Writing Again & Response to Comey's Testimony

My friend, Ramon Benitez, writes a blog (http://bramon1.wixsite.com/animalempathengineer/blog).

I don't read it. This is partially because we communicate pretty regularly, and I'm fairly certain we've discussed the blog topic in depth by the time he has written the entry. I need to read it. I'm probably wrong about that fair certainty, and regardless, Ramon's take-aways from our conversations will surely be different when in his own words. I also don't read it because I have a lot of hermit behaviors that disconnect me from social networks.

Even though I don't read it, people do! It's something I hear people talk about. And even if they didn't talk about it, he writes it! He writes a blog. His most recent entry is about using the blog as a sort of memoing, in the grounded theory sense (positioning the writing as theoretical work, with intellectual merit and impact) and in the James Comey sense (a documentation of important experiences that can carry weight in discussion later).

I don't write. I have a lot to say, or at least I think a lot, but I don't write because I want to sharpen the whole thought to a point. When I was younger, and I wanted to sharpen my pencil for writing in class, I would spend a very long time at the sharpener, making sure the point was as sharp as I could get it. If you've ever tried this, you know that you easily run the risk of breaking the graphite tip, setting yourself back to a useless pencil that doesn't write. And the successful hyper-sharp points would almost always immediately break upon reaching the paper.

I don't do this with pencils anymore. I have intuited a sweet spot of sharpness of the pencil tip that lets me do what I need it to do, and doesn't appeal to a silly ideal of perfect sharpness attained at the classroom sharpener. I don't want to do this with my writing anymore. With some inspiration from Ramon, I'm going to try to write a little less sharply, and I'm going to write. I think I'm at a point where my insight could do a little damage (a saying that I'm fond of: I know enough to be dangerous). This thought is new too. I have not been so confident. But treating myself and the resulting writing as valuable is a step I want and need to make, so I'll do that.

So onto our scheduled programming:

I watched part of James Comey's testimony yesterday, live. I came in around senator King's questioning. I had homework to do, and I felt pretty satisfied with the amount I had watched after hearing senator Harris' 7 minutes (after finally hearing/seeing a woman of color in the crowd of white men). I saw a lot more excerpts, read the Washington Post's breakdown.

I have some thoughts about what this all means for Trump/Russia collusion, and I don't think Trump will get impeached...but I don't really know anything about this. I'm not so knowledgeable about it, honestly, though I am invested and interested in it. What really struck me was James Comey's refrain and bipartisanship. Hearing him speak about love for this country, and about bipartisan ideals, had both me and Ramon cheering him on. What a badass! (To paraphrase Ramon: "A lot of man").

If James Comey's word is to be trusted, I think it is very interesting to see the intersection of power and deliberate refrain from politics. To me it is very inspiring to see that someone so interested in truth, so intent on the process and means of justice rather than simply the ends, got so far. I found myself more inspired by what he said during testimony than by what I hear from Democrats.

I also find Stephen Colbert's treatment of Comey to be very interesting. I love Colbert, but I think he/his writers struggle to handle Comey, because of Comey's refrain from politics. Watching his most recent treatment of Comey, he is a little less angry and dismissive of him, but he still does not include him in the good-guy crowd. Comey is the person that released the statement on the Hillary email investigation, and that can't be forgotten. Comey helped ruin the country, I think is the statement Colbert made not long ago, because he helped elect Trump.

Compare that to the ideals that Comey invoked in his testimony, love for a country no matter the political party. Is this naivety on his part? The lack of self-awareness?

All told, I think it is interesting to see bipartisan power at work. I don't believe anyone is purely objective or bipartisan, but it seems some people are trying. The game of means-over-ends seems like the longer term strategy. Yes it gets Trump elected, but perhaps something more valuable is protected. Maybe the principle of honesty and the yielding of one's own interests in the name of truth are more important to defend than the presidential throne. Maybe these ideals serve us in the longer run than the zealous ideals of political parties, when political parties fight, benefit from disinformation and demand obedience.