate or as George Will has scoffed, alter the “planet’s thermostat.”  Climate science has certainly demonstrated that human activity is causing the rising temperatures and seas. Even though it might be too late to halt the momentum of climate change, it would be well worth the effort to try by reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide.  To become, let’s say, genuine stewards of the land, sea and air. President Trump has appointed a man to run the E.P.A. who believes in the credo that humans are “stewards of the earth.”

It is interesting that this “steward” of the earth would work to repeal Obama’s EPA rules that would have increased fuel efficiency and reduced carbon dioxide emissions.  According to Robert Stavins of Harvard, the effect “will be more gas guzzling vehicles on the road, greater total gasoline consumption, and a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions.”  Under the new rules Pruitt proposes, vehicles will consume an additional twelve billion barrels of oil and release an additional six billion tons of carbon dioxide over the lifetime of those vehicles.  But nevermind, The oil and gas companies’ profits will continue to soar to record levels.

Pruitt has also demonstrated a deep sensitivity for issues regarding corporations that burn fossil fuels.  Pruitt, worried about the burden utility companies faced when their disposal of coal ash contaminates drinking water supplies, has eliminated Obama EPA rules that had imposed more restrictions of how coal ash is disposed.  But nevermind, Utilities are saving millions so children can suffer increased learning disabilities, birth defects, asthma and cancer from exposure to the dangerous chemicals in coal ash. For fuller discussion, see:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-coal-ash-rule_us_5a999023e4b0a0ba4ad2e630)

Pruitt’s stewardship of the environment includes protecting major chemical companies’ interests.  Pruitt met with Dow Chemical executives one month before he refused to ban their dangerous pesticide chlorpyrifos.   Pruitt then outdid himself when he lowered the penalty Syngenta was directed to pay by the Obama administration after the company sent twenty farm workers into a field just sprayed with chlorpyrifos.  The EPA under Obama fined Syngenta 4.9 million dollars for exposing those workers to this dangerous chemical. After hiring a former Syngenta lobbyist, Jeff Sands as an advisor, Pruitt slashed that fine to $140,000.  That company had to spend another $400,000 on worker safety training. Steward for the land or steward for industry? Pruitt accommodates his masters religiously, which is fitting given his Christian zealotry. In any case, like the worm he loves his work. But nevermind. The harm he is causing is both near and far.

Young Enough To Be Wiser Than Their Elders

    On Saturday, March 24, hundreds of thousands of young people assembled in the streets of cities around the United States to protest the absurdly lax gun laws in America.  These young people have the good sense to understand that serious national gun regulation is desperately needed, if we are going to reduce the tragically high number of deaths that result from guns.  Their intelligent speeches garnered high praise from left leaning pundits and from many right leaning ones as well. But some on the right, those on the right who fear the inevitable changes that are coming to this country, belittled the young protesters with typical NRA pseudo-patriotic rhetoric and condescending smugness.

    To defend their right to own any weapon they choose, the NRA posted derisive videos on Facebook that described the March For Our Lives protests as a product of the master plan by the liberal and evil elites headquartered in Hollywood:  “Today’s protests aren’t spontaneous. Gun-hating billionaires and Hollywood elites are manipulating and exploiting children as part of their plan to DESTROY the Second Amendment and strip us of our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones.”  

    The first part of that sentence parrots the typical “talking points memo” one hears on right wing radio programs.  Read: lefty billionaire types (Michael Bloomberg), Hollywood elite, (George Clooney,etc) are determined to endanger freedom loving Americans. The second half of the sentence is even more amusing.  Its pretentiousness is perfect for a Hollywood script that could feature John Wayne and Charlton Heston. Maybe like Carrie Fisher, the old duke and Heston could be technologically reanimated to star in a new xenophobic film in which they save America from the threat to “our way of life” the kids from Parkland pose.  The best response to the NRA’s attempt to stir up a paranoid frenzy came from Delaney Tarr, who acutely identified the NRA’s objective in issuing such rhetoric: “This is a movement reliant on the persistence and passion of its people...We cannot move on. If we move on, the NRA and those against us will win. They want us to forget.  They want our voices to be silenced. And they want to retreat into the shadows where they can remain unnoticed. They want to be back on top, unquestioned in their corruption, but we cannot and we will not let that happen.”

Another right wing bully, Matt Verspa of Townhall  sneered “This is not just a fight over the Second...after they’re done with Second Amendment, the great progressive campaign to shred the constitution of its institutional mechanisms that prevent mob rule through transient majorities will begin.”  I wonder what Verspa means by “transient majorities”? Does he fear the shifting demographics of America? Are his words a coded racist message to like minded older, white males? Inexorable as the tides, the population of white men have been is receding just as the population of people of color have been rising.  As one saw the faces of the March for Our Lives rally, one saw the diversity of color that will shape politics in the near future.

    These individuals and the NRA are bullies and since they see that the times are moving against them and will slowly overwhelm them, it is obvious that their politics are driven by a genuine fear that “their way of life” is slipping away.  Of course, like most people motivated by fear, the dangers they see surrounding them are more fantasy than reality. By the time this country enacts intelligent laws, Wayne Lapierre and many of the men who fetishistically cling to their guns will be dead and buried.  Some of course will be with us longer and will continue to argue that guns aren’t the problem. One of the weirdest commentaries on the Parkland shooting from one such person came from former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum on CNN:

 

SANTORUM: “Yes. I mean, this is the bottom line.

Is this a political effort? Is this a political movement? It very well may be, and that's fine.

I mean, if the organizers, people certainly supported it, the Hollywood elites and the liberal billionaires who funded this, is all about politics.

Is this really all about politics or is it all about keeping our schools safe? Because it is about keeping our schools safe then we have to have much broader discussion than the discussion that's going on right now. How about kids instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that if there is violence.”   

    The sheer magnitude of Santorum’s stupidity here is outdone by his response to another commentator who reminded him that these kids are taking action by protesting:

SANTORUM: Yes, they took action to ask someone to pass a law.

They didn't take action say, how do I as an individual deal with this problem? How am I going to do something about stopping bullying within my own community? What am I going to do to actually help respond to an issue? What am I going to do?

Those are the kinds of things where you can take it in internally and say, here's how I'm going to deal with this, here's how I'm going to help the situation instead of going and protesting and saying, oh, someone else needs to pass a law to protect me.”

His smug platitudes don’t disguise what he really wants.  He wants the students to be silent. He wants the students to leave the matter of politics and policy about guns in the smooth, soft hands of the politicians who sputtered inanities about “thoughts and prayers” every time these mass shooting happen, then return to their offices to open the envelopes out of which flutter the checks  the NRA has generously sent them. But as Delaney Tarr said, their “voices” won’t “be silenced.” Let’s hope she’s right and let’s keep fighting with her and the rest of those kids who are young enough to be far wiser than their elders and who very soon will transform their words into ballots more persuasive than all those NRA payoffs to members of congress.

Against Trump IV

    Disturbed as I have been by Trump’s lechery and lies, yesterday’s news of his firing of General H. R. McMaster and replacing him with John Bolton has added a new sinister potential to his presidency.  With the appointment of Bolton, Trump now has another aggressive hardliner whose positions on Iran and North Korea match the virulent rhetoric of his speeches and tweets.

    Of course, Bolton has his supporters who believe that he has the force to stabilize Trump and establish consistency leading the country toward the foreign policy they dream of.  They applaud the unapologetic rhetoric of his “America First” worldview. They love that he has always advocated that the United States should take a hard nationalistic approach to China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.  And they get all tingly when he espouses unilateralism over the multilateralism, even when our allies are involved.

    Bolton, no doubt, is intellectually qualified for any top position in the administration.  And his conservative objections to the Iran deal and North Korea’s behavior have some merit.  What corrodes his policy formations, though, is his “everlasting itch” to launch preemptive strikes.  Bolton has argued that the United States should drop any diplomatic means to arrest North Korea’s nuclear program and simply bomb them; he urges policy makers to tear up the Iran deal, and then bomb that country too.  His bellicose language isn’t just rhetoric. In the lead up to the 2003 war in Iraq, Bolton vehemently pushed for the invasion, claimed the conflict would end swiftly and has continued to indefatigably defend the greatest strategic blunder of the twenty-first century, (thus far).  Like Rumsfeld, Bolton fantasized about Iraqi welcoming American troops and insisted that Saddam’s tyranny would miracuously be transmuted into glittering democracy.  Like Rumsfeld, Bolton still maintains that the invasion was the right call even though everyone knows that the administration lied about Iraq’s build up of weapons of mass destruction.  

    With Bolton as national security advisor and Pompeo shortly to become secretary of state, one sees a trio of characters more unsettling than the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld triumvirate whose disastrous policy needlessly sacrificed over four thousand American troops and a half million innocent Iraqis.  And just as in that war, neither Bolton nor Trump can be trusted to evaluate intelligent reports honestly about Iran’s compliance with the six-party deal or tell the truth regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

    Bolton graduated from Yale Law school.  Yet some of his comments resemble the bluster of a barroom bully.  At least when he speaks about legal matters he observes a more decorous style:  “It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law, even when it seems in our national interest to do so-because over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrain the United States.”  Though the style here is less blunt than his usual dogmatic pronouncements, the content thumps the reader with Bolton’s sledge-hammer philosophy. What exactly does Bolton mean by any international law that would constrain the United States or its policies? Does Bolton mean policies such as propping up dictators in south east Asia or Latin America?  Policies conspiring with military juantas to assassinate democratically elected leaders? Policies spraying Agent Orange across large swaths of Vietnam?

   Over the coming months or weeks we will all have to watch the administration closely and be ready to pressure congress and protest in the streets if Trump or Bolton or Pompeo begin browbeating the legislative branch “for open war.”  Like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, neither Trump nor Bolton have ever experienced the horrors of combat. Trump dodged the draft through the phony flat-foot ruse. Bolton joined the Maryland National Guard to avoid the possibility of going to Vietnam.  Men who falsely or assiduously evade the grotesque horror of war are sometimes those most ravenous for unspeakable violence, mayhem, death and dismemberment which their policies perpetrate.

Against Trump III

    Donald Trump’s attempts to cover up his vulgar and sexist womanizing and his ongoing efforts to undermine the credibility of media have revealed his most practiced modus operandi:  his determination to suppress the truth about himself and his activities. When children do something wrong and are discovered, their impulse is to lie: “No Mommy, I didn’t pour juice on Billy’s head; he did it himself.”  Usually, they eventually own up and confess their guilt. Over time, the impulse to lie, to hide the truth, is often (though sometimes very slowly) muscled out by the growing sinews of moral character. As we see in Trump’s case, that process of developing moral character never took place.  

    Trying to suppress any fact or truth that might jeopardize his interests are the steps that has choreographed Trump’s life.  Consequently, it has come as no surprise that hardly a day passes when he does not assail the probe into Russia’s subverting of the 2016 election.  For the first time, Trump even began naming Mueller in his attacks. This morning (Wednesday, March 21, 2018), Trump, referring to a comment made by Alan Dershowitz, tweeted:

“‘Special Council (sic) is told to find crimes, whether a crime exists of not.  I was opposed to the selection of Mueller to be special Council. I am still opposed to it. I think President Trump was when he said there never should have been a Special Council appointed because…

“‘there was no probable cause for believing that there was any crime, collusion or otherwise, or obstruction of justice!’  So stated by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.”

    Over the weekend, Trump raged on twitter against Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired Friday, March 17 and Robert Mueller.  In a barrage of tweets, he poured out his ire:

“The Fake news is beside themselves that McCabe was caught, called out and fired.  How many hundreds of thousands of dollars was given to wife’s campaign by Crooked H friend, Terry M, who was also under investigation?  How many lies? How many leaks? Comey knew it all, and much more!”

“The Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime.  It was based on fraudulent activities and a Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC, and improperly used in FISA COURT for surveillance of my campaign.  WITCH HUNT!”

    If his campaign in no way colluded with the Russians, then why is Trump twittering like Blake’s

                             

                               “A Robin Red breast in a Cage

                               Puts all Heaven in a Rage”?

It seems clear, that Trump feels certain walls closing in on him.  What dealings with the Russians is he so anxious to hide? Is it that the tales of micturating females are true?  John Brennan, former C.I.A. director, wondered on MSNBC “Morning Joe (3/21/18) ” that the Russians “may have something on him personally.”   

    

    The aim of Trump’s twitter, and from what we can gather, the meetings with his lawyers, is quite obvious.  Trump wants Mueller gone; he wants any investigations into Russia scuttled. Whatever connections he has forged with the Russians in business or whatever knowledge of his unseemly conduct they possess exercise a powerful sway over him.  That’s why he asked James Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn. That’s why he had Comey fired. That’s why he had McCabe fired. That’s why he keeps screaming that there is no collusion. Russia holds the secret, and given his sterling reputation, Mueller will keep digging till he unearths the truth.  Ironically, Trump too is digging a hole. As he tries to “dish dirt” on the intelligence agencies, on McCabe, on Comey and now on Mueller, he can’t see that the hole he’s digging will end up entombing him. For any intelligent survey of Trump’s words and actions could be viewed as obstruction of justice, and if his dealings with the Russians haven’t broken any laws his efforts to conceal them certainly suggest conspiracy to obstruct justice.  To get a clear picture of what might constitute obstruction of justice, one need only remember two recent Presidents, one who fell and one who nearly fell:

One of the charges from Impeachment of Nixon

“Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees.”

One of the charges from Impeachment of Clinton

…”has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents, in course for conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to Federal Civil Rights Action brought against him.”

    Over his lifetime, Trump has bamboozled many credulous people.  And, as difficult as it might be to imagine the bloated and bombastic Trump as a child, I suppose his dealings in business reflect what he learned from that childhood. It is as if no one ever bothered to plant and nurture in him the roots of honesty and integrity when he was a young boy.  Instead, we see a man in whom the gnarled and coarse sinews of selfishness and avarice have grown rather than moral character. Obstruction of justice to him, therefore, isn’t wrong; it’s simply him asserting his character.

Against Trump II

                                               Against Trump II

“Only a free and unrestricted press can effectively expose deception in government”

                                                                                            Hugo Black

    In my last blog I attempted to persuade anyone (especially friends)  who voted for Trump to recognize the base personality that inhabits the man and informs his words and actions towards women.  I realize that some of his supporters see his licentious language and behavior as irrelevant to national politics and therefore are unmoved by an appeal to decency.  Others feel that Trump’s affairs are a private matter between him and his wife. “I am not going to judge Trump’s or anyone else’s sexual conduct,” they say. Of course, that is the approach Bill Clinton’s supporters used to excuse his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, which conservatives roundly and rightly still reject.  A third, and perhaps the largest, group of voters simply don’t believe the news accounts describing Trump’s “amorous” assignations. In fact, this group considers reports criticizing the president as “fake news” manufactured by a biased and hostile media. And although vilification of the media has been a continual exercise by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and a host of radio dogmatists, what has added a dangerous impetus to the anti-media rantings is Trump’s own relentless crusade to destroy the media’s credibility.   

    Previous presidents have blamed the media for mistreating and misrepresenting them.  Nixon’s antagonism with the media grew out of his paranoia that reporters would never give him an honest break.  For all his complaining, Nixon never demonized publically news outlets or attempted to define all of them as dishonest purveyors of propaganda.  On the other hand, Trumps have made it an almost daily ritual to malign the media (except Fox News). Here is a brief sample of his anti-media statements:

Rally in Phoenix, Arizona, August 22,2017.

Journalist are “sick people”; they are “trying to take away our history and heritage”; “I really think they don’t like our country.”

“If you want to discover the source of the division in our country, look no further than the fake news and the crooked media.”

"You're taxpaying Americans who love our nation, obey our laws, and care for our people. It's time to expose the crooked media deceptions, and to challenge the media for their role in fomenting divisions,"

Speech at CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, January 21, 2017.

“As you know, I have a running  war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth.”

Tweet, November, 27,2017.

“We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and  not including FOX, is the most dishonest corrupt and /or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me).  They are all bad. Winner to receive FAKE NEWS TROPHY!”

Tweet, February 17, 2017.

“The FAKE NEWS MEDIA (failing @nytimes, @NBC, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!”

    These statements come from a man who also said, “I have great respect for the news and great respect for freedom of the press and all that.”  Really? Does Trump think that anyone would be fooled by his inept dissimulation? Or that anyone forgets him calling the news media “scum,” “slime,” or “disgusting,”?  The MIT professor, Noam Chomsky has remarked that “If we don’t believe in freedom of the expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Clearly Trump believes in freedom of expression, but only for those who grovel before him, fawn over him or pander to his ego.  The way Trump feels about the media was eloquently summed up by Mitt Romney: Donald Trump “applauds the prospect of twisting the constitution to limit First Amendment freedom of the press.”

    Now, what I wish to call to the attention of Trump’s supporters is the real danger lurking in this presidency.  Trump has espoused an affinity for dictators-Putin, Duterte, Xi. He admires their iron fisted control and, no doubt, would enjoy the power to rule as they do.  He would like nothing more than to possess their power and use it to control and punish news media outlets that criticized him. But since that’s impossible, he incessantly strives to sully the reputations of every news organization that does not flatter him.  And his followers regularly repeat his mantra that any media that criticises him is nothing more than “fake news.” What his followers fail to understand is the basic function of a free press. A free press has the responsibility to speak truth to power. That necessarily entails taking positions on issues.  Therefore, whether a news outlet takes a position on the left or the right matters little. What matters most is that they report honestly the facts of the stories they cover. The New York Times leans to the left; The Wall Street Journal, to the right.  Both paper have earned high and just praise for their journalism.  Why? Because they each report accurately the stories they tell. Of course, the Times prefers to tends to be more critical of Republican presidents; the Journal, of Democratic ones.  But each is fair, accurate and honest regarding the facts and, more importantly, the truth.  Both papers and most of the television news, adhere to a credo set forth by George Orwell in The Prevention of Literature: “freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means freedom to criticize and oppose.”  Both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal do both admirably.  

    

    If Trump supporters would finally accept the fact the media is doing a job essential to preserving democracy, and telling truths about Trump, then many of them would have the scales fall from their eyes and feel the sting of the light of reason.  Shortly thereafter, they might suffer a spell of nausea as they recognized the infinite repugnance of Trump and, like Jeff Flake and a few others, see the patriotic duty defending the media against what John Brennan has rightly described as a “disgrace demagogue.”

Against Trump

Against Trump

“The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”

     Among the concerns Alexander Hamilton expressed regarding democratic government was his suspicion that the general citizens wanted the necessary intelligence and knowledge to choose wisely those who would govern them.  He believed that passions could sway people’s minds, distorting their perspectives and perceptions.  Therefore, in Federalist 68 he stressed the virtues of the Electoral College (“The Mode of Electing the President”):

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

Unfortunately, the 2016 presidential election inverted Hamilton’s logic when Trump won the presidency even though Clinton won the popular vote.  By winning the “right” states, Trump benefited from the Electoral College distribution of votes, surpassing the 270 needed to slip into the White House.  Hamilton’s wisdom persuaded him that the general population could not be trusted to select a person who is qualified morally and intellectually to assume the momentous task of leading the country.  In an ironic reversal of his view, and to the shame of the country, the electors in this case lacked the wisdom to fulfill Hamilton’s ideal, and were unwilling to cast aside the repugnant Trump.   Consequently, America has elected someone who embodies none of the eminent characteristics that Hamilton predicted future presidents would have:

“The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters preeminent for ability and virtue.”


That Donald Trump is not “endowed with requisite qualifications” for the office he holds has been demonstrated amply by his behavior during the campaign and his thirteen months in office.  Early in the campaign, stories of his “relationships” exposed what sort of man he is and should have been enough enough to eliminate him during the primaries.

Additional salacious tales have continued to emerge debasing further any moral authority his presidency might have to dressed him in.  The media, for example, have reported Trump’s embarrassingly sleazy relationship with a porn actress, Stormy Daniels.  In spite of this disturbing story, friends of mine who voted for Trump still support him.  Perhaps presidential sex scandals no longer shock or disturb the public because the nineties inured Americans to sordid conduct through the relentless coverage of Bill Clinton’s disgraceful behavior.

Perhaps Trump’s ranting about the fake media have convinced them too that the news account are indeed false even though The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and numerous other news outlets have extensively documented Trump’s insatiable appetite for extra-marital affairs.  The claim that the media is “fake” is absurd and withers immediately once one hears Trump’s own statement (Hollywood Access tape) that he is entitled to grab women wherever and whenever he pleases.

Unlike Trump, my friends who support him, also tell me that Clinton committed his offense in the White House, which seems a sacrilege to them.  They further point out Clinton was impeached for perjury and should have been removed from office.  I don’t disagree with them; Clinton should have been and was punished for what he did, albeit he finished his term as president.  Should not Trump’s frequent infidelities and his bribes (confidentiality agreements) silencing the women with whom he has had affairs also disqualify him to be president?  Should not the latest revelation at least change the minds of those who found his language and behavior till now not enough to reject him?

Our Presidents have not always been the most sterling men.  Indeed, Hamilton’s expectation of a virtuous president almost seem quaint today and far beyond the reach of our contemporary politicians.   Nevertheless, a president should possess at least some modicum of “virtue” inherent in “the distinguished office” of the presidency.  Trump’s past years of marauding lasciviousness make clear he views women as objects to gratify his lust.   How anyone could continue to support him remains a mystery.  Yet I still have hope, if only in knowing that though “they seldom judge or determine right” “The people are turbulent and changing” and in time may choose correctly and revoke their allegiance to such an ugly and contemptible charlatan posing as a politician.

Perception Precisely Reflected V

Perception V

The hours that morning were hollowed out by the sentence, “he strangled her in her pajamas sometime in the middle of the night.”  Every time I focused on work, a terrified, contorted face would insert itself into my thoughts and make me a little sick.  I knew Bell detested his mother; he made no secret of it.  He often disparaged her as a self-centered, materialistic woman who complained and carped about how the neighbors’ wives had better houses and cars and clothes.  Her husband worked as an accountant, but never earned enough money to satisfy her wants.  Her children possessed average abilities, which offended her sense of dignity.  Bell was one of three children, each born five years apart.  His older sister and brother seemed to have no interest in him and he clearly cared little for them.  Both of them left the house for college after high school never to return.  Bell himself attended an average New York State college, achieved an academic level of mediocrity then decamped for San Francisco, where he lived for about ten years.  

I had heard all these facts from Finn years before.  When Finn was still on friendly terms with Bell he asked him about his time in San Francisco, but only learned that Bell had found and lost the great love of his life while he lived out there.  Bell spoke in a strangely nostalgic tone about San Francisco, but also remained secretive about his years there.

I arrived at our lunch table to find Finn and my other colleagues already there.  They had just sat down and were waiting for me so Finn could begin telling us what he knew of Bell’s situation.   

“Welcome to our little lunch group,” I said to Finn as I sat down.  “You already know Nabokov and I guess you’ve met Nancy, Olivia and Erica,” indicating our redheaded, well dressed and reticent colleagues respectively. 

“Yes, I’ve worked with all three on various projects.  And they regularly join us for drinks at Crowley’s on Friday afternoon.”  The ‘us,’ Finn meant, comprise a rather hard drinking crew of warehouse employees.  The “drinks” suggested a far more moderate consumption that was actually the case.  Finn and his friends would descend on Crowley’s around four and carouse till four or five the next morning.  

The thought of these women drinking with Finn startled me.  They were too reserved to mix with such inveterate drinkers.  Did their polite, demur behavior at the office reflect who they were or did their drinking and presumably riotous revels denote them?  

Finn drank some water and said, “After Bell was fingerprinted and booked yesterday, he called me from the Nassau County police station.  When I saw the caller ID I immediately figured it must be him.  He knows I have friends who are criminal attorneys.  He apologized right away for bother me but said he was in a bad way needed my help.  I told him I’d do what I could and he asked me to get one of my lawyer friends to represent him.  I told him I would call one right after I got off the phone with him and he thanked me profusely.  I could tell from his voice that he’d been crying; it kept cracking when he spoke.  There was an awkward silence for about a minute, then he said he’d talk to me soon and hung up.  

“Didn’t he say anything about his mother or whether he was guilty or not?”  Nabokov arched her eyebrows as she demanded this information.  Finn just shrugged his shoulders and shook his head no.  

“He only asked for the lawyer.  I thought he would have said more.  Maybe he wanted to, but couldn’t.  I don’t know.  My friend said he’d take the case.”

“But why do you think he’d do that to  his mother? I just don’t understand it.”  This was the second time I heard Erica speak. Nothing like aberrant behavior to draw a shy person out of her shell, I thought.

“Well, I am no shrink, but I think it might go back to Bell’s childhood and how she treated him as a little boy. I really don’t have many details; Bell used to  describe his mother as a cruel person who alternately ignored him or belittled him.  He told me that his mother never said anything nice to him and that she would sometimes call him stupid or useless if he did things he wasn’t supposed to.  I don’t think she hit him, but it sounded like she was verbally abusive.  Jim do you remember, I think it was about twelve years ago, a group of us from the building were at Crowley’s and Bell was there too, and he was pretty plastered?”

“Yes, very well.  He went on a tirade about how much he hated his mother.”

“That’s right.  He said she was grossly obese.”

“I believe he said she was a fat pig,”  I interjected.

“Yea, and he told me that she spent all his father’s money and she was the most selfish woman he’d ever known.”  So, I think his motive for strangling her runs deep.  He seemed obsessed by how much he despised her.”

“Oh my God, he sounds really sick. But it seems as if his mother almost drove him to it.  I don’t mean to excuse what he did, but I can understand it,” Erica said.

“Erica, Jim was real pals with Bell before Finn and I came to work here.  Tell them about Bell’s friendship with the woman he retired fifteen or so years back,” Nabokov said.

I cringed at the false implication and glanced menacingly at Nabokov.  “Finn, he always confided in you, even after you had been transfered to the warehouse.  But I witnessed some revealing behavior myself right at this office.  I had been working at the company for few years and became friendly with an older woman in a another department.  At the time I knew Bell only by sight, I hadn’t spoken a word to him.  Sitting at lunch one day in the staff room I was enjoying a quiet moment alone with my thoughts when Bell pulls up a chair, introduces himself and joins me.  I politely acknowledged him and continued eating.  After a few awkward minutes of silence, he began to question me.  Where are you from?  Where did you attend college? Are you married?  The barrage of interrogation caught me completely by surprise and I scrambled to keep pace with the stream of questions.  Luckily, the older woman I just mentioned arrived and sat with us and I got a glimpse into Bell’s mind.  The moment she sat down Bell fixed his full attention on her.  She spoke to us both equally, talking lightheartedly about all sorts of topics and I enjoyed the conversation and her company as I always had.  But Bell’s disposition changed.  To every remark I made, or joke I told, Bell sneered most viciously.  All of a sudden he seemed to loathe me beyond any reckoning.  I quickly became confused and rose to leave the table.  The older woman asked me to stay longer, since the lunch hour was only half over.  I excused myself, saying I had too much work to complete and hurried away from her and that dark and disturbed creature sitting with her.  Later, another colleague explained to me why Bell behaved as he did.  It seemed he had attached himself to this woman like a barnacle to a ship and when anyone drew her attention even slightly away from him, he had to annihilate the person out of existence.  Although I didn’t know it then, I had seen the edge of the sickness that would drive Bell to destroy Driscoll and murder his mother.”

“So you’re the one who actually knows the facts of what Nabokov has been telling?” Erica sputtered.

“Yes,” I calmly replied.  “Nabokov is the narrator, the bard, but I am the author of everything you have heard.  Witness, participant, adversary and finally author.”  Our three young colleagues looked back and forth from Nabokov to me as she and I shook our heads in subtle complicity.