Anthony McIntyre ✒ While seriously at odds with the political philosophy and policy framework of Taoiseach Micheál Martin, I have never been one of his strident critics.

@yanisvaroufakis
I have tended to view him as someone to be disagreed with not hated. Nurtured in a particular ideological soil, with roots vastly different from my own, I consider him as having tried his best in challenging circumstances. Definitely a far cry from some of the crooks and cute hoors that have led Fianna Fail, or the Blueshirts who have topped the Fine Gael greasy pole.

That is certain to win me zero brownie points from the ranks of the social media SS, but not being remotely interested in what the Screamer Society hates or screams about, it doesn't much matter.

Still, it is something of an understatement to say that I was extremely dismayed with An Taoiseach's response to Richard Boyd Barrett's comments in Dail Eireann on the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian oligarchs fronted by Vladimir Putin. 

Both politicians use remarkably similar language to assail the perfidy of the Russian leader. The Taoiseach put it bluntly:

Vladimir Putin, a bully and a thug, has unleashed an unprovoked and unjustifiable war on the people of Ukraine, committing war crimes in the process – as we are witnessing.

Before the first Russian boots touched Ukrainian soil Boyd Barrett, using similar language, had lambasted Putin as a “thug and an autocrat”.

In spite of this seeming discursive convergence, Martin appeared riled by Boyd Barrett's use of "warmonger" when referring to NATO, angrily demanding that the term be withdrawn. Here the discourse and the ideology parted way. This was a request grounded in the vernacular of Western self-approval, demanding of Boyd Barrett that he should gainsay any notion that NATO bombed Belgrade, Libya or Afghanistan, and accept that the West's military alliance has not been involved in a two-pronged exercise of military expansionism towards and encirclement of Russia.

Boyd Barrett has been pretty consistent in this matter, previously insisting:

Of course we should condemn what Russia are doing, but why is there no condemnation, from a country that is supposed to be neutral, about a clear agenda by NATO to expand eastwards and to escalate military tensions with Russia?

This is an obvious question for a society to ask of its government, when to cite Orwell, “speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” While the Taoiseach accused him of seeking moral equivalence between NATO and the current aggressive belligerent, Boyd Barrett is no apologist for Russia's unilateral war on Ukraine. If anything he has used language that many might find unparliamentary, going even further than  Micheál Martin, describing Putin as a barbarian, thug, murderer, warmonger.

This is where the logic and consistency of An Taoiseach is eviscerated. As images reach us today from the city of Kharkiv, which is starting to resemble Gaza, it must be asked why Micheál Martin has never once used language like "thug and bully" to describe Benjamin Netanyahu, another Putin who just happens to speak Hebrew rather than Russian but who, crucially, is an ally of the West?

Lamentably, the core issue is not one of Boyd Barrett seeking to draw moral equivalence between NATO and the Putin regime, but the failure of this society's leader to insist on moral equivalence being drawn between two serial war criminals, Putin and Netanyahu.


Boyd-Barrett's concerns are not the outpouring of some Left eye ideological drivel. The Right eye too has not been blinkered on the issue. The US conservative Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has drawn attention to:

analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐​century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.

 

There is war in Europe, which has the potential to escalate to a catastrophic level on a global playing field that could end up levelled in the worst possible way. We are witnessing scenes that should be history not current affairs. Our leaders should lead with the language of ethical clarity and desist from misleading through recourse to a linguistic moral fog.  

 

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Fogs Of War

Anthony McIntyre ✒ While seriously at odds with the political philosophy and policy framework of Taoiseach Micheál Martin, I have never been one of his strident critics.

@yanisvaroufakis
I have tended to view him as someone to be disagreed with not hated. Nurtured in a particular ideological soil, with roots vastly different from my own, I consider him as having tried his best in challenging circumstances. Definitely a far cry from some of the crooks and cute hoors that have led Fianna Fail, or the Blueshirts who have topped the Fine Gael greasy pole.

That is certain to win me zero brownie points from the ranks of the social media SS, but not being remotely interested in what the Screamer Society hates or screams about, it doesn't much matter.

Still, it is something of an understatement to say that I was extremely dismayed with An Taoiseach's response to Richard Boyd Barrett's comments in Dail Eireann on the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian oligarchs fronted by Vladimir Putin. 

Both politicians use remarkably similar language to assail the perfidy of the Russian leader. The Taoiseach put it bluntly:

Vladimir Putin, a bully and a thug, has unleashed an unprovoked and unjustifiable war on the people of Ukraine, committing war crimes in the process – as we are witnessing.

Before the first Russian boots touched Ukrainian soil Boyd Barrett, using similar language, had lambasted Putin as a “thug and an autocrat”.

In spite of this seeming discursive convergence, Martin appeared riled by Boyd Barrett's use of "warmonger" when referring to NATO, angrily demanding that the term be withdrawn. Here the discourse and the ideology parted way. This was a request grounded in the vernacular of Western self-approval, demanding of Boyd Barrett that he should gainsay any notion that NATO bombed Belgrade, Libya or Afghanistan, and accept that the West's military alliance has not been involved in a two-pronged exercise of military expansionism towards and encirclement of Russia.

Boyd Barrett has been pretty consistent in this matter, previously insisting:

Of course we should condemn what Russia are doing, but why is there no condemnation, from a country that is supposed to be neutral, about a clear agenda by NATO to expand eastwards and to escalate military tensions with Russia?

This is an obvious question for a society to ask of its government, when to cite Orwell, “speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” While the Taoiseach accused him of seeking moral equivalence between NATO and the current aggressive belligerent, Boyd Barrett is no apologist for Russia's unilateral war on Ukraine. If anything he has used language that many might find unparliamentary, going even further than  Micheál Martin, describing Putin as a barbarian, thug, murderer, warmonger.

This is where the logic and consistency of An Taoiseach is eviscerated. As images reach us today from the city of Kharkiv, which is starting to resemble Gaza, it must be asked why Micheál Martin has never once used language like "thug and bully" to describe Benjamin Netanyahu, another Putin who just happens to speak Hebrew rather than Russian but who, crucially, is an ally of the West?

Lamentably, the core issue is not one of Boyd Barrett seeking to draw moral equivalence between NATO and the Putin regime, but the failure of this society's leader to insist on moral equivalence being drawn between two serial war criminals, Putin and Netanyahu.


Boyd-Barrett's concerns are not the outpouring of some Left eye ideological drivel. The Right eye too has not been blinkered on the issue. The US conservative Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has drawn attention to:

analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐​century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.

 

There is war in Europe, which has the potential to escalate to a catastrophic level on a global playing field that could end up levelled in the worst possible way. We are witnessing scenes that should be history not current affairs. Our leaders should lead with the language of ethical clarity and desist from misleading through recourse to a linguistic moral fog.  

 

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

29 comments:

  1. The stench of hypocricy stinks rotten Anthony. I have heard International Law spoken of and how Russia are in breach of it. I have no doubt Putin has broken the very vague International Law, the shouts of indignation from Dail Eireann and other pandoras boxes called parliaments are deafening. Yet, in 1984 when the US breached the same law by mining waters around Nicaragua, not a murmour. More recently not a word about International Law when the US Airforce used depleted uranium bombs, banned under the same laws, in Iraq. Again not an utterance of condemnation. Is it a case of Russia bad, USA good?

    In the Dail, TDs are falling over themselves in the contest who can support Ukraine and condem Russia the most. I often wonder about much of the sincerity coming out of that building, is it about showing support for Ukraine, or gaining brownie points with Joe Biden?

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just listened to Boyd Barrets arguments and can not but agree. Double standards are rife in Pandoras Box (Irish variant).

    What I have noticed sinse this all started is TDs of all parties, who normally hate the guts of each other, prerending to be friends. Friends unified in double standard hypocricies and drabble. Do they attend drama classes in order their acts are convincing? Mary Lou, who called An Taoiseach, Micheal Martin, "pathetic" was all over him with praise and adoration on Wednesdays Leaders Questions. Maybe they have a double suite booked in the Gresham, to discuss mutually agreed policies. The drama classess really are very good because you'd never guess these people cannot stand each other. It really is trully amazing.

    I Westminster, Britains version of the box, new bizzarre possibilities are coming out. The latest, according to Dominic Rabb, is the Russians are planning to assassinate the Ukrainian President. He even managed to keep a straight face while he said it.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin - avoiding calling Netanyahu out for what he is, lends itself to doubts about the veracity of the language used to describe Putin. Boyd Barrett asking the government for clarity on Israeli atrocity is a linguistic device for measuring government accuracy and reliability.
      I would not read too much into Mary Lou and Micheál Martin finding common ground on this matter. In fact I would be disappointed if they remained in their trenches. As Barry points out in his recent piece on democracy majorities coalesce around issues, dissipate and new issues create new majorities. While that is a standard pluralist view of a society that does not allow for the strength of structural factors, it is not without its merits.

      Delete
  3. I said "I could not but agree" emphasising the double standards, not neccessarily Boyd Barrets sincerity. He did, after all as a SWP leading light regularly inform us "no parliamentary road to socialism" I still maintain that position. Not calling Netanyahu out for what he is does lend "itself to doubts about the veracity used to describe Putin". My view, Anthony, is this mess could have been avoided and as a socialist, like many before me, support nether Russias invasion, or Ukraines right to join NATO, infact opposse NATO full stop. It would have naively been imagined with the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact, itself formed as a response to NATO, then the atlantic alliance itself would not be needed. Now the 26 county administration are making murmours about joining the gang.

    The only war, apart from those of national liberation, I could see the point of was that against Hitler, and even that could have been avoided as early as 1936.

    As for the Mary Lou, Micheal Martin relationship they are both primarily defenders of bourgeois economics, capitalism. Their Dail spats are as false as a Big Daddy, Giant Haystacks wrestling bout.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin - I don't know if Boyd Barrett believes there is a parliamentary road to socialism. There is certainly no revolutionary road to it. He might very easily in accordance with Leninist thinking feel that within capitalism there is a serious difference between bourgeois democracy and no democracy and as such the parliament has to be participated in to defend and advance what freedoms and rights there are.
      I am not a fan of Ukraine joining NATO but I feel it has a greater right to join NATO than Moscow has to stop it joining. I am not convinced joining would be the wisest decision.
      There is no point behaving as if sovereignty can exist like a star in some far off galaxy. It necessarily draws down implications. If we really believed in unlimited sovereignty, we would support the right of all nations to have a nuclear arsenal and argue that any denial is a serious infringement on sovereignty. But we don't call for that and the reason we do not is not because of the implications for the citizens of the nation internally but the implications it has in the wider external arena.
      There is probably thinking in Dublin that if we do not join NATO, the first Russian nuke will hit us in anticipation that NATO will do as much for us as it is doing for Ukraine. As a Times writer bitingly put it:

      There’s something nauseating about how, having watched as Russia did exactly what it had threatened to do, we now sit back and bless those brave Ukrainians for doing the fighting and dying for freedom, while we applaud ourselves for having the fortitude to tolerate higher oil prices, lost Russian buyers for Gucci handbags and a period of uncertainty for Chelsea football club.

      Not that I think in this circumstance the West should do any more: the last thing to extinguish a fire is petrol.

      I fully support the right of Ukrainians to fight and fully oppose the Russian onslaught. And like many others our home will be open to Ukrainian refugees. But I should not be expected for one minute to buy into the Western narrative that somehow it is lily white and the only barbarians are Russian.

      Delete
  4. I must disagree on the revolutionary road to socialism Anthony. I think, given the correct conditions, which presently do not exist, the overthrow of bourgeois society is the only way, if socialism is to be achieved. My problem is not with the theory but the practice. Look around at those who would lead a socialist revolution! No way, some want a socialist state, a contradiction in terms, others want capitalism out of the way but not too sure what to replace it with, a big danger which would allow, as in Germany 1919, the far-right in. Capitalism came about through revolutions, starting with Cromwells lust for amputating a Kings head, socialists do not advocate that, at least this one doesn't. France one hundred and forty four years later followed Cromwells example. Coupled with violent revolution, certainly in England, came the agricultural and industrial revolutions along with the acts of enclosure, forcing people into the new industrial towns. Welcome to wage slavery.

    Ukraine, as I pointed out, have every right as an independent state to apply to join NATO. That application can, and should be, rejected in line with US promises to Gorbechev in 1989. After all, the US rejected Putins application to join the gang in 2000 so I can understand his concerns. This does not ammount to supporting Russias invasion, but Putin is bound to be suspicious of the wests intentions. Why else was Russias application to join NATO rejected?

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The data does not support you Caoimhin. Revolutions are for authoritarians to ply their trade. Seemingly Russia applied to join NATO in 54 and 90. Putin dicussed the possibility with Bill Clinton in Moscow in 2000. The US Ambassador to Moscow in 87-91 - and who was stationed there during the Cuban missile crisis testified a quarter of a century ago that I consider the administration's recommendation to take new members into NATO as misguided. If it should be approved by the US Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the US, it's Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed. He specifically warned about Ukraine - "that this would bring about a confrontation."

      He might of course be wrong. While Kissinger and Carpenter might make a similar argument we need to bear in mind that it is the type of perspective subscribed to by the realist school. Hans Morgenthau who was central to it developed a school of thought that was amoral in international relations.

      You'd actually think I know something about all this but it is a long time since I studied global politics where Realism / neo-Realism featured significantly. So I had to read them all but there is little I remember of it. And I am not going to start taking myself seriously on it this late in the day.

      Delete
  5. Data is there to be proved wrong Anthony. Just because passed attempts have failed, does not mean that will alwys be the case, learn the lessons of the past and do not repeat them. Socialism is the only way forward for the continued existence of the human race, not just a few wealthy members of it.

    Russia in 1954 was in no position to join NATO, they were just one state,albeit the largest one, of the Soviet Union. Around the same time, as a response to West Germany joining NATO, the Warsaw Pact alliance was under construction. 1990 is probably correct, but, according to Vladimir Polonzky (I think thats how his name is spelt), in his lecture, How the US Made Vladimir Putin, a definate request was made in 2000. Like you, I am well away from studying international politics, twenty years out, but try to keep abrreast of events. Couldnt be arsed with all that again, though I enjoyed it at the time.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No data to show that people go to Heaven but it is still there to be proven wrong. You know Einstein's definition of insanity.

      It was a Soviet request in 54, not Russia specifically.

      Delete
  6. Of course, trying the same over again and expecting a different result. Are you sure, Anthony, the Soviet Union applied for NATO membership? If they did, and were refused it suggests a lot. It suggests the Warsaw Pact was formed not so much in answer to NATO and West Germany's membership of, but because the USSR, handing out the hand of peace, were rejected. As I have suspected for some time, it is the West which are the barrier to peace. The terrible situation in Ukraine is the latest episode in this long running saga, probably dating back to Napoleon. He wanted, and failed, to capture Russia. Then Hitler tried and, thankfully for all of us, failed. Then, after winning the lions share of WW11 they, as the USSRs largest state, were rejected by NATO again when they tried to be friend, or at least partners. Again, if correct, the same happened in 1990 and ten years later in 2000. It begins to make a modicum of sense, it also goes some way to explaining British and French reluctance in 1936 to stop Hitlers move into the Rhineland, their refusal, along with Poland of Stalin's (of all people) offer of an anti-Nazi pact in 1939. They wanted the Third Reich to invade the USSR and they would go in on Hitlers coat tails. Little wonder Putin feels threatened, the West are still trying, not very stealthly, to get into Russia. Unfortunately for Ukraine they may well be the pawn in NATOs very subtle game. For me, if these applications for NATO membership are correct, and no reason to doubt as I see it, it alters the whole scenario.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin - I prefer the West, the freedoms, the life style, the European secularism and its attitude towards religious fundamentalism, the ability to push back against authoritarianism. But I am aware all of that has come at a cost to those who have been exploited and massacred so that the West could prosper. For that reason I think we always need to go further than soundbites and outside of our intellectual comfort zone in a bid to see how our Western privilege, so to speak, has deprivileged so many others. And then we should try without virtue signalling (a term I used to dislike but see its value more and more) to find ways to show meaningful solidarity with them. So when Blair, Netanyahu, Bush et al join Assad, Putin, Bagasora et al come to massacre them we can at the very least say publicly not in our name, and take it from there.

      Delete
  7. Caoimhin - am I sure? Good question in that it is hard to be sure of anything in a world of constant disinformation and propaganda. It is always a challenge to find a bedrock of reliability in which we can sink our accuracy anchor. I read it. Here is a link to a piece I just found once you asked the question. Seems accurate. NATO was born 70 years ago today. Moscow has always viewed it as a threat, but that hasn't prevented three attempts to join the alliance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fair enough Anthony, it comes as a surprise to me but we learn by the day, and, as bad as Putin is, it does look to me as though the west are trying to fulfill Hitlers wish, minus the annhialalation bit. They want to occupy and control Russia and the huge potential market. Fucking capitalist greed again. Unfortunately, like Stalin before him, Putin is the man whose strategies are crass enough to allow this to happen. Unlike Stalin, Putin has no Georgy Zhukov to bail him out, we all owe that particular Soviet Commander a lot.

    Similar to Stalins attempt, which almost failed, to subdue Finland in 1939, Putins efforts in Ukraine are proving, at best, hard work. Just as Hitler monitored the progress of tbe Red Army, and its less than convincing progress in Finland, NATO are keeping an eye on the modern Russian Army's efforts in Ukraine. If, and only if, reports are correct NATO will not be too bothered. The reports are scarcely believable, with the Irish Mirror confusing the Russian Army with the Red Army. It states; "military observers have noticed how the Red Army convoys appear to only move during daylight hours". Either the Russians delays are being greatly exagerated or perhaps are made up by the media or, in their quest to compare the Ukraine to Finland they have, unprofessionally, used the former title of the old Soviet Army. Seems to me, can't believe a word we are told either by the Russians or the west.

    Also noticable is the lack of reporting on the racism of the Ukrainian and Polish border guards. An Irish Nurse, who happens to be black, is stranded in Ukraine. Her sister is as concerned for her safety on the grounds of her pigmentation as she is for her well being in general. "She maybe a European citizen, but she is still a black girl and the reports of racism" are obviously concerning her. Also noted, as the 26 county politicians cry their less than convincing crocodile tears, they hardly mention the Irish citizens of colour who are at a double disadvantage stranded out there.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin - Capitalism always wants access to markets. This is why national capitalism has to move outside its internal market. But Russia is a capitalist state so it will want excess to markets outside its own territory as well. In the world of modern capitalism territorial acquisition is not necessary for capitalism as immaterialism to perform.
      Zhukov was crucial to the defeat of the Nazis. But there were other great generals as well - Vasily Chuikov who commanded the 62nd Army at Stalingrad and who accepted the surrender of the Germans in Berlin. There is a great podcast series about the battle of Stalingrad narrated by Des Latham. Best I have heard. Well worth a listen to each night before you go asleep. You will get about a month's listening out of it.

      Delete
  9. It appears Czech President Havel made, at best, ethnocentric, at worst racist, remarks about Russia implying them to be uncivilised, "for now and forever". Hardly conducive to friendship. It should be noted, this kind of language was used by the Nazis when speakng of Russia.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the same time Caoimhin, we have Putin claiming Ukraine needs de-Nazified. There is not much less civilised than Nazism.

      Delete
  10. I think Putin may have point on this one,upto a point. The presence of the AZOV, a reportedly neo-Nazi group incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard give Putins claims about a Nazi presence credence. That said, Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is of Jewish decent. Is it possible to be a Jewish Nazi? It is possible to be a Jewish fascist but a Nazi? In its non-generic sense there is a difference between the two, though many similarities are present.

    Capitalism, as you point out, is always looking for new markets and does not always care how it gets them. Russia is a capitalist state, as are the USA and its western military puppets. As Lenin once observed, "what happens when the theives fall out?" Capitalism is a den of thieves from exploitation in the workplace, to stealing off other weaker countries.

    There is certainly not much lesd civilised than Nazism and that ideology, and related ideologies.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Red Army had some great leaders, no thanks to Stalin, and once left alone by the dictator proved their ability.

    There is so much to cover Anthony, the subject of generic and non generic fascism being one. In relation to Ukraine, I have listened to some of Zelenskyys orations and between the lines there are hints of fascism. Or am I imagining?

    Phone needs charging.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not heard anything that would lead me to think he harbours fascist ideas.

      Delete
  12. Caoimhin - in 2014 Putin was claiming that the neo Nazis were in charge of Ukraine even though their input to the fighting was minimal. Azov is a neo Nazi group but has limited sway, but is a national guard unit. In the last election the far right gained a mere 2 % of the national vote and no seats. The above is from Medhi Hasan who points out that if the US was under threat from invasion Liberals would take help from Proud Boys. He also says that Ukranians judge Azov not on its politics which they don't share but on its willingness to defend the country. He calls it disconcerting but understandable. He also says that few leaders rely on neo Nazis to fight for them more than Putin and that in 2014 he sent thousands of right wing nationalists to East Ukraine to fight against Ukranians. He asks the obvious question "is that how Putin plans to de-Nazify Ukraine - with neo Nazi irregulars of his own."
    Michael Colborne from Bellingcat (author of the book on Azov), however, is reputed to have said “Ukraine really does have a far-right problem, and it is not a Kremlin propaganda figment."
    Many countries have a far right problem but to characteriee the countries that have them as Nazi would be wide off the mark

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree, Anthony, and have never suggested Ukraine is a Nazi state. Though in the last world war many Ukrainians supported the Nazis and Nazi occupation, took part in their murderous campaign against Jews, communists, socialists and trade unionists, but there were also many anti-Nazis. Zelenskyy's grandfather fought against the Nazis in the Soviet Red Army, so no, the Ukranian President is no Nazi. He is Jewish anyway.

    Britain had a far-right, fascist in my view, Prime Minister in Thatcher. Was Britain a fascist country, despite its other faults? No, it was not. The checks and balances were sufficient to prevent Thatcher going as far as she wished. The tory party has a history of harbouring fascists, Archibald Ramsay springs to mind, but is it a fascist party? No, it is not, not yet anyway!!

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Jason is always well worth a read. I think he makes a number of errors in these pieces and his sympathies probably lie closer to Russia than Ukraine (apart from the war which he hits out at) but his writing is great.

      Delete
    2. Where anyone's sympathies lie in this situation is somewhat irrelevant. Emoting without understanding and acknowledgement of both real and perceived causes won't contribute much to a cessation.

      There are many vested interests more than willing to exploit the conflict for all sorts of ends, I don't read Jason that way.

      Delete
    3. I take the opposite view. Sympathy is crucial, both in the manipulation and manufacture of it. One purpose of disinformation and to some extent information is to reduce sympathy for one side and increase it for the other. All sides try to position sympathy so that it becomes an asset to them.

      Delete
    4. True, sympathy is a fluid commodity. Hence attempts at manipulation, by all sides, will persist.

      It will wax and wane and narratives will be re-evaluated and reinterpreted.

      That much we can be sure of.

      Delete
    5. Yes, and the most prudent option is to tentatively step our way through the quagmire. I feel like a cat watching ping pong and getting pulled every which way anytime a new element is introduced to the narrative.

      Delete