It's Parliamentary, Part II

 

Well, well, well.  In my last post concerning the mid-term election I asked everyone to channel their “inner Blandford” – a reference to the second-place finish recorded in my hometown by Robert Kelleher in the 1976 Democratic Presidential Primary.  Kelleher wanted to replace the U.S. form of government with the UK parliamentary model – and in Blandford he damn near won.  Under that system voters are much more conditioned to vote for (or, in many instances, against) a party rather than an individual.  My reasoning was that this was the perfect moment for exactly that mentality to evidence itself within the American electorate.

And, goddammit – that is exactly what happened.

Across the country, regardless of name, notoriety, personality, religion, gender, family ties, military service – yes, even, despite the fixation of the Commander in Chief on its importance in the consideration of the electorate, - even without regard for the relative firmness of their buttocks – Democrats won. In Iowa voters selected the party whose candidates knew the difference between a Hawk and a Hawkeye.  In Georgia – well, they did exactly the same thing.  In Texas there have been many people wondering where the Cowboys “D” has gone.

Now we know – all the “D’s” in Texas have gone to Washington. 

So now we get to sit back and ask “What does this all mean?” Well, for the Cowboys it means that this is going to be another year that they will not win the Super Bowl.

So, that’s good.

Politically – it’s a bit more difficult. Everyone will have a theory about where this sits “in the big picture” and everyone will be partially correct - and partially incorrect. Most political commentary is conducted like a game of blindfolded darts.  You know roughly where the target is, you can figure out which is the pointy end of the dart – and it doesn’t cost you anything to take a shot.  As to whether you’ll actually hit the target…

Well, shit, it’s a game of blindfolded darts.

Everybody has an opinion, everyone has a point of view, ya pays yer quarter, ya takes yer shot. There were thousands (perhaps millions) of conclusions drawn and outcomes analyzed in the days following the mid-terms. One of the more popular ways to do any sort of analysis has recently become the “takeaway” approach.  The author – let’s say he’s a sportswriter – has to get something up on a website as quickly as possible.  Nowadays deadlines come up even quicker than they used to when you wrote for a newspaper. (Note to the younger crowd – a “newspaper” was a physical object made of pages of thinly spread dried wood pulp covered with writing and produced by “reporters”. Each day millions of individuals would purchase this object in order to ignore the reporters’ stories and read comics about large dogs like “Marmaduke” and “Howard Huge”. They would then use the remnants to train their own dogs not to piss on the rug).

 

In order to make it easier to meet these deadlines writers will jot down notes throughout the event they are observing and then turn them in to “takeaways” when they submit their musings.  This means that the story that gets posted to the website is entitled something like “Five Takeaways from the Patriots’ Win Over the Dolphins” or “Five Takeaways from the Season Premier of “Real Plumbers’ Wives of Rhode Island”. This allows the writers to develop content while the event they are covering is still in progress and post a story that actual has no continuity whatsoever.  They don’t have to tie one thought to another, they don’t have to provide transitional sentences or paragraphs – in some cases they can even post “takeaways” that are seemingly opposite in nature.  Just watch this for an example:

 Two Takeaways from Observing “Takeaway” Journalism

1.       1. It’s the worst form of sham “journalism” ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

2.       2. It’s pure genius perfectly suited for the modern news appetite.

See – isn’t it great! You can get away with damn near anything.

That said – here we go:

Five Takeaways from the Democrats’ Big Blue Tsunami

1.      1.  It Really Wasn’t a “Repudiation of Donald Trump”

Oh - how I wish this wasn’t true.  I would love to join the crowd writing about how this election marks “the end of Trumpism”, the final “nail in the coffin of Donald Trump’s influence”, a complete repudiation of “all that Trump represents”.  The joy on the faces of the talking heads on MSNOW and CNN is so fun to watch.  They’re so happy.  You do not want to ruin their moment.  They remind me of the crew on “30 Rock” celebrating “sandwich day” https://www.facebook.com/reel/814804301278729

This is their day – the results out of South Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi – MISSISSIPPI! - are like the dipping sauce of their lives – God bless us every one!

Unfortunately – it isn’t true.  Donald Trump wasn’t repudiated during this election.  You see – Donald Trump wasn’t on the ballot.

“But wait” you say. “Donald Trump told everyone to pretend he was on the ballot! So there!  It’s on tape – over and over.  He said it so it must be true!”

Oh – bless you.  Think about what you are implying.  You are basing this statement on the proposition that something Donald Trump says makes it true.  He said to pretend he was on the ballot – so people must have done exactly that. 

Just slow down – does the fact that Trump says something did happen, or will happen, or should happen, or is even possible – make that something “true”?

Ever?

This is a man who claims windmills are simply expensive vehicles to promote the mass murder of birds. Who said, with a straight face, that ingesting disinfectant would be the big break we needed in fighting the Covid virus. Who disregarded the results of an entire election. So – does his having told people to pretend he was on the ballot mean that they actually did that very thing?  Does it mean that they imagined his name there, had his orange visage burned into their mind - and said “no”?

Of course it doesn’t.  When voters got to the polls this November they were smart enough not to pretend anything – they voted for the choice that was before them.  They did, in fact, repudiate something at the ballot box – but it wasn’t Donald Trump, because no matter what he said – he wasn’t there.

 

What was repudiated was the Republican Party – Americans did exactly what I was hoping they would do – they voted as if this was an election under a parliamentary system of government.  They did not vote for or against any one individual – they voted against the party that has obviated its obligation to act as a brake on the excesses of its “leadership”. Against the party that has become a willing lackey to idiocy.  Against a party that decided to simply discard those within its ranks who said “wait just one second” – people like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, John Cornyn, the Bush family, Adam Kinzinger – all of whom were deemed “RINO’s”, all of whom were vindicated by this year’s vote.  They said the party (the party – not Trump) would pay a price for blind obedience – and boy were they right.

Yes – I know that the crop of candidates put forward by that same Republican party was a buffet made up of a fine selection of excrement spread over some very, very expensive bread. That when looking at the slate of individuals with “R’s” after their names they saw people like Ken Paxton (who even Trump told to get a better fitting suit, which is a bit like Pinocchio telling someone to get a nose job), Cindy Hyde Smith (Barbie’s evil step-granny) and Darline Graham (who, let’s face it, can’t even spell “Darlene” right). But an array of Marvel superheroes could have been on the ballot this year and if an “R” appeared after their names – they were going down.

This still means there is a great deal for Dems to celebrate – if not as heartily as would be done if this was an outright rejection of Trump – but perhaps more meaningfully.  Polls over the years have consistently shown that on a majority of the issues voters side with the positions held by Democrats.  They are for the right to choose.  They are for affordable health care.  They are for strongly supporting public education. They are for improved infrastructure. The problem was that while individually these positions were supported – when gathered collectively under the Democratic umbrella the sale became much harder.  Part of that was due to the fact that the Dems were largely seen as losers.  There were some outliers (Barack Obama, for one example) but for the most part the Chuck Schumer’s, Kamala Harris’s and Hillary Clinton’s of the world would ignite more anger on the right than enthusiasm on the left.  Not to mention that they did absolutely nothing for the center.

However – you know what one of the best antidotes for being perceived as a loser would be?  Winning.  And there was a whole lot of winning being done this past week.  The fact that Americans behaved, en masse, as if they were voting in a parliamentary campaign waged between the Tories and Labour (as opposed to 500 separate popularity contests) was a good thing. While this result, tempting as it may be, cannot (and should not) be taken as a direct repudiation of Trump – it is a clear message to those underlings who feel that the way to salvation is to simply mimic his every utterance.  That message is simply this – when we want to express anger and frustration – we’ll vote for Trump.  When we want to get a job done right – we won’t vote for a pretend candidate, and we won’t vote for a group pretending to be a “party” when they are really just a Greek chorus.

That’s the long game and I’ll take that.  I’ll take that over gloating about Trump’s demise any old day.

2.       2. It Doesn’t Mean That There Won’t Ever Be Another Trump

Well before all of the races had been called (which, by the way, still hasn’t happened) there were Republicans jockeying for position in the 2028 Presidential sweepstakes. Well – there was J.D. Vance who was quick to tell everyone that the reason for the loss was “the war”.  This was done in order to begin the process of distancing himself from the very administration of which he is a part.  In the ranks of the press the pundits quickly pivoted to the 2028 Presidential race and noted how this was likely how all of the potential Republican candidates will behave.  After all, when you’re losing Kansas, Texas, South Carolina and Mississippi – you would think that the logical thing to do would be to run as fast as you possibly can away from the positions that gave rise to that situation.  It couldn’t possibly be a good campaign strategy to sign on as being in complete lock step with Trump.  There can only be one – and there will never be another.  Right?

Not so fast.  Taking that approach may seem logical but it ignores recent history.  People forget how Trump managed to win the 2016 Republican nomination in the first place. It was hardly an “orange tsunami”. Trump did not sweep to an overwhelming victory.  In the crucial series of primaries held up through “Super Tuesday” he won a number of States – but only by finishing with a plurality of votes ahead of a widely split field made up of more established figures like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina (remember her?) and Ben Carson.  All of those candidates informed their audiences that they should be President, that Trump was crazy and that they were (by contrast) the voice of reason. The voices of reason won about 65% of the vote in those races.  It’s just that they won it in varying increments of 20%, 15%, 10%, 8% and a bunch of 5 percenters.  Which is another way of saying – they lost.

If all of the contenders for the next Republican nomination line up to introduce themselves as the next “voice of reason”, ready to repudiate the Trump legacy – I predict that there will arise from the mud a “Trump golem”.  This will be the candidate unafraid to say; “I will build that wall, I will drink that disinfectant, I will fight that war, I will dance in that ballroom in the shadow of that big, beautiful, triumphal arch”.  He (or she – but probably a white guy) will proudly wrap himself in the fatty pillows of Trump’s ample bosom and sail to victory with a series of 32% “victories” over the bewildered mainstream candidates.  Then, after having called this same candidate a lunatic throughout that same primary season the defeated candidates will have an epiphany and decide that old crazypants is their kinda guy anyway. 

So – yes – it is hard to envision how a second Trump could arise to command a majority of the GOP right now – especially after that comprehensive ass-whuppin’. But -  it should be remembered that whoever seeks to be that Trump 2.0 doesn’t have to command a majority.  They just have to hold on to the true believers while the rest of the field splits the vote.

3.       3. The Results Don’t Really Constitute Good News for “Democratic Socialists”

What?  How can I say this! The far left of the party has been vindicated – hasn’t it? What about Abdul El Sayed in Michigan?  What about the House victories in New York and California?  What about Nithya Raman – new mayor of L.A. and proud DS member?

Congratulations to them all – but surfing to victory on a blue wave is different from powering the wave itself.  Analysis of the voting patterns throughout the country clearly show that while all Democrats (including those on the left wing of the party) benefited from the changes in voter preference – the farther left you go – the less benefit you received.  Someone like James Talarico (an avowed centrist) got a much bigger boost than did Angie Nixon.  That is why Talarico is spending this week in Washington getting a lesson in how to find his Senate office and Nixon is being lauded as having had a “near miss” in her Florida race for the Senate.

The bottom line of politics is this “did you win – or did you lose”?  Not every election cycle is going to be this blue – and if you belong to a wing of the party that underperformed during the bluest race ever – it is doubtful that you will exceed expectations when things get tougher.  And while I welcome the fact that it is now not going to be possible to defeat a candidate just by going “OOOOOOH – a SOCIALIST!!!” I still think the best route to continued victory for Democrats is to strongly establish themselves as “the party of normal”. 

4.       4. The Best Thing to be Coming Out of This is “Normal”

Which leads to my next takeaway. If I were forced to choose a single thing on which to base a conclusion for why the Democratic landslide took place I would not choose any of the following:

1.       The war with Iran

2.       The price of gasoline

3.       The cost of living (“affordability”)

4.       The corruption of the Trump administration

5.       The activities of ICE

6.       The price of tea in China

All of these things probably contributed to the way the country voted (even the Chinese tea issue, since all things China seem important these days).  But if there were to be a single root cause for what we have just seen I would attribute it to the country’s collective desire to get back to what is deemed “normal” governance, “normal” politics, “normal” news. 

I get a distinct sense of burnout when it comes to the craziness factor.  This had previously manifested itself in frustration on the part of the Democrats – what I call the “how can they keep getting away with this shit!?” factor. What they really meant was “How is this shit becoming “normal?”.  For example – consider the reaction when Pete Hegseth began firing Generals, Admirals and other high ranking military staff because they were female or minority.  Not because they hadn’t served with distinction, because they lacked skills, because they refused to carry out orders.  Spin it whatever way you want to – these people were being removed from the active duty rolls and having their careers ruined because Hegseth perceived their rise as being due to a “competitive unbalance” – and he was on a one man crusade to right what he saw as this egregious wrong.

To the Democrats this seemed to pass by nearly unnoticed – despite their best efforts to stop it.  It seemed like something that would have created huge outrage in the past was now just seen as “business as usual”.  This is what leads to the “how do they keep getting away with this shit?” reaction – the fear that this is becoming normal.

Well – the mid terms provided an answer – they aren’t getting away with this shit.  In numerous elections the Democrats fielded military veterans who won election (or scared the daylights) out of the Republicans who have allowed this sort of thing to become “normalized”.  The best example is probably that of Nancy Lacore – a three-star Navy admiral who served impeccably for 35 years before Hegseth unceremoniously fired her for the crime of having a vagina.  Ms. Lacore will now be Congresswoman Lacore after having flipped the district previously served by Nancy Mace.

 “Petey, Petey where’s the three star? – Gone to the Congress – har har har”.

Voters are sick of claims of rigged elections, vaccine denials, arresting some poor guy for vandalizing the reflecting pool so that you can avoid taking responsibility for hiring incompetent fools, smuggling roadkill into Central Park, ballrooms, renaming monuments and buildings after yourself, holding “gotcha” hearings where you get your facts completely screwed up, no bid contracts, using inside information to enrich yourself, ballrooms, running on a promise to release the Epstein files then refusing to release those same files, calling anyone who disagrees with you “losers”, all the stupid, stupid nicknames, UFC events on the White House lawn, ballrooms, using the justice department to attack people who were simply doing their jobs, hiring buffoons to patrol the nation’s streets and shoot people turning their vehicle around and nurses who are helping injured people, telling colleges and universities how to run their own admissions offices, telling museums what items and exhibits they can display, ballrooms, appointing your son’s ex-girlfriend to ambassadorships, allowing your son’s ex-girlfriend to embarrass the country by bribing people to pay their credit card bills, Lauren Boebert, describing every Muslim as a “jihadist”, ballrooms, calling any female reporter who asks a tough question a “nasty person”, tilting at windmills, getting in the way during the World Cup presentation, Kash Patel’s drinking, Kash Patel’s self-promoting videos, Kash Patel’s spending habits, Kash Patel’s eyes, fake outrage at casting black actors in “The Odyssey” – you know – everything. 

Oh – and ballrooms, just so damn sick of ballrooms.

So, the real winner of the election was “normal”.  The bizarre antics of the Trump administration and its enablers within the Republican ranks were not themselves “normalized” – instead they were “penalized”. The GOP was identified as the willing purveyors of this nonsense and were appropriately rejected when people voted. You’re the party that keeps holding these stupid hearings – not voting for you.  You’re the party that when we say hamburger costs too much says “find another protein” – not voting for you.  You’re the party that decided Elon Musk should determine what the government looks like – not going there. The Democrats, long derided as the party of the crazies – have started to look pretty damn sane.  As long as they don’t go crazy - the way is clear for them to be “the party of normal” for a long time to come.

5.       5. “Normal” Ain’t What it Used to Be

The last sentence of the section above is scary for both Republicans and Democrats alike. For Republicans it is obviously worrying that a carefully crafted image of themselves as being fiscally, morally and politically responsible when compared to “those crazy leftists” is being lost.  They had managed to preserve that impression for decades despite the fact that fiscally the deficit has exploded under every Republican administration since Nixon and that they’ve presided over the worst economic meltdowns during that era. Morally – they’ve maintained they patrol the high ground for years despite the fact that they’ve routinely averted their eyes from the moral failings of their disgustingly self-righteous advocates (I could list an entire slate of corrupt fundamentalist preachers but let’s just stick with officeholders).  Republicans selected as Speaker of the House an individual who went to prison for abusing underaged boys and had a Senator who routinely opposed gay rights – and was then arrested in a Minneapolis airport for soliciting sex in a bathroom (he plead guilty to the charge). That’s somehow been overlooked. Politically, the GOP claims that they have been the party of the middle class – despite undermining that same class’s access to health care, education, transport, workers’ rights and housing. They’ve claimed they are “keeping the government off people’s backs” and preserving their rights – despite pushing for the repeal of a woman’s right to choose, a tenant’s right to maintain their home, a teacher’s right to instruct their class or an individual’s right to quietly, and without interfering with anyone else, live their life in the manner they see fit. 

 

Somehow – all these things were deemed normal – until now.  The GOP seems to have gone too far, because when Texas starts turning bluer than Jack Nicholson at the end of “The Shining” – there’s a new definition of “normal” coming around.  

But it’s easy to assert that the Republican’s are losing their hold on being seen as the more “normal” party.  What’s harder is to explain why Democrats are scared that they won’t be able to pick up the mantle of “the party of normal”.  Why this is so comes down to this simple fact – the Republican’s know they’ve gone too far.  The Democrats don’t know how far they can go.

What I mean by this is that while Republicans can look at the results of this past election and find definitive proof that forever wars, rising prices, revolving press secretaries, ICE excesses and ballrooms have taken the country too far – Democrats have yet to establish what “too far” will mean in terms of their own behaviour.  However – it is possible to make a few educated guesses.

For example – while it is likely the case that it is no longer possible to simply say “there are two genders, and that is it” and then simply stick your fingers in your ears and go “LA LA LA LA LA” while people try to have a discussion about this subject – it is also not possible to avoid having an actual discussion about the subject.  This, for Democrats, will mean that they need to acknowledge that the conversation that then takes place must be a true dialogue and not a lecture.  They will, for one example, need to acknowledge that it is not irrational for parents to be concerned about their daughters competing in sporting events that include transgender athletes.  Often that concern can be addressed by noting that there is no reason to be alarmed by transgender competition in things like track, cross country, tennis, golf and many other sports that are easily integrated.  The fact that “my daughter might lose” is not a legitimate argument.  On the other hand – transgender competition in sports like soccer, field hockey, wrestling, basketball and other such competitions will require some deeper thought. The worry that "my daughter might get hurt" is a legitimate concern. In the same way that boxing or Pop Warner football uses weight classifications, or high schools in almost every state class members by size divisions, some manner of balanced categorization will need to be considered.  Those raising this point should not be immediately dismissed as bigots – if they are Democrats run the very real risk of losing the “party of normal” tag before they’ve even started.

The same tempered approach needs to be taken regarding topics like immigration, health care, climate, taxes, infrastructure, competitiveness – just about everything to be honest.  Being the party in power led to a certain level of hubris on the part of Republicans – they felt they could get away with anything, that anger equated with reason, that might made right and that image corresponded to reality.  If they wish to remain the party in power (and, perhaps more importantly, if they hope to extend that power into the other two branches of government) then Democrats cannot make that same mistake.  There are reasons – legitimate reasons – why Trump voters (which include huge numbers of people who should, by all rights, be part of the natural Democratic constituency) were as pissed off as they were for so long.  Democrats in this new era ignore that anger at their peril.

Farewell, Schlep, You Were a Good Man

 

I woke up this morning to the very sad news that my friend Bryon Cole passed away yesterday. Bryon was a good guy, someone I spent a lot of time with whenever I had a chance back before I moved to Ireland. I’d drop up to his place in Huntington, and we'd sit down and talk or go out somewhere, have a few beers, maybe meet up with some other people. You forget all those times until you get news like this, and then you sit back and remember all the things that went on and the time well spent with friends.

And there are plenty of good times to remember. For instance when we were all juniors in high school there was a thing called “Senior Skip Day”. This was typically held at the tail end of May (seniors graduate well before the rest of the school year ends for underclassmen). Being juniors we didn’t see why the seniors should have a monopoly on such an outstanding idea - so a bunch of us got together and said, “Well, we ought to at least have a practice run at this”. You know – just so we were prepared for when the main event rolled around. So, in the interest of thorough training we arranged at the end of June to get a quarter keg of beer, a few bottles of the same just for variety and a bit of food. We then proceeded to have a bit of a barbeque in the woods up at Bryon’s place on a day when, according to a strict reading of the truancy laws, we were expected to be in school.

We spent the better part of the day up there just hanging out, a bunch of kids who had basically spent the last three years “just hanging out”, until we decided that we’d had enough of sitting around in the woods and getting bit by mosquitoes. Being the end of June and having not much else to do in the immediate area we decided to all pack it in and drive down to West Springfield and see a movie.

There was a little bit of debate over what we would see so we left Bryon’s house and got down to the parking lot in Showcase Cinemas where we decided which option to pursue. I think we flipped a coin. It came down to being between “Up the Academy,” which was a Mad Magazine parody, and “The Blues Brothers.” Thank goodness “The Blues Brothers” won. It was a great movie. But there is one scene that I never saw until about ten years later when I re-watched the whole thing.

It’s the part of the movie where Carrie Fisher has John Belushi trapped at gunpoint in a tunnel. I didn’t see it because there was a separate bit of comedy going on at the time. You see, someone had brought a beer into the theater and ended up accidentally kicking the empty over. We were seated in the back row and the bottle proceeded to noisily roll down the incline. It made a slow, steady descent, bumping into a seat, then spinning and continuing down towards the front rows.

“Jingle, jingle jingle, jingle, CLANK. “Jingle, jingle jingle, jingle, CLANK.” “Jingle, jingle jingle, jingle, CLANK.” Each time it would pause, spin and then keep its momentum going down past each row. It just kept on and on.

And we’re all just choking laughing as this went on, no one more than Bryon. Eventually it stopped, but not before we missed the scene – it remains one of the funniest things I’ve ever experienced in a movie theater – I’m sure you had to be there, but if you were – you’d agree.

He was a funny guy and a fun guy, someone who you could spend a lot of time with just fishing or whatever. There would be a good few nights out that would stretch to the early hours. Thankfully there were always 24-hour restaurants to stop in – places that don’t even exist anymore. There was a Bickford’s in West Springfield – Bryon could put away a burger banquet.

And there are plenty of bars that don’t exist any longer, but we were there at one point or another. One time we went to this place called The Red Balloon which I’m sure is long gone. Bryon had been stewing about some girl that had come in with a guy he didn’t like. I could tell he just was ready to go off on this individual. So, I took him aside, went outdoors, and said, “Listen, you can’t do this. You’re going to get into trouble.” He shook his head and said, “I’m going to just hammer this guy. Can’t stand him.” I went back again, “Look, you can’t do it. You’re going to end up in trouble. If you’re going to take a swing at somebody, take a swing at me. Come on, hit me.” Bryon was for the most part a peaceful guy – which is generally a good thing for humanity at large because he was about 6’3” and three bills. And he said, “I’m not going to hit you. You’re my friend. But I am gonna hit that prick in there” I had to talk him down a bit, “Yeah, but look, I want you to get your frustrations out. Take a swing at me. I’ll know it’s coming, I can block most of the blow.”

So, eventually, he does.

He takes a half-hearted swing, but a 300-pound guy taking a half-hearted swing at you is still pretty damn hard. I duck away but he still kind of clocks me upside the head, and I think it kind of shocked him. Certainly - it shocked me a little bit but I shook it off. I looked at him and said, “Look, are you okay now?” He shrugged his shoulders, “Yeah. You all right?” I nodded, “Yeah, I’m fine,” even though my head was still ringing a little bit. That quieted things down, worked the anger out of him, we went back inside, and he managed to get through the rest of the night okay.

But those are the sorts of things that would go on – there weren’t too many dull nights. There was one that stands out a bit. One time we started out in Huntington, a bunch of us. Bryon, I think, was driving up there with his friend Gordon. We got bored in Huntington, and said, “Let’s go up to Chester.” So, off we go to this place called the Longhorn Saloon, and when we got there we found about four or five guys picking on this one guy sitting at the bar.

I think the guy had a stutter or something, and they were just giving him a really hard time. It was kind of sickening to see. They were throwing things at him, they’d tip his beer over, and then whack him upside the head. After a while we were all like - “Let’s get out of here this is ridiculous. I don’t want to watch this.” That meant we had to decide where to go next and someone said “Well, I think there’s a place just up the street. I’m not even sure if it’s open yet, but I think they’re going to try and license a bar up the road, right by the edge of the river. Let’s go see if that’s open yet.” So off we go and sure enough, there was this kind of half bar that had opened up in this house/inn at the end of the road by the river.

The place wasn’t even close to being finished. I don’t think they even had taps in yet. They would just serve you bottles of beer over the bar. The guy who was running it claimed he was good friends with the Rolling Stones, and he had another assistant who was, well, now you’d call them “little people”. Whatever - it was like being in a Fellini movie, walking around this half-lit bar being served beer by a hobbit. Things would soon get even stranger.

We sat there a while, drinking our beer and telling stories, and then heard tires racing down the road, screaming, brakes squealing and a crash. Of course we went running outside and you could see some sort of light down at the bottom of the embankment by the river, and a car was racing back up towards the Longhorn Saloon. Somebody was standing outside and said - “A car just went into the river.”

So, we went over towards the embankment and sure enough, there’s a car, the front end’s stuck in the river, and the taillights are sticking up in the air.

I scrambled down to the riverside and went to the driver’s side door. There’s a person in the car - the same guy they’d been picking on at the Longhorn. I wrenched the door open. He was in a bad way. He was conscious and everything, but he’d smashed his face up against the steering wheel, and his nose was broken. He was bleeding all over the place. He’d lost teeth. His mouth and forehead were cut. I got him out of the car, and then a couple more people came down, and we kind of half-carried him up the embankment and got him to the bar, and somebody said they’d already called the cops and had an ambulance on the way.

We got the fella inside and, like I said he was really messed up. The next thing I know the people who had been bullying him appeared in the doorway. I guess they had chased his car down the road with theirs and bumped him into the river. They came through the door, and started yelling at him, saying things like, “You say anything when these cops get here, we’ll kill you. You don’t say our name at all. Don’t bring us up.” Finally, I got up from tending to the injured guy and I told them to get the fuck out of there. Told ‘em they’d caused all this and they needed to leave the guy alone.

All that did was turn their attention to me “Who the fuck are you? You’re not involved in this. You weren’t there – you better shut up too”. Let’s just say it got to be a pretty heated back and forth. And then the sirens were coming, and they took off and went back down the road. The guy who’d been hurt was looking at me and saying, “Don’t tell them anything. Don’t tell them anything. Those guys will kill me. Those guys will kill me.” He was scared to death.

So, I didn’t know what to do with that, but before I could figure anything out they came in with a stretcher and took the guy away, put him in the back of the ambulance, and you could still hear him saying, “Don’t say anything.”

Bryon and his friend Gordon were still there – they’d both got between the injured guy and the bullies as well. After things settled down they’re like, “We got to get out of here now.” My shirt was covered with blood from the guy, and I was playing the hero, “We can’t leave. We got to go back down and take care of this.” And they’re both a bit more sensible, “No, no, don’t go down there. Not a good idea. Not a good idea.” I was pretty worked up, but they finally talked sense into me – it would not be a good idea to confront all those guys on their home ground. Things would get sorted without me playing Rambo. Don’t be stupid. So, after a while I agreed and we got in our cars.

Now, to get back to Blandford for me, I would go right onto Route 20 and then head up to North Street (Chester Road) over the mountain. The other two guys would go left and head towards Huntington. I got in my car (it was a different era – you wouldn’t do this now) and I turned and went up towards Blandford. They looked like they were heading towards Huntington. I got back just about where my turn was when my dumb ass mind started thinking too much and I began to get mad again.

There’s this sort of mausoleum, or tomb or something really strange looking on the side of the road there in Chester. When I got to that, I pulled in and said to myself “Screw it - I’m going back.” And I turned around. I was going back to the bar to get things straightened out with these guys who’d caused all the problems. At least that’s what I told myself. I was probably going back to get my ass kicked by four or five drunken rednecks.

Anyway, here I go back down Route 20 and just as I got to the turn where you would go back over the bridge into the center of Chester - these lights start flashing at me from the side of the road. Someone is waving me down. So, I pull over, and, of course, it’s Bryon. He’s there. He said, “I knew you’d come back. I can’t let you go in there.” – and we went through the whole thing again – and I argued with him again - and he talked me down again. That’s the kind of guy he was.

He wouldn’t leave a friend alone - he’d always have your back, always be ready to stand up when called to. And when he stood up - you noticed. But this giant of a man also always knew where the line was, used that size to keep the peace. People called him a “gentle giant”. People were right.

But look – it wasn’t like every night out ended with some kind of violence – 90% of the time it was just a shitload of fun to hang out with the guy. Listen - there was one time I remember when we went out to the Bonny Rigg Tavern up in Becket (another bar that’s gone the way of the dodo), and there was a guy with a guitar playing a set. We were just sitting around having a few beers, listening to the music, and this guy was pretty good. Actually, he was really good. And he asked whether there were there any requests. And I turned to Bryon.

I said, “Hey, this guy probably could play some James Taylor or something like that.” Bryon jumped at the idea right away, but I don’t think he really knew who James Taylor was. So, he yells out and asked the guy to play “Jimmy Taylor”. And I’m looking at him going, “Jimmy Taylor?” And the guy who had the guitar up in the front, he looks at him, and he goes, “Jimmy Taylor? You mean James Taylor? What’s your favorite Jimmy Taylor song?” Bryon kind of blanked so I whispered to him and said, “You’ll know it when you hear it. Ask him to play “Fire and Rain”.” So, Bryon shouts out, “Fire and Rain.” And the guy looks at him and goes, “Well, that’s a bit of a downer. I don’t know if I’ll play that one, but I’ll play this one.” And he started playing “Sweet Baby James”, and Bryon looks over at me and goes, “Yeah, I know this one. I know this guy.” The performer hit it note perfect – I’m telling you - he was really good.

Then, I remember – he got to the part in the song where the lyrics go like this:

“Now the first of December is covered with snow, and so is the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston. And the Berkshires seemed dreamlike on account of that frosting, with ten miles behind me and 10,000 more to go.”

And sitting there in that bar I realized when old Jimmy Taylor was writing that song, he must have been on the turnpike in Becket – which is less than a mile away up the road. So, this guy’s playing that James Taylor song, (Jimmy Taylor song - I always half think of him as “Jimmy” now), and it’s pretty much about the place where we were sitting, right at that moment. That struck me as kind of cool.

I still remember sitting in that bar, listening to that song – and those are the kinds of things I want to remember. Hanging out in a bar with your friend Bryon while something like that just sort of magically comes along.

Here I am writing this down and talking about bars that don’t exist anymore and restaurants that are long gone, and now, sadly, people who aren’t there anymore. And you’d think I’d be kind of depressed, but I’m not really, because you can’t be when you think about the good times that you had with people like Bryon Cole. I’ve had fewer chances to see him recently, one of which was with a bunch of other friends a few years ago at the Russell Inn (which is still there, thank God). That’s the picture that’s attached. I’m sure all of them smile a bit when they too think of Bryon. That’s just the normal reaction.

He was a good guy, and may he rest in peace. He’s gone to a better place because he made this world a better place by just being here. Rockabye buddy, rockabye.

IT'S PARLIAMENTARY MY DEAR WATSON

 

The 1976 Massachusetts Democratic primary was a bit of an outlier for the party – it was won, rather handily, by Washington Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. The eventual nominee and winner of the general election, Jimmy Carter, finished a distant fourth behind Jackson, Morris Udall and George Wallace. However – in one Massachusetts town the results were even more of an outlier. Not only did my hometown (Blandford) make Udall its choice for the Presidential nomination – its second-place choice didn’t even want to be President – they wanted to be Prime Minister.

Robert L. Kelleher was listed as a candidate for President on the Democratic side – but his entire campaign was predicated on the concept of replacing the U.S. model of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) with the British parliamentary model where the leader of the majority party in the legislature was charged with forming a government headed by a prime minister.

Blandford was the only town in the entire country where Kelleher managed to poll so highly. Evidently, in the post-Watergate atmosphere many of the citizens of my hometown would rather do away with the office of President entirely than entrust it to any of the candidates on the ballot.

In a parliamentary system the focus is much more on voting for the party you wish to have in power. While individual candidates are important – they tend to be somewhat secondary to the positions held by the party. In the United States you will often hear someone campaign on the basis that they will “stand up to the party leadership and vote against them if I don’t agree with their position”. In point of fact – for this most recent election – that is the primary position for a number of the candidates. You don’t like tariffs – neither do I. You don’t like the war in Iran – neither do I. You don’t like the Secretary of Defense – Neither do I.

And that’s just the Republicans.

Those sort of things are almost never prominent in a parliamentary election. Candidates who are endorsed by their party are expected to support the party’s positions. This way the voters know what they are getting – a “back bench revolt” is a truly calamitous event, usually prefacing the dissolution of a government and a call for a new election.

The American model is typically most appropriate for our system of government. This is because the Executive (who will be the leader of their party and head of government) is elected separately from the legislature. In the traditional parliamentary system the Prime Minister is (somewhat similar to the Speaker of the House) an actual member of parliament. They are not elected nationally – they stand in their small constituency and are thereafter selected by the other members of parliament within their party to be the leader.

In America the Executive (President) is elected nationally. It is possible for a member of a separate branch of government to go against the Executive’s desire without compromising the legislative priorities in their branch. Examples of this abound. Think of John McCain putting thumbs down on the override of ObamaCare. Of William Fulbright voting against Lyndon Johnson’s Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Of Barry Goldwater leading a delegation to Richard Nixon saying that he could not count on the votes of his own party in an impeachment battle. Of Barney Frank calling for Bill Clinton to resign over the Monica Lewinsky affair. These are all instances of where members of the ruling party told their own leader that they would not follow their dictates. This really could not happen in a parliamentary system without there being a collapse of the government and a new election being held.

What this typically means is that an American election need not have the same degree of reference to party lines as would a parliamentary system.

Typically – but not this year.

This year the system has changed to such an extent that the response “neither do I” has no real validity. Susan Collins would undoubtedly respond to the statement “I don’t like that the President can simply slap a tariff on Canadian exports without reference to the impact on Maine” with exactly that – “Neither do I”. But big deal – obviously there is no appetite in the rest of her party to rein that power in. As long as the Republicans control the Senate there is no capacity to stop the Executive from doing whatever he wishes.

This goes across the board. Don’t like that that Erik Schmitt was able to embarrass himself and the Senate by not knowing the difference between the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa Hawkeyes? A response of “neither do I” by any Republican is meaningless – as long as they hold the majority they can conduct any hearing they like, however speculative and non-productive (and boy, have they ever).

Don’t like that Pete Hegseth basically conducted a Stalin-like purge of the military, doing away with military men and women who had served their country with distinction for decades? Neither does Roger Wickers, the Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee (who despises Hegseth). Or the aforementioned Collins – who tries to disavow him at every turn. The problem is that Wickers voted to confirm Hegseth and Collins only voted against him when it was clear her vote wasn’t needed. That’s not effectively conducting the check or balance that the legislature is supposed to provide.

Don’t like that the Iran war is dragging into its ninth month? Neither does Rand Paul, seven Republican representatives, Susan Collins (again – no one must be listening Sue) or any number of candidates when confronted on the campaign trail. Yet – last time I looked the war rages on.

Feel that it may not be the best idea to have a Secretary of Health and Human Services whose idea of a well-balanced meal is a hearty portion of roadkill? Neither did Mitch McConnell – who is riding off into the sunset – every other Republican thought RFK Jr was a wonderful choice.

Wondering how Kimberley Guilfoyle ever ended up ambassador to Greece? Well – not a single Republican Senator voted against her – despite the fact that she was allegedly soliciting bribes to pay off her credit card bills. No “Neither do I’s” allowed on that one.

It is clear that this mid-term is an American parliamentary election. The usual checks and balances have proven ineffective – and if you don’t like things like no-bid contracts being awarded to Presidential cronies and relatives, staffers using early drafts of speeches to place bets on futures markets, ambassadorships being pedaled to unqualified appointees – then the option you have is to vote Democratic.

Look – no matter how either side tries to spin this – doing so is not a vote against or for Donald Trump. That referendum will be held in 2028. Whether you support or oppose the President is not the question. This is simply a vote on whether the Republican party has been doing an adequate job of upholding its constitutional mandate. Do you think Congress – the Senate and the House – is working the way it should? If you think they have – let me tell you – you are in an exceedingly small minority.

So why is the election still in question? I would say it’s because people in America are just not used to thinking in a parliamentary fashion. They still see the elections as between individuals – the religion of Abdul El-Sayed being of primary importance as opposed to the control of Congress. The contrariness of Susan Collins being of some impact despite the fact that time and time again it has been shown to be completely ineffective. The loyalty of Ken Paxton being of some benefit to his candidacy despite the fact that when polled on the individual issues Texans – yes Texans – see his actions and positions being contrary to their own. They don’t like the war in Iran or data centers – but the fact that they know – know - Paxton will vote whatever way the administration tells him to doesn’t yet register.

That is why I am calling on Americans to channel their inner 1976 Blandford. Vote to shake up the status quo – you don’t have to love the Democrats – you just have to think that there needs to be a change made. Don’t worry – it doesn’t mean that suddenly Sharia law will govern the courts, that the borders will be opened and Halloween candy handed out at the crossings, that drag queens will take over the kindergartens. What it really means is that the country will get a breather – neither party will be able to do much damage and we can prepare for a true plebiscite in two years’ time when the Presidency, and all it represents, will be at issue.

I don’t know about you – but a breather sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

CLINGING TO NORMAL WHILE SLOUCHING TOWARDS BETHLEHEM

 

Well, that was quite the visit for Vladimir Zelensky to the Oval Office, wasn’t it?  While certain of the MAGA army, (though not all), talk of how the Trump team “talked tough” to the president of a country that has managed to hold off the combined might of both the Russian, and, some of the unluckiest members of the North Korean, army, (and think for a minute just how unlucky you need to be to qualify for that honor) – the rest of us looked on between our fingers cringing with embarrassment. After all, one would think that such a person would have earned at least some credit for standing up to bullies. Nonetheless – the President’s acolytes, (though, again, not all), including his toady Vice President, seem to think this sort of behaviour was the height of diplomacy. I say “though not all” because one of the stalwarts, Marco Rubio, who holds the seemingly honorary title of Secretary of State, looked like he was throwing up in his mouth a little each time either his boss or Juvenile Delinquent Vance spoke.

Of course - the anti-MAGA contingent voiced what is the (understandable) conventional wisdom, which is that Trump has managed to humiliate himself yet again. I’m sure it certainly looks that way, at least at first glance, but I have to tell you both sides are wrong. Trump did not look tough - nor did he humiliate himself. Rather he was humiliated by Zelensky, who managed to get everything he could realistically hope for out of this meeting by manipulating Trump into giving him the best possible result for Ukraine.

The key word here is “realistically”. Let’s be honest – along with Zelensky the rest of us knew there was only about a 1% chance that Donald Trump was ever going to really modify his long held pro-Putin stance. I’m sure it was apparent within 30 seconds that this wasn’t going to happen. So Zelensky expertly moved to Plan B - which was to goad Trump into the sort of public loss of control that would lead to the alternative result that he really hoped to get in the first place. What Zelensky realistically hoped for in this meeting was to publicly unmask Trump’s willingness to abandon all of America’s foreign policy principles in favor of advancing Putin’s agenda. Those principles have, for over 80 years, included a willingness to act as the West’s principal military protector in Europe. First through the direct intervention in World War II and then via NATO, America has been guarantor of Europe’s security via a direct military commitment that has now been rescinded in the clearest terms possible.

Yes, I know Ukraine is not a member of NATO but it is the litmus test against which all NATO members will judge the United States. If you were sitting in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Germany, France, Turkey, - indeed - anywhere in Europe, would you feel more or less secure after the meeting between Zelensky and Trump? Hint, the correct answer is “less”. This is a huge problem for Europe but an even bigger problem for America.

In order to understand why I’m going to ask you to take a little quiz.

Question 1 -  What was the prevailing foreign policy imperative in the United States immediately before both the first and second World Wars?

Answer:  The correct answer is “isolationism”.

Question 2 - Pre-World War I this isolationist sentiment took the form of Woodrow Wilson’s re-election slogan, “He kept us out of war”. What was the pre-World War II expression of this same sentiment?

Answer: Before Pearl Harbor this isolationist sentiment was most directly expressed by the “America First” movement, which eventually came to be seen as one of the most bigoted, short-sighted, obstructionist movements in US history. Oh, it also happens to be the name adopted by Donald Trump for his administration’s principal policy goals.

Following on from his Zelensky meeting, Trump seems likely to adopt the full legacy of that earlier movement. Just to clarify for anyone still unclear on the subject, the “America First” movement of the 1930s and early 1940s played off anti-semitism, fear-mongering, radical non-intervention, and a desire to adopt the full head-in-the-sand strategy typically attributed to certain flightless birds. That America First movement was turned back by the combined efforts of the Roosevelt administration and a number of far-sighted Republicans who put aside party differences and acted in a manner that allowed the United States to take the actions necessary to confront threats like Hitler, Imperial Japan, and eventually the communist Soviet Union.

But it was a close-run thing. Many of the votes on crucial questions were decided by exceptionally narrow margins. This included the decision on whether to institute the peacetime draft, which passed by a single vote. This debate was not restricted to the pre-war years. Incipient isolationism carried on to the post-war years as well – much farther than you might realize (read a bit about Pat Buchanan to see how influential this view remained). However, despite this desire on the part of some to rely upon oceans to keep America secure, there has been for decades a consensus that the U.S. needs to be fully engaged in the world. Obviously, much of this attitude arises not from a desire on the part of Americans to get to know more about Greece, Turkey, Korea, Berlin, Cuba, Vietnam or any of the other places where we have stuck our noses. It was because, given the choice between not having this done, letting someone else do it or doing it ourselves – America decided that, on balance, right or wrong, they’d rather be the one making these decisions.

Of course, not everyone agrees with the concept of America being anointed the world’s policeman, and there are plenty of times I agree with that sentiment. If you look at the list above – there are plenty of mistakes included. Still, for most of our lifetimes, large swathes of the globe have existed under the protection of America’s military umbrella. 

The ultimate representation of this phenomenon is NATO, the carefully crafted alliance of Western nations designed out of the complex web of post-war European policies. If you were to ask most people why NATO exists, you would get an answer along the lines of, “to provide a barrier to the threatened Soviet expansion after Second World War”. However, this is only about half right. The threat of Soviet expansionism was the immediate impetus for setting up the sort of alliance that would have been seen in more isolationist times as the very epitome of what George Washington was warning against in his Farewell Address. In addition to selling Americans on this alliance, the possibility of Soviet tanks rolling across Europe undoubtedly allowed many European nations to be far more amenable to a US-led NATO than they would otherwise have been.

Really, just think about how extraordinary this was. Run the following thought experiment. What do you think the reaction of Americans would have been if we were to cede control of Andrews Air Force Base to the Germans? Well, that is exactly what Germany did with Wiesbaden when they ceded it to the control of the American Air Force. What would the reaction have been if we had turned New London Naval Base over to the Brits? Well, this is what they did with the submarine base at Holy Lock for years. Actions that would ordinarily make nations scream in outrage at the violation of their sovereignty have become routine under the NATO model. Everyone has been happy enough to continue under this regime for nigh on 75 years.

Oh, there has certainly been a long-standing debate about whether or not the European members have been paying their fair share towards NATO’s upkeep. But there has been little to no call for Europe to ramp up their actual military capabilities. Most of the debate has been about money – is Europe paying its fair share – not “are they re-arming effectively”.

It did not have to be this way, but it is the way things worked out, because that is the way America wanted it. You see, NATO as it exists was not set up just to counter the Soviet threat. Many people do not realize this. Nor was it set up to rearm Europe. Indeed, far from it. America set up NATO this way in order to demilitarize Europe. If it had wanted to, America could simply have paid a far smaller long-term economic price and built a formidable European barrier to the Soviet threat. If France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and especially the UK needed to be secure against the Soviets, we could have simply provided a short-term umbrella and then sent them enough weapons to rebuild their forces themselves. Indeed, there was serious consideration given to exactly that scenario, and it was rejected.

This was done for a very simple reason. For the entire history of the United States, and indeed well back into the depths of the Middle Ages, Europe’s ever-evolving nations have been lacking in many things, but armaments is not one of them. The problem was, when in possession of these weapons, and the standing armies that wielded them, the leaders of Europe tended to do one very troublesome thing.

Use them.

About every 40 to 50 years or so, Europeans would find occasion to kill each other and to often involve others in this pursuit. The Hundred Years War, Queen Anne’s War, the War of Spanish Succession, the War of Austrian Succession, the Seven Years War, the Norman Invasion, the Franco-Prussian War, the Napoleonic Wars, the 1848 Revolutions.

One could construct a wonderful history exam by simply asking students to put these conflicts in order – there were just so many it becomes difficult to remember which fit where.

Finally, by the 20th century, some semblance of order had been created, and Europeans began to have the decency to properly number their conflicts. There is never any problem remembering which of World Wars I or II came first – the only difficulty was calculating how many millions of people died in each of them.

It was with this background that the United States assessed the post-World War II landscape. They could, as the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, simply pay for Europe to rearm themselves. While this would be a large initial expense, once in possession of a viable military, all the Western European countries would be more or less required to maintain it. Indeed, as the U.S. would find, possession of a military tended to engender the creation of a military-industrial complex. The rearmament of Europe would be essentially self-perpetuating.

That was the easy way out. The harder way would be for the U.S., as a giant superpower, to take the task of European defense upon itself. This was an enormous cultural turnaround. Until the 1940s and 50s, with the rise of NATO, the U.S. prized above almost all other characteristics the fact that it carried almost no peacetime army. In the years following World War II, in terms of sheer expenditure, the U.S. has by far the largest military structure in the world. The mentality of the U.S. has turned a full 180 degrees since the pre-World War II days of an army in the tens of thousands. Now, even the smallest cut in military expenditure leads to cries of, “you’re leaving the nation exposed”, and the U.S. electorate expects to lead in all areas of military costs. Whether it is naval forces, ground forces, air forces, nuclear forces, and now we’ve even invented space forces, more money and more effort is spent on each than most any other combination of Western countries combined.

But this is not to protect the U.S., or at least the U.S. alone. To a great extent, perhaps the greatest, it is to protect Europe without asking (or allowing) the countries that make up that continent to rearm. I don’t know about you, but I am absolutely fine with that approach. Call me crazy, but I am in no great hurry to see Germany armed to the teeth. I don’t want France, Italy, or the UK to feel the urge to flex their muscles or to invest resources in a low- flying, radar-resistant missile armory. The principal reason I’m okay with keeping things the way that it has been for so many years is very simple.

Because it fucking worked.

In case you hadn’t noticed, there hasn’t been a war with a Roman numeral after it since chapter II closed. This is a good thing. No Western European power has engaged in what would be considered a “major” military action since then (the Falklands? – c’mon). No trenches have crossed or divided the sides within the continent. The closest thing to armed conflict is the annual Eurovision Song Contest.

 Again, this is a good thing.

However, it is something to speak of in the past tense. Within hours following the Trump-Zelensky meeting, European leaders were meeting amongst themselves to discuss and implement something that had been largely theoretical up to the point of that conference - the rearmament of European nations and the entry of their forces into the field. J.D. Vance, in a move that must have made Secretary of State Rubio revert to full upchuck, poured kerosene on this fire by mocking the ability of nations that hadn't “fought a war in 30 to 40 years” to pull this off and come to Ukraine’s aid.

Zelensky certainly hopes they can, and he played Trump masterfully to put the possibility in motion. Myself - I remain skeptical as to whether there is enough time. Nonetheless, it certainly seems they will try, but one thing is certain, the Europe that we have known and counted on for the past 80 years is gone. Whether it is Ukraine that creates the tipping point necessary to make this happen, or it is the near inevitable next Putin step, Europe will rearm and 80 years of careful, successful diplomacy will go right down the toilet.

I don't doubt that there are those in the United States who will be glad to see it go. I'm sure they can make their case. However, what must be conceded is that this step should not have been precipitated due to a hasty meeting that turned into a public display of pettiness. In the past, discussions of this magnitude were debated by the greats, the George Kennan’s, the Dean Acheson's, the Harriman's, McCloskey's and Dulles's. They weren't set in motion over a bad cup of coffee while the alleged Secretary of State looks on with an expression indicating that his particular cup had been loaded with 14 teaspoons of salt.

In other words, this, like so much else going on right now, is not “normal”. We need a “party of normal” to bring some semblance of sanity back into the world. Republicans are lost. They are in the twilight zone at the moment. They are like guests at a cocktail party who have become so drunk that they've wandered off to the back yard to play cornhole and pee in the bushes. The Democrats could be normal, except they keep letting the kiddies interrupt the grownups to tell everyone about what they hope Santa brings them for Christmas.

Time to put the kids to bed, lock the door, adjourn to the room away from the drunken idiots and start to discuss things like adults. I'm going to try to post to this blog more regularly in an attempt to talk about a “party of normal”. And the next entry is going to be a solid rap to the Democrats' knuckles in an attempt to get them moving towards that standard of normality. So, watch this space everybody.

 (Somebody.)

 (Anybody.)

I WAS NEVER HAPPIER THAN WHEN I STARTED PAYING THIS

 

…what I really what want to talk about here today in remembering Mom – are the lessons she taught us all. Because – while, yes, this was the lady who once, when passing by a joint named “Mike’s Pizza” - with a sign in the lot saying “Parking for Mike’s Only” – turned to me and asked, in all seriousness – “How are they going to know if your name is Mike?” (True story) – but she is also the woman who was the first in her family to receive an advanced degree when she graduated from nursing school.

And she was the woman who managed a change in career so that she could be there to meet Brenda and I when we got home from school.  She became a teacher’s aide and, along with her colleagues, was instrumental in expanding the scope of special needs education in our region. She was the person who, in that teaching assistant role, helped to extend union contractual recognition to para-professionals.

She provided constant lessons and raised us to value learning, faith, physical activity, family, respect for others and a sense of fun – all while retaining each of those qualities in herself.

You know – I’ll confess this now – for a long time, while this was happening – I didn’t always notice.  Which leads me to the lesson Mom gave us that I want to focus on today.

You know, all of us worry about the things we have to pay – and we usually don’t like doing it.

No one likes to pay their taxes.

No one likes to pay their rent or mortgage.

No one is too thrilled to pay their ever-increasing grocery bill.

No one likes to pay their credit card, dentist bill, tolls, speeding tickets – the overpriced costs of everyday life.

But there is one thing we should all like to pay more of.

I wish, when my mom was fighting to keep the adult day health care center she ran open - because she knew how much those who came there needed it – I wish I’d paid more of this then.

I wish when the question arose of whether to allow clients at that facility who had been diagnosed with HIV to continue to avail of the shelter it provided – only to have my mother step in, do her homework, realize that all the literature and science showed that those folks were not a risk – and insist that they be welcomed with care and compassion – I wish I’d paid more of this then.

I wish I’d paid more when she bravely faced my dad’s passing, became a world traveller, doted on her beloved grandchildren, faced down the loss of her voice, defeated cancer, made sure that she maintained multiple extended family events through all of this.

I think you all must realize that the thing I wish I’d paid more of was something we all can afford - attention.

Oh, I eventually started to pay attention alright.  Mom was without a voice for the last years of her life – but be assured she was NEVER silenced. Whether it was hushing us when we told her “Ma you just ran a red light” (and she would signal that you are allowed to go right on red) “Yeah I know there’s right on red Ma – you went left” (and she would signal with a shrug and expression like “ah, what you gonna do”). You had to admire the chutzpah. Or seeing her beam as we all tucked into her latest dinner.  Or watching as she relaxed in the sunshine observing the world go by at our beach getaways.  I finally learned to pay more attention, to admire, appreciate and be awed by this sometimes exasperating but always interesting and endlessly loving woman. 

That – in the end – is one of the biggest lessons I took from someone who taught us all so much, so well.

Let’s all pay more attention – to each other, to ourselves and to the many wonderous things around us.  I know, in addressing this group, that there are those who have fought illness, raised children (their own and others), defended their country, protected a community, supported colleagues at work, sacrificed in so many ways – people who are there for others when times get tough.  All of those heroic efforts deserve to have attention paid to them – not because it is sought, but because when we take the time to notice and recognize these things everyone benefits.  This is a payment that costs us nothing – and yet it is so enriching.  Mom would certainly agree – she was our family’s mother hen – she paid attention to us all – and our world is a better place for it.  Rest in peace Ma, I will love and treasure you always.

THE SHAMING OF THE TRUE (With Apologies to William Shakespeare)

 

It is about time for my quadrennial “Letter to America” which is the view from afar that I try to post prior to every Presidential election.  Let’s do away with the suspense – I’m not, having already argued against him twice - going to reverse course and endorse Donald Trump in his quest to become the once and future dictator.  If anything I like him less this time than in any of his other runs – but, as I’ve always said – there is a need to differentiate Trump from his supporters. I’ve always tried to do that - but I think there is now an even greater distinction to be made – I can separate the Republican candidate from those who merely wish to support his candidacy – and that is what I mean by his “supporters” – but I no longer apply that same waiver to anyone that I would class as a Trump “follower”.  The former category are people who it is possible to disagree with, while the latter are simply dangerous.

So – what is the difference? Let me try to explain. A Trump supporter would claim that the country is better off having someone who pursues an aggressive stance when it comes to our allies – that Trump is correct when he attacks Germany or France for not “pulling their weight” in NATO or that NATO itself is becoming obsolete.  I disagree with that position – but I can see how someone might hold it. My job – since I take a different view -  is to persuasively argue my own position, which is that our allies, given their geographical location at the forefront of Putin's aggression and the fact that they routinely surrender degrees of sovereignty to the U.S. military - are more than pulling their weight.  I’d also say that the situation in Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe makes NATO more relevant than ever. That’s one example of a discussion that two opposing sides can have.

A Trump “follower” on the other hand – doesn’t argue these sorts of things – he or she simply restates the clear lies (“alternative facts”) to create a false narrative – and then calls anyone who disagrees a naïve "libtard" or part of some undefined "conspiracy" designed to subvert the "true America". That’s what I mean by “the shaming of the true”.  To this type person Trump’s position has “made America more respected in the world”.  I’m “in the world” – and I know that isn’t true.  A Trump follower says “NATO is stronger with Trump in charge” – a conclusion that no one could possibly justify using any set of facts.  But for a true believer facts have become a mere inconvenience.

That is what is incredibly frustrating about this election – approximately half of the electorate (and I’m not breaking things down by state at this point) is never going to vote for Trump.  Then, let’s say roughly one-quarter of the electorate is within the “Trump supporter” category – you can at least talk about things with them.  Then, finally, there is the “follower” category – the remaining quarter of the electorate.  They live in a fantasy world where facts are optional – or so easily manipulated they are superficial.  And where that quarter comes from might surprise you.

People who should know better routinely restate the obvious simply because – well – there are no consequences.  Here are a few of the areas that are most egregious:

1.       1. We have a border “crisis” of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ making.

First of all – let’s stop all the “crisis” bullshit.  World War II – that was a crisis.  The Great Depression – crisis.  Vietnam – crisis.  The situation at the border is just a “problem” that wasn’t created by this administration (which actually worked hard to solve it) but has arisen over decades (that’s why Trump was railing about “a wall” in his initial campaign). What is going on at the border is simply a challenging situation, one that we have faced and handled many times before and one which could be easily handled now. In fact – we know this - because in one of the instances where government actually did what it was designed to do both parties came up with a plan to do exactly that. 

And then Donald Trump killed it. 

Not because it wouldn’t have provided much needed solutions – but because that is exactly what it would have done, and he did not want that to happen. Trump wanted to retain the “border crisis” issue for his campaign and it would have been extremely inconvenient to, you know, solve the damn thing.

Look – you cannot both moan about how immigrants are destroying the country through uncontrolled borders and then block attempts to control the borders.  That would make no sense.  Of course, making sense is not a prerequisite for followers of Donald Trump. I will happily have a discussion with anyone about the state of immigration policy – but don’t tell me it is an existential threat to the nation’s well-being when your candidate walks away from a solution crafted by his own party.  Trump killed the bill because he wanted to be able to rant about murderers, rapists and imaginary pet-eating Haitians.  It was crass political gamesmanship (by a person whose followers revere him because he’s supposedly “not a politician”) and anyone who denies that is simply shaming the truth.

2.        2. The 2020 Election was “rigged” and “stolen”.

The fact that we are still talking about this should disqualify Donald Trump from office in and of itself.  The election was legitimate.  Consider just this one item – in Arizona the Republican majority legislature funded a multi-million dollar “audit” of the election results in Maricopa County – which resulted in a recount that increased Joe Biden’s margin by 360 votes. Unfazed, Trump acolytes pointed to a statement in the audit report which criticized the use of “thin paper” on some ballots, which might have led to “ink seepage” that might have caused a miscount on some ballots.  How the leaking ink was supposed to know which candidate to leak in favor of – I do not know.  On this sort of “evidence” we are expected to question the entire basis of our electoral system. 

In the current election cycle we are told time and time again that an American election was “stolen” and are expected to completely ignore the fact that this is a lie. Trump followers can blindly make what amounts to traitorous statements and somehow, if we tell them that they are wrong we’re the ones who are gullible. Here’s the thing – no we are not.  I have complete confidence in this because I actually did the work to disprove the assertion, in real time, immediately after the election.  Yes, I reviewed the election results in places like Georgia’s Fulton, Walker and Gwinnet counties, did a statistical analysis, compared the numbers to previous elections and reached a conclusion based on real data, not a blind assertion. I really read the list of supposed examples of “election fraud” posted by the Trump White House (try that some time) and found that the examples given covered things like murder for hire schemes, people running for office in two different counties and a woman who forgot to register and was sentenced to one day’s probation.  All those findings were published here:  https://sheamonu-granfalloons.blogspot.com/2020/12/ . 

So – if you want to claim the 2020 election was stolen I’ll pay attention to you when you go out, find actual proof and produce your own equivalent piece of analysis.  Until then – please – just shut up.

3.      3. Kamala Harris is a “Mental Defective” and Other Assorted Outrages

This could really just be classed under the category of “Kamala Harris is…” and leave the ending to whatever trope Trump and his followers happen to be harping on that day.  The attack on Harris’s mental acuity is just the latest form this gutter-based approach to politics has taken.  In other week’s it was slut shaming (“did you hear she dated Willie Brown, while she was single and he had only been separated from his wife for two years”), race-baiting (“she was Indian and then she decided to be black”), manipulative (“what she did to Joe Biden was a palace coup”), a Marxist (“you know, her father was a Marxist professor and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”) and next week it will probably be “Kamala Harris is a shape-shifting lizard alien”. 

None of these are true.  She dated another person who had exited a prior relationship – big deal.  She has always acknowledged all parts of her heritage and never “became” anything. Joe Biden’s decision to exit the race was his alone and, while there were certainly plenty of people in the Democratic party who encouraged him - one of those people does not appear to have been Kamala Harris.  The nearly one-hundred CEO’s who are endorsing her (including this one) probably don’t see her as a Marxist.  Her father might have been, but she never had much contact with him growing up and it’s a bit harsh to visit the sins of the parent on the child.  After all – that would make Donald Trump a racist, mustachioed, slum lord and I have never seen a picture of Trump with a mustache.

In truth – and this letter is all about truth – Harris has turned out to be the one thing Trump most feared. She has shown herself to indisputably be one damn tough lady.  Trump followers may hate to admit it – but if they are being honest (admittedly a stretch for them) they have to. Harris, the supposed mental defective, kicked Donald Trump’s ass in their debate – so much so that he has run like a mutt from their previously scheduled next encounter.  Harris, the supposed Marxist, has published the most complete and business friendly economic plan of the last quarter century – from any candidate, Republican or Democrat.  Harris has stood up to the continual personal attacks on her character better than Hilary Clinton ever dreamed of doing – and she has rarely put a foot wrong so far in this campaign. Though it may be tough for the Trump followers to admit this – I still hold out some hope for the Trump supporters. In the final analysis do they want a 78 year-old narcissist who flails around with semi-coherent rants to lead the country – or would they maybe change their minds and pull the lever for one tough woman who is routinely making him look like a clown?  I know what my answer is.

4.          4. Trump Handled the COVID Crisis Well

Donald Trump was an extremely lucky man for about three quarters of his Presidency.  There were no major crises that arose other than the occasional hurricane (which he managed to screw up – twice – remember the sharpie he used to extend the path of Hurricane Dorian, and the paper towels he threw at people in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria? And I’m not even counting his request to use nukes to destroy storms before they get to land). However – that last quarter bore a resemblance to the Atlanta Falcons in Super Bowl LI.

That is because during the final part of his Presidency the globe was hit with a pandemic that definitely qualified as a major crisis. The one thing I had thought would be beyond question was the fact that Donald Trump reacted to the pressure of this situation about as well as Will Smith did to Chris Rock’s Oscar jokes.  Does nobody remember the whole “it will disappear like a miracle” nonsense?  The request to explore ingesting disinfectant as a cure?  The clownish press conferences, the inability to properly distribute tests, the waffling on how to use the vaccines once they arrived – if there is one thing that we can definitely say about the Trump Administration it is that his handling of the pandemic was an absolute shit show.

Or so you would think.  The revisionism in relation to Trump continues to boggle the mind.  His mixed messaging on vaccine uptake extended the pandemic in the U.S. and led to many additional deaths. On that there is no doubt.  Where there was doubt was in whether or not the more drastic action instituted by the Biden Administration helped avoid deaths and end the pandemic.  Whether Trump was a complete disaster was beyond question.  But – in the interest of fairness – let’s take a look at the question of whether the Biden Administration response was “too extreme”.  As a test case we’ll explore the place that is often cited as the paragon of rational restraint – Florida.

Remember – Ron DeSantis based a run for the Presidency on just how efficient Florida was in dealing with Covid.  He claimed that by not caving in to the calls for lock downs, mandatory vaccinations for government workers or other restrictive actions Florida suffered no greater deaths than the rest of the country.  The implication of this is that while Trump may not have been the greatest leader during Covid’s inception, if he had been around post January 2021 everything would have been just fine without the “draconian” steps taken by Biden.  The only problem is – this is a lie.

We know this because of the non-partisan review undertaken by the National Institute of Health.  Turns out – Florida did fine when it was following the guidance of medical professionals – after it went down the DeSantis route – not so good.  Here’s the website to find this data: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38439756/#:~:text=During%20the%2016%2Dmonth%20first,an%20additional%2031%2C000%20people%20died. 

And here’s the summary:

The first cases of COVID-19 in Florida were diagnosed on March 1, 2020. Three years later, more than 7.3 million people have had COVID-19 in Florida, and more than 93,000 individuals have died from this illness. When considering the impact of COVID-19 on Florida, several key factors need to be considered, including that Florida was one of the most medically vulnerable states due to a substantial proportion of older individuals and those with underlying medical conditions. Florida also has a centralized Department of Health and Division of Emergency Management structure that facilitated response activities. Looking at the impact of COVID-19 on Florida, two distinct phases need to be considered: the pre-Delta variant phase from March 2020 to July 2021 and the Delta variant and beyond phase that began July 2021. During the 16-month first phase, about 38,000 people died. Yet, 24,000 people died during the 5-months of the Delta variant wave from July to November 2021. During the Omicron waves that followed Delta, an additional 31,000 people died. Florida thus went from ranking 26th in death per capita in the United States at the end of the first phase to 10th a few months into the Delta wave and now ranks 8th. Why did these phases differ so dramatically in terms of mortality? During the first phase of the pandemic, adherence to established nonpharmacological and older adult protection measures was recommended. When COVID-19 vaccines became available in December 2020, there was an aggressive campaign to promote COVID-19 vaccination, and public acceptance was high. The second phase followed political opposition to CDC and public health expert guidelines, the rise of anti-vaccine sentiment and misinformation, and falling vaccination rates. These factors contributed to considerable population vulnerability to severe disease when the Delta variant hit. As the former State Surgeon General and Secretary of Health of Florida from June 2019 to September 2021, this report provides perspective on the shifting impact and response to COVID-19 in Florida, which is the third most populous state in the United States. This perspective shows the clear consequences of shifting from standard public health practices and vaccine promotion to attacks on public health and vaccines.

I was actually present at a recent meeting where one of the heads of Miami Dade County’s business chamber told the true story about why Florida changed its tactics on Covid and opened up the beaches and amusement parks.  It had little to nothing to do with the fact that Florida wasn’t worried about increased deaths.  It was because due to the way Florida has structured its tax regime – if it didn’t open up, it would go broke.  You see – the Sunshine State has it built into its constitution that it can never institute a state income tax.  The only reason it gets away with this is because of its extremely high (and regressive) sales tax – which is paid by not just residents – but by the enormous number of tourists entering the state as well.  Florida desperately needed to milk people from out of state in order to avoid bankruptcy. Disease prevention would just have to wait. 

Meanwhile – the Biden administration was doing what grown-ups do (and what the childish Trump had always refused to do) – telling everyone to stay in bed, take their medicine and do what the doctor told them.  Yes – it was a royal pain in the ass for a while – but, it worked.  The pandemic, which Trump had (let’s face it) never been able to get his hands around, was finally put in the rear-view mirror. But don't try to tell that to a Trump follower - there is no quicker way to be labeled a tool of "them", the deep-state interests who are somehow tied into big pharma or, oh, I don't know, maybe the producers of "Tiger King" - than to try to reference reality and criticize the way Trump dealt with the biggest crisis of his tenure in office. 

5.          5. Inflation is Joe Biden and the Democrats' Fault

This has proven to be one of the tougher myths to counter – mainly because inflation is not really the “fault” of anyone – it’s an economic outcome that can be attributed to many independent factors.  It is true that it typically gets blamed on whoever happens to be in office when it hits – but that is like blaming someone for the weather (yeah – I know – the Trump followers do that too). 

Inflation is like trying to turn an aircraft carrier – you can start it on a certain course but it could be miles before you actually notice that there has been a change in direction.  The round of inflation that hit during the past few years had its roots in three main things – cheap money, supply chain disruption and war. 

The first of these – cheap money – had been around for years as interest rates remained quite low for a record period of time.  I think it was exacerbated to the point that it became an inflationary catalyst by two things – the Trump approach to tariffs (he oversaw the implementation of tariffs against China and offset these by creating the biggest government welfare giveaway in history in the form of his agricultural subsidies) and the “stimulus” package offered during Covid.  Yes, the pre-Biden Democrats supported Covid stimulus packages as well – but you know who it was that insisted they be made even bigger?  Yup – this guy:  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/22/trump-calls-covid-relief-bill-unsuitable-and-demands-congress-add-higher-stimulus-payments.html . This type of policy gave people all kinds of cash during a period of time that they were sitting at home and had no where to spend it.  Of course, once things started to open up all that money was being spent – which was an enormous inflationary impetus.

Of course – it wasn’t the only factor.  Another was the fact that at the same time demand was rising (since people could go to the stores again) supply was being choked.  My favorite example has to do with the Dublin airport (though similar issues about bringing people back to work can be found globally).  When Covid ended the airport told workers that had been laid off that they could come back to work – with one catch – they would have to repay the money they had been given as part of the package received when they were let go.  Unsurprisingly – no one wanted to go back to work.  The result was that anyone who was working got loads of overtime and the costs (and time) associated with shipping goods went up. This global shortage of supplied goods was another strong influence on inflation.  This wasn’t anyone’s “fault” – other than the poor planning that went into the original schemes established to combat the pandemic.

Finally – Vladimir Putin drove costs worldwide even higher when he attacked Ukraine.  We can talk quite a bit about whether Russia was emboldened into this action by the chaos and confusion Trump has brought to NATO and the direct actions he took to undermine Ukraine’s position – but there is no arguing about how Russian aggression was a major driver of the inflationary period that became noticeable immediately after Trump left office.  I would have no problem arguing that the aircraft carrier of inflation was set on its course while Trump was in office.  I would also have no problem in arguing that the period of runaway inflation is largely ended – as long as he stays out of office.  In short – the vast majority of independent and reputable economic models show that Donald Trump’s economic plans will send the country back into the morass of inflation.  So – if you want your prices to go up again – vote Trump.

These are all truths - but we have reached the point where it feels like you have to apologize for telling them.  Lies have become so common that truthing almost calls out to be prefaced by saying "I'm sorry to have to bring this up - but...".  

Except - I'm kind of sick of being ashamed of telling the truth.

I could go on listing the lies, adding more numbers to this letter and backing it up with all kinds of evidence – but it won’t convert any “followers” of the Orange Menace. There is one tactic that does seem to have shaken people out of their mindless rapture – at least for a while.  That was when a certain adjective was applied to the actions of Mr. Trump and his running mate.

I’m speaking, of course, of “weird”.

It’s weird that a candidate for President would pay a porn star hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It’s weird that a candidate for Vice President would call childless women “cat ladies”.

It’s weird that someone thinks windmill noise causes cancer (or kills birds).

It’s weird that a major party nominee thinks the volume of water used to flush a toilet is a major issue.

It’s weird that a candidate would seek the endorsement of someone who picks up and transports dead bears and whale heads in his car - and even weirder that they would consider appointing them to a position in charge of national health policy.

It’s weird that someone would invite Russia to interfere with our elections.

It’s weird that a grown man doesn’t know how to order donuts.

It’s weird that a candidate would claim (falsely) that hurricane aid is being withheld when thousands of people and billions of dollars are racing to the assistance of victims.

It’s even weirder that his supporters would claim that the hurricanes happen because “they” control the weather.

It is weird that a Vice Presidential candidate would describe his running mate as “unfit for public office”.

It's weird that a group that gave us the legislative circus that was "musical speakers" and the likes of Matt Gaetz, George Santos, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene as members of Congress should put itself forward as the "party of good government".

It’s weird that a candidate would accuse legal residents of eating cats and dogs.

It’s weird for a candidate to say that if you vote for him “you’ll never have an election again”.

It’s weird that a former President can’t get the support of his prior cabinet. (Or his former Vice President – of course, he did put him in danger of being killed).

Bottom line – these guys – whether you support “conservative” causes or not – are weird.  The biggest contribution Joe Biden made (and he made others – but this was the biggest) was the return to normality that he brought.  When the 2020 election results were finally announced I said, in this forum, “Thank God, now when I wake up and say “I wonder what that crazy mutt got up to while I was asleep – I’ll be talking about my dog and not the President”.  I still hope that is what I’m able to say after this one. 

So please – vote for the woman who has turned out to be tougher than anyone ever thought she would be – and not the weirdo.