Even More Musings

Various musings

        I thought "Hints from Heloise" couldn’t get any more inane than yesterday's startling revelation that ice could be used to cool a hot drink. I was wrong. You can’t make this shit up: “My husband and I refuse to eat sausage with the casings on, and I have tried numerous ways to take them off, which end up with a mess, until I tried using a vegetable peeler, which works better than other measures we’ve tried.”  That’s the letter! I would offer as an alternative that perhaps this couple should switch to bacon which comes already peeled. Alternatively buy any of the multitude of sausage patties on the market. “Peeling” sausage? Really?

        With all the incredibly politicized garbage and bad legislation being floated by several states regarding late term (in fact, almost any) abortions, one candidate has managed to deliver, in a couple of paragraphs the most cogent and well stated opinion I have seen regarding this contentious issue.

       “So, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy, that means almost by definition you’ve been expecting to carry it to term,” he said.  

“We’re talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name, women who have purchased a crib — families who then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. The bottom line is, as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family, may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision isn’t going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.”

"Mayor Pete" has distilled all the Bible thumping and vote pandering right wing bullshit down to the intensely personal and medical consideration that it really is in just one brief response to a Fox News Town Hall meeting question. Compare this to all the Donald Trump, et all, bloviating, vote pandering, rhetoric. Sad, huh?  

       At the Scripps National Spelling Bee recently, the judges finally called it quits and awarded an 8-way tie for first place. As an aside, 6 of the eight winners were Asian Indian. Damned immigrants, taking all the good jobs from “’Murrican” spellers. (note, for those who don’t know me, the previous is sarcasm as a form of humor)

       Finally (for today, anyway) Clarence Thomas (you remember the USSC Justice who says little and does less, other than watch porno?) has opined that abortion and birth control are plots by Eugenicists to limit….something - what he doesn’t actually say.   At this point, as an exemplar of his true mediocrity, he never actually mentions what I suppose we’re expected to glean from his 

20-page polemic which, one supposes, is that Eugenicists would seek to limit Black births, a canard of the highest order,  and statistically false, especially since he lumps birth control and abortion together.

        So, what does he get wrong? The first and most obvious example is that if birth control was meant to limit Black births, it has failed for the following reasons:

·       Eighty-three percent of black women at risk of unintended pregnancy are currently using a contraceptive method, compared with 91% of their Hispanic and white peers, and 90% of their Asian peers. Yeah, that’s the opposite of what Thomas implies.

·       Among women at risk of unintended pregnancy, 92% of those with an income of at least 300% of the federal poverty level and 89% of those living at 0–149% of poverty are currently using a contraceptive method. Yep, you read it right, lower income, less use of contraception.

       So, here’s where it gets even murkier. Because he’s an ignorant man, Thomas is apparently unaware that those who were identified with the Eugenics movement in America, including such luminaries as Theodore Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger,  while favoring birth control, generally violently opposed abortion. A horde of historians, Black and White have illuminated this embarrassing fact and described Thomas’s drivel thus:

·       “ignorant and prejudiced when it comes to birth control and wholly inappropriate when it comes to abortion, vis-à-vis eugenics.”

·       “Thomas is guilty of a gross misuse of historical facts, and especially in the U.S. context,”

·       “historically incoherent.”

·       “The American Eugenics Society regarded it (abortion) as murder"

·       “Eugenicists were initially hostile even to birth control because they knew that the women who would use it were the type of women they would want to encourage to reproduce, so-called ‘better’ women — upper-middle-class women,”

·       “This has been part of the sensationalist rhetoric of antiabortion activists for a long time. What is striking about this is that this is now in an opinion by a Supreme Court justice.”

It would seem that even when Justice Thomas does do something and issue an opinion, he’s wrong.  

Memorial Day Musings

Memorial Day and service-related thoughts.

        Every year at the end of May, we appropriately commemorate the ultimate sacrifice represented by those who died in armed conflict in the service of America. For the most part these were Americans who were doing their best to honor a commitment made, some voluntarily, many more involuntarily, to what they believed was service in the cause of freedom. A very large number of these individuals died in what historians sometimes refer to “Just,” (or morally justified) wars. The validity of that appellation can be and has been debated for centuries.

        One example of this definition difficulty is that “Just” is frequently highly subjective. As an example, we might consider the US Seventh Cavalry, highly decorated and engaged in both Korea and Vietnam. Reflecting historically on all the ways the Seventh has been tasked, however also yields the facts that their most famous (notorious?) battle was against the Lakota at the Little Bighorn on June 25, 1876, at which its commander, Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer and 211 men died. The regiment also committed the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890, which effectively ended the Indian wars. For heroism in these two engagements, 41 members of the regiment received the Medal of Honor. I believe (I hope) that today it would be difficult for most of us to justify awarding the nation’s highest military honor to troops engaged in genocidal actions, which Wounded Knee certainly was, which today would probably have them declared war criminals.  

        It can be generally agreed upon by the vast majority of us that US involvements in World Wars I and II were Just Wars by almost any definition. Korea, is only a bit less certain, since there was no real threat to the United States, but the freedom of a people who were under attack by a totalitarian regime was at stake, and they (South Koreans) fought bravely in their own defense. Following that, as we move into the modern it becomes murkier. While Korea was not a “declared” war, per the Constitution, it was a US commitment to the ideals of the newly formed United Nations, in that other nations besides the US were represented there. None of this, of course,  in any way diminishes the sacrifices of those who volunteered or were drafted and were killed in action during that or subsequent undeclared military actions.

        What I would like us to recall, on this day, is that none of the persons involved in committing US military personnel to the fighting in Viet Nam and all subsequent non declared wars actually had to fight or die there. Events in Viet Nam represented no threat to US national security but was based on John Foster Dulles’ fatally flawed “domino theory” fiction which he sold to Eisenhower and a majority of Post WW II US politicians. In retrospect, one of the harshest critics of Viet Nam was the war's principal architect himself, LBJ’s SecDef, Robert McNamara, who wrote in a 1995 memoir that his own behavior in shaping the war was “wrong, terribly wrong.” 

        A later 2003 Academy Award winning documentary, “The Fog of War”, based on many hours of interviews with an older, redemption seeking, McNamara gives us several observations which seem to be both too little, too late, and ignored in the main. Several points in the film are worth mentioning: With respect to the Tonkin Gulf incident, used as LBJ’s pretext for massive escalation: "We see what we want to believe." (ed: or as  in the Tonkin Gulf incident, invent it).  Also" If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we better reexamine our reasoning.” McNamara also talks about how he believes the responsibility for the Vietnam War is on the president and says that if Kennedy had lived, the situation would have been better. The second Gulf War and beyond show the truth inherent in this view, re Presidential roles.  

        So, what did we learn from that? Not a lot, or at least not enough. We did fight another (for the most part) “Just” skirmish in Operation Desert Storm. GHW Bush believed freeing Kuwait from Iraqi domination was justified and was advised by then SecDef Dick Cheney NOT to advance to Baghdad or depose Saddam Hussein. He listened. Some years later, his son, getting the opposite advice (forcing Iraqi regime change) from now Vice President Cheney, would condemn thousands more Americans and millions more Arabs to death by destabilizing Iraq and opening the door to ISIS and widespread Sunni/Shiite conflict, as yet unresolved. Of course, “Bush 43’s” desert adventure stemmed from the (perhaps intentional) misreading and massive mischaracterization of the 9/11 attacks perpetrated and funded, not by Iraq or Iran, but by the Saudi born and financed Osama Bin Laden, based in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, today, we continue making excuses for Saudi lawlessness and funneling money to Pakistan, whose (de facto) Islamist government continues a cozy relationship with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

        The lives of those who have died in the several Middle East undeclared wars are no less precious than those who climbed Mount Suribachi, waded ashore at Omaha Beach or Guadalcanal, froze at Chosin Reservoir or were sunk by depth charges in the Sea of Japan. I would hope, however, that on Memorial Day, while we respectfully reflect on the sacrifices of those who gave all, we also reflect on why and how our leaders chose, and still choose, to place our military in harm’s way.

       As familiar and overused as this old adage has become, it has never been more apropos: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  George Santayana

Beware the Man who Doesn't Know What he Doesn't Know.

White House Announces $16 Billion In Aid To Farmers Hurt By China Trade Dispute

 "Sonny" Perdue, chicken farmer, moron and Secretary of agriculture

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/23/726117690/white-house-to-announce-16-billion-in-aid-to-farmers-hurt-by-trade-war-with-chin

       Think about the ramifications of this as it exemplifies Trumpian stupidity. Having little or no grasp of economic theory, Trumpo the Clown has precipitated the current crisis being experienced by some American farmers by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports (which is passed on to American consumers in increased prices. What follows is a brief primer on tariffs and why they can be mutually destructive.

         Few Americans, unless they took my APUS History course and have memory for details, are aware that the Civil War might well have started in South Carolina (same place as Fort Sumter, where it did “start”) but in 1832, not 1861. What drove this controversy wasn’t slavery, but economic policy, framed in the Tariff of 1828, called by South Carolinians and most other Southerners the “Tariff of Abominations.”  

       Congress, controlled by Northerners, passed a tariff bill which placed high tariffs on manufactured products from overseas, principally England. This was specifically aimed at increasing the price of finished products (like shoes or furniture or fine fabrics for example) that were actually cheaper to import from England than to transport from the North, principally New England, by adding a tariff to these imports. The South, especially the port of Charleston, along with New Orleans a main import point of entry was outraged. They correctly understood that they, almost exclusively agricultural, with relatively little manufacturing, were being taxed (yeah, a tariff is a tax on imports) to enhance Northern economic competitiveness.

        Complicating this matter was that two particularly aggressive men were POTUS and VPOTUS. Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was determined that the tariff would be enforced and was also willing (and said so) to send the US Army south to enforce is collection. Remember, the tariff was imposed on the South Carolinians who imported the products, and passed that cost onto consumers, not on the British shippers. This is important, since Trump maintains that manufacturers (China today) pay the tariffs. This is diametrically wrong and is a rock- solid example of the man’s sheer incompetence.

       The other indomitable force in play was Vice President John C. Calhoun, a South Carolinian who abhorred the tariff. Beginning in 1828, South Carolinians began to speak of “Nullifying” the tariff, that is, simply declaring the Federal law void and unenforceable in South Carolina. This went on for several years, ultimately leading to Calhoun resigning the Vice Presidency and Jackson threatening federal military enforcement. When a modest tariff revision, in 1832, was passed, the reductions were too little for South Carolina.

       In November 1832 the state called for a convention. By a vote of 136 to 26, the convention overwhelmingly adopted an ordinance of nullification. It declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina.  Understand, this was a huge Constitutional crisis, revolving around a state disputing and rejecting the concept of the Federal government’s supremacy. The “Nullification Crisis” was resolved with a compromise (reduction in a wide range of tariffs) known as the Tariff of 1833, but tariff policy would continue to be a national political issue between the Democratic Party and the newly emerged Whig Party for the next twenty years.

      It is noteworthy that the federal government derived most of its operating funds from tariffs or excise taxes, which are taxes on domestic products like whiskey, cigarettes, fuels (19 cents per gallon for gasoline today) at this time before income tax. Since 1914, however, the primary source of government operating funds has shifted to other sources (income taxes, primarily) and negative tariff effects in the 20^th  century have been highlighted by such retrograde economic faux pas as the Smoot Hawley Tariff of 1930, which instead of correcting the sliding US Economy, plunged it farther into the tailspin which became the Great Depression.

        So today, we have another version, sort of, playing itself out on the national stage. In the years since the Great Depression tariffs have ceased to be the principal source of US operating revenue, and in general, among developed countries, attempts to “protect” one class or industry can, and do, have a Newtonian “equal and opposite reaction” in others. This is what has happened in this instance. Raising taxes on some Chinese industrial exports has resulted in China increasing or imposing tariffs on US agricultural exports, such as wheat and soybeans.

         US farmers, and especially agribusinesses,  are already to great extent the richest welfare babies in the nation with the support of yearly Farm Subsidy Payments. The U.S. government presently pays about $25 billion in cash (that’s 5 “walls” if you’re counting) annually to farmers and owners of farmland. This is in several forms. One is to guarantee the price level of things like corn, wheat, sugar, milk, and several other staple consumables. This is also the exact opposite of the “market economy” Republicans so adore, since it (price controls) makes consumers pay more for food than a competitive market almost surely would. Even more “nanny state” like, the government also offers and underwrites crop “insurance.”  Crop insurance is purchased by agricultural producers, and subsidized by the federal government, to protect against either the loss of their crops due to natural disasters, such as hail, drought, and floods, or the loss of revenue due to declines in the prices of agricultural commodities. So…the price is guaranteed, and if the market price drops below that level, Insurance makes up the difference! There is almost surely no industry in America as protected as agriculture, and in the main, these main commodities aren’t so much family farms as Conagra, Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, Dow-Dupont, and other giant agribusinesses.    

        The real rub here, is that Trump’s tariffs have already cost consumers billions in increased prices, but the Chinese response has been to target mainly agricultural imports. So, what does China do? They buy soybeans and wheat elsewhere. Brazil has stepped right up and become China’s new best friend and soybean supplier. Even if tariffs disappeared tomorrow, why would China go back to the US once a rapport with Brazil has been established? What are US farmers not insured against? Decreased demand and excess production. No Chinese market? Where do the US soybeans and wheat go? How much tofu can the US consume?

        This poorly thought out action has, in truth created a few new jobs in steel and Aluminum production but has fallen far, far short of revitalizing these industries. Trump's one time boast of "6 new steel plants opening" was off by ...6 new steel plants! One recent estimate is that every new job created in these industries has cost millions in offsetting increased prices in other sectors.

        Of course, Trump has another opinion which he has been far less vocal about: In an interview gaffe in 2015 he let his true colors shine:  "We have to become competitive with the world. Our taxes are too high, our wages are too high. Everything is too high. We have to compete with other countries."  So, in Trump world, all we must do to right the economic ship is for working class individuals to take a pay cut, while he lowers taxes on his high roller cronies?  

        At the White House, recently, surrounded by farmers and ranchers, Trump said, "China has taken advantage of the United States for too long and has stolen billions in intellectual property.”  It is important to note that nothing Trump can ever do will correct or undo this last (intellectual property) fact. In fact much of that claim revolves around software and entertainment media. His administration's 25% tariff on products that Americans import from China was, he said,  necessary to "level the playing field," He then made the most egregiously optimistic statement possible, "The $16 billion in funds will help keep our cherished farms thriving and make clear that no country has veto on our economic and national security," Trump said. This assumes we regain those lost markets. With no end in sight and no sign of Chinese capitulation, this means the president just raised already bloated Agricultural freebies by 64%.

We deserve better and brighter, like, say, Liz Warren and Mayor Pete?

Bad Beer Reviews and Artistic Brilliance

More from the daily paper

       Not content merely with snotty wine reviews, and as previously lamented, the local newspaper now has added ludicrous beer reviews. Unfortunately, they’re on the front of the section which also holds the Sudoku, Jumble and crossword, so one’s eyes are drawn to them. 

       Apparently, the sages at the local news desk were sitting around and one said, “You know what, Luther? I’ll bet we need to review Busch beer, because the readers are surely confused about whether to drink it or Budweiser, or any of the other 75 national and/or local light lagers.”  

Here, verbatim, is what the poor schlub who drew the short straw came up with”

       “Oaty (sic) Busch Beer May Make You Want To Saddle Up” (wait, it gets worse) “If that old commercial where they break it down a cappella halfway through the theme song gives you chills, then this beer’s for you.” (ed note: see what they did there, appropriating the “This Bud’s for you” line?) “Busch is fairly ‘oaty’ with a slight mineral aftertaste” (a check of ingredients reveals no oats whatsoever used in the brewing process) “It’s not the most inspiring beer, but it may make you want to saddle up.”   That’s it. This is the textbook definition of “damned by faint praise.”  

        On a decidedly loftier note is the review of last night’s vocal performance offered by the incomparable Linda Eder. We (our friends and Emily and I) were seated directly behind the young reporter for the local paper who eventually wrote today’s review. She quoted us at the end of the article, but the review, while enthusiastic was just average, journalistically, so I’ll write my own:

        Sometimes artists are charmingly self-effacing, a trait rarely seen today in the popular music circus. One favorite comes at the beginning of Yo-Yo Ma’s terrific “Obrigado Brazil” album, where he introduces himself thus: “Good evening, I’m Yo-Yo Ma, I’ll be your cellist tonight.” Well, …yeah!

        Last night, another remarkable artist showed the same sense of minimalist self-appraisal. Linda Eder introduced herself thus, “Hi, I’m Linda Eder and I’m a singer.” This is akin to “I’m Usain Bolt and I can run pretty fast.”  If there’s a better pop/Broadway vocalist alive in America at present, I’d love to know who it is. Power, a 4 plus octave range, and a transition to falsetto so effortlessly reached that she’s there before you realize she went are just the technical attributes which make her unique. Her choice of material is reminiscent of Streisand, equally talented in her prime, but not Eder’s equal today.

        How she got here involves amateur shows, Harrah’s casino, and her big break as Lucy, the female lead in Jekyll and Hyde on Broadway, but today, she tours on a limited basis, picking and choosing. We are fortunate here in The Villages, in that Ms. Eder has a good friend who encouraged her to come play our world class venue. At 1000 seats, the Sharon Morse Performing Arts Center is acoustically excellent and rather more intimate than some of the older Broadway venues and the larger rooms like the Straz Center in Tampa. After last year’s visit, and last night’s effort “The Sharon” will probably be an annual stop for as long as Ms. Eder wishes to perform.

        In addition to several medlies of standards and  a couple of songs from Jekyll and Hyde, a role for which many believe she was robbed of a Tony Award, she performed a wide range of pop and jazz classics. Her five-piece band was as tight as could be and complemented all the styles. Eder is known for performing several songs which are normally associated with male singers and are rarely performed by female vocalists. She has said, “They’re great songs and I’ll do them for that reason.” Several of that genre were “Man of La Mancha,” a lump in the throat rendition of “Bring Him Home” (Les Mis) and a hauntingly beautiful performance of Freddie Mercury’s “Love of My Life.” Her “Don’t Cry for Me Argentina” eclipsed Patti Lupone’s original effort. That isn’t Patti’s fault. Few if any have Eder’s pure vocal chops.  

       After an hour and 45 minutes of impeccable vocals interspersed with off-hand and often folksy commentary regarding her career, life in general, power tools and an expired driver’s license (long story), she finished to a standing ovation, returning to encore with “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.”

        If Linda Eder performs anywhere near you, trust me, you need to make the effort to see and hear her. Simply put, in her two engagements here, she has produced two of the best live vocal performances of any genre which I’ve been privileged to hear.

Colored Lights & the Dreaded HFCS

Today's paper highlights just the thing for those with too much money and no common sense:

“Kohler’s DTV+ system brings a multi-sensory shower experience that incorporates a touchscreen interface and six preset options to customize speakers, steam, spray and ‘chromatherapy’ lights.”

“Chromatherapy?” Really? Steam and spray – maybe, but if you have time in the shower to listen to music and soak up "therapy light" (fake science at its worst) then you need a hobby.

Ona sweeter note, I made waffles this morning. I like mine with maple syrup, Emily prefers Log Cabin. As I am prone to do, I read stuff, frequently food packaging labels, while I eat and, in my stunned condition after seeing that the Orioles actually won a baseball game, my eyes drifted to the maple syrup bottle’s list of ingredients. It was succinct: “Maple syrup.” Below that it advised, “refrigerate after opening.” Period.

      I then turned my attention to the Log Cabin bottle with the familiar, homey picture of the rural cabin in the woods. Apparently, the manufacturer would like the consumer to see the product as a natural, folksy, traditional, etc, sweetener. Warning #1 to the analytical reader should be the large banner across the width of the label proudly proclaiming, “No high fructose corn syrup.” 

       The only reason to lead with this disclaimer is that almost the entire sweetener content is …wait for it, “corn sweetener.” The next ingredient is water, and then “sugar.” While the label doesn’t specify the sugar source, it’s a safe bet that if it were cane sugar, they would proudly note that fact. This makes it a sure bet that the sugar in question is fructose, which is the extra additive in ……high fructose corn syrup.

       Of course, there are those (the “chromotherapy” crowd, probably) who eschew HFCS because they’ve been told it causes all sorts of dreaded things, essentially all of which pejorative warnings apply to fructose (fruit sugar, a natural component of most fruits and veggies) …period. These include things like risk of diabetes, weight gain, “empty calories” (like all sugars), etc., all of which relate to sweeteners in general, especially, but not limited to corn-based ones.

      So, what’s the real difference between corn syrup and HFCS? Not very damned much as it turns out. Regular corn sweetener is 50% fructose NFCS is a whopping 55% fructose. Yep, a whole 5% more! How much do you wanna bet that the third label ingredient (“sugar,” almost assuredly also fructose) is about 5% of the total, but added separately to allow the Log Cabin label to proudly proclaim the absence of HFCS?

       The label also advises “refrigeration not required.” This is undoubtedly due to sodium hexametaphosphate (sodium benzoate, sorbic acid and phosphoric acid) added to retard spoilage. Oddly enough in tiny print across the top of the label, if one peers closely, you can see the words “A family tradition since 1887.” Wanna bet? Certainly not in the current formulation.

Of course, my maple syrup has been the same since the first proto-Huron licked his finger after getting some sticky maple tree sap on it. I can visualize the light bulb over his head as he thinks “Man, if I boil this gooey shit down it will be really delicious in case anyone ever invents waffles.” Thank you, Leroy Running Badger!

The Daily News

So, crossword done, Sudoku done, Jumble done, and I turn to the news.

        Todays pretentious beverage review was an effusive critique of, of all things, Coors beer. I recall being told, decades ago, of this amazing beer that couldn’t be had east of the Mississippi. I had visions of nectar of the Gods, conveying immortality, eternal youth, etc. This was made even more mythic by “Smoky and The Bandit”, which, in case you’ve forgotten, centered on Jerry Reed transporting a semi full of Coors “back East,” while Burt Reynolds canoodled with the ever cute Sally Field and stymied Sherriff Jackie Gleason as a diversion.

I still recall that first sip of what, I was sure, would elevate me to a higher plane of the beer Illuminati. I was wrong. It’s just beer, and a barely average light lager at that. So much for legends.

        In the “You Can’t Make this Shit Up” segment of today’s rant, 28 contagious (is that redundant?) Scientologists are still sequestered aboard the “SeaOrg” vessel, the “Freewinds” due to a measles outbreak. Apparently, Darwin was correct. Anyone with even a smattering of knowledge regarding L. Ron Hubbard’s farcical invention, knows that the word “Free” has no place in anything related to Scientology unless you’re Tom Cruise, on which case everything is free as long as you perform the annual meat puppet show for the newbies. The funny, which is at the end of the article is that the doctor in Curacao who has imposed the quarantine is…wait for it,…Doctor Izzy Gerstenbluth. (yeah, really!) Somewhere Mel Brooks is busting a gut.

        On a far more serious and disturbing note, “Heartbeat Abortion Bans Advance in Louisiana and Mississippi.”  This the headline and pretty well sums up the gist of the item.

I wrote on this recently but feel compelled to restate my principal point. These and other such laws are driven by Evangelical Christians and/or Roman Catholics (for the most part). These laws, if enacted  would apply to all residents of their respective states, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. These same folks, however, would be homicidally outraged if anyone even suggested allowing any aspect of Sharia to apply in Muslim communities within their state. So, let’s recap, if it’s “your” brand of superstition, it is perfectly permissible to impose it on the body politic as a whole, whether or not they share your views on the issue. But, while demanding tolerance of their viewpoint and conformity to their position, they cede no such tolerance to others. How very Christian of them!

        Finally, this laugher, “Is Garth Brooks Bigger Than the Beatles?”  Once I stopped snorting my cran-raspberry juice through my nose, I read the following analysis, which I will greatly abbreviate:

Albums sold:  Brooks-148 million, Beatles-178 million (this is misleading, if one considers all the Beatles’ efforts including individual ones, which takes the total album sales to over 800 million!

Diamond albums (10 million sold): Brooks -7, Beatles-6

Boxed sets (produced, not sold): Brooks-8, Beatles-16

In fact, these statistics are not probative of any Brooks superiority or “bigness” and they ignore other statistics which are as indicative or more so of the overall musical stature of the two entities:

Platinum albums: Brooks – 30, Beatles-42

Original songs recorded: Brooks- few if any, none of which he authored individually      Beatles- 207 original songs.

Beatles top ten Billboard hot 100 hits – 34, 20 @ #1

Brooks top ten Billboard hot 100 hits – One, as Chris Gaines, none as himself.

       So obviously we’re comparing apples to oranges here, but I would suggest that comparing a county artist to a pop artist is an exercise in futility, since it is rather rare for a country artist, cover or otherwise to hit the Pop charts. On the other hand, “Revolution,” “Get back,” “I Feel Fine”, and “I Don’t Want to spoil the Party” (Lennon-McCartney) and “Something” (Harrison) have all hit the country charts.

        Considering the Beatles active career as a performing entity was only ten years, and Brooks, so far has been at it for 30 active years, the bodies of work should be significantly disparate, and they are. I guess what you must ask yourself is how the collective musical legacies of Lennon and McCartney, and Harrison, as performers and songwriters, will stack up to the original material legacy of Garth Brooks. In essence, comparing Brooks, a talented singer/performer but not renowned as a song writer or player of anything but rhythm guitar to the multi-talented Beatles of Sgt. Peppers/White/Abbey Road is like comparing the driver of a Jaguar to the team which designed, manufactured and test drove it.

Ignorance and fear mongering

I have recently seen some truly misguided and essentially fictitious posts re: Sharia. Most are based on somewhat less than zero real knowledge of what it is or where it is applicable. What is far worse, in my estimation, is that many of those who are the most vocal against Sharia, of which they know little, are cheer- leaders for what, in essence, amounts to similar concepts applied in the US by “Christians”. I’ll be specific later.  

Right off the top: as an atheist, I have no dog in this hunt. That also means that as a believer in (only) secular law, I take the First Amendment very seriously. It also means that I simply don’t care what you believe as long as it has no interface with or intrusion into with my life and that of other citizens who choose not to agree with your cosmic viewpoint. As John Lennon so aptly said, “Whatever gets you through the night – it’s alright” This manifests itself in several ways. It means I get along with persons of all faiths, and always have; in fact, far better in many cases than those disparate groups coexist with one another. It also means my lens of investigation isn’t warped by dogma.    

First off: Within Islamic discourse, šharīʿah refers to religious regulations governing the lives of Muslims. For many Muslims, the word means simply "justice," and they will consider any law that promotes justice and social welfare to conform to sharia.

In those instances where persons, some well-meaning, go berserk over what they have been told is the implementation of sharia in some towns with Muslim populations (Dearborn Michigan is the prime example) the source of their angst is usually something like this:

“In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became (note improper tense) the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. The tough new law, slated to go into affect (note the misspelling of “effect”) January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.

The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.”

So, what’s the issue? This is an invented story from a site which admits that it is a fake news source. Sadly, the operators understand some people, eager to hate something” will ignore that fact and believe the lies. Here’s the disclaimer from the “source.”

“National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.”

Other “stories” from this site include: “IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next,” “Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge,” and “New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples.” And yet the haters, eager to hate the “other” leap to their pulpits.

Meanwhile, in the New York metro area, there are at least 17 ultra-orthodox Jewish communities where family law is frequently a matter for religious adjudication, not civil law. Where’s the uproar?

 Sharia, essentially, as the vast majority of American Muslims conceive it, would be similarly applicable as a resolution mechanism, primarily in the area of family law for Muslims who so choose. No one has ever even introduced a bill anywhere in the nation to institute sharia as civil or criminal law applicable to the population as a whole. If that were done, it would violate so many constitutional provisions as to be voided immediately anyway.

Now, on the other hand, if you are rabidly opposed to government, at any level, mandating religious principles be enacted into law, then recent attempts by state legislatures to impose the opinions of Evangelical Christians as relates to abortion should be a prime concern. So should their refusal to allow insurers to cover birth control. Understand, this is not a group choosing some degree of self-regulation within their community by mutual accord. Georgia’s recent late term abortion law driven by Evangelicals and, in truth, some other Christian groups seeks the imposition of specific religiously driven prohibitions and penalties to the entire body politic, irrespective of belief. Oddly enough, those who promote these incursions into the civil liberties of those with whom they disagree are the same in many cases who initially lauded Roe V. Wade as a “victory for personal liberty” until Lee Atwater and several Evangelicals turned it into a political football to gain votes.

Religious persons in America who bemoan what they fear and don’t understand are both ignorant and bigoted, which is a bad combination.

The "News?"

Y’know how sometimes you just skim through the daily paper on your way to the Soduku, Jumble and Crossword, and then other times stuff just sort of leaps out you and makes you think WTF? That was today.

I guess it started with my recognition that the space typically reserved for the smarmy, pretentious wine review was, today, occupied by a review (honest to God) for Miller High Life Beer!

“Well,” I thought, “Why not,” being prepared to read something like, “Carefully roasted, fermented malted barley with just the right touch of fine Washington State high desert hops…etc.” However, what I read was this (verbatim): “A bouquet that tastes pleasingly of apple juice and Corn Nuts. Light and sweet with just a hint of toffee. Highly drinkable and remarkably skunk-free considering that it comes in a clear glass bottle…”

I immediately, (well, ok, after I stopped laughing) imagined a couple of guys at the bar and one turns to the barkeep and says “Damn, Phil, this shit tastes like corn nuts soaked in apple juice and crushed Heath bars, gimme something else!” It occurs to me that Miller has been brewing this beer, vending it in clear glass, since 1903. I’ll bet that if there was a “skunkiness” factor associated with clear glass bottles they’d have addressed it in 116 years. It's an American light lager beer. I'd think it would taste sorta like one, huh? 

The Local and State section had a deeply moving and relevant (ok, I made that up) article on National Day of Prayer. Almost as I read that, the homophones “National Waste of Air” popped into my head. Later as I looked further I saw a photo of Donald Trump standing behind what appeared to be an Orthodox Rabbi praying. This confirmed my earlier diagnosis.

In yet one more example of the absolute validity of Darwin’s belief in the survival of the fittest, here’s today’s proof:

“A visitor to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park climbed past the metal railing, lost his footing and fell into the Kilauea volcano caldera…”

One wonders exactly what sort of brain fart virus has led to the recent rash of apparent blindness to public safety barriers. “Volcano man,” an active duty Soldier, no less, (they let him handle weapons?) fell 70 feet, surviving, but critically injured, which, theoretically at least, means he’ll live to (possibly) breed more imbeciles. One imagines him looking down at the smoking, steaming, hot surface and thinking “Boy, I wish I could get down there.” He did.

The four individuals who “sky-dove” sans ‘chutes into the Grand Canyon in recent months were not so lucky, however, and neither was the woman at an Arizona zoo who attempted to perform a Vulcan mind meld with a jaguar,  ignoring the barriers outside the cage in the process. She has a shredded arm, while the Canyon divers are all deceased.  Somewhere, if one believes in some sort of afterlife, you can imagine Charles Darwin chuckling, and muttering “Dumbasses, you never listened!”

        In world news, we have this article describing a funeral meal in Peru: “At least nine people have died and dozens more became ill after eating contaminated food at a funeral in the Peruvian Andes, authorities said on Tuesday. Officials said that 50 people were affected and 20 of those were hospitalized with stomach pains and vomiting after a wake the previous day in the Ayacucho region of south-central Peru.”

The article finally mentions that a healthy dose, well, ok, an  unhealthy dose, of Organophosphate, a (potent pesticide) was the culprit. You just have to wonder. Did someone, depressed or just stupid, think, “Well, we’re here, it’s a funeral, the holes are dug, what the hell?’

Finally, from right here in good old Florida. We have had far more than our share, or anyone’s share for that matter, of school related shootings. One School resource officer has (appropriately, I think) been fired and his Sheriff superior fired as well, for lack of assertive action in the deplorable Parkland shootings. There is absolutely no humor in this or similar incidents, and I am not attempting to introduce any.

Having said that, A school resource officer in Florida wasn’t having a great afternoon last Tuesday after his Sig Saur 9mm automatic pistol discharged in the cafeteria. This happened after the unidentified officer at Weightman Middle School in Wesley Chapel “leaned against a wall,” according to a local CBS affiliate. Although holstered, it somehow fired into the cafeteria wall, the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office said. No one was injured, but school officials have initiated a full administrative investigation into the matter. (Well, yeah!)

A public affairs officer of the Pasco Sheriff’s Office told reporters the gun involved was a Sig Sauer model 320 9mm and that experts will break it down to see how the discharge happened.  

Because I have that kind of time, I did a bit of extra research on this and what I found will surprise exactly no one: Sig Sauer has issued several “fixes” to the 320 in response to repeated accidental discharge reports from both US Army and numerous law enforcement agencies. According to a CNN investigation, the U.S. Army found a problem with an identical gun during testing in 2016: The weapon would discharge by itself if dropped at a certain angle. Sig Sauer provided a repair for the military at least four months before launching the same fix for the civilian market. During the past few years, at least nine people have had their P320 pistols discharge when dropped or jostled. Three of those people are police officers who suffered gunshot injuries.  

Of course, the “damage control” reaction by Sig Sauer is to point the finger elsewhere: “SIG SAUER is aware of an incident involving the discharge of a firearm by a School Resource Officer in Pasco County, Florida. While we cannot comment on the specifics of the incident, it is our understanding (read this as "fervent hope") that this was a negligent discharge, rather than an accidental discharge as some media outlets have reported. SIG SAUER understands, and respects that the Pasco County Sheriff’s Department is conducting a complete and thorough investigation into this incident, and we trust those findings will be reported as soon as possible.” 

Meanwhile we wait for the next shot.

Maybe its Not Me!

        With a burgeoning swell of third party, “Green” and otherwise, chatter, it might be useful for the ardent, young (usually) idealists among us to reflect on the reality of third parties and their impact on American politics. This came to a head in a discussion with a former student (where else, on Facebook) regarding the impact of the Green Party (Nader) votes in 2000 and parallels between that scenario and Jill Stein, also “Green,” 2016 votes.

       Looking back a bit, it really started because I re-posted a 2016 op-ed essay in support of Senator Liz Warren. My young acquaintance, responded with a sort of “Yeah, she’s Ok, but Jill Stein is the real deal.” While having no animus to Dr. Stein, I made the simple and categorically true statement that we’d perhaps be better off today if the Stein voters had voted for Mrs. Clinton, because historically third-party candidates draw voters from the major party they would otherwise support. I cited  Roosevelt/Taft/Wilson in 2012 as providing a text-book example, wherein TR, not nominated by disaffected Republicans as too “liberal” ran on a “Progressive” (“Bull Moose” Party) ticket, Taft, the incumbent, as Republican nominee and Wilson,  history professor and bigot, as a Democrat. Wilson won with less than half the popular vote (42%) because Taft and Roosevelt, both Republican reformers at heart, split the majority, giving a massive electoral vote edge to Wilson.

   

        My young stalwart, was highly offended by my suggestion that a Stein vote had somewhat the same effect as a Trump vote, and so began a rather ugly discourse, during the course of which it was claimed that “dimpled” or “hanging chads” were the real culprits in 2000 and deteriorated with  the odd insertion of  disjointed facts like Ross Perot’s vote percentages in 1992 and 1996. This was then couched to me as an “inconvenient truth” disproving my assertion that third parties, historically have always drained votes from the major party with whom they most closely align, while never electing a President. I also believe that there was some impression, certainly unjustified, that I was “dissing” Jill Stein, who while a board-certified MD, has yet win any elected office above city council. And thus, it began:     

        “It's not an inconvenient truth relative to the topic, which is that third party votes are wasted in a Presidential election. The scholarly article I posted, if you read it, proves that point historically. Not arguable, but simply historically factual."

  ( ed. note The referenced article is “linked” below) 

(https://www.history.com/news/third-party-candidates-election-influence-facts?fbclid=IwAR1qpBRB9iHd3fGKDzZ4YuDlLTnc6_ut9KbGjyap2U9vfZyWh86EFL6fCM4)  

       "What you allege as factually relevant re: the 2000 FL election is neither factual nor relevant.   I’m not sure why you even mention Ross Perot, but yeah, he polled 18.9% of the popular vote (in 1992!) Even that, yielded him exactly zero electoral votes! (I know you think there’s a point in there somewhere, but damned if I can find it. That was in 1992. in 1996 he did worse (8%  of popular vote), again producing no electoral votes. Perot was also an anomaly in that his voters came from both parties.

        But, back to your erroneous and grossly under-informed Florida 2000 claim: It is almost a certainty that no Nader voters who voted Green would have chosen Bush over Gore. No sane individual would claim otherwise. It is reasonable to assert that they would have voted Gore (actually "green" anyway) vice Bush. The "chad' dispute only arose because of the recount. If there had been no recount, we wouldn't even know what the f**k a "chad" was. Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes! In the absence of a Nader on the ticket, at least half, and more likely all, of those voters would have cast votes for Al Gore, vice Bush.  Bush would have lost Florida by over 96,000 votes! There would have been no recount, Gore would have been President and, almost certainly, no Iraq War (maybe even no 9/11 disaster). Yes, a third-party candidate's supporters made that much difference. If all the Florida Green voters had voted Gore in 2000, the world would be different. I know you don't like it, but THAT is the inconvenient truth.

       One can also consider that, in 2016,  Libertarians polled significantly better than Greens but it’s difficult, if not impossible, to even make an educated guess how Libertarian voters would have voted if only the two major party candidates were on the ballot. I do feel that the one valid assumption is that if Green voters had not had a candidate, they would have voted Clinton.

       As to the rest of it:  All the bullshit that went on inside major parties is irrelevant come election day, Superdelegates, convention infighting, etc., just don't matter once candidates are chosen.  On election day there were two candidates on ballots nationwide who had a chance of winning - Clinton and Trump. Third party voters took votes from whichever party they most closely identified with, as they always have. In this case, Stein especially, almost all were closer to the Democratic platform and point of view. I’d bet a year’s beer money than Stein cost Trump not a single vote.

        In the 2016 election, considering just the Green party (there were as many as seven candidates in some states,) if only the Green votes had gone to Clinton in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, she would have won the presidency by an electoral vote of 278-260 (it’s possible that the same might have happened in several other states, but after doing the math in these three I had enough data).

        All this is simple mathematical reality, and the point, if one is to be taken, is this: As long as the two major parties in America control state legislatures (which is where essentially all election law is made) there will almost assuredly never be a foothold for a viable third party. Most states make it far easier for the two majors to control who gets on the ballot and to preserve the two major party system. Those with other points of view would fare far better by concentrating on winning state and local races. A “Senator Stein” or “Governor Stein” would have been far more effective these past four years than “fourth place finisher Stein.” (she lost to the Libertarian, too.) As of October 2016, one hundred and forty three  officeholders in the United States were affiliated with the Green Party, the majority of them in California, several in Illinois, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, with five or fewer in ten other states, however no Green party nominee has ever been elected to a federal office.

        Third party supporters can, sometimes,  be effective in generating positive change by state and local efforts at those levels, but until state legislatures act against their own self-interest (don’t hold your breath!) to allow third party candidates the same exposure and ease of ballot access which Democrats and Republicans enjoy, the federal election process will continue to be controlled by two major parties. Perhaps it isn’t what one might want, but it is what it is.

       On the other side of the issue, however, is the argument that can be made, and verified globally, that multi-party (three or more parties) governments are generally less stable and successful and more subject to wild stress, as supports and coalitions wane and grow randomly from issue to issue. Washington warned against the “divisiveness of Party” in his farewell address yet, just 4 years later, during the campaign of 1800,  Jefferson and Adams were (figuratively) at each other’s throats. In hindsight and historically no one would argue that either was immoral or of unsound character, yet supporters of each made such claims and others even more outre at the time. Dirty politics isn’t new, sadly. For the foreseeable future in America, two major parties will control the Federal Government. It seems to me far better and, most of all, pragmatic to attempt to do the right thing and effect positive change from inside the one which most closely aligns with your values. But that’s just me, almost 77 years old, and an active observer of US politics, good and bad, through thirteen presidencies and counting. Yet, I guess I need to be “schooled” because I still, according to some, have no idea of where I speak. Wait! Maybe it’s not me who’s confused!