The Tyranny of Cliches

I've been a fan of Jonah Goldberg for a long, long time. I read the first of his three books, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning not long after it was published in 2008. Due to circumstances which I won't go into now, I've only recently downloaded (and read) his book from 2012, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas .

The Tyranny of Cliches is ten years old, so naturally some of what's in the book is dated. In it's overall description of Liberals and Progressives, however, the book is still relevant today.

Of course, there is no mention of Donald Trump, but Goldberg was warning us of the dangers of populism in 2012. Anyone familiar with Jonah Goldberg knows he is no fan of Trump and he's resisted the call to jump on the populist bandwagon that far too many "Conservatives" have climbed aboard in this age of the Donald.

He's one chapter dealing with the question of science. Liberals like to claim that they're the ones who support science while the Conservatives fight against science, tooth and nail. I'll admit that there is a group of Conservatives who believe in a young Earth, with no evolution allowed; with Noah's ark and all the rest. I'm not one of those. As far as Democrats being the party of science, I've addressed that in a blog post - Isn't Biology "Science" Too?. As I wrote in that post:

Far too many folks, who believe themselves to be following the science, seem to ignore the science involving DNA. These people seem to forget "science" when science tells us that the human fetus is, well, a human. A human fetus can only grow to become a fully functioning human. A human fetus cannot magically transform into a dog, or cat, or dolphin or some alien life form. Killing a fetus in the womb is killing a human being. That is an undeniable scientific fact.
The DNA of the fetus also proves that the fetus is a separate and distinct individual and not a body part of the mother. Prematurely removing a fetus from a mother's body, by way of abortion, is not the same as removing an appendix.
While we're on the subject of DNA, examining the DNA shows that human beings come in only one of two genders. An individual's DNA and chromosomal makeup reveals whether the person in question is male or female. No matter how you may feel about whether or not you're in the "right body", your DNA reveals your gender.

Another chapter in Goldberg's book covers another subject which I've written about myself. Liberals and Progressives look down on traditional Christianity, but still looking to be "spiritual", they will claim to be Buddhists or adherents of other Eastern religions. However, in spite of the fact that traditional Buddhism doesn't permit abortion, when the Dalai Lama released his first book in Great Britain, his editors got him to water down his views on abortion so as not to alienate his potential buyers.

I could go on and on, but I'd rather leave the heavy lifting to Jonah Goldberg.It's well worth the read.

Punk Rocker to Renounce U.S. Citizenship over Roe v Wade

I have to make a confession right off the bat. I'm 70 years old and I had never heard of Billie Joe Armstrong or his punk rock band Green Day until I came upon the story of his recent declaration that he's renouncing his U.S. citizenship during London concert in wake of SCOTUS overruling Roe. Ho Hum.

He's hardly the first Liberal or Progressive to declare that he's leaving the U.S. because of his political disagreement with something going on in the United States. For those who don't know me, I left the U.S. in 2014 to live in Philippines. I did not do this for any political reason, and although I don't have plans to visit the country of my birth any time soon, I have absolutely no intention of renouncing my U.S.citizenship.

I was curious about Armstrong's situation, so I decided to look into his band and his bio. Does he have any idea how to go about renouncing his citizenship? It isn't as easy as just moving to the U.K..

First, I went to Spotify and immediately discovered that I had heard a few of the band's songs. I just didn't know who the performers were at the time. I'm not a big fan of punk rock, but I don't absolutely hate it. As far as music goes, I like Armstrong's singing but I don't see any originality or creativity gushing forth from his music. It's OK, but nothing special in my view.

I wonder, however, how much thought Armstrong has put into his idea to renounce his U.S. citizenship? I have no idea of his financial worth, but I imagine he could move to England without much difficulty. He could probably record whatever albums he plans to record in a studio in the U.K.. I'm sure his record label could work out the details. Touring, on the other hand might become a problem. Could he survive touring exclusively within the U.K.? If he's living in the U.K. he couldn't travel to the U.S. or Europe without his U.S. passport. Is he really renouncing his citizenship if he travels on a U.S. passport? Using your U.S. passport when you fly from London to the U.S. is pretty much an admission that you're still an American.

Of course, the problem of traveling on a U.S. passport is moot if and when he obtains a British passport. Assuming he packs up and moves to the U.K. today, he'll need to reside in the U.K. for five years before he can apply for citizenship. I don't know about immigration laws in the U.K., but here in Philippines, I have to check in with the government every year....and I'm a legal resident. I have to present my valid U.S. passport when I do. If the situation in the U.K. is anywhere near being similar, Armstrong will have to provide his valid passport from time to time. Again, he's back to having to show he's a citizen of the U.S.. It sort of makes his renunciation of his U.S. citizenship a little more complicated.

Finally - Both Sides Find Agreement

 

Much has been written over the past few years on the ever increasing divide within the United States. Many believe this polarization will one day lead to another Civil War.

Red States - Blue States. Democrat - Republican. Right - Left. Conservative - Liberal. Great Taste - Less Filling.

Finally, in a rare case of bipartisan agreement, both sides have come to see that the best way to settle political disagreements is by invading government buildings and threatening elected government representatives with acts of violence.

I know that this is merely a first step; there is still a long way to go, but "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" and "Mighty Oaks from little Acorns Grow". 

Keep up the good work America!

The Founding Myth : Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American

The month of June is very nearly half over and so far I've managed to read eight ebooks; four of which were written by atheists :
The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Mortality by Christopher Hitchens
Einstein's Dreams by Alan Lightman and
The Founding Myth : Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American by Andrew L Seidel

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's atheism is a reaction to Islam and the horrible treatment of women by her former co-religionists. Atheism isn't obvious in Lightman's novel - I learned of it by reading his wikipedia page. Obviously, Christopher Hitchens wasn't going to turn to religion on his death bed, but his dislike of religion seems slightly less militant in this, his final book. Seidel, on the other hand is the most militant atheist of the four.

In The Founding Myth, Andrew Seidel sets out to prove that, contrary to the beliefs of the Christian Nationalists in the U.S., the United States as brought about by the "founding fathers", is not a Christian nation. I think he's done a remarkably  good job proving that point. The U.S. allows for freedom of religion - you're free to practice, or not practice, any religion, not specifically Christianity. His chapters showing how nearly all the Ten Commandments would be deemed unconstitutional if laws were passed following the 10, is very enlightening. The first commandment requires one to worship a particular God - certainly unconstitutional. Americans cannot be required to "keep the Sabbath". Law makers could not pass laws requiring anyone to honor their parents, and lots of luck arresting folks for committing adultery, to say nothing of trying to outlaw coveting . Of course, the U.S. has laws against murder, theft and perjury, but these "commandments" are not strictly of Judeo-Christian origin. Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists also forbid these acts.

Unfortunately, being a militant atheist, Seidel feels the need to attack Judaism and Christianity far beyond what's necessary to show that the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not based on Judeo-Christian values. In his hatred of these two religions, he seems to overlook anything positive. His mocking of a Catholic wedding ceremony shows him to be petty and juvenile. Like most atheists, he does not have a deep understanding of religious thinking. The book would have been much better had Seidel kept to politics and stayed away from theology.

Created Equal - Dr. Ben Carson

I've always found Dr. Ben Carson to be an astute and insightful person. I've been a fan of his long before his run for the Republican nomination for President in 2014. As a matter of fact, I believed then (and still do) that he was one of the most - if not the most - qualified candidates in the field. I knew, however, that he had little, to no chance of winning the nomination.

I didn't feel that his race would have any negative affect on the nominating process, but rather it was the fact that he is so soft spoken. Voters are much more likely to pick a loudmouthed buffoon over a quiet, thoughtful individual.

I'm not the only person to appreciate his latest book, Created Equal: The Painful Past, Confusing Present, and Hopeful Future of Race in America. It is a New York Times Bestseller, after all. Reviews by people certainly more impressive than myself have been positive:

“ Created Equal is a book that speaks truth to power and is so very needed in today’s divided society. Dr. Carson’s sensible solutions and advice should be heeded by all Americans that wish to see our nation united once again." - Dr. Alveda King

"Dr. Carson’s Created Equal brilliantly reveals the destructiveness of false divisions in society through his moving conversation on education, faith, race, and values in America." - Newt Gingrich

"You can't cancel Dr. Carson. Get ready to be informed, enraged, and entertained. In Created Equal , Dr. Carson draws on his inspiring personal success to weigh in on the national debate around race and equity. It is just what the doctor ordered—a stronger, more unified country." - Juan Williams

A Few Thoughts on "Common-sense Gun Reform"

 

After the recent school massacre at a Uvalde, Texas Elementary school, the White House issued a statement that President Biden is not considering 'doing anything' to get rid of the Second Amendment. Biden simply wants "common-sense gun reform".

I've been hearing the call for common-sense gun reform for quite some time, without any real understanding of what the term actually means.

Putting the term into a search engine, I found a few proposals.
Vermont Congressman Peter Welch
New York Congressman Joe Morelle
bradyunited.org
Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Although there are some differences in the proposals, all seem to agree on

1) "red flag laws"
2) expanded background checks
3) a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

I'm sure these "common-sense gun reforms" will prevent some of the mass shootings plaguing the United States.

The so-called "red flag laws" would work only in those situations where a potential gun owner has exhibited certain types of behavior. There's no evidence that such a law would have prevented the Uvalde shooter from buying a gun. The same would apply to the expanded background check proposal. In this case, the killer passed the required background check in Texas. He had not committed a felony before purchasing the weapons and ammo.

I can't see any problem with the 3rd proposal - the ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I've no objection to people owning weapons to protect home and family, but does anyone really need an assault weapon? I know, some will claim that citizens in the U.S. need military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to guard against a rogue government, but does anyone believe they can withstand the full force of the U.S. military?

For its worth, IMHO, the first two proposals will prevent some, but not all mass killings. Proposal #3 seems reasonable to me.

UPDATE
Please check my post I Stand Corrected for further thoughts on "red flags".

Reporter at U.S. News & World Report in a Panic Over Abortion Restrictions

Kaia Hubbard, a general news reporter at U.S. News & World Report, appears to be especially worried about the state of abortion in the United States. Although she can, presumably, write on any number of topics, her topic of choice appears to be the increase in the number of States putting restrictions on abortion. Four months into 2022, she has written eleven such stories - with five of those eleven being written in April alone. 

Of course, as I write this, there are still eleven days remaining in the month; still plenty of time for her to double down.:

Abortion Rights Imperiled on 49th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
Four Governors Races That Could Decide Abortion’s Future
States Advance Abortion Bans Expecting Roe’s Fall
Florida Passes Mississippi-Style Abortion Ban
State Supreme Court Ruling Dooms Challenge to Texas Abortion Law
Idaho Passes Texas-Style Abortion Ban
Missouri Is Eyeing a Ban on Abortion Beyond its Borders. It’s Happened Before.
The Anti-Abortion Movement’s Post-Roe Agenda: Inconvenient, Illegal, Unthinkable
Oklahoma Governor Signs Abortion Ban
Florida Gov. DeSantis Signs Abortion Ban Into Law
Kentucky Law ‘Effectively Bans’ Abortion

A Long Petal of the Sea

It was with a good deal of enthusiasm that I began reading A Long Petal of the Sea by Isabel Allende. The reasons behind this enthusiasm were threefold:
1)  The novel came highly recommended by someone of whom I have great respect.
2)  The story begins during the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s, and continues on into the Second World War. Several of the novels I had read without the past 30 days dealt with the terror of living under the Fascists and Nazis of that era and this novel looked to be in my wheelhouse.
3) While researching Isabel Allende, I learned that her writing is considered by many to be in a style known as Magic realism. The Japanese writer, Haruki Murakami is seen as one of the most important authors of this genre, and to have one's name mentioned alongside Haruki Murakami is high praise.

Sadly, I was disappointed in the novel.

Although Allende is critical (and rightly so) of the Fascist General Franco, who was supported by Hitler and Mussolini,  Allende appears to be less than critical of the Spanish Republican army which was being supported by the Soviet Union. As we see with the modern day Antifa movement, being "anti-Fascist" isn't enough. Joseph Stalin was the ultimate anti-Fascist.

Each chapter in the novel starts with a line from the work of Chilean poet, Pablo Neruda - an unapologetic Communist. Allende also praises, through out the novel, her cousin Salvador Allende, the first Marxist to be elected president in a "liberal democracy" in Latin America.

From a political standpoint, Isabel Allende cannot be viewed as an unbiased observer of history.

A Long Petal of the Sea  is, after all an "historical novel", so comparing this work to Haruki Murakami's Magic realism might be a bit unfair. One review called the book "a trifle facile", and wrote "Allende tends to describe emotions and events rather than delve into them, and she paints the historical backdrop in very broad strokes, but she is an engaging storyteller".

More than one reviewer called the storytelling "forced", with much of the story being told, summarized after events have occurred rather than being experienced as they happen. Another reviewer at Goodreads said reading the novel was like reading a newspaper.

Oh, did I fail to mention that the novel is rife with anti-Catholic bigotry? Of course, that's to be expected in a novel in which most of the heroes are Marxists.

Republican Rescue

My original plan, when I first thought of reading, and then writing a blog post on Chris Christie's new book, Republican Rescue , was to entitle the eventual post, I'm Reading Chris Christie's New Book...... So You Don't Have To ,but that plan changed once I began reading the book.

I hadn't actually been aware of Christie's book until I came upon an article about how abysmally awful the sales of the book were. At the time I read the article, Republican Rescue had failed to sell even 3,000 copies. It was those low sales numbers which actually led me to want to read the book.Obviously, if sales were that bad, Christie had pissed off a lot of people. I wanted to find out why.

I wouldn't say that I had ever been a fan of the former New Jersey governor, but I didn't really have any particular dislike for him. When he was running for President, he didn't seem to be someone I'd vote for in the Republican primary, but had he managed to become the Republican candidate for POTUS, I'd certainly pick him over any Democrat.

I'm sure many of the folks angry with Christie are Democrats who would be upset at any Republican.....especially one who might have been in Trump's camp at one time. I was also sure that maybe of the Republicans staying away from his books are those who see him as a turncoat against Trump. I've got my own problems with Trump now, so I wanted to see how Christie saw this need to rescue the Republican party.

Let's go back to the presidential campaign of 2016.

As readers of one of my other blogs may remember from 2016, I often compared the idea of voting for either Trump or Hillary Clinton to the question as to whether one wanted mustard or mayo on their shit sandwich. However, after Donald Trump had won the election, I thought I'd give Trump the benefit of the doubt, and see what he'd do as POTUS.

For the most part, I was happy with most of the things Trump had managed to accomplish, although I wasn't really thrilled with his personality. At the beginning of 2020, like a lot of folks, I was sure Trump was headed for re-election. I feel safe in saying that it was COVID that killed Trump's return to the White House.

One of the reasons I wanted to read Chris Christies new book was to see how he viewed the last days of Trump's presidency. It turns out that Christie and I are in agreement on that. As Trump refused to accept defeat, I became more disillusioned with the President. With Trump's reaction (or rather non-reaction) to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 06, 2021, I knew I was finished with Trump. Christie appears to be finished with him as well.

The full title to Christie's book includes "Saving the Party from Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden". It's Christie's hope, and mine as well, that the Republicans can escape from the really bizarre elements trying to make their way inside the big tent. He does a good job of explaining who these crazies are. Let's all hope the Party is successful.

A Few Thoughts on "12 Rules For Life".

I can't recall exactly when I became aware of Dr. Jordan Peterson, though I'm reasonably sure it was via one of his Youtube videos. I was immediately impressed with his anti-Leftist views and his stance against the "politically correct" culture and identity politics that is taking over Western society.

I would later come to appreciate his Biblical lectures and his talks on ethics, psychology and personal responsibility. His thoughts on Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism and evolution were a big draw as well. From his Youtube lectures, I went on to listen to his podcasts, available on his website and on Spotify.

I had been wanting to read his book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos for a long time, but due to problems with my Amazon account, I was only recently able to download a copy.

I'm fast approaching 70, but I'm still a work in progress. I've learned quite a bit from his "12 rules" and if I had a time machine, I would take a copy of this remarkable book back to an earlier me. I'd be much better off today (provided, of course that I could convince the earlier me to read it).

Like myself, Dr. Peterson has a love for the works of Fyodor Dostoevsky and he references three of Dostoevsky's novels in this book - Crime and Punishment ,The Brothers Karamazov and Notes from Underground . In addition to Dostoevsky, Dr. Peterson mentions a number of novels to help explain his ideas - Lord of the Flies by William Golding, The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang, Orphan X by Gregg Hurwitz and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago . I've read the above mentioned novels by Dostoevsky, although the three could do for a re-read in 2022. I read Lord of the Flies as a teenager and it's due for a re-read as well. It's going into the queue, as are the books by Chang, Hurwitz and Solzhenitsyn.

CNN and Biden in Panic Over Texas Abortion Law

 

Joe Biden and CNN in panic mode over the Supreme Court's 5-4 vote leaving a Texas abortion ban in place.

John Roberts has lost control of the Supreme Court
Biden launches federal effort to respond to Texas law as he faces pressure to protect abortion
Congress could protect access to abortion. Here's why that's unlikely to happen.

Belief

I recently came upon a photo of a couple holding a sign on which their beliefs were listed. The couple were participating in some sort of outdoor event, which I'm guessing may have had some political agenda.

The sign was basically a laundry list of bumper sticker slogans; the entire list could be classified as an Internet meme. The list of their beliefs is as follows:
Black Lives Matter
No Human is illegal
Love is love
Women's Rights Are Human Rights
Science is Real
Water is Life
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

I felt I might address each of these slogans with my own interpretation of the sentiments behind each individual slogan.

Black Lives Matter
I've come to find this a troubling slogan. Of course, Black lives matter, but so do the lives of every single human individual regardless of race, ethnicity or skin color. I don't particularly like the idea of segregating the different "lives that matter" into separate groups. In the WOKE culture, one is now considered racist if you believe that All Lives Matter.

No Human is illegal
The implication of this slogan is that the term "illegal alien" is no longer appropriate. In the wider sense, it suggests that borders should be eliminated. Being the husband of a woman that immigrated to the United States, I have sympathy for anyone wanting to come to the United States for a better life, but I'm also aware that unlimited migration into any country isn't workable. It certainly isn't "fair" that people that can walk into the U.S. from their country should take precedent over people from Asia, Europe or Africa who have no choice but to enter the country legally. I know quite a few Filipinos who would come to the United States today if it weren't for the visa requirements.

Love is love
I've come to see this slogan as support for same-sex marriage. In my opinion, the Government should remove itself from the issue of marriage. I see marriage as essentially a religious ceremony...I don't quite see the reasoning behind pledging your love for someone before a government official. When a couple choose to marry, the couple should present themselves to their religious advisor - priest, pastor, rabbi, qazi or madhun. If your religion sanctions same-sex marriage, then no outsider should have a say in the matter. However, there are many religious groups which are opposed to same-sex marriage, and their believers should not be forced to participate or sanction a ceremony that goes against their religion .

Women's Rights Are Human Rights
If by "Women's Rights" one means actual "Women's Rights", then there is no question that those Rights should be supported. However, if by "Women's Rights" you mean "abortion rights" then you've lost me. I have to go back to an earlier statement that All Lives Matter. An unborn human fetus is a human being that is entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Jumping ahead to the next slogan, it's clear that the human fetus has it's own unique DNA and is a separate individual from the mother.

Science is real
Yes, science is real, but unfortunately scientific beliefs are political. I know certain Liberal leaning folks who believe the science if the science supports their views on climate change or COVID, but who ignore the science when it supports Conservative ideas on sex and biology.
Likewise, I know quite a few Right-leaning folks who might embrace the science when it supports their Right to Life beliefs, but are reluctant to follow the science when it contradicts their particular interpretation of the Bible.

Water is Life
Honestly, I don't know anyone who against clean water.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere
It's hard to argue against that point from a humanitarian viewpoint. But, I wonder if those holding a sign advocating that principle are willing to do whatever it takes to eliminate injustice around the world. Are they willing to boycott every nation that doesn't live up to their standards of justice? Are they willing to send combat troops to countries which do not hold the same values on Human Rights?

Unfortunately, my entire belief system can't be explained in a single blog post, and it certainly can't be summarized on one sign.

Follow the Science?

In a recent opinion piece for aljazeera.com [In science we trust], Andrew Mitrovica tells us that now that the "white-coat army" of scientists and physicians have lead the way to realizing humanity’s salvation by kinda-sorta-almost-very nearly tackling COVIS-19, we should finally address the problem of climate change by.......ta da !!!!..... following the science.

Of course, it might have been helpful if Mitrovica had actually explained what he means by that.

Groups such as Fridays for Future demand that we
1) Keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 °C compared to pre-industrial levels.
2) End Fossil Fuel Investments, and
3) Listen to the best united science currently available.

How do we keep global temperature below 1.5 °C compared to pre-industrial levels? One way, activists say, is to end fossil fuel investments world wide. Unfortunately for activists, people have a need for energy. How can those in the "global North" survive in winter without heating? We need fossil fuel to power the trucks and trains that transport food from one location to another. Can we reasonably expect people to sit back and freeze and face starvation?

People all over the planet have come to expect a certain lifestyle which depends on reliable energy sources. Electricity and clean water come with a cost.

What does it mean to "Ensure climate justice and equity" and secure "Climate justice and equity for everyone"? Should the poor in the Third World do without the "luxuries" that First World people call "basic necessities" ?

I agree that certain changes in the environment need to happen, but those changes can't happen without a one world, totalitarian government in control of the planet. In spite of what many may think, we're nowhere near that yet.

Two Minute Hate

 

As I once mentioned in a post on another blog, with every U.S. Presidential election cycle, a reference to 1984 and Big Brother is leveled against one - or sometimes, both - candidates. In that post, I included images of Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump as Big Brother. The post also includes a similar image with Hillary Clinton.

In an earlier post on this blog, I wrote that I would be reading (and re-reading) a number of dystopian novels this month. I've just finished re-reading 1984 and I noticed something that has been frequently used in Presidential elections, but never mentioned out loud, as far as I can tell.

Early in the novel, Orwell writes of the Two Minutes Hate where Outer Party members of Oceania view a film of enemies of the State - usually Emmanuel Goldstein - and are encouraged to openly display their hatred for the enemy. While I was reading this section, I immediately thought of the Left's reaction to Donald Trump. The hatred is similarly coming from raw emotion, rather than logic.

It didn't take long for me to understand that not only were these "Two Minute Hates" recently directed at Trump, but had been used earlier by Republicans against Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Left had also used the same tactic against George W. Bush.

As I write this, I haven't noticed the same "Two Minute Hate" technique used against Biden. Perhaps because his persona as a tried old man works better for the Republicans.

Unfortunately, noticing this doesn't help stop it. Just more evidence of the U.S. going to Hell in a hand-basket.

Alice's Restaurant Today

 

In one of yesterday's posts, I mentioned that one of my "Daily Mixes" on Spotify was called "Classic Acoustic", which contains a variety of music from the late 60's/early 70's that, presumably would appeal to old farts like myself. As I mentioned, after hearing song # 3 (1952 Vincent Black Lightning by Richard Thompson) I left the Daily Mix and went off to learn more about Thompson and his music.

This morning, I went back to the mix to listen to #4 - Alice's Restaurant Massacree by Arlo Guthrie.

Alice's Restaurant Massacree was released in 1967. Things have certainly changed since then. Listening to the song as recorded then, I heard a number of ideas expressed which may have been considered "hip" or "progressive" at the time, but which would be frowned upon by the woke folk of today.

 

Afterward, I listened to Guthrie's 50th anniversary rendition to see what, if anything had been updated to pacify the woke.

Of course, there wasn't much one could change about the first part of the song where Guthrie tells of his throwing away "a half a ton" of garbage in a rural area. He couldn't leave out that section because part two would not be understandable without the first part. His description of the garbage incident was still mocking and sarcastic. This time around, however there was no knowing and agreeing laughter from the audience. The woke crowd seriously frowns upon disregard for the environment. Hell, now throwing the garbage away in the city dump is something the Left is against......his throwing away trash the way he did is even worse in today's world. I'm a little surprised that Guthrie hasn't been cancelled for the garbage incident.

When he gets to the second part of the song, which deals with the draft board, his trying to explain to people today what the draft board was seemed a little awkward. I wouldn't expect him to receive much push back from the Left on his anti-war/anti-authority views in the second portion, but I was curious to see what he would do with the reference to "faggots" that comes near the end of the song.

He sidestepped that hurdle. The word was not used in the newer version of the song; instead a mention of how some bigoted folks in Texas might object to a couple singing the Alice's Restaurant jingle, while they applied for a marriage license was substituted.

For many years, an FM radio station in Atlanta would broadcast the song on Thanksgiving Day. I don't know if that's still being done. I'm waiting to see if Guthrie will be eaten by the Left any time soon.

Biden's Name Will Not Appear On Stimulus Checks

According to an article at  thehill.com , Biden's name will not appear on the upcoming round of stimulus checks. The article goes on to say that the stimulus checks sent out during Trump's term had President Trump's name on the memo line of the checks.

Having received the stimulus money thru direct deposit, I had no idea that Trump's name appeared anywhere on the check.

The article quotes White House press secretary Jen Psaki as saying:
"We are doing everything in our power to expedite the payments and not delay them, which is why the president’s name will not appear on the memo line of this round of [stimulus] checks."

Apparently, the checks will be signed by a career official at the Bureau of Fiscal Service.

First of all, will the checks actually be "signed" by anyone? I imagine the signature will be a facsimile. Even if the check did have Biden's name on them, he wouldn't be signing each individual check. The poor guy would get writer's cramp long before many of the checks was ready to mail out. Not having Biden's name on the stimulus checks will in no way speed up the process.

I think Trump's wanting his name on the check was typical, over the top Trump behavior. Biden's decision to go in the opposite direction is just a way of undoing anything Trumpish.

The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge

At the end of an earlier post , I wrote that after I finish reading Edith Wharton's autobiography, A Backward Glance , I'd choose another book to read; the implication being that I would pick one of Wharton's many novels or short story collections.

The reading of Wharton's autobiography did lead me to put a number of books in the queue; two being her first novel, The Valley of Decision and one of her most famous novels, Ethan Frome. Her autobiography also led me to put a number of other writers in line - namely Mayne Reid, Henry James and George Meredith. Surprisingly, it also led me to put in The Swiss Family Robinson as well.

Probably the most surprising result is the actual book that I've chosen to read next - The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge.

Wharton and Coolidge were contemporaries, she being born ten years before Coolidge and dying four years after the President. Both had a connection to the state of Massachusetts, but that's where the similarities end.

Wharton was born into a wealthy family; her father (and later, her husband), being born into the "leisure class" who, "expressed disdain for all forms of productive work, especially any type of manual labor".

Although not "poor" the Coolidge family was certainly not rich. Calvin's father owned several businesses and a farm, and felt that hard work was an essential part of life. Calvin was raised to have a strong Puritan work ethic.

When writing of his time in college, Coolidge said,
"A great deal of emphasis was placed on the necessity and dignity of work. Our talents were given us in order that we may serve ourselves and our fellow men. Work is the expression of intelligent action for a specified end. It is not industry, but idleness, that is degrading. All kinds of work from the most menial service to the most exalted station are alike honorable".

That is a lesson I wish that I had been taught as a child.

Two bits of trivia picked up in the autobiography -
Twice in the autobiography, Coolidge refers to his wife, not as "First Lady", but as "Mistress of the White House".

Secondly, we all know that normally when a President is inaugurated, he is swore in by a Supreme Court Justice. However, when a President dies in office, the Vice President may not be where a Supreme Court Justice, or even a Federal Judge is nearby. In the case of Calvin Coolidge, when President Harding died in office, Vice President Coolidge was visiting his father in rural Vermont. With no Federal judge available, the oath of office was administered by Coolidge's father who was a notary public and justice of the peace.

I've read online where Coolidge is not rated very high as President. Be that as it may, I've learned that he was first of all, a good and decent human being, and he ranks high on my list.

Squad Urges Biden to Commute Death Row Sentences

 

U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and other members of the progressive "Squad" are doubling down on their call for President Biden to end Federal executions and commute the sentences of 49 death-row inmates currently in federal prisons.

This is, of course, a reaction to Trump's revival of federal executions and the 13 executions carried out in the final months of Trump's term as President. I can certainly agree with congresswoman Pressley's desire to stop capital punishment in the United States, but as I pointed out in a blog post written last month, I would feel much better if Pressley's idea of "pro-life" extended to the unborn as well.

I know it is difficult for some to feel merciful toward convicted murderers. Going that step forward isn't always easy. However, I cannot understand how one can feel compassion toward those on death row and still have a callous attitude toward unborn human beings.

In a letter to President Biden, Democrats wrote,

"We believe that rebuilding the dignity of America requires that we recommit ourselves to the tradition of due process, mercy, and judicial clemency when it comes to matters related to the criminal legal system". Yet, there is no "due process, mercy or clemency" for the unborn.

In their letter, Democrats also claimed that President Trump left behind a legacy of "carnage and unrestrained violence" because of the number of executions in the last months of his presidency. True enough, but do they not see the legacy of carnage in the 62 million abortions that have been carried out in the U.S. since the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973?

When Pressley's fellow Democrat, Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) expressed sympathy for the 13 death row inmates executed under Trump (including one self identified white supremacist) Bush's supporters applauded her for having a consistent approach to opposing the death penalty.

I wish her approach to all life was as consistent.

AOC Slams Biden's Stimulus Plan

Many of my friends on Facebook have stated that, after years of seeing the Left run down Trump without giving him a chance, they were not going to be kind to Joe Biden in any way what-so-ever.

I would usually respond to them by saying I would call out Biden whenever he did something I didn't like, but I would give him credit should he do something I agree with. I'd treat Biden the way they should have treated Donald Trump....and not the way they actually treated him.

On example might be that, because of the Democrat Party's overwhelming support of abortion, I could never vote for a Democrat for any office - local, State or Federal.

 However, it's been reported that Biden calls for more direct cash to Americans in new stimulus package by bumping up the $600 per person by $1400 for a total of $2000. I believe the increase is appropriate - it doesn't buy my vote, by any means, but I think it's the right thing to do.

You would think that with control of the House and Senate, Dems passing the bill would be a done deal. However, it's also being reported that Sandy Ocasio (AKA  AOC) already has a problem with Biden's stimulus plan. She says that "$2,000 means $2,000. $2,000 does not mean $1,400.″

She has a point, but if she wears a fashionable green ball cap, maybe no one will notice it.

Will Trump Run in 2024?

 

According to Daniel Dale at CNN, there is a Tweet making the rounds that claims Trump will be banned fron running in 2024 if he is impeached a second time, but Dale goes on to say No, impeachment itself would not ban Trump from a 2024 run.

The piece gives us these facts:

1) Trump would lose his post-presidency pension only if both the House voted to impeach him and then the Senate voted to remove him from office; impeachment itself, without removal, would not result in Trump being denied any benefits.
2) The law makes clear that presidents who have lifetime Secret Service protection never get a $1 million travel allowance.
3) It is unclear that Trump would lose lifetime Secret Service protection even if the Senate voted to remove him and prohibit him from running.
4) Even a Senate vote to remove Trump would not prohibit him from running in 2024; for the Senate to ban him from the presidency, it would have to hold an additional vote on this question.

While it may be legally possible for Trump to run in 2024, doing so would be a terrible mistake and certainly not good for the country. Of course, that wouldn't stop Trump.

Supposing Trump were to run again, I doubt the Republican Party would risk putting him on their ticket. He would have to run as a third party candidate.

Trump running again for POTUS would most assuredly lead to President Kamala Harris being reelected. I say President Harris and not Vice-President Harris, because we all know that Biden will either step down before his first (and only) term is finished, or he will be removed by via the 25th Amendment.

This talk of removing Trump with the 25th Amendment is actually a trial run on the real objective - removing Biden and putting in Harris.

If Trump really wants to Make American Great Again, he needs to stay out of politics.