Posted on by rjonakait

Whither Populism? Marxism? No, wait, Nationalism? No, wait…

I have been trying to understand terms I hear in current political discourse.

Let’s take, e.g., “Populism.” Okay. Populism, government for the people, opposes elites. Originally that meant economic elites, which were seen as controlling both society and the government. Populists were against corporate power, the banks, and the rich generally. That has changed. Now Elon Musk and Donald Trump are labeled Populists. Really? There seems now to be little of the traditional concern about the power of obscene wealth, and the populist movement–certainly not that of Trump and Musk–does not seek to break up or restrict corporate greed or banks. 

Modern populism now targets the cultural elite. This change may have been initiated in the 1960s by George Wallace, who denounced “pointy headed liberals” and Ivy League intellectuals (read, the Kennedys) telling ordinary people what to do. In his case it was the “cultural elite” telling his southern constituents what to do about civil rights. The modern populist has little concern about the economic elites getting more and more while ordinary people cling to their modest means. Instead, the concern is that they may be dislodged by an undeserving class of people (read, Blacks and immigrants) who have been anointed and protected by the cultural elites. In modern populism, the economic elites have won and go unchallenged.

Now. What about Marxism? Marxism was originally a movement to shield workers from the economic inequality created by an aristocratic ruling class. However, this concept, too, has changed. Terms like “bourgeoisie,” “proletariat,” and “means of production” have disappeared. Now, at least in the U.S., “Marxism” is preceded by “cultural.” [Many right-wing people see it as a Jewish conspiracy to subvert Western civilization.] A report published by the American Heritage foundation offers its definition of this ism: “Cloaking their goals under the pretense of social justice, [cultural Marxists] now seek to dismantle the foundations of the American republic by rewriting history; reintroducing racism; creating privileged classes; and determining what can be said in public discourse, the military, and houses of worship. Unless Marxist thought is defeated again, today’s cultural Marxists will achieve what the Soviet Union never could: the subjugation of the United States to a totalitarian, soul-destroying ideology.” Those protecting me from the presumed dangers of cultural Marxism, surprisingly, believe that the presentation of history and discourse in various forums can have enough power to destroy Western culture. Presumably these stalwarts know the “correct” history. How did they learn it? And their coy definition does not spell out what they mean by the reintroduction of racism (i.e., racism against whites?) or what privileged classes are being created. They certainly don’t mean economic elites.

The oxymoronic ism known as Christian Nationalism is somewhat new to me. Christian Nationalism, which is really American Christian Nationalism, which is really white American Christian Nationalism, maintains that this country was founded on Christian principles, or, despite the downfall of DEI, more inclusively, Judeo-Christian principles. First of all, there weren’t many Jews in the country at our founding. Ironically (and confusingly), those opposing cultural Marxism are often allied with Christian Nationalists even though those Nationalists are rewriting history. Historians who don’t just make things up maintain that Christianity, Judeo or otherwise, had little effect on our formation. For example,Thomas E. Ricks in First Principles: What America’s Founders Learned from the Greeks and Romans and How That Shaped our Country (2020) reports that Christianity and religious influence in general was low in colonial America and remained subdued until 1815. Despite the first so-called Great Awakening in America in the 1730’s, in 1776 the states had only one minister for every 1500. Robert Putnam with Shaylan Romney Garrett in The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again (2020) similarly tell us that colonial era was not as religiously observant as myths would have it. At the Revolution perhaps twenty percent were members of a religious body, which had increased to thirty-four percent by 1850. Jill Lepore in These Truths: A History of the United States (2018) also concludes that this country was founded in one of its most secular eras.

Give yourself a little test. Think of all the Founders who were known for their devout Christianity. The list is not short; it is nonexistent. Instead, perhaps you thought of Thomas Jefferson who famously did a cut-and-paste job on his Bible to remove all the supernatural elements from the New Testament including the resurrection. Or consider Fergus M. Bordewich in The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government (2016) who said that while Washington was raised as an Anglican and had some sort of belief in God, “it is doubtful that he believed in the divinity of and resurrection of Christ, and he certainly did not consider the US government based on the Christian religion.” Many of the founding fathers were, in fact, proponents of Deism, a rational theology that acknowledges the existence of a creative force but does not recognize a supernatural deity directing the lives of humans.

Apparently, however, to the (white)(American) Christian Nationalists all this historical evidence is fake history, and they continue to maintain that the country was founded on Christian principles. They point to the Declaration of Independence which does refer to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” They fail to realize that both are given a decidedly un-Christian equal billing, and they ignore that referencing “Nature’s God” does not evoke Christianity. The Declaration also goes on to say “that all men are . . . endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” It is an unimaginable stretch to believe that that unambiguously refers to Yahweh or the Father or anything else Judeo-Christian. Note the Deist-like reference to “the Creator.” And, of course, neither God, Jesus, or even the Creator appear in the Constitution.

In addition, the notion that the country was founded on Christian principles takes a delusional reading of the Bible. At least I can’t find a hint of separation of powers in the Good Book. Or that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Or that only Congress can declare war. Or that the president can be removed upon a conviction for impeachment. Etc. Etc.

(John Butman and Simon Targett in New World, Inc.: The Making of America by England’s Merchant Adventurersdestroy another myth when they report that when Puritan leader William Bradford gave reasons for Pilgrims to go to the new world, he did not include religious freedom. The Pilgrims already enjoyed that in Holland. As has been true throughout our history for people immigrating here, they came seeking work.)

A second tenet of Christian Nationalism is that America, by divine inspiration, is superior to other nations. Many of these “Christians” come from religious traditions that proclaim that the Bible must be taken literally, but I have not found anywhere references to Jesus the Patriot or Jesus the (white) (American) Christian Nationalism. If Jehovah has whispered America’s superiority into some ears, could you tell Him to speak up so the rest of the world can hear it?

While present populists, opponents of cultural Marxism (significantly, no one seems to advocate for cultural Marxism), and Christian Nationalists all seem to come from the same right-wing pool, Democratic Socialists come from elsewhere. Some leading politicians give themselves this label, but I am struggling to understand their philosophy as well. (Many more politicians call themselves Democrats, but I have little idea what they stand for either. Republicans are easier to understand. They have no mind of their own, and back whatever Trump wants.) I look up definitions of Democratic Socialism, and I get different answers, not all of them consistent with each other. Some sources indicate that Democratic Socialists wish to have socialism achieved through democratic means, but then the definers quickly say that the Democratic Socialists don’t agree what “socialism” is. So far I have not heard the DS politicians seeking state control of all businesses or institutions (uh, no, that seems to be the bailiwick of Trump, see below). Instead, I hear them proclaim that government should commit to affordable housing, healthcare, childcare, food, and transportation; increases in the minimum wage; reversing the widening income inequality; and higher taxes on the super-rich. (If populism means “for the people,” this kinda sounds like populism to me.) At one time, these concerns would have been called liberal. Now they are labeled “left wing,” which indicates how far our country has lurched to the right.

Whatever Democratic Socialists do stand for, it is clear that they are in opposition to the widespread, Candide-like notion that a laissez faire government is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

However, there is another movement that rejects government neutrality in picking winners and losers so that efficient markets and only efficient markets can drive the economy and the rest of society. Surprisingly, this movement comes from our current president.

The president and a small, unelected group around him–let’s call them the Deep State–have sought or demanded control over many institutions including universities, cultural entities, think tanks, historical associations, and NGOs. Because of fear of or desire for government actions controlled by the president and his deep state, traditional and social media have altered their behaviors. Because of government power to affect them, individuals and companies have felt compelled to donate money to favored Trump projects, such as his inauguration or the ballroom. (None dare call it extortion, but then again, the Supreme Court says that the president can’t be prosecuted.) Corporations have felt compelled to expunge any traces of DEI and have gone well beyond avoiding affirmative action. In spite of proclaimed conservative principles, the current government wants to be involved in shaping corporate decisions. Despite the government’s saying that it is a threat to national security to sell chips to China, the president says you can do it if you give us a share of the profits. Give the president a “golden share” and you can buy the company.

This is not the capitalism that conservatives have touted as essential. This is not the laissez-faire in which markets control outcomes. It is the widespread intervention by a few into society and corporate economies. The decisions made by these billionaires and a few piker multimillionaires is beginning to feel a lot like a Russian-style government takeover ruled by oligarchs, but we dare not call it socialism. What would you call it? Suggestions?

Posted on by rjonakait

The Texas Tragedy

Does Trump bear responsibility for deaths in the Texas floods? Do Elon and Doge? They recklessly slashed government, including the National Weather Service. (Funny how Musk was a genius when upending departments, but now, according to Trump, he is off the rails. Mature people don’t change that radically in only a few months.) We do know that the NWS was understaffed in Texas, but we can’t know how results would have been different if positions had not been vacant.

The harm from Trump policies will often be unknowable. How much will farmers and others be hurt by cuts to weather forecasting? We can’t really know.

Trump, Musk, and Kennedy, Jr., have decimated the National Institutes of Health. We can assume discoveries will not be made that would have been made without the chainsaw, but we don’t know what those discoveries would have been.

Trump is transforming FEMA. Will recoveries from natural disasters be…well, more disastrous? That may be almost impossible to measure.

Sometimes we might be able to assess damage. How have telephone wait times increased after cuts to the IRS? But often the measurable harm will not be known for a while. IRS revenue collection may drop but that will take time to learn. Sometimes the harm will happen only after the Trump presidency ends (and IT WILL END). We won’t know about deaths or illnesses from the vaccine and other health policies of the HHS. Already consequential, the full effects of the decimation of USAID will not be known for a long time.

Sometimes the consequences will be hidden from us. Tariffs are akin to a sales tax, but unlike the sales tax, the consumer will not see the explicit cost of tariffs at checkout. We will only see the new list price of the product. And we won’t see some business practices that tariffs encourage. For example: A friend runs an upscale sportswear company. During Trump’s first term, he made shirts in China for the American market. Trump instituted a fifteen percent duty on such goods. The retailer for the friend’s product had been charging $145 for each shirt. A fifteen percent increase would have been $167. The retailer, however, decided to use the tariff to raise the price to $185. That extra $18 is also a consequence of the tariffs, but its cause is invisible to the consumer.

Sometimes trickery is used for dampening negative consequences. So, for example, Trump’s recent legislation is expected to remove many people from Medicaid. Rural hospitals that depend on Medicaid are expected to close, bringing suffering to many small communities. If the cuts to Medicaid are a good idea, they are a good idea now. Nevertheless, that Big (Beautiful? Bullshit?) Bill delays their implementation. The delay is not for any sensible policy reason. Instead, Trump and the Republicans anticipate a backlash, but they hope it won’t peak until after the midterm elections and will have waned by 2028.

This might make you (even more) cynical about Trump and Republicans, but my cynicism extends deeper. We don’t know whether more staffing at the National Weather Service or a different warning system might possibly have lessened the Texas tragedy, but we should find out. This is a job for Congress. Hearings should be held seeking information about what happened and about possible changes going forward. The goal should be to see whether new legislation is warranted. But Republicans who control Congress will not hold such hearings for fear they may suggest that Trump made mistakes. Moreover, if such hearings were held, the Democrats would not seek information but use them to score partisan points. They would be like Jim Jordan in a clip I recently saw. He was questioning New York Governor Kathy Hochul. He asked if she knew how a local sheriff had responded to an immigration issue. She predictably ducked the question, and he predictably insisted that she answer. It was all a charade. Jordan knew the answer to his question. In a real hearing, our congresspeople would be seeking information by asking questions where they did not already know the answer. When was the last time you saw that?

We should be trying to learn from the Texas tragedy, but that won’t come from Congress, for, unfortunately, this Congress is not there to solve problems.

Posted on by rjonakait

Our Rubicon Moment?

Friends asked me to discuss the “constitutional crisis” that the media seems to think is imminent.

My starting point is to explain that the Constitution is not static. It has changed in big and small ways; scholars have identified three major constitutional transformations.

The first came before we even had a national constitution. The newly-independent states were bound together by the Articles of Confederation, which were not considered adequate for governing the emerging nation. Therefore, men got together in 1787 in Philadelphia ostensibly to reform those Articles. Instead, they drafted a new constitution which was adopted by the requisite nine states the next year. A new government came into being. Our government today depends on that eighteenth century document, and it is controlled by the constitution much as it was back then.

Early on that founding document was seen as needing changes. Some states only ratified the Constitution with the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added. The first Congress proposed twelve amendments, ten of which were adopted and went into effect in 1791. These additions mostly announced rights people assumed they already had and did not change the structure of the government. However, a decade later a major flaw in the document was exposed by the election of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. As a result, the Twelfth Amendment was adopted modifying the electoral college. From its inception, therefore, the Constitution has been subject to change.

The first significant transformation of the Constitution, however, came from the Civil War and its aftermath. The war occurred partly because of a major flaw in the document itself. Instead of confronting the issue of slavery, the founders tried to avoid it or make feeble compromises about it. As a result, slavery was not merely a stain on the fabric of the Constitution but woven into it. Various factions pulling at the threads and cords of slavery from all directions challenged the constitution, and war came.

In the war’s aftermath, three amendments to the Constitution were passed. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fifteenth Amendment granted Black males, but not women of any color, the right to vote. These two amendments were transformative, but they were only partially successful. Slave-like practices continued to exist in the country, and within a decade of the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote was stripped from most Blacks.

The Fourteenth Amendment, although it has several provisions, reshaped our Constitution by commanding that no state “shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The original Constitution did little to constrain the states in their treatment of inhabitants. The Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, changed that. For example, the Court held that the amendment’s due process clause prevented a state from taking a person’s property without just compensation. In the early twentieth century it held that the state could not abridge free speech. Over time, the Court increasingly prohibited the states from interfering with rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The Court, relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, also said segregated state schools were unconstitutional and that states must afford one person, one vote. The constitutional crisis of the Civil War produced a Fourteenth Amendment that transformed the relationship between courts and individuals by expanding and clarifying constitutional rights.

The next major constitutional transformation came during the Great Depression. The Supreme Court had found unconstitutional many state and federal laws regulating businesses. This crescendoed during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term when the Court deemed unconstitutional much New Deal legislation that had been passed by Congress to alleviate the harsh economic conditions. FDR responded by proposing that the Court be expanded. Critics called it “court-packing.” Although the causes are debated by historians, lo and behold, after the court-packing proposal, some justices modified their opinions and now upheld federal powers to regulate business and other activities. The Civil War transformation expanded judicial powers to protect individuals and entities from the government. The Great Depression transformation expanded the power of the federal government to regulate activities affecting “interstate commerce,” which has been broadly defined. The decisions of the New Deal Supreme Court provide the basis for much of the federal government’s regulatory power today.

So. Are we now in the midst of another constitutional crisis? Are we due for another constitutional transformation? I see not one possible scenario, but several.

Conservatives look at our government and see a bloated bureaucracy that was not contemplated by the Constitution. It is entrenched but not elected. That bureaucracy, though authorized by Congress and the president, often seems to act independently of Congress and, more importantly, the president. Although it appears to be part of the executive branch of the government, the bureaucracy often sets and follows its own guidelines and policies. Thus, conservatives see a bureaucracy that is too often resistant to the policies of the president, and they find this in violation of the constitution. This unconstitutionality in the conservative eye must be put to rights. A constitutional transformation is needed to restore the balance that our Constitution contemplates where the president sets and enforces executive branch policies. And, under Trump, conservatives maintain we are seeing the beginning of that needed constitutional transformation.

On the other hand, some, but not all, liberals see a different potential constitutional crisis. Many of Trump’s actions and orders, they claim, have been in direct conflict with specific provisions of the Constitution (e.g., birthright citizenship), have been in violation of the separation of powers, or have violated the constitutional duty of the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  And while conservatives see a constitutional crisis in an unelected bureaucracy, liberals see a crisis in the unfettered authority exercised by an unelected Elon Musk who has not been appointed to a Senate-confirmed position the Constitution seemingly requires.

Other liberals may be concerned about the administration’s actions, but they don’t see a present constitutional crisis. They see the system working because the courts have been hearing challenges to Trump’s and Musk’s orders. This is the normal constitutional process, and Trump has said that he will follow the judicial process. Almost all the court rulings have been in the federal district courts, which are the lowest level of federal courts. Following decisions in the district courts, those findings can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. Then the losing litigant may seek to have the Supreme Court hear the matter. (There is no right to have the Supreme Court hear these cases; it is in the Court’s discretion.) Many maintain that as long as this process is being followed, there is no constitutional crisis.

Even so, liberals who don’t see a present crisis, are concerned about a future constitutional transformation. Many, probably most, constitutional scholars believe that under existing Supreme Court rulings, many of Trump’s actions violate the Constitution or existing laws. The first fear is that the current conservative Supreme Court will ignore or overturn the precedents and uphold Trump’s actions. That is, that the Supreme Court will reinterpret the Constitution and laws to give the president even more power than he now has. This will, in effect, remake the Constitution by taking away congressional authority and individual rights and make an already powerful president even more powerful. As it did with its presidential immunity decision, the Supreme Court could transform our government to make the president more kingly, more authoritarian.

The other liberal fear is not of the Supreme Court but of Trump himself. Even though he has said otherwise, the fear is that Trump will either not use the appellate process and just keep bulldozing ahead, or even if he does follow normal procedures, he will not obey Court orders that go against him. He will ignore or defy the judiciary. Of course, he said he wouldn’t do that, and he did not disobey the courts in his first term. However, those around him have suggested that he will this time if courts don’t rule his way. And just as you can find Trump statements that he will honor the judicial process, like the devil quoting the Bible, you can find other Trump pronouncements, such as his recent statement: “He who saves his Country does not violate any laws.”

Presidential defiance of the courts would be a true constitutional crisis, perhaps a fatal one. His recent statement about not committing illegalities when saving the country is ascribed to Napoleon, but precedents go back further into history. Julius Caesar broke the law and illegally marched his troops, loyal to him more than to the nation, across the Rubicon and into Rome. The fall of the Roman Republic began, and a dictatorship took its place.

Posted on by rjonakait

Meritocracy and Hypocrisy

It is not a new word, but the frequency of “meritocracy” coming from the mouths and pens of conservatives has made it a trendy one. The richest of them has made it a catchphrase. Elon Musk: “It’s not like America’s been purely a meritocracy, but it has been more of a meritocracy than any other place. Which I regard as good.” Musk again: “America rose to a greatness over the past 150 years because it was a meritocracy more than anywhere else on Earth. I will fight to my last drop of blood to ensure that it remains that land of freedom and opportunity.”

Musk, who is not averse to hyperbole (Isn’t your ability to fight gone long before your last drop of blood oozes onto the Tesla leather?), surprisingly qualified his meritocratic statement about America. He concedes that this country has not been a pure meritocracy, only that it has rewarded merit more than any other place.

The United States has always had limits on meritocracy. In the first place, let us not confuse merit with opportunity and advantage. The rich have always had more opportunities than others. (If you got it, you get it.) Those born into rich families have always had more opportunities. (It is easier to score if you are born on third base.)  And, of course, opportunities have always been limited in this country by race, ethnicity, religion, locality, gender, and other factors. Perhaps there has been a meritocracy in a certain pool of Americans, but that pool has been restricted. At times, it has not included Irish, Swedes, Italians, Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, Jews, women, and, of course, Blacks. Put another way, meritocracy has often been confined in this country to white male Protestants.

Even when attempts at expanding that pool have been made, they have often been circumscribed. In the 1940s, for example, some department stores started for the first time hiring Black women for sales, but there were quotas. An executive of Lord & Taylor, which was a pioneer in hiring Blacks, told The Afro-American: “It seems to me that it is only fair that the person with the best qualifications should be hired, regardless of color . . . with limitations of course. [Emphasis added] It is only natural that we don’t want to flood our place with colored people, even if they all had the best qualifications.” (Quoted from Julie Satow, When Women Ran Fifth Avenue: Glamour and Power at the Dawn of American Fashion, 2024.)

A foundational American myth has been about meritocracy and the ability to get ahead through one’s own ability. As Dara Horn says in People Love Dead Jews: Reports from a Haunted Present (2021), the legend “is that it doesn’t matter who your parents are, or who their parents were, or where you came from—that what matters is what you do now with the opportunities this country presents to you, and this is what we call the American dream. The fact that this legend is largely untrue does not detract from its power; legends are not reports on reality but expressions of a culture’s value and aspirations.” How many qualified women for how many years were rejected by medical schools and law schools because, well, they were women?

In spite of our history of the limitations on opportunities, many conservatives are furthering the legend by pretending that our meritocracy has been undermined. And what has undermined it? DEI. Yep, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As though seeking the meritorious from a diverse pool, or equalizing advantages and opportunities, or seeking to include an overlooked source of qualified people is the most egregious thing that a democratic country could do even though it would seem obvious that the larger the pool from which we seek to draw talent, the more likely we are to get the best.

Another enemy, they say, is “wokeness.” I guess it’s also egregious in a “meritocracy” to want to make sure that all types of people feel as though they are equal and welcome participants in the pool.

Let Elon Musk speak again, “DEI is just another word for racism. Shame on anyone who uses it.” To say that DEI is racist implies two things: 1) You don’t believe that the previously excluded races, ethnic groups, women, or religious groups require special attention in order to join the meritocracy pool, or 2) You think that anything that undermines the hegemony of white males is threatening.  Although the opposition to DEI may have many roots, most charitably it is based on the belief that diversity is the enemy of meritocracy. It assumes that the only way diversity is achieved is by allowing less qualified people of color or women (or other groups) to leapfrog over what are assumed to be more qualified white males. Even if that is sincerely believed, those with that belief should still want to expand the pool from which the meritorious are drawn. Doubt the sincerity of those who cry out for meritocracy unless they also seek broadly for the meritorious.

At another time, Musk maintained, “The point was not to replace DEI,…but rather to be a meritocratic society.” How are you to have a meritocracy if you do not actively encourage participation by all?

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, says Trump has told him to “clean house of the woke crap. All that stuff. Climate stuff, the (Critical Race Theory), the DEI and genderism. Get rid of it.” Not clear how “Climate stuff” got in there, but it’s clear that Trump and his cohort are fed up with trying to break down the barriers that have prevented a true meritocracy to emerge.

A familiar pattern: If something goes wrong, and if anyone other than a white male is in charge, the pejorative cry of “diversity” is uttered again and again. The mayor of Los Angeles is a Black woman, and something definitely went wrong in Los Angeles recently. However, she did not attain her position as part of a DEI movement. She was not appointed by some person who thought it would be politically correct to have a black person (and woman as mayor. No. She was picked by the electorate, just as Trump was. But still conservatives talk about her as if she were part of a DEI or woke movement.

 If a white male had been in charge, his competence might be questioned, but we don’t point to the “old boys” network that might have put him there in the first place. And we only blame DEI if a non-conservative has done the appointment or hiring of a non-white male. If Pam Bondi turns out to be a less than a stellar attorney general, diversity will not be blamed. After all, a conservative president nominated her. (Fox News presents a lot of women as hosts and commentators. Aren’t they a product of diversity?)

The anti-diversity group, however, may proclaim that the country has been successful in the expansion of the meritocratic pool and that, sadly, the pool has been exhausted. Is that why they are advocating for the expansion of H-1b visas? It is certainly the case that having more of those visas is good for businesses of rich conservatives. Among other things, they can pay those workers less. However, if the barriers to success were truly overcome in the U.S., would we need to import workers from out of the country? Shouldn’t Making America Great Again mean making sure that all Americans in fact have the opportunity to attain merit? (Not all conservatives agree that we should expand the availability of H-1b. Laura Loomer, an ardent supporter of Trump, has said, “Our country was built by white Europeans, actually. Not third world invaders from India.”*)

There are things wrong with DEI and wokeness. It is fair to criticize these movements and policies, but a meritocratic society needs more than such criticisms. It requires plans and action to expand the pool from which we seek the meritorious. I have not seen that from conservatives, and without such expansion, it sure looks as if they want to see again a future dominated by white males.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

A student at the Abundant Life Christian School shot and killed another student and a teacher and wounded others. And I thought, If only we had prayer and Bible study in the classroom, this would not happen. Oh, wait a minute; this was a Christian school.

Where is Elon Musk? Trump suggests that the government will study any connection between vaccines and autism. Such research has been done many, many times with the same result (i.e., there is no connection). This is a clear waste of taxpayer money. However, I don’t expect Elon or Vivek to speak out against this reckless spending.

I used to play a lot of tennis, but those days are over.  Friends urge me to play pickleball, but I have not. The name pickleball is silly. The game is sillier. And you can tell the game was invented by some old-fashioned men. You can’t set foot in one part of the court. They named it the kitchen.

There are movements again to get rid of daylight savings time, although proposals differ. Some want to return to God’s time when at noon the sun is overhead. Others want to have permanent daylight savings time without the twice-yearly shift. (No more Spring forward, Fall back.)  But what we should really remember is what a wise person said: “The best way to save daylight is to use it.”

Especially during the holiday season, we should remember what Jerry Seinfeld has said: Nothing in life is “fun for the whole family.”

Over the last few decades Republicans have been responsible for most of the drama surrounding government shutdowns. I learned from C.W. Goodyear’s President Garfield: From Radical to Unifier (2023) that the first government shutdown was caused by Democrats. It was under President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1879. The Congressional term expired without passing sufficient funding for the government. Democrats attached riders, that is, unrelated provisions, to appropriations legislation to curb federal poll watching in the South. Hayes vetoed these bills. Goodyear writes, “Never before had a House majority deprived the government of funding in an attempt to extort a policy change.” Eventually the Democrats backed down and the government resumed. There was no mention of a debt ceiling.

Perhaps showing my age, I had no idea who Andrew McCarthy was, but I plucked his book Walking with Sam: A Father, a Son, and Five Hundred Miles Across Spain off the Barrett Friendly Library shelves. The book about hiking the Camino de Santiago touched me. It is a reflection on love, a father and son, fame, faded fame, ham, eggs, lots of pizza, blisters, physical and other pains, and…well, love. It made me reflect on much in my life.

After the House ethics report on Matt Gaetz, I wonder if Woody Allen’s line is still true: “The most expensive sex is free sex.”

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

I don’t remember where I got the strange book, although The Speaker’s Desk Book, edited by Martha Lupton and first copyrighted in 1937, is stamped with a law school library’s name. It has three sections: Sparklers Anecdotes, and Jewels of Thought. The first section consists of aphorisms grouped under alphabetical headings, such as Business, Marriage, and Revenge. Only a fraction of the pithiness is ascribed to anyone. The section contains a variety of supposed wisdom. For example: “Business won’t come back; you’ll have to go after it.” “Marriage is a state of antagonistic cooperation.—Schlossberg.” “The rocks we hold to throw at our neighbor have a way of getting into our own pillows.”

The Jewels are paragraphs or pages with the authors listed that seem to be a random collection of thoughts on diverse topics, including “Work!” and “Calamaties.”

The most intriguing to me, however, are the 1187 anecdotes which are preceded by a guide for their use. The guide says that the general topic index “should suggest many possibilities to the experienced speaker.” If talking about “courtesy,” look it up in the nearly 500 headings and there are twenty courtesy anecdotes listed. “Another helpful practice is that of grouping stories by race, or nationality such as Jewish, Irish, Scotch, Negro, etc. This aids the speaker who has a preference for dialects.” There are six “Italian stories,” five times that for “Jewish stories,” and even more for the Irish, but only one listed under “Japanese stories.” However, when a speaker really needed something, he could go to the more than one hundred “Negro stories.” The anecdotes, the compiler must have thought, would elicit a laugh or a chuckle from the audience, or at least a smile. Maybe back then they did, and that is frightening. Almost none is funny, and the ethnic “anecdotes” are overwhelmingly cringeworthy. The book makes me despair about our past, but it gives me a bit of optimism that our world has changed at least somewhat for the better.

Elon Musk is an immigrant.

A wise person said: “The remarkable thing is not the money makes fools of great people but that it makes great people of fools.”

He was sitting across from me on the subway. About 45 wearing a trendy jacket, a trendy spiky haircut that should have been too young for him, but he pulled off. He looked a little bit like Elon Musk. He was reading through trendy glasses with almost red frames. Unlike most who read on the subways these days, he was reading a paperback, not on his phone. It was The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz, a marvelous book. His lips moved while he read.

I am old enough to remember when mothers made their kids’ Halloween costumes.

I had an interesting dinner conversation about whether parents should distribute money equally to their children or give more to those who have the greatest need. No consensus. What do you think?

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

Narcissus was too perfect for sex or pelf—

He longed only to gaze in love at himself . . .

The moral of which is that, even in myths,

Too much reflection may be your nemesis.

                    Kenneth Leonhardt

I can’t get beyond the beginning of my new poem. Maybe somebody can advance it:

Tucker Carlson, Tucker Carlson/ Of smirk and rolling eyes.

Republicans’ new epithet is “grooming.” I was surprised that the conservatives were taking on the Catholic church.

Australians must be different from us. I am watching a Netflix series from down under, and many of the scenes take place in modern homes featuring glass walls. There is never a handprint or other kind of smudge on the surfaces.

The Supreme Court recently heard a case concerning a high school football coach who would kneel at the fifty-yard line after the game and pray out loud. That reminded me of my not-stellar days on the junior varsity high school basketball team when Johnny M. asked our coach if we could pray before the game. I was too timid to object and no one else did either, and the coach okayed it. No one was willing to lead the prayer, so someone suggested the Lord’s Prayer. (There were no Jews and certainly no Muslims, Buddhists, or “others” among the twelve of us.) Before the next game, we said it, and I learned about religious differences as I think others did. We now realized that Catholics had a different version of the prayer from the rest of us–it seemed to end abruptly–and the Protestants’ versions also varied depending on what translation of the Bible the denomination used. It made all of us feel awkward. We did not pray before other games.

I feel better now because I heard it is harder to kidnap overweight old people.

I opened a Twitter account because I read a report of a tweet I wanted to read. Since then I have not used the account. I have never tweeted. I am wondering if Twitter is important in shaping views, or is it merely an entertainment and only reinforces what is already believed?

Conservatives have rejoiced that Elon Musk is purchasing Twitter. They say they believe in free speech and want an open forum, which they believe Musk will bring to Twitter. At the same time, conservatives are punishing Disney for exercising its free speech rights. Go figure.

Luther: “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear the scorn.” Thomas More: “The devil . . . the prowde spirit . . . cannot endure to be mocked.” Quoted in C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters.

I liked the platform of a failed politician. He wanted to remove nationalism from the names of cheeses.