COLA wars

        Interesting Facebook exchange last night and this morning. I am a member of a group called Navy Chief (ret) of which I am one. Last night, someone questioned how much the increase in retired pay would be this year, which is a totally reasonable query. Another individual responded, “not enough,” which is not.

        Before we delve into what ensued, let me simply enunciate my position. I know some of my readers are also retired military folks, so be offended or agree, it’s irrelevant to me. I agree that we owe many, if not most, veterans of the Armed Forces our thanks, especially in the era of the all-volunteer military. We owe our gratitude equally to many first responders, EMTs etc, who don’t have as strong a lobby.

        The GI Bill, the Veteran’s Administration, Tricare (Medicare supplement covering almost anything you can imagine), and the Tricare pharmacy plans) are some of the ways we, as a nation, thank military retirees and disabled veterans. Many veterans are retired or discharged totally whole, having either never been in harm’s way or fortunate enough to escape injury, but the notion, increasingly popular in some quarters, that all veterans are heroes is also false.

        Most of us did our jobs. Sometimes hard, sometimes rewarding, frequently requiring family separation, to the best of our ability, knowing, when we enlisted, that we were guaranteed a retirement based on our years of service and our basic pay at separation. 

       Truth told, the VA cares for those either injured and disabled while on active duty or who, leaving the military short of retirement, need medical care and are unable to afford it. This is unrelated to the current discussion. Unfortunately, there are and, sadly, probably always will be, healthy veterans who, some retirees, many not, who, for whatever reason, never move on beyond that. They can be seen in public settings, wearing their ball caps and/or vests. (I’d say, “like geriatric Boy Scouts”, but that would be wrong.)

        I do still wear a ball cap from my first (of three) submarines. I do so to keep the sun out of my eyes while golfing. I am in touch with a number of shipmates from that and later command(s), none of whom left the service and lamented the small COLAs, because retiree or not, they got on with their lives and had other careers. This is a group who served and who, having either retired to other jobs or separated prior to retirement and having other careers (complete with retirement plans) reflects fondly on the time spent as brother (or sister) in arms.

        Like all other Government  retirement plans, there is usually a Cost of Living (COLA) increase in retirement pay. This year it is actually a bit more than the annual increase in the cost of living. The story here is that if a person does 20 years (at minimum) in the US Armed Services, is separated healthy and capable and that retirement pay (drawn at, say, age 40-45) isn’t sufficient to support your lifestyle …wait for it… get another job. People do. If you are satisfied with a 20 year military retirement and care to live on it another 20 years before Social Security kicks in, be my guest. Just don’t bitch that your decision merits more than an annual COLA, because it doesn’t.  

 Now, here’s the conversation edited for duplicate or irrelevant responses):

XXXXX “How much pay raise are we gonna get ????”

MXXXXX “2.8% cola for military retirees”

RXXXXXXX “Same 2.8% for VA disability and Social Security as well!”

JXXXXXX “Not enough”

 (Here’s where I said “huh? And checked the CPI increase for 2017, finding that it was well under 2.8%)

Mike Dorman: “It is more than a COLA. What did you, in retirement, do this year to merit more?” (and yes, I knew this might trigger some response, but as explained above, …etc)

KXXXXX  “Do you enjoy being a Dick? Some of those retirees and wounded vets, earned a shit(sic!) more than your comment Chief. Sit pretty and safe, or did you just watch what others did? You want to start a "merit" based system? I'm all for that.”

(At this point another chimed in  with: 

FXXXXX:  "It’s not a raise. They just give you enough so you stay poor and not poorer." 
This is simply nonsensical. If you retire with 20 or more years of working life left and are healthy and the retirement isn't enough money, do something else!) 

Mike Dorman “No, I spent 26 years, most of it on sea duty, almost 4 years of that actually under water, for the right to point out that the current military retiree pay raise is more than the increase in the cost of living. Once retired, the "earning " of whatever is done. Sitting around griping is useless. And no, as a retiree who went on to teach high school for another 20 years, once I retired with the pension and health care coverage I was promised when I enlisted, I was just another healthy, ex-military retired person. If raises in that retirement were more than the cost of living increase, and sometimes they weren’t, I lucked out. Check and see how many other guaranteed benefit retirement plans have any guarantee of COLAs. The VA and Tricare are benefits unique to retirees and disabled veterans who have health related or medical financial issues and is unrelated to simple changes in retirement pay. And that's Master Chief to you, thanks.  

Cue the crickets.

Codicil: Hate Speech? I Guess it Depends!

       My last post, related to charges of hate speech being fostered, or at best encouraged on “liberal” (although that term isn’t specifically used) Public and private college and University campuses. Reflecting on that blog post, I began thinking about the other side of the story. By that I mean institutions where resistance to societal norms and extreme restrictive codes of behavior inculcate behavior like Huckabee-Sanders blind adherence to her lord and savior, Donald Trump. The sad reality here is that the same fanatical devotion offered in religious worship seems to be easily transferred to earthly idols simply if that idol mouths the right platitudes, Trump being the ideal example.  There can be little doubt that there is room enough in Trump’s psyche for any God other than Mammon and Self, yet Ultra conservative Christians bend to his whims.

         I thought it might be useful to look at Colleges and Universities which, rather than teach students to think, experiment (even if it isn’t always to a good result) and form opinions based on life choices and experiences vice blind adherence to (not the Bible) dogmatic strictures made and enforced by men.

        Free Speech? Not at Liberty University! The founder, Jerry Falwell (Teletubbies are gay?)  and his son proclaimed freedom of expression, but…. In 2016, Falwell himself censored an anti-Trump column in Liberty’s student newspaper, preventing publication of criticism of the Access Hollywood tape where Trump made grotesque comments about grabbing women. This censorship came only a week after Falwell released a statement celebrating Liberty’s commitment to free expression. Administrators evidently find no shame in espousing rhetoric about free speech while simultaneously silencing their critics on campus. In 2009, Liberty “derecognized” the school’s chapter of College Democrats because the national Democratic Party is pro-choice, and dares to “promote the LGBT agenda.”

        It gets worse. Meet Pensacola Christian College, which requires a staggering 2.0 GPA to enroll, but readily grants waivers to the devout sub-intelligentsia. Students are, required to swim only with same sex groups, date only with a third party present, and should the unthinkable happen, such as a sexual assault, here’s how it can play out in two examples:  this is the outcome of one reported rape: “Instead of listening to her, however, they accused her of lying and told her that she was the one truly responsible for her boyfriend’s assaults. At the end of their meeting, the dean of women looked at Whitney and said that she was a “dirty vessel, and God can’t use a dirty vessel. He is done with you.” Expelled that afternoon, she tried to commit suicide twice in the following month.

        Bad, huh? Here’s another: “One night in May, however, she was grabbed, dragged into a construction area, beaten, restrained with bungee cord and duct tape, and then raped. As he was leaving her there, she recognized him as her boyfriend. A campus security guard discovered her, still restrained with the cord and tape, and took her to the campus clinic to file a report. In the next 24 hours, she went to the hospital, reported her attack to the police, and stayed the night with her parents. However, when she arrived back on campus with a black eye and a broken arm, her family was confronted by the dean of women and told that Beth was being expelled “because she is a fornicator.” PCC took no action against Beth’s boyfriend, who graduated with honors and is now a pastor.

        Examples like this from other Christian colleges abound. A common thread is gender credibility discrimination, gender- based wage discrimination for students who work on campus (an only option in a lot of cases) and extra-legal codes of conduct and disciplinary options, etc. Another, more lasting, result is that they foster attitudes which build the willingness to proffer hate speech and discrimination at others over simple philosophical differences. Many are also absurdly priced relative to the value of the degree obtained.

        In all, there are about 140 US religiously affiliated colleges and universities which hold title IX exemptions, allowing them to discriminate against a wide range of student-oriented activities, including LGBT sanctions, political speech bans, racial-dating restrictions, and much else, even to, as in Pensacola Christian, disallowing same sex swim parties at a public beach! Many of these schools are affiliated with one or another Baptist groups, predominately The Southern Baptist Convention. Mormon run schools are a close second in restrictiveness.

        The saddest part of all the above is that these kids, many in deference to their parents’ making decisions for them that should be shared, leave post-secondary education as closed, judgmental, people who somehow have been gulled into believing that what they’ve been taught or forced to believe, remotely resembles anything connected to even the strictest interpretation of the Biblical Jesus. They shun the “other” believer, avoid the “worldly,” are largely incapable of critical thought, and discriminate against those who are different in any way. Hate speech, however parsed, is still hate speech.     

Hate Speech? I Guess it Depends!

        There are times when I ponder the means by which Walter Williams lives with himself. Professor Williams is an economist, self-styled “classical liberal, libertarian” who is a chair holding professor of economics at George Mason University. He has degrees from UCLA and USC and is a well-known published author on economics. Oh, and he’s African American, but, like the loathsome Michelle Malkin, an “anchor baby” herself, he has either forgotten his roots, sold his soul to the devil, or more likely, realized that writing a syndicated column pays well. At 82 years of age, he has lived through many the struggles of his racial group here in America.

        With that background, one might assume that the good professor might be somewhat attuned to racial issues which still, in many instances continue to serve to divide some of us from the others.  That said, Dr. Williams is a constant apologist for those of the right who abuse and incite. In an earlier blog post (actually several years ago), I discussed the phenomenon of successful black businessmen and other professionals who seem more likely to distance themselves from their roots than to lift others. Williams is one such man. This isn’t simply a racial “thing,” as many (most) whites behave in similar fashion. Oddly, as a group, the one group of Americans of wealth and position who do give back on a large scale are those much maligned “liberals” who have pledged to give away most of their riches. This concept dates to Andrew Carnegie’s credo that “He who dies rich, dies disgraced.” 

        Of course, the current political head of state frequently maligns these men and women such as Blumberg, Allen, Buffett, the Gateses, Bezos, the Zuckerbergs, and others, since he apparently has no inner compass which orients to good deeds or even simple empathy related to others. But I digress; back to Walter Williams.

       In a recent op-ed piece entitled “Fruits of College Indoctrination Take Shape in Hate Speech,” Williams flirts with some valid points and then, as he so often does, simply goes off the rails and into the ditch. This particular effort details the lamentable efforts of some individuals to verbally confront, in public settings, some public figures (Sarah Huckabee Sanders was among the first) whose public actions and opinions they find objectionable.  So far, not too bad, as most of us would agree that regardless of political issues we can and should be civil to one another, especially in a public setting such as a restaurant or other venue. He also uses, as an exemplar, Mitch McConnell and his spouse being verbally harassed at Reagan National airport and Senator Ted Cruz at Georgetown U.

        He then takes the extraordinary leap of illogic of blaming these incidents on the inculcation of ultra-liberalism in the nation’s colleges and Universities. So, right off the top, let’s acknowledge that there are those in Academia who are of a more socially liberal bent than perhaps, the auto mechanic in Iowa or the camo-wearing Louisiana duck call manufacturer. (If that surprises or offends you, should stop reading now.) There are any number of possible explanations for that, but the one which rises to the top of the list is simple. A major part of an advanced curriculum in almost any area except theology, is the honing and application of critical thinking concepts. These are those same skills whose inclusion in school curricula have given rise to so much opposition in some more conservative states, such as the aforementioned Louisiana, because critical thinking is essentially antithetical to teaching actions and obedience based solely on belief, not reality and/or reason.

        On aspect of applied critical thinking is that it sometimes falls athwart such environmentally inculcated concepts as racism, economic inequity and general class prejudice. A good example of the effects of such institutional misanthropy, unrelated to the USA, but instructive, is the parade of, in some cases, completely and fatally incompetent British military leaders who were in command solely due to position and the assumption of class superiority. Under the system which was in use from the Norman invasion to the late 1800s, birth, not capability was a (the) major factor in appointment to command. Wallace, The Bruce, and Cromwell all proved how mistaken this concept can be. Others, commoners like Francis Drake, proved that talent can rise if allowed to.

        Yeah, I know, so how does this relate to Walter Williams? Be patient grasshopper. A large portion of the op-ed describes what may well be an overreaction to institutional conservatism in some schools which has manifested in what is, in some cases, a pendulum swing in the other direction. This is exemplified by such things as “bias response teams” on some campuses. These report (report, mind you, just report) “speech that might cause ‘alarm, anger or fear’ to campus police.” That’s it. Report. Wow, scary, huh?  Dr. Williams takes this information from a group calling itself The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Any bets which “side of the aisle” funds and runs this group?

        Let me be clear about my own opinion here. I think there are fringe areas in both sides of political thought which garner more attention than their actual numbers of adherents merit. Some are very liberal, some are ultra-conservative. The difference in many cases, however, is that those on the far right tend to be repressive, which includes abridging or denigrating the rights of others while those of the far left tend to be more permissive. The reproductive rights debate offers a clear portrait of those differences. Even the most rabid pro-choice individual would never even think or state that anyone who differs in opinion should be forced to have an abortion. Of course, the obverse of that coin is that essentially all “pro-life” persons would deny anyone that procedure.          

        There, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way. Let’s deal with Dr. Williams’ “hate speech” allegation. His major point, which is valid as far as it goes, is that hate speech is constitutionally protected. Yep, it is. So, however, is the right of its victims to respond, sans violence, to its usage. His complaint, which is peripheral and awesome in its over simplicity and lack of coherence, is that, the “victims” he points out, (Huckabee- Sanders, McConnell, Ted Cruz, are innocent targets. While, as I stated, my take on common decency mitigates against confronting any of these in public, they are unavailable, by choice, and position, to the public in any other setting and far from “innocent.”

        Huckabee-Sanders lies for a living and walks out of the briefing room. McConnell, who has the audacity to plead for “bi-partisanship”, since the 2018 House majority reversal, also said in 2008, 'the most important thing we can do is to make sure he (Obama) does not succeed,” and essentially ordered his Republican cohort to vote “No” on everything Obama. Williams apparently also forgot the cry of “Liar” directed by a congressman at Obama during his first state of the union address. All these people, including Cruz (shut down the government?), have use their bully pulpits, unreachable by us common folk, to spew what, while perhaps not hate speech, is offensive to the core for many Americans.

        Now to specifics re: Williams. Are we to assume that his apparent espousal of hate speech is ok? He speaks from both sides of his mouth, depending on the wind direction. He decries students who demonstrate against a speaker on campus with whose politics they disagree as the evil product of liberalism, yet he was strangely mute regarding the Charlottesville demonstrators, armed in some cases, white supremacists though they be, who ran a car into a crowd just 30 miles southeast of his own campus. One wonders what Dr. Williams felt watching fire hoses and dogs being used against Dr. King and peaceful demonstrators chanting what, by any definition, was protected speech? Did he uphold the constitutional sanctity of the hateful taunts of the white crowds urging the police on to greater violence? Was he “ok” with the symbolic and actual hate speech culminating in beatings of freedom riders and incinerating their buses? Has he at 82, forgotten his own struggles in segregated schools in Philadelphia in the early1950s?

        So, summing up, Dr. Walter Williams is in favor of the constitutional protection of hate speech if it’s conservative, even accompanied by violence, but not by non-violent students on liberal campuses! That said, God forbid anyone should have negative reactions to the constant stream of proven untruths and borderline bias from conservative talking heads and legislators.

        The difference here is that all these public reactions to these conservative icons aren’t based on stereotypical, bias related, concepts such as race, religion, physical limitation, or nationality, all of which Trump has insulted at one time or another. They are reactions to bad behavior and inciteful speech by these public figures in public places. While I wouldn’t choose to do what some of these activists have done, as a matter of personal taste, I understand their anger and frustration.   

Waste, Fraud and Abuse

       The federal government spends more than $20 billion a year on subsidies for farm businesses. About 39 percent of the nation's 2.1 million farms receive subsidies, with the lion's share of the handouts going to the largest producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. (823, 334 farms).  In plain language that means that we spend $2,024 per month, per farm, giving money to farmers who are working and earning due to price supports on many crops.

        Contrary to what one might expect and what conventional lore suggests, owners of large farms, with incomes quite high relative to non-farmers, receive most of these benefits. Consumers and taxpayers, meanwhile, bear the cost of farm programs through increased taxes and higher food prices. To make matters worse, these costly programs rarely achieve their goals. According to salary data for farmers, ranchers and other agricultural managers from May 2016, the average salary is $75,790 a year.  Agricultural special interests and the agriculture committees frequently try to paint a picture of the struggling family farmer trying to make ends meet. Myth!One of these “farmers” lives in a beachside mansion on Osprey Island, Fla., worth $7.8 million. He’s received a payment every year between 1995 and 2017, totaling $839,000.

       The reality? “Family farm” is not a synonym for “small farm.” In 2015, 90 percent of million-dollar farms were family farms. Almost of all the commodity payments and crop insurance indemnities are going to millionaires and multimillionaires as measured by farm household net worth. The median farm household wealth for all farms was $897,000, which is nine times greater than the median household wealth for all U.S. households! In truth, in 2015, half went to households with incomes over $146,126!

        Here in Florida, “we” (Fed and State policies) subsidize the sugar barons south of Okeechobee whose fertilizer enriched runoff waters are, in times of lots of rain (you know like every summer?) pumped back into the lake. Ask the residents of the east coast and the St. Lucie/Indian River estuaries how they like the floating islands of green crud these waste waters nourish. To what end?

        In an article entitled “The U.S. spends $4 billion a year subsidizing ‘Stalinist-style’ domestic sugar production,” we see the following data: In the United States, fewer than 4,500 farm businesses produce sugar. Yet they cost taxpayers up to $4 billion a year in subsidies. The U.S. sugar program is a Stalinist-style supply control initiative that limits imports through quotas and domestic production through what are called marketing allotments. This strategy substantially increases U.S. prices — on average U.S. sugar prices are about twice as high as world prices (bold and italics are mine) — ensuring domestic sugar production is artificially higher, crowding out other productive uses of irrigable farmland. This also in a ripple effect, driving up the cost of everything made in America with cane sugar. This is also why some confectioners have moved production offshore, cutting US jobs in the process. Of course, Florida Senator Marco Rubio and now, one opines, newly elected Rick Scott, are so deep in the pockets of “Big Sugar” that they no longer, if ever they did, see the issue as it is.

        On the other hand, we bitch about providing basic food support to persons, 44% of whom, nationally, are children. The maximum gross monthly income for Food stamp eligibility is 130 percent of the federal poverty level, and the maximum net monthly income is 100 percent of the federal poverty level. For instance, if your household only consists of one person, then the gross monthly income to be eligible for SNAP is $1,287 (net $990). SNAP benefits cost $70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied roughly 44.2 million Americans (14% of the population) with a monthly average of $125.51 per person in food assistance.

        So, let’s recap, if I’m one of the “lucky” (believe me, luck really isn’t a factor) farmers drawing the “average” farm $75k annual income, I can still count on a slice of that $20 billion pie. But if I am a non-farmer, earning even $100 annually in excess of $27,180 (family of four) even with two adults at minimum wage, tough! Not even food stamps.

       And by the way, did I forget to mention that 32 members of Congress received farm subsidies last year, including three members of the House Agriculture Committee. The farm owned in part by Committee member, Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., received at least $5.3 million in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2016. LaMalfa is a member of the House Agriculture Committee,Can you say "conflict of interest?"

1611 .....NOT!

        Periodically I am exposed to words from a pulpit, delivered by a well-meaning pastor, whose grasp of history is abysmally loose for a man with what is euphemistically referred to as a master’s degree. Every time he says, “Can I teach for a moment?” it takes every ounce of restraint I can muster to refrain from screaming “F**k no, you can’t!”  (even I, a heathen, realize that  would, however, be in bad taste.)

        The latest aural abuse was a leading question (as if a revelation was to follow) regarding the significance of the year 1611. So, there I am, sitting and thinking, “OK, Elizabeth I died in 1603, James I is King of England, but there was no war with France (yet), so….?”  As I am pondering, he announced that it was a significant year because Gutenberg invented the printing Press. (OK, strike one!) He then compounded the felony by going on to state that it was printed in the “old King James version.” (yer out!)  I snorted audibly, but as stifled as I could manage, because this was, as Nobel physics laureate Wolfgang Pauli once said of an execrable student effort, “So wrong it wasn’t even wrong!”  

        Because this is a decent gent and as well-meaning as the day is long, I decided to be gentler than I am when Trump desecrates truth and logic. As a result, I wrote the below e-mail after lunch Sunday. He responded Monday with a pleasant note that I wasn’t the only one who caught him out. I do believe, however, that I was the only one who educated him in depth. Read the entire letter you might learn something as well.

 Hi, XXXXXX,

       This is Mike Dorman (the history teacher) we’ve spoken on several occasions. This past Sermon series on the Lord’s prayer was excellent in context, but you crucified the history this past Sunday.  When you said “1611” and “Gutenberg” in the same breath, I could hardly wait to see where you were going, and you didn’t disappoint <grin>!  Rather than rehash all the errors, here’s the real chronology.

        Johannes Gutenberg was dead by 1468, his Bible completed and first printed in the Latin Vulgate (authorized ca 4th century by the strengthening Roman church), in 1454, not in English, and definitely not the King James version since it didn’t exist and wouldn’t for another 143 years! The reason Gutenberg did it in Latin is that he was Catholic, and the Latin Vulgate was the Bible he knew (and probably the only version he could have printed without being accused of heresy. The Pope actually saw and approved several portions of the Gutenberg Latin Vulgate folio.

       It would be another 68 years until Martin Luther even began the NT translation into German, completing the rest by 1534, another 12 years. Why did Luther have such success? Easy. The printing press, commonly in use by then, and his choice of a common language understandable in both Northern and Southern German principalities enabled much wider and more rapid circulation of his common Saxony German translation and his other writings. Other High German partial translations (14 of them), dating back as far as 1456, had not been widely circulated and definitely not printed.

        In English, translations of parts of the NT and psalms has been around in Old English and Middle English (the venerable Bede, 7^th century (Psalms) and Andhelm, 10^th century, whose Gospels and Psalms are the first recorded complete English translations known, although the language bears faint resemblance to modern English.

        Following Gutenberg’s edition, Early Modern English translations became more common with Tyndale’s printing of his translated NT in 1526, the first generally recognized English version in print. His English version was published only 4 years after Luther’s German translation. Also, like Luther, Tyndale believed in justification by faith, not good works, which flew in the face of Roman Catholic teachings such as indulgences and essentially “Buying a Stairway to Heaven” (see what I did there, lol). Unlike Luther and Gutenberg before him, who died in their beds, Tyndale was betrayed to Catholic authorities in Belgium, tried, convicted of heresy and burned at the stake.

        Still not to 1611 yet! Both Henry VIII (1530 something) and Elizabeth I, in 1568, had previously authorized printings of the Bible in English, but the response by the Roman Church to these relatively scholarly works  was driven by the realization that it was difficult to reach English Catholics with a Latin Vulgate Bible, hence the English (and Catholic) College at Douai, France, attempting to do so, began a scholarly English translation, publishing the NT in 1582 (still not 1611!)

       The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later in 1609 and 1610 by the University of Douai. Douai scholars did, however, also, add commentaries on some Greek and Hebrew sources of the Latin Vulgate. This, then was the first (by a year!) published Early Modern English translation of the entire Bible.

      Meanwhile, Elizabeth having died in 1603, James VI of Scotland, now the last living Tudor, (great, great, grandson of Henry VII and great nephew of Henry VIII/Son of Mary Queen of Scots) had become King James I, of what would now be called “The United Kingdom of England and Scotland.”  It was he who commissioned, as a sort of “back at ya” to the Douai version, the scholarly translation which was probably the last time the Bible was written as real literature, vice simply scripture. Begun in 1604, it was a 7-year labor of scholarly effort.

          James is alleged to have personally given the translators instructions meant to ensure that the new version would conform to the dogma of and reflect the episcopal (“governed by Bishops” but you knew that) structure of, the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. A most likely background reason for this was the practice of considering English Bishops as automatically seated members of the Upper House of Parliament, and, generally supporters of the “Divine Right of Kings” concept prevalent in much of the Christian world at the time (and of which James was a fan!). The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin.

OK, NOW it’s 1611!

Enjoy, XXXXXXl, I love history and I love writing about it.

                                 Mike 

A Justifiable Reaction or Dorman's Third Law

      

A recent Facebook post was of interest to me, primarily because of the retort to a post of a news article pointing out that neither President Trump or VP Pence bothered to attend any commemoration of Veteran’s day. In an immature “Well, oh yeah?” retort the writer attacked Barack Obama. When the childishness of this was pointed out by another reader, the responder came back with, “All the hate, why all the hate?” This was, of course the manufactured myth that Donald Trump is the honorable, innocent, recipient of a great deal of unjustified abuse by people with absolutely no reason to dislike him or his actions.

I have, in the past, asked persons like this for a calm, reasoned discussion of why they believe Trump is worthy of their defense and/or why his actions are praiseworthy. It was patently obvious to me that this respondent, who works in the financial sector, was not one who could do so. Now, I would assume that someone who works in that industry would have at least heard of economics and would understand the real nature of Trump’s gaffes to date, beginning with tariffs. (the cause of some of the world’s great wars). I would also believe that anyone in that sector would know that some of the principal architects of the 2008 housing bubble collapse are people Trump picked for his cabinet, including the Secretary of the Treasury, formerly CEO of Bear Sterns. Additionally, I would have to believe that this man would be aware that the current good economy is simply a continuation of the recovery which beginning goes all the way back to 2013. Anyone in the world of finance should also be aware that many of Trump’s statements regarding tax cuts, military pay raises and sound economic policy are all diametrically false.

Perhaps this person could explain why condoning blatant racism is the mark of a “good” man. Or maybe the idea of sex with a porn star while one’s wife is pregnant resonates with this individual. Who knows? Typical of the Trump sycophant is a phenomenon we have seldom seen to this degree, that being that if his God (Trump) is insulted or criticized, the proper response is to immediately attack someone else. For example, Trump insults a handicapped person and the response to justifiable outrage by such a person is to attack Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Similarly, while Obama was the target of a great deal of far right (including Trump) abuse because of federal deficits incurred while slogging out of the great recession, caused largely by persons like Trump, the first Trump budget sports the largest deficit ever, which is odd, considering how proud Trump is of his financial genius.

The criticism of those who dislike Trump seems to stem from the inability of those who feel this way to understand that their anger is a reaction to bad behavior. This is the social equivalent to Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.One wonders how many times these folks can tolerate Trump’s blatant lack of concern for those he governs. And then the light goes on! It becomes clear on reflection that those who take such umbrage at criticisms of Trump’s behavior do so for primarily one reason. That reason? Trump’s racism, sexism, disregard for the welfare of children, and intolerance for the truth, and inability to get along with anyone who doesn’t worship him is matched by the inadequate personalities and lack of empathy of his supporters.

Trump attacks for such reasons as someone asking him a reasonable question and then continuing to ask when Trump evades answering. Those who oppose him criticize because his actions in doing so are unpresidential and mean spirited. No president in the modern era has ever used the office to bully and slander people like Trump. His supporters don’t care because many of them are people with various emotional disorders, among which are feelings of social inferiority, racial bigotry (“Oh, but some of my best friends are black!), economic failure or fear of it, simple greed, xenophobia, inability to empathize, and/or the same malignant narcissism for which Donald Trump should be poster boy. Criticize Trump, you’re criticizing them. Many probably have few, if any, friends whose opinions religion, or ethnicity differ from theirs, another Trump characteristic, except in Trump’s case he seems to simply have no friends, period.

So, the lonely, disaffected and socially inadequate identify with this emotional train wreck because many of them are already on the rails themselves. What they may classify as “hate” is simply a justified response to bad behavior. Newton got it, but then most Trumpists think Newton is a fig bar.

Open Letter to Veterans for Trump

Open letter to Veterans supporting Donald Trump:

I know catchy slogans like “Make America Great” resonate with you. I know from personal experience that there are still racists in the Armed services. I know that, for many of you, the testosterone rush of tough talk, even when tragically based on ignorance or jingoism (look it up) is a high. What I don’t know is how you can continue supporting any man or woman who:

·       Will play golf in Florida in the rain but will not honor our war dead in France.

·        Dishonors the family of a fallen hero, principally because they are Muslim

·       Blatantly lies to invent favorable press(no new steel mills, no $451 billion Saudi contracts)

·       Claims an electoral loss is a victory. (Republicans lose House)

·       Claims a killer allowed into the country under a Republican administration was “allowed here by Democrats”

·       Claims an Opioid bill which was supported by almost every Congressman of both parties had “very little Democratic support”

·       Claims the recent Defense Authorization Bill contained the “first pay raises in 10 years” when in fact there were raises every year since 1962.

·       Says “Veteran’s Choice” privatization will help Vets, when it will simply shift care and dollars to private providers, and probably insurers who will decide what to treat and not to treat.

·       Tells a dead soldier’s mother, “He knew what he signed up for” as if that made it ok.

·       Insulted the captivity and service of John McCain

·       Claimed (falsely) that “Most Presidents, including Obama didn’t ‘call’ the families of military men or women killed in action. In truth Obama didn’t always call. Sometimes he spoke to them personally in the White House! So did Bush & Clinton

·       Actually said this, speaking of dealing with women: “I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there – it’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam era. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier,”

·       Claimed on the campaign trail he would be “so good at the military, it will make your head spin!”

·       Rarely calls the families of Minority soldiers who are killed but sent $25,000 to a white family (but only after the Washington Post called him out for not having done it 4 months after promising to do so.)

·       Displayed his ignorance in a campaign rally in Florida in October when a woman passed out and then was able to return to hear the end of the speech. “That woman was out cold and now she’s coming back,” Trump said. “See, we don’t go by these new and very much softer NFL rules. Concussions ‘Uh oh, got a little ding on the head? No, no, you can’t play for the rest of the season.’ – our people are tough.”

So, this is your guy vets? Good thing he had all that high school JROTC and military school huh? In my own 26 years of actual service, I have served under a number of good and, in some cases, great leaders at sea and in the naval nuclear power training pipeline. Donald Trump couldn’t have lasted 2 days in my seaman gang!

Happy Birthday Bobby Rush (with side serving of history)

        In the age of Stadium Rock with limos ferrying artists in and out for audiences of tens of thousands, it’s hard for today’s younger fans to grasp what has happened, roots wise, to bring popular American music to its current status. Yeah, I know, “Why are you waxing philosophical today and on this tack, Mike?” Well… because today is the 85^th birthday of a man most Americans are unfamiliar with, but whose career in music, spanning more than 60 years is instructive, from an historical standpoint.  Bobby Rush is one of the men (and women) who, like Little Willie John, Muddy Waters, BB King, Big Mama Thornton, Roy Brown and numerous others, were precursors and way-pavers for LLoyd Price, Little Richard, Fats, James Brown and Ike and Tina. 

        In the post war music scene, there were white performers who worked for generally white audiences in theaters and clubs and there were Black performers who worked Black clubs which were “safe” for Black audiences. This “tour,” if you will, of frequently small Black venues (with some exceptions in large cities, such as Chicago’s Regal Theater, D.C.’s Howard Theater, and of course the Apollo in Harlem, was known as the Chitlin’ Circuit. It was a time when Billboard magazine had segregated hit lists, and would continue doing so until 1956, when Black artists/titles were listed with white contemporaries on the Billboard Hot 100 for the first time. Prior to the desegregation of Billboard’s charts in 1959, Black artists (other than “acceptable” crossovers like Basie, Ellington, et al) were classified separately, on a “Race record chart (1945-49), changed in 1949 to the “Rhythm and Blues” chart, still segregated, until 1959.

        Similarly, most record stores didn’t carry such records as were produced.  Blues fans in America who wished to hear the products of artists on labels such as Okeh, Black Swan, or even the Black artist records produced by Columbia, beginning in 1921 but marketed primarily to Blacks, either had to “go to town” meaning a relatively large urban center, or buy them by mail, which many did.      

       This was important for several reasons. The first being that many, if not most, radio stations in late 1930s and early 40s simply didn’t play what were then called “race” records, which were early rhythm and blues performed by black artists. When the Great Depression impoverished the (already economically stricken) Black community in America, buying records and /or phonographs to play them on, was essentially impossible and, to all intents and purposes, killed the “race” record business such as it was.  Almost every major music company removed race records from their catalogs as the country turned to the radio. Black listenership for the radio consistently stayed below ten percent of the total Black population during this time, since the music they enjoyed did not get airtime.

        This semi-exclusion of Black artists on the radio was further cemented when commercial networks like NBC and CBS started to hire White singers to cover Black music. This practice would continue well into the 1950s, subjecting young fans, like me, to the aural abuse of Pat Boone covering Little Richard – badly, but I digress.  It was not until after World War II that rhythm and blues, a term spanning some sub-genres of race records, gained significant radio airtime.

        Even then, if you were a kid like me, born in 1942 and growing up on Rock and Roll starting at about 10 years of age, the chances of hearing blues artists in Hagerstown, Md were twofold – slim and none. One station played light classics and “popular’ music, the other played what my parents (trained musicians) called “hillbilly” music. My discovery of the late-night FM ionosphere “bounce” opened a new musical vista.  Upstairs, at night, on my portable radio, I got seminal “White” Rock and Roll from WKBW in Buffalo, NY, but better yet (at least for me) was the discovery of WLAC in Nashville, TN. where “John R.” and “The Hoss Man,   two white guys, were playing what, to me was just great music- rythm and blues of all sorts.    

  

      Many Chitlin circuit graduates such as BB King, John Lee Hooker, Buddy Guy, Ike and Tina, and others too numerous to mention,  later went on to broad mainstream and worldwide acceptance thanks, in no small part, to the appreciative appropriation of blues by a gifted generation of European  musicians such as John Mayall, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Peter Green, Van Morrison, et al., who, interestingly enough, could neither hear it on the BBC or, prior to the mid-50s, buy blues records on the retail market in the UK. (Morrison’s work with John Lee Hooker is like a father-son reunion spanning 3000 miles.)

       My subject today, Bobby Rush, was born Emmett Ellis, Jr. in Homer, Louisiana, the son of a rural pastor whose guitar and harmonica playing provided early musical influences. As a young child he began experimenting with music playing a sugarcane syrup bucket and a broom-wire diddley bow. Around 1947, the family moved to Pine Bluff, Arkansas, where his father took on the pastorate of a church. In Arkansas, Rush would become friends with (later Blues legend himself) Elmore James, eventually forming a band to support Rush’s singing, and harmonica and guitar playing.

       While still in his teens, Rush donned a fake moustache to play in local juke joints with the band, fascinated by enthusiasm of the crowds. The family relocated to Chicago in 1953, where he became part of the local blues scene in the following decade. In Chicago he met and befriended his neighbor, Muddy Waters, and began working for Jimmy Reed. Through these connections he began performing on “The Circuit” with Etta James, Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters, and Jimmy Reed.

        Bobby Rush remained and remains at 85, a small venue, gritty blues/soul/ type of guy. He still plays small venues, with his great veteran band and two backup singers who are the greatest test of spandex ever seen in public. Along the way he has won a Grammy award, not for record sales but for being what he has always been, a real, no shit legendary blues  performer, still working a sort of integrated chitlin’ circuit and loving life. Happy birthday, Bobby Rush.  

         

Morning After Musings

OK, I'm not asking for responses here, as this is an opinion piece, not a data driven rant as many of mine are.

        Before you moan and groan re: yesterday’s off year elections, consider this. Again, if this offends you, sorry, but I have seen a shitload of elections occur in my 76 years and there are some observations which are constant and consistent. First. There will always be anomalous results which confound us. The Rick Scott Gubernatorial election 8 years ago was one such. Additionally, except for POTUS and VPOTUS races, contests are intensely regional and some who are electable in one state couldn’t even get on the ballot in another. This is especially true in Florida which has an historically toxic mixture of Deep South racism overlaying a lot of hidden but potent northern money infused in the last half century. Many don’t really process that Florida is a haven for wealthy northerners, especially those escaping bankruptcies.

        My first point: Nominate personally and philosophically electable candidates. I get that we have primaries, and I get that there are many fresh-faced idealists who work very hard to change “the system” in the initial phases of the election “season.”  I also get that there are candidates with actual state-wide experience and without the lurking knowledge of an FBI corruption investigation, the explanation of which was badly handled by the would-be candidate at the time. I also understand that when you’re running against a man with many of the “boxes” checked (veteran, former federal office holder, etc.), mayor of Tallahassee (a relatively small town, relatively far from centers of population) right out of college essentially, is hardly a bulging portfolio of qualifications. In summary, there were better candidates, defining better as “electable.” Andrew Gillum still did well but candidates should be, as Caesar’s wife, beyond reproach. I’m still not sure he was.

        Right up front, I would have been delighted had he won, but also a bit surprised. While some will disagree, angrily, no doubt, the political positions attributed to Gillum, especially his stated intent to raise corporate taxes, better left unsaid during the campaign in my opinion, all figured heavily in RNC sponsored attack ads. Follow the money.

        Those who blame racism certainly have some grounds for that position, but there are other, I think more potent factors, which trod directly on the toes of the real money in this state.  In a perfect world race would be irrelevant and, based just on FB posts alone, I think race was a significant factor on both sides of the aisle in this election. A vote for a candidate based solely on race is equal in every aspect to a vote against that candidate on the same basis. The same is true for gender-based decisions. If you are screaming “racism” this morning, a bit of introspection might be in order when considering why you voted as you did. My Gillum vote was based on promise, philosophy and character, with a hint of nagging concern over the lobbyist connection. That said, he wouldn’t have been my first choice as a candidate, and my choice didn’t run, so there you go.

         Strictly as a personal opinion, I believe Gwen Graham has several characteristics making her more electable, none the least of which is name recognition, federal Congressional experience and a more centrist political position.  I also believe that, had the state Democratic party approached John Morgan, he would have made a very viable and electable candidate. He would have had my strongest support.  

        Second to this, most Americans are political dullards when it comes to philosophies. All, or most of the Red Hat mob see “Socialism” as Communism, so they campaign or run against that, and their attack ads re: Andrew Gillum also did that. If you think this was bad and would like to witness it on a national scale, nominate Bernie Sanders!  As long as there are Cold War vets around, Socialism by name, even when it’s so painfully right, as in national health care, will be a really tough sell and easy to run against. In fact, the deep pocketed RNC ran nationwide ads proclaiming that “A vote for any Democrat is a vote for Socialism.”

       Of course, what is mind numbingly painful is the realization, by some of us, that a lot of these folks are, by and large, already beneficiaries of two great American social programs, Social Security and Medicare. If you want to watch a conservative old fart’s head explode, interrupt their rant re: “Socialism” and remind them of this. The first response will be “But I paid into it.”  They just don’t get that that’s how it works in all those countries with national healthcare.   

        In the Senate race, for better or worse, we Floridians had a visible (shithead criminal probably, but visible) candidate, Rick Scott, running against an incumbent who had done nothing over the last 6 years to attract any sort of attention. Compounding Bill Nelson’s problems were scurrilous attack ads run by the RNC, lack of anything to really point to as an accomplishment other than having ridden a Space shuttle mission 32 years ago, and his age, 76, an age at which some (most) of us have been retired for years.  

        On a brighter note, the shift in Congressional House majority puts the control of committee chairmanships and of the national purse strings in Democratic hands. Now if the Democrats really want to hurl a curve at the Trumpists, they’ll elect someone, anyone, but Nancy Pelosi as Speaker in January. I say this, not because of any animus whatsoever toward Ms. Pelosi, but because during and after her tenure as Speaker, she has been portrayed as a contentious political figure, with Republican candidates frequently trying to tie their Democratic opponents to Pelosi (see recent attack ads doing just that) and with moderate Democrats seeking to show their moderate bona fides by expressing opposition to Pelosi. This has fostered some party divisiveness. At age 78, like Bill Nelson, she needs (deserves) to rest. Even with her huge electoral margin in district again in 2018, She might serve our Democratic party better as a mentor and committee chair, while being less of a focal point for negative propaganda from across the aisle.

        I reiterate, these are only my opinions about this election in general and Florida’s in particular. If yours differs, so be it. While this may see semi apocryphal to many, especially the younger voters, it isn’t the first time and it won’t be the last. As a historian I am well aware of that fact.  The Republic will endure.