News Musings 08/07/2019

Newspaper Musings

       Of course, it’s soccer! The US women’s team vs the world, and the Ladies kicked ass. Of course, some will bemoan their complaints re: compensation, without doing a shred of research. Here’s some data (remember facts and data? It’s my stock in trade.)

·       In the year following the 2015 World Cup win, women’s games generated $1.9 million more than the men’s games. And in recent years, the men’s revenue tally also includes the fees that opposing teams pay in order to play the United States. If both teams played 20 friendlies in a year, a top-tier women’s national team player would earn $164,320 less, or “38% of the compensation of a similarly situated MNT player.”

·              Some, men, primarily, may point out that the MLS draws more fans, ergo more gate receipts than the women’s league. That’s apples and oranges. We’re speaking of just the income earned by representing the nation in international competition.

·              With a World Cup win, the max earnings for a USWNT player is $200,000, while a USMNT player could earn $1.1 million with a title. That’s 5 times as much, for the math challenged!

·       In what must surely be one of the more galling slaps in the face, USMNT players are compensated $99 per diem while travelling, while USWNT player rate is $75 daily. In an environment where “equal pay for equal work” has become a mantra for many, the USWNT players are smacked in the face with “less pay for more and better work.” Doesn’t seem quite right, does it?

        In lighter news: A hearse was pulled over in Las Vegas recently, by a Nevada state patrolman, for driving in the HOV (2 or more passengers) lane. The patrolman, who noticed that the operator was apparently the sole occupant, instructed said driver that the corpse in the coffin didn’t count, as HOV refers to “living passengers only.”  It would be interesting to see how a judge ruled in the matter!

        I note with a mixture of anticipation and foreboding, that Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter have reunited, 30 years after their most recent collaboration, to make a third Bill and Ted movie. If Reeves is trying to break out of the recent “John Wick” character mode, this should definitely do it. I loved the first one and liked the second one. I mean, after all, where else would you find dialogue like “You killed Ted, you medieval dickweed,” a band like Wyld Stallyns, or a super-hot stepmom like Missy??

      

         Having said that, this will, at a minimum put the test to the old adage, “You can’t go home again.”  We will see. I don’t think there’s a lot of middle ground here. I predict this will either become another cult classic or simply a terribly bad idea.

       Finally, just because I ponder things like this: What would be our (the US’s) reaction to Iran dictating to us how much we could be allowed to enrich Uranium? I mean after all; we are the only nation in the world to ever actually use a nuclear weapon on a human population. We also have sufficient seaborne nuclear capability in just one submarine to essentially eradicate all of Iran’s population centers from the globe within 20 minutes of any offensive use of such weaponry against us.

       

        In typical bully fashion, the current administration withdrew from the Obama administration’s negotiated agreement with Europe and Iran. There still has been no concrete reason given for that action which, combined with ramped up sanctions on oil sales, pushes Iran farther into economic woes which fuel the anger of a civilian population, which truth told, would probably love to join the rest of the world as a free nation, but are constrained and limited by a theocratic government. We seem to believe we have the only world franchise on the safe and sane use of nuclear weapons, economic restraint, etc. How odd that we only seem to apply them to weaker nations. We have more to fear from Russia, yet, “non-collusion” protestations notwithstanding, we seem to allow them far more leeway than Iran. 

       There are several facts in play here: With all the Trump bullshit, what’s really going on is far simpler and monumentally less threatening than it’s being “spun” to be.    

       “Enrichment” means in layman’s terms, processing natural Uranium as it exists to increase the amount of the fissionable isotope in a sample. After being mined and processed down to pure, elemental, Uranium, the amount of the fissionable isotope, U235, constitutes just .7% of the sample! That is grossly insufficient for “weapons grade” nuclear material. It is also grossly insufficient for civilian electrical power generation plants using Nuclear energy as the heat source.  

       Typically, "weapons grade" is defined as around 90% enriched Uranium, that is, a sample where 90% of the whole is U²³⁵. The level of enrichment Iran was allowed under “the agreement” was 3.67% enriched. All their 20% enriched material was sold to Russia. That level — 3.67% — is far below what's needed for developing weapons.  More importantly for Iran, it’s also insufficient for the operation of Iran’s only nuclear power plant, the Bushehr plant, bought from Russia, which requires fuel with a concentration of about 5%. Without increasing enrichment above the 3,67% specified in the agreement, now defunct because Trump backed the US out,  Iran, already facing economic sanctions imposed, primarily, by the US, is facing a constant need to repurchase their own Uranium back from Russia at 5% concentration to keep producing electricity.

        The statement regarding increasing enrichment was not about weapons grade fissionable material, but about becoming self- sufficient in producing fuel for their domestic electrical production facility.  Iran's deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, made the announcement at a news conference in Iran. Araghchi said Iran would start enriching uranium to provide fuel for the Bushehr power plant, which requires fuel with a concentration of about 5%. There is very little difference between 3.7% and 5% enrichment, other than that it frees Iran from the expense of repurchasing their own Uranium from Russia in the face of already oppressive economic sanctions.

        If one had a sense of history, one might reflect on the series of escalating economic pressures on Japan, by the USA leading up to the Pearl Harbor attacks. On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, on July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted. Next, in a move aimed specifically at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze” Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One-week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia. Anyone besides me see any parallels?

Off The Rails Once More

Another Walter Williams Derailment

       In what may be the most desperate attempt at tokenism in US newspaper journalism, The Villages Daily Sun sports two columns by persons of color. That, alone, could be a good thing, if it wasn’t always the same two persons. I have written at length about one of them, the thoroughly despicable Michelle Malkin. Remember her? She’s the anchor baby, born here to Filipino parents on temporary work visas, who hates birthright citizenship, immigrants and, all things to the left of Joe McCarthy. One example – Japanese internment was an unqualified “good thing!”

        Today’s column is her (Malkin’s) usual drivel and unworthy of further commentary. The other columnist today, however, is the almost always wrong (and this is no exception) Dr. Walter Williams. Like his idol, Dr. Thomas Sowell, a Black economics professor, Williams may well have expertise, to the extent that it is possible to do so, in his academic field of economics. Admittedly one of  the “softest” of the “Soft Sciences” a group which includes sociology, psychology, and the non-reproducible data areas, economics is a field where, as an example, we have a president with a non-honors bachelor’s degree at odds with PhDs in the field over such issues of tariffs, monetary theory, and Federal reserve interest rates. Both claim to be right, and while the rest of us pay the price of their uncertainty we’re forced into a “wait and see” situation. In Chemistry, Na+Cl always yields salt. In Economics, bullshit added to bloviation frequently yields uncertainty. Soft science!

        Where the good doctor goes astray is when he waxes eloquent in areas unrelated to his field of expertise or, even worse, draws demonstrably wrong conclusions from what may sound like reasonable assertions of fact. This usually takes the form of making a statement which has an element of fact, and then drawing conclusions which fit his conservative mindset rather than logic. As an example of how this works, let’s draw on an analogous, simple,  Malkin example: In a column last year, she lauded John Roebling, designer and builder of the Brooklyn Bridge as a great engineer and risk taker (true!) She then concluded that the bridge itself was a monument to private enterprise and personal capital risk, stating that it was built by Roebling with his and other’s private money. Sadly, that belies the reality, which it that the “Great Bridge” (the title of David McCullough’s terrific book on the subject) was built almost entirely with the proceeds of “public” money, that is, bonds sold by the boroughs of Brooklyn and Manhattan, who actually “owned” the bridge after its completion. We see that today in the, all too familiar, Trump method of beginning with a statement that is, perhaps, speckled with a grain of truth and then departs reason into fantasy and outright lies. (Colonial airports, Fort McHenry during the revolution, six new steel mills?)

        But on to today’s fiasco. Dr. Williams, in a column entitled “The Assault on Western Civilization Continues” correctly identifies an issue on which he and I are in total agreement. He bemoans the fact that many universities no longer require a course in United States history as a core curriculum study. This, he asserts has resulted in a current group of grads who are, and surveys substantiate this, woefully ignorant of our history. His conclusion, however, is that this is driven strictly by “the left,” his own personal term for anything with which he disagrees, and that removing this requirement is typical of Leftist regimes. Really? In fact, leftist regimes historically haven’t removed history, they’ve rewritten it and made it (the “new truth” required reading (Mao’s Little Red Book, Stalinist rewrites and North Korean school texts.)

       In fact, concentrating on revisionist history, while it is certain that some US history books are being rewritten every day to include things previously omitted in the aim of including all our history, not just the White parts, Williams cites the current lack of requirement as leaving students as “Easy prey to charlatans, quacks and liars who wish to downgrade our founders and the American achievement.” This is a bit troubling, since much revisionism of US history has revolved around “re-humanizing” the founders, such as Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Washington, et all, who while bright men (and slave owners) all, were also acting in what they viewed as their own self-interest. Were they humans with human failings? Of course. Did many of them own Dr. Williams ancestors? Sure did! In fact, much revisionism in US History has originated in places like Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, where curricula and texts are being sanitized for such “unpleasantries” as lynching, post war race riots, the civil rights movement or factual treatment of the Vietnam war. The theory in these places, coincidentally, bastions of the Christian conservatism Williams apparently adores, seems to be “If we did it, it was right, so there!”  

       Another thread of the op-ed is “The attack on the Western Civilization must begin with the attack on church and Christian values.” By implication he also apparently believes that all the founders were committed Christians. As many Christians do, he hints at several “founding fathers” who allude to some higher power when speaking of human rights and responsibilities. This undoubtedly includes Jefferson's "all men are created equal" verbiage in the Declaration of independence. I can imagine TJ's slaves muttering about "equal this, m****r f****r." Of course, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Adams, (Deists all) never speak of “Jesus.”

         As enlightenment era literate men (largely autodidacts as in Washington’s case) they would have been educated in the concept of “natural law,” which concept precedes Jesus by centuries, was mentioned by the Greeks and others and has parallels in Asian religions as well, but don’t tell him; his head will explode.  As one last example, Williams cites “Christian” values which in his case, I’m fairly sure means a view that belief in any higher intelligence in the universe apparently only means belief in the Christian version of God and, by inclusion - especially and specifically, a divine Jesus.

      Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, constructed by cutting, pasting and excluding some parts, tells a different story.  Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.  In like fashion, while Washington regularly attended church while in residence at Mount Vernon, his pastor acknowledged after his death that he never, ever, took communion, choosing to leave instead.  Why? Deist, that’s why. The same thread holds true for all the others Madison, Adams, Franklin, and others.

        The concepts of the Ten Commandments are often cited as a basis for western law, as if no one else has a moral code. In fact, the principles which Moses claimed to have been delivered by “tongues of fire” (really?) were commonly cited, (Hammurabi (pre Moses) or Ashoka anyone?) exercised in parallel language and intent in numerous non-Christian cultures. Of course, they were good tools for construction of a civil law code - then. A law code based on Buddhist principles would have been equally acceptable as a civil code, but they went with what they, and more specifically, those about to be governed, knew.     

        In a final brush with fantasy we have this, “Joe Biden, criticizing sexual assault, said “This in English jurisprudence culture, a white man’s culture”, adding, “It’s got to change.”

          Now let’s be careful at this juncture. Again, there is a grain of truth, involved. I have essentially zero difficulty with the Biden quote as stated. Both parts of the statement are correct, Our laws do follow English Common Law (which law has changed and modernized markedly over time) but, in 1776, it derived from a culture of undeniable western European Caucasian racial and male gender superiority. Williams, however, then cites other parts of the world, under different legal constructs, where women are considerably more disadvantaged, mentioning such things as genital mutilation and civil restrictions. Again, demonstrably true.

        Where Williams is astonishingly wrong is his conclusion that there is only one alternative – things as they are with “Christian values” or the non-western alternatives. Of course, as an ignorant man, which he must be to conclude as he does, he omits that in the Buddhist parts of the world, women usually do not fare worse than in America. Even during the Colonial period women of the Six Nations (Iroquois Confederation) fared better than Massachusetts Bay colony wives. That, however, fails to mesh with his theory.

       I would be remiss if I failed to point out that those founders who, Williams lionizes, did or believed the following things as of 1776: women were essentially chattel, having no rights to own or manage property or to control their own money. Women could be beaten, short of fatal injury, by their husbands, raped by them, charged with witchcraft with no recourse. In fact, most unwitnessed rape was assumed to be seduction by the woman, children had no rights whatsoever. Slavery was legal in America and all English colonies. Indians could be forced to convert and live in “praying towns” or face genocidal war over land they had lived on for 10 millennia (see Pequot Wars ,1636-38), Indentured servants fared little better. Have we progressed beyond these circumstances? Of course, we have, but apparently Williams believes we risk a backslide into communism or socialism if we try to do better.  

        The assertion that there is no need for change (which for Williams is always driven by “leftists,” the term “progressive” apparently too difficult for him to spell) implies that all things under the good old Christian system are meant for the best. I am reminded of Voltaire’s satire, Candide, in which the young and naïve hero is under the tutelage of one Dr. Pangloss. As Candide's mentor and a philosopher, Pangloss is responsible for the novel's most famous idea: that all is for the best in this “best of all possible worlds.” This optimistic sentiment is the main target of Voltaire's satire. It is also apparently the concept which Walter Williams holds about things as they are.

        It seems that the concept of improving things to more evenly support civil rights or gender issues or any impetus which posits that we can do things better or more equitably is somehow impossible within the current system and  is linked in Walter Williams’ mind with “Leftist” thought, whatever that might mean to him. If recent history demonstrates anything regarding assaults on human rights in America it is that the more self- proclaimed “Christian or Judeo Christian” ethic based and uber-patriotic the effort, the more discriminatory it is likely to be. Don’t tell me that treating all citizens more fairly is leftist, tell that to the descendants of Stalin’s purges, Hitler’s genocide, ISIS’s horrors, Southern lynchings,  and the list goes on, all totalitarian, all brutal, all driven by religious and/or political doctrinarianism.

       Apparently, Dr. Williams, a Black man who bootstrapped himself to prominence, prefers the current “white man’s Christian culture” regardless of its inequities and biases. The system can be changed for the better. That isn’t revolutionary, it's just progress!      

Consistently Disappointing

The more things change…….

        It seems to never end and never change. The scenario is always some version of this: An individual takes offense at some political (statement, cartoon, meme) which casts Trump in an unfavorable light. The response is typically not, unfortunately, to respond with a defense listing specifics about the man which are exemplary of good decisions, actions, or programs but rather, in some bizzarro world approach, to attack either the writer, Trump opponents or, in the oddest cases, Barack Obama, three years out of office.

        In a recent slight twist on the story, the response was not any defense of Trump (No surprise here) but to question how I (we) were “worse off” because of him. Realize that this plumbs the depths of “lame.” Ask a (Christian, Buddhist, Beatles, Orioles, Lady Gaga) supporter why they feel as they do, and you will generally get a litany of reasons. One may disagree, but there will be reasons. Ask a Trump supporter, and I have, many times, and while you may get the odd generalization, you will rarely get any specific response which logically supports such fan girl or boy worship. Moreover, such reasons, when they are proffered at all, are almost always based on either flawed logic, ignorance, or simply demonstrable untruths. One suspects other reasons the fan is hesitant to share, perhaps?   

        Recently, the question was the “How are “you” (we) worse off because of Trump?” Without too much repetitious detail, my response alluded to the fact that as a society, we are all part of the whole. I might have simply chosen the Biblical, “In as much as you have done it to the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me.” (also, a Buddhist and Confucian sentiment predating Christ by hundreds of years). Unfortunately, many, if not most, Trump supporters don’t see the world that way, even though many stridently proclaim their muscular Christianity while ignoring their leader's precepts, a blindingly blatant contradiction in terms. As a beginning point, and to ensure understanding, realize that Trumpists see American society as Us and Them.

        In any event my response was an inclusive listing of economic bad decisions, and the expenditure of our tax dollars to pay for them, the grave erosion of foreign relations with most of Europe (except, of course, Russia), stigmatization of minorities in various ways, etc.

        Having provided the documented specifics requested, it still came as no surprise that the response made absolutely no effort to refute or even defend any of them. What, you ask was the response? Well, it began with a gross mischaracterization of where I live (“Hoity toity” …really? Who even uses that phrase in the 21^st century?) Apparently, living in a retirement community which encompasses all levels of homes from manufactured homes to 1200 square foot villas to 3500 square foot site-built houses, disqualifies me from having a social conscience. Of course, the individual also is blatantly unaware that The Villages is a bastion of Trump supporters, the majority middle class retirees. We then progressed to inferring that somehow, I have been insulated from a diversity of ethnic origins, ignoring 26 years of naval service with all ethnicities involved, or 20 years of inner-city public-school service. It then turned to questioning our personal charitable activities.

         See where we’re going here?  If only one side of a discussion is willing or prepared to engage in said discourse with fact or reasoned opinion, then the conversation is impossible. In the past three years, only once has anyone responded to a plea for reasoned conversation with any measured thoughtful response to the issues, vice personal attacks or finger pointing, and in that case, they had such huge and documented gaps in their argument that the point was moot.

       When Trump’s much ballyhooed personal choice for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, finally having had enough, resigned, characterizing Trump as “a moron,” that should have bothered his supporters, but it didn’t. As of today, 18 of Trump’s personal picks for “A” team (inner circle/cabinet/national security) jobs have been replaced at least twice since the original appointment, some three times. Were they all bad people?

        The alternative answer is the one Trumpist grassroots supporters don’t want to consider. Their emperor is “bare assed nekkid!”

How Has he "Hurt me?" Let Me Count the Ways.

        Became aware of a recent interchange on Facebook. Was going to leave It alone, but as I reflected on it, I realized that it was precisely exemplary of the odd affection payed Trump by some otherwise very bright folks.

        A meme was posted which was uncomplimentary of Trump. Yeah, I know - so? Another individual complained that it was rude, stating that they hadn’t cared for Obama (I think it was a pigment thing), but that they respected the office of the President. Fair enough, I thought, until the conversation turned to (re: Trump) words to the effect of “Name three things he’s done which have any negative effect on you.”

       This then brings us to one of the differences between Trump supporters and others. There is an axiom, actually a variation on a quote from John Donne, which goes something like: “That which diminishes any of us, diminishes all of us.” I am a strong believer in that philosophy which, apparently for Trump supporters is either too complex, too Christian (or any moral belief system), or too inconvenient to believe.

       Shootings in any school demean (and should sadden) us all, yet there is relatively little Trump response, for fear of offending the NRA, a huge contributor.  Farmers who once sold soybeans to China are in big trouble because Trump’s ignorance of economics and refusal to listen to those who know better prompted a childish tariff war. Again, I’m no farmer, but I hurt for them. We all do, since “Sonny” Perdue, SecAg just got a $16 billion farm relief package to aid the farmers Trump has hurt. Our tax dollars, our “hurt”, too!

       During the Obama last two years, (and yes, Obama deported more illegals then Trump! Fact!) trial pilot programs were put in place which allowed families seeking asylum to remain together and be placed on their own recognizance to appear for hearings. According to The Associated Press, it cost the government $36 per day per family. And it worked! Trump said this, “And we say, 'Please show up to court in a couple of months.' You know what the chances of getting him to court are? Like zero. Ok? It’s crazy,” Trump told Fox News in June. But wait, was that true? Not by any metric. In fact, according to the Inspector General report, overall compliance in the cities where the pilot was launched was 99 percent for ICE check-ins and appointments, and 100 percent for attendance in court hearings. Just 2 percent of participants absconded during the process.

        So, what is Trump’s “better idea?”  It now costs about $775 per person per night to keep the newly separated children of families who cross the U.S. border illegally in “tent cities.”  The per-person cost at certain detention centers that would keep families together is $298 per night, according to an agency estimate. That's $13,000 per month! This is the new normal, 3300% higher than the $36 per-day family of four figure of the last Obama years. Isn’t that strange in a year with a record deficit while the president brags about “his” booming economy? And, yeah, it’s all our tax dollars, so it affects me directly.

        We are paying more for some agricultural products due to lack of migrant pickers in the Pacific Northwest, We are paying more for products from such various manufacturers as Black and Decker, Ford, 3M and a slew of others because of the Trump tariffs, an effect which any high school economics student could have predicted.    

        Having just returned from Europe and the company of many Asians, Aussies, New Zealanders and Canadians, educated and enlightened folks all. I can assure you that the standing of POTUS and to some degree all of us, has been diminished by Trump’s lack of tact, class, and knowledge of the reality of the post nuclear world. If one recalls, the Obamas were invited and accepted the invitation to spend the night in Windsor castle after dining with the Queen. On the other hand, Queen Elizabeth had a look for the brief period the Trumps were there as if she’d just stepped in dog shit. So how does that hurt me? It means that a multitude of things too numerous to mention which depend on decent foreign relations are less sanguine today than 4 years ago.

        Of course, if one has no concern about such things and just wants a POTUS who speaks in rambling and almost always false non-sequiturs, then he’s your guy. If you think making fun of those less fortunate, or handicapped or brown, or poor is ok, then you got it. If you think the environment is disposable you got that too.  If you think banks should be deregulated so we can have another Housing “bubble” collapse and recession, By gum, he’s your man.

         The great mystery is why so many of those who adore Trump also profess to adore Jesus Christ and his precepts. Every single aspect of Jesus’ ministry and mission is the diametric opposite of Trump except one I can think of. Jesus was criticized, according to one Gospel telling, for dining with a woman of dubious reputation. Trump outdid Jesus by sleeping with one while his wife was carrying his child.

What a guy.  

Religiobabble in the Name of Patriotism

       Sometimes you see or  hear (or both) something so wrong, ill intended, or ignorant that instead of responding immediately, you let it stew until you finally have to stand up and scream, “That’s bullshit, and here’s why!” It happened yesterday, and after a day of reflection, I decided I need to vent.

        The occasion was the annual (here in veterans and retirement central) 4th of July church service replete with patriotic music and chest thumping about the nation, most of it deserved, some….well? The music was great, especially a superb rendition of my favorite patriotic song composed by a Jewish Immigrant  (Irving Berlin, born Israel Beilin, in Siberia) - God Bless America.

        Things were fine until the sermon, delivered by a large bloviating associate pastor, a Baptist by birth and ordination, but hired by the local United Methodist congregation. He rarely preaches, which is good, but he resonates with many (too many) of the more conservative parishioners.

        As is the norm for guys like him, he started with the usual assertions that all things American are all things Christian, and that “fixing” societal ills is simply a matter of prayer, not just in the name of a Deity, but in the name of “Jeeesussah.” In attempting to use historical references to prove his thesis he went so far off the rails that he almost disappeared. Examples follow.

        The first big lie was that the first Europeans came to the New World for religious freedom. By stating it the way he did, he included of course the Spanish. Need I say more about the "Black Legend?" He then continued referring to the continent of North America as “this country” when he alleged that the Pilgrims were the first English settlers (Roanoke, Jamestown, anyone?) and that they were, and he was correct in this specific case, religious immigrants. What he omitted, of course, was that Indians were almost immediately either forced to convert and live in "Praying towns" or were at risk. Within 14 years, these noble Christians, in alliance with the equally Christian Dutch from the west in New Amsterdam, committed genocidal war on the Pequots, whose only sin was control of the Connecticut coast wampum trade.

        He then sort of generalized that by the “early 1700s” slavery was introduced, implying that it was a reason for the Great Awakening. So, what’s wrong with that? For starters, the first slaves in North America were brought to Jamestown, in Virginia, of whose establishment in 1607 and commercial greed driven origins he is apparently unaware, in 1619, 100 plus years before the religious revival. Other English “Christians” settled in Barbados and instituted slavery there in 1627.

        Then in another trip into the ditch, he lauds Great Awakening preachers, including a Wesley friend and co-religionist, George Whitefield. Whitefield was undoubtedly a great preacher of the time, but the bumpkin in question also cites his high moral standards in almost the same sentence as he “sort of” condemns slavery. So what? So here’s the rest of the story on Whitefield: Whitefield saw the "legalization of slavery as part personal victory and part divine will." Whitefield argued a scriptural justification for slavery. He increased his number of slaves, using his preaching to raise money to purchase them after he split with the Wesleys and returned to the colonies in 1739. Hypocrite? Just a bit!

        As many Christians do, he also referred to the writings of several founding fathers who allude to some higher power when speaking of human rights and responsibilities. This includes Jefferson's "all men are created equal" verbage in the Declaration of independence. I can imagine TJ's slaves muttering about "equal this, m****r f****r." What he omits is that Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Adams, (Deists all) never speak of “Jesus.”  Why do I make that distinction? Simply because as enlightenment era literate men (largely self- taught in Washington’s case) they would have been educated in the concept of “natural law.”  According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world. This concept precedes Jesus by centuries, was mentioned by the Greeks and others and has parallels in Asian religions as well, but don’t tell him; his head will explode.  

        To this ignorant preacher, belief in any higher intelligence in the universe apparently only means belief in the Christian version of God and, by inclusion - especially and specifically, a divine Jesus. Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, constructed by cutting, pasting and excluding some parts, tells a different story.  Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.

        In like fashion, while Washington regularly attended church while in residence at Mount Vernon, his pastor acknowledged after his death that he never, ever,  remained for communion, choosing to leave instead.  Why? Deist, that’s why. The same thread holds true for all the others (Madison, Adams, Franklin) which the North Carolina hill-billy mentioned. Since the Ten commandments were common knowledge and mentioned in parallel language and intent in numerous non-Christian cultures, they were good tools for construction of a civil law code - then. A law code based on Buddhist principles would have been equally acceptable as a civil code, but they went with what they and those about to be governed, knew.   

        There’s more, but I’ll finish with focus on just three more topics. The first, while correctly mentioning that we have issues with racism in America, he actually said, “I thought we’d settled that.” I was hard pressed to remain seated vice standing and asking him just when he thought we had done so. Was it before the Civil War? Did the Civil War wipe out racism? The Klan and numerous lynchings show the lie in that case. Was it through the Jim Crow era? Has it happened yet? all these are answerable with a resounding “no!”

       Then he went to abortion, specifically late term procedures. His referral to infanticide (he called it “infancide”, but then he’s semi-literate) was what left my wife fuming through the rest of the day. Here is her verbatim reaction:

“ When I glanced at the order of service in my church bulletin this morning, I knew we were in for another tirade from our token Southern Ba(b)tist pastor. Seems he gets the July 4th 'Merica sermon every year. Thankfully, he doesn't get many other chances to preach.

He started with declaring that 'Merica was founded as a "Christian" country, totally ignoring many facts which I will not elaborate on. Toward the end, he described the abyss of current day backsliding, speaking "eloquently" about "late term" abortion, describing it in almost the same ignorant words that Trump uses. He evidently thinks what he parrotted is what actually happens. Nevertheless, this topic is one that should be clarified and documented before dispersing to a church full of people.

       Having been employed for over thirty years in a job where I daily observed birth of both premature and full term infants, and occasionally had to deal with the post birth death of a newborn, I can affirm that most late term terminations were not undertaken lightly, and no child, unless born with a defect incompatible with life, was "made comfortable" and then doctor and parents decided whether the child would live or die. In most cases, the much loved and wanted child was mourned, and if viable was cared for as any other newborn would be. I cared for children who were born much too early, and sat with parents who had found out a matter of days prior to birth, that a child would not survive. Termination of a healthy child on a mothers whim, does not take place. I have wept with women who have to carry a stillborn child until they go into labor. I have held a mothers’ hand as she holds her dying child, and says a final goodbye. I have sat with a family as they come to terms with the fact that their severely genetically damaged child has survived birth when they thought she would not, and are unprepared for what will be the prospect of taking home(and loving) a child who will die at 21 days of age. Don't ever try to convince me that this form of "termination" is done on a whim.

I know abortion is a sore spot. I know some people are able to be blase' about having one. I am not that person. But I also believe it is not the job of government or religious institutions to make decisions about a woman's RIGHT to make her own decisions about her body.”  She is eloquent and right!

       Finally, he did the “The problem isn’t too many guns” speech.” Apparently, the proliferation of banana clip assault weapons is cool as long as there is a fish symbol on the stock.

What an asshole.

Some Things I Learned on Vacation

So…what have we learned after 17 days from Nice to Amsterdam?

        Most recently we learned that much of Europe cannot stand any prolonged high temperatures, since A/C isn’t nearly as common as in the United States. We have a friend who lives at 3,000 ft elevation in Switzerland. Temperatures soared above 100. In France, people have died. Not specifically ascribing all this to global warming, but it is troubling.

        While in Amsterdam, just as the heat wave started, we went to a site with several working windmills. Along the way there were sheep who would normally be grazing in a small field along the path. They were trembling and panting in the heat. Again, because this is so strange, there was no fresh water available and the small canal running through the field was green. I would be willing to bet that several have since died.

        Our first boat had a passenger list with many Aussies, New Zealanders, Canadians, and some Americans, but Americans were in the minority. I learned than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has very few friends in the rest of the world. This includes China, and Taiwan as well. We had numerous common interests and wonderful conversations with many people from essentially all the nationalities on board. It was a sort of odd feeling, sensing that they were unsure of our political leanings, and they seemed relieved to find that our nausea with the current administration mirrored their own, as caution turned to sympathy.

        I reaffirmed something I already was fairly sure of, that being that the fact that simply because someone has held a fairly high military rank carries no guarantee of reasoning ability. Neither of us, nor most people in fact, would even think to broach a politically sensitive subject at dinner, especially with people one has just met. We had, by day three, met and frequently dined with several couples, Canadian, Taiwanese living in the Philippines and New Zealanders.  One evening at a table for eight, another couple we had met and opted not to be any closer to dined with us. He – a retired Army colonel, she a proudly proclaimed 30-year DOD employee with “seventeen broken bones in my back.”  You can see this coming, huh?

        Sometime and for no reason I can recall, the conversation turned to real estate prices in various areas.  Think it was the Canadian man who mentioned the housing bubble collapse as having less impact in Canada than in the US. Out of the blue, "the Colonel" said something like, “Well it was Obama telling poor people they should be able to buy houses they couldn’t afford.”

       You’d have been proud of me because I didn’t stand up and point out to the moron that the housing bubble collapse, beginning in late 2006 and coming to fruition in early 2008 happened before Barack Obama was even inaugurated, or that it was Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm, called by some economists “the father of the collapse”  who pushed two pieces of legislation very much responsible for the free for all that ensued. I didn’t tell him that the both the legislation to allow commercial banks to merge with invest banks, coupled with the legalization of adjustable rate mortgages were Phil Gramm initiatives aimed at undermining the post Great Depression restrictions on bank shenanigans imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act. While these things coursed through my mind, I think I settled for “It’s not that simple.” Not content to let it go, the wife proceeded to blame Obama for the Clinton era legislation of ten years earlier, regarding forcing banks to stop “red-lining” (simply refusing to provide mortgage loans based on color and neighborhood vice ability to pay). Our Canadian and New Zealand friends were non-plussed. From that night on, Katerina, the Slovak wife of the New Zealand anesthesiologist, made sure we had a table for six and filled it up.      

        I mention this because it stands in such stark contrast to the river cruise of several years ago during which strangers would broach the subject of their admiration for Barack Obama. French, Brits, Aussies, no matter. All admired the man.

        I also reinforced my opinion that Australians and New Zealanders really know how to vacation! I could walk into the lounge and quietly say Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, and immediately hear Oy, Oy, Oy in return. It’s a silly thing, but it’s fun. The couple from the Philippines, Nancy (Han Chinese) and Lawrence (Taiwanese) were charming and just as disgusted with Der Trumpf. Successful co-owners of a financial services company, they were just as sickened as we are by the lack of civility in the man. If dumping a passenger overboard weren’t a crime…….

        I also learned that France is gorgeous but has no corner on the ability to produce good wines. We went to four separate tastings in Châteauneuf du pape, Beaujolais, Burgundy, and Alsace. Of the 13 wines we were offered, one at more than 35 Euros/bottle (about $40 US), none were so good that I couldn’t do better at my local wine vendor. That means better wine at a better price. We sort of knew this several decades ago when American wines began winning international gold medals, but I have seen first-hand now. Again, the dirty little secret is that almost all French vines were replanted after phylloxera all but wiped out grapes in France. What were they replanted on? American rootstock. Nearly all French wine, including expensive French wine, comes from vines grafted onto American roots.”  

I learned a lot more but that’s enough for now.

News musings, June 5th, 2019

Thoughts on the news, 6/5/2019

As I watch the continued unfolding of the traveling circus that  the Trump British trip has become, I can’t  help but reflect, especially on this day, of another American leader and future Republican president facing a real crisis rather than one of his own design on this same date, 75 years ago. Rather than insults and poorly fitting clothes, Dwight D. Eisenhower was concerned with the possibility that, regardless of all the planning, materiel preparations and deception, the next day’s landings on the French coast might well fail and the allies be repulsed.

        As a real leader does and few are willing to do today, especially not President Bone Spur, Ike drafted a letter on the evening of the 5^th of June. 1944, taking full responsibility for such failure in case it should it occur. The text is as follows: "Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."  Sort of makes you wonder what happened to that sort of ethical leadership, doesn’t it?

        Today is Kenny “G”’s birthday. Who gives a shit?

        In a tragedy locally, a young man and well-respected athlete who had just graduated high school a week earlier, was a passenger and was fatally injured in what the paper initially described only as a “single car accident”, but which, on reading further, mentioned the vehicle leaving the road, striking a tree and killing both the driver and the young man in question. Any one besides me think just maybe alcohol was involved?  In instances like this, there seems to be some sort of sense of, “Let’s not sully the kid’s name by mentioning the  (drugs, booze, whatever)”  What gets missed here is that examples that strike close to home are often the most effective deterrents to peers. We may never know why the young man died, or whether he or the driver were even drinking, but if alcohol was a factor, other teens need to know that.  

        The Trump administration has issued an edict, immediately praised by Florida senator and sugar whore, Marco Rubio, banning any further travel to Cuba by cruise ships departing US ports.  This, of course, is Trumpism at its “Undo everything Obama did”, worst. In fact, the first four months of Obama era relaxed tensions brought almost 150,000 tourists to Cuba and last year saw a 300% increase over that figure. This also resulted in tourist dollars stimulating a hurting Cuban economy.

        Trump Administration hawk in residence, John Bolton, refers to the Troika of Tyranny (Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela) as if they were one cabal plotting the overthrow of the US, although in the case of Venezuela and Cuba, having difficulties just feeding their people. Apparently, the lesson of Vietnam and China has blown right past Bolton, who is, make no mistake about it, since he has the ear of an imbecile, a real threat to hemispheric stability.  

        Millions died in Southeast Asia because, in 1947, Harry Truman was unable, largely due to Congressional Republican driven pressure, to just leave Ho Chi Minh to run Vietnam as the election results would have dictated. Instead, Truman gave the French everything short of troops in their 8 years' failed effort to subjugate a people who only wanted to be self governing.  Dwight Eisenhower later said that, had we allowed the (Geneva convention mandated) nationwide election to take place without US interference, Ho would have garnered 80% of the vote. Alas, the US, bastion of freedom and self determination that we profess ourselves to be, overturned the election and accelerated a war which would result in millions of deaths, civilian and military. 

       Where would that have left us? Well, about where we are today, actually, trading with a nominally Communist nation where our dollars and tourism are welcome. The Vietnamese are a remarkably forgiving people, unlike us. If we truly believe in the superiority of our economic system, then its advantages must be self-evident to struggling Communist/Socialist nations, but only if they are able to interact with our economy and our people. There’s a reason North Korea keeps most Americans out, and it isn’t really fear of espionage, but fear of their own system being exposed by contrast and personal interaction.    

        Cuba is much the same. Castro succeeded because a US supported corrupt dictator (the Batista regime) propped up by Big Sugar interests, had a stranglehold on the economy and the population. As the situation eased, and had continued to ease with Fidel gone, poor Cubans were generally better off than under Batista. While Marco Rubio professes to hate Cuba as it is, it cannot possibly be from personal experience, since he was born in Miami, 12 years after Castro toppled the corrupt Cuban government in what was a people’s revolution. He cannot possibly speak first-hand about the situation, since he was a grade schooler in Miami when it happened.

       So, just how wonderful was Cuba pre-Castro? In truth it was wonderful only for the moneyed classes.  Grabbing power and receiving significant financial, military, and logistical support from the United States government, Fulgencio Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans. (does this sentiment sound strangely familiar?) In fact, many of Cuba’s poor who labored for pennies a day in sugar fields were as bad off as their grandparents had been under Spanish rule.

        Eventually it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land. Think about the implication of that for Cuba’s underclasses! Batista's repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with both the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinational companies who were awarded lucrative contracts. 

         So, any notion that an average Cubano would have been better off during the “good old days” (pre-Castro) is ludicrous. US anti-Cuban sentiments among ex-Cubans have been fanned by those who lost their ill-gotten financial gain under Batista. They continue now, by feeding lies to the offspring of Cuban emigres (like Marco Rubio) who have no real idea whereof they speak.

         Now here’s the odd part: Little Marco’s parents were Cubans who immigrated to the United States in 1956, prior to the rise of Fidel Castro in January 1959. They weren’t fleeing Castro but fleeing a shitty economy (under a US supported dictatorship) and seeking work in the US. His mother made at least four return trips to Cuba after Castro's takeover, including a month-long trip in 1961. His maternal grandfather, Pedro Victor Garcia, immigrated to the U.S. legally in 1956, but returned to Cuba to find work in 1959. Understand this, Grandpa went back after Castro was in power to find work.  

       So why does Rubio hate Cuba? Probably the same reason as millions of ignorant Americans with no sense of either History or Economics – they’ve been told to. (And because it gets votes in South Florida)  Since the McCarthy era we’d been fed a steady diet of propaganda – not just that Communism was “bad,” but that the best way to deal with it was to make enemies of people who were either by choice, chance or subjugation, living under Communist governments.

        After a reasoned overture to Cuba by The Obama administration which has been beneficial to Americans and Cubans alike, Bolton and his Pillsbury Doughboy have reset the clock to the early 1960s. How long until the Russians get involved?  

        And on a final, lighter, but equally scary note: Taylor Forte and her fiancé had planned an intimate picnic at Lake Alice, near Gainesville, Fl, and things were going swimmingly until the picnic crasher arrived. The guest, an alligator, sprinted up from the water’s edge, scarfed a bowl full of guacamole (including the bowl) after consuming a block of cheese, salami, half a watermelon and a pound of grapes. It then waddled back to the water, apparently to sleep of the spoils of its gluttony. What, no big Mac?