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 who I spent a lot of time with whenever I had a chance back before I moved over to Ireland. I’d drop up to his place in Huntington, and 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 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. 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 at the back of the theater 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 6’2” 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. And I got back almost to 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 Rig 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 are sitting, right at that moment. That struck me as kind of cool.

I still remember 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 up.

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.

WINK

 

I want to talk about a sensitive and multi-faceted subject but I'm pretty sure I'm not a good enough writer to capture all that nuance.  Instead, for the purposes of this essay, I'm going to revert to a trick that you might find in the pantomimes that are currently playing throughout Dublin during this holiday season.  Whenever a character wants to get the point across that they “don't really mean all that they are saying” - that perhaps there is another level of understanding that is required beyond the mere words they spout or actions they take - they will turn to the audience and give them an exaggerated wink.  For example, the big bad wolf might be following little red riding hood across the stage and get asked "You aren't following me so that you can steal the goodies I'm bringing to Grandma, are you?" The wolf will say something like "Of course not my dear - I'm only following you to make sure nothing falls out of your basket - I only want to make sure you get to Grandma safely."  Red then replies, "Oh that's OK then" and turns back while the wolf - well, the wolf turns to the audience, points to his eye and gives a protracted, over-the-top "WINK".  Having seen this all the kiddies watching know for sure that this wolf is not really looking to keep Grannie's goodies safe - he just wants to establish where Red is going.  I think that there is more than a bit of that (not all that subtle) hidden messaging going on in much of the recent rhetoric emanating from any number of sources in Ireland - and in order to point out where that is taking place I'm going to resort to inserting the occasional "WINK".

 

For the subject of this article is going to be the reaction of a broad swathe of the Irish public to the recent events in the Middle East. In order to show the depth of their concern for the "people of Palestine" certain of the populace based here, comfortably sitting on their collective fat arses thousands of miles from the conflict, have helpfully:  voted to fly the Palestinian flag over Dublin City Hall; celebrated the return of a child taken hostage by the same people operating under that flag by saying "a child was lost and now is found" – (thus stretching the definitions of "lost and found" to the breaking point);  retweeted (reX’d?) suggestions that Israel be relocated to an area found in Russia somewhere north of Mongolia “that is already allocated as a Jewish ruled region”, adopted the seemingly tourist oriented slogan “from the river to the sea”; helpfully explained that the attack on the October 7^th rave was perfectly civilized until the police showed up and insisted on interrupting the invasion and otherwise voiced their ”concern” in a variety of equally useful and inciteful ways.  Throughout this campaign these “concerned” groups and individuals have made it clear that their “concern” is based solely upon their affinity for the poor victims of over-the-top Israeli aggression, and derives not one iota from that nasty, bigoted sentiment known as “anti-semitism”.  Goodness gracious, not at all.  Why, some of their favourite comedians are Jewish. Honestly – you’d think that it had hardly ever occurred to them that there were Jews in Israel. New York and Hollywood – yes – but Israel – it had nearly slipped their mind.

Oh – you know what’s coming now don’t you…

Oh yes you do…

“WINK”.

I resort to an optical flutter here for the simple reason that I can’t imagine any other rational explanation for such irrational conclusions.  Take, for example, the above noted reference to a “lost child”.  That bit of political doublespeak came from no less than the once and current Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Leo Varadkar.  Varadkar is one of those politicians who tries so hard to be inoffensive that he almost always manages to give offense.  One can look back through the archive of this blog to find similar examples, such as Leo endeavouring to pay loving tribute to a police force that included the Black and Tans. If Leo were giving a toast at a wedding he would compliment the bride by saying “doesn’t she look so adequate today” or wish the loving couple to live together in happiness “for all the days of their lives or an otherwise mutually acceptable length of time”. Leo’s “child was lost and now is found” moment arose when he was attempting to celebrate the return of Emily Hand, an Irish citizen who was not “lost” but abducted by Hamas on October 7^th, held captive and was informed of the fact that her step-mother had been murdered once, in Varadkar-speak, she had been “found”. 

Let’s be clear (even if the Taoiseach’s statement wasn’t) the only children Leo Varadkar should be referring to as “lost” will be those trying to find their way to the new Children’s Hospital that his government has located somewhere in an inaccessible corner of Dublin.  The supposed analogy to the biblical story of the prodigal son is embarrassingly inappropriate (the “lost child” in that story had voluntarily wandered off to spend his inheritance, not been torn from his house and carried off into captivity) and the Israeli government properly summonsed the Irish ambassador to voice a direct complaint about the tasteless comment.  One can only imagine the back and forth at that meeting – but I would hope the Israeli minister only looked across to his Irish counterpart and said something along the lines of “Dude – REALLY?”

Still, that didn’t stop the political class in Ireland (both in partnership and opposition) from rallying around their leader, saying that the Israeli response was an “overreaction” and that “everyone knew what the Taoiseach was saying”.  The scary thing is – I think everyone does. The categorization of Emily as being the victim of circumstance rather than of horrific intent goes to the heart of the matter.  Varadkar was, as he always does, attempting to play to all sides, regardless of degree of fault. One would almost worry that such a statement could only arise if the speaker kind of blamed the victim for being associated with the people who were the object of the attack.  Certainly, it couldn’t be that this was an easier statement to make because, after all, Emily was at a kibbutz – hanging around with, you know, all those – ummm – Jews. 

Certainly not. 

Never.

“WINK”.

I take no joy in accusing any group of people of collective anti-semitism of this sort, but there are certain indicators that, if present, make such a conclusion inevitable.  Here are some of them:

1.    1.    You hold the object of your ire to a standard of conduct that you would never apply to yourself.

To listen to the rhetoric from much of the Irish media you would think that the current state of affairs in Gaza arose strictly from the events of the 7^th of October.  That the forces of Hamas attacked Israel on that day and that the Israeli response arises from that single act.  If that had been true – if the Hamas attack was limited to a single massive stand-alone raid conducted across the Israel/Gaza border – I would still argue that no Irish citizen (or citizen of any country) would ever stand for such an event and would want the all the forces at their disposal brought to bear against the perpetrators. I suspect that even if October 7^th were the only provocation they had faced the same people who say that the Israeli response is “excessive” would be crying out for exactly the same reply if something like that had ever happened to them.

But, while that might be the case – that’s not even close to reflecting the true history of what has happened in the area around Gaza.  How many attacks aimed at Israel from Gaza do you think have actually taken place since the turn of the millenium?  Dozens?

Nope.

Hundreds?

Nope.

Thousands?

Warmer – but not really that close.

Give up?

It is estimated that since the year 2000 Hamas forces have launched upwards of 20,000 rockets across the border into Israel.  That’s an average of about 3 rockets every day for the last two decades.  Israel did not attack the Hamas presence in Gaza precipitously – before taking these steps they had reinforced the border crossings (which Hamas managed to breach), invested in a defensive missile shield (which Hamas managed to overwhelm) and had attempted to shut off the flow of rocket-building material from Hamas allies like Iran (which the Iranians and Hamas have obviously been able to avoid).  When, on the 7^th of October Israel was faced with an attack from Hamas – it wasn’t the instigation of a conflict – it was the escalation of one.  The level of restraint shown by Israel up to the time of 7 October was extraordinary – and while the Israeli government’s policies concerning Gaza and West Bank can (and should) be questioned – the fact that those policies were being debated while under a level of attack that was miles beyond anything any other similarly situated nation endures is unquestionable.

Which is why criticism of the Israeli response following 7 October is, in many ways, so unjustifiable. There is simply no way, no way whatsoever, that anyone who has not experienced this type of attack can say that they would not respond exactly the same way.  That’s because they can’t even say that before October’s events they wouldn’t have reacted in much the same manner. Dublin, in the 1970’s, was hit with one day, one, where multiple bombs were planted in the city centre. It is still a source of anguish here (as it should be). Imagine, for one second, if instead of one day Ireland had faced 24 years of multiple explosions raining down on it from across the border.  Then, after trying to defend against this outrage, on a single day 5,000 more such bombs were shipped across the line, while terrorists raided Dundalk, Drogheda and Carrick-on-Shannon, killing, raping, maiming, snatching up hundreds of hostages and then racing back across the border to thumb their noses at you.  If you had the capacity to respond – wouldn’t you? And if you expected someone else not to respond – would that expectation be based on reality – or on something a bit more biased?

Like, for instance, they’re Jews and they kind of asked for this.

Of course, that would never be behind such a sentiment.

No way – you would never expect someone to put up with more than you ever would just because of their – ummm – “Semitic heritage”.

Would never even enter your mind.

“WINK”

2.    2. You willfully ignore the opinions of others despite the fact that you would ordinarily readily accept them.

In my opinion the fate of the people of Gaza is down to the tactics, policies and actions of its rulers – Hamas. While the actions of the Israeli forces deployed in Gaza are terrible – there is a general reluctance to acknowledge that this is not a war of their making – nor is it a type of war of their making. However, rather than taking the time to understand the actual history of the Hamas government in Gaza people are simply defaulting to labeling every Israeli activity as a “war crime”. But when forced to fight this type of battle the resulting carnage – however terrible – is not a war “crime” – it is simply “war”.  That is what we are confronted with in Gaza – a war – and, to our collective horror we are seeing just how bad that is.  But its nature and character are not dictated by Israel but by Hamas.  It is Hamas who has turned Gaza, initially the site of a hoped-for Palestinian homeland – into an oversized, tunnel ridden, heavily armed military encampment.  It is Hamas who have turned “civilian” sites (hospitals, schools, entire apartment complexes) into virtual building sized booby traps. It is Hamas who have made every crevice of the territory they rule into a battlefield.

“Who the hell are you to tell us about the history of Hamas – you’re a nobody” you may say.  Yup.  I’m nobody and you would never be expected to listen to me.  If I were to say that Hamas is the reason Palestinians don’t already have a homeland, if I were to say that Hamas is the cause of civilian deaths in Gaza because they weaponize civilians and consider all Palestinians to be drafted into the battle against “the Jews”, if I were to say that the constant violence directed by Hamas against Israel is primarily based upon the goal of a Jewish genocide – you could ignore me.  I’m nobody.

But there are others who have espoused exactly the same opinions who Ireland most certainly does not treat as a nobody – unless and until their opinions become inconvenient. Bill Clinton, for example, is the subject of virtual meltdown every time he visits these shores.  Huge crowds greet his appearances, his role in the Irish peace process is constantly lauded, his efforts during that period have spawned innumerable books and even formed the basis for much of the sub-plot of “Derry Girls” – there’s even a statue of him in Ballybunion, where Clinton, at one time, played a round of what is alleged to have been “golf”.

So – what does this somebody have to say about Hamas? Well, he blames them for the fact that his Middle East peace effort ultimately failed. He considers them to have a genocidal approach to Israel and the Jews that make their home there. He points out that they are notorious for placing their own citizenry in harms way as a distinct military tactic.  But don’t take my word for it – here he is, as quoted in a Politico article when the topic of appeasing Hamas came up:

 "Depends on whether you care what happens to the Palestinians as opposed to the Hamas government and the people with guided missiles," the former president answered.

“They were human beings in Gaza,” the audience member said.

“Yes, they were,” Clinton said. “And Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel, they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools, in the highly populous areas, and they are smart.”

 The line prompted applause, and he continued: “They said they try to put the Israelis in a position of either not defending themselves or killing innocents. They’re good at it. They’re smart. They’ve been doing this a long time.”

“I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza,” Clinton said.

Oh – by the way – that article was published in 2016.  Hamas had been “doing this a long time” back then – they’ve been doing it even longer since.  Their strategy is to integrate the population into the terrorist infrastructure – thus making any retaliation subject to the claim of targeting innocents. Of course – it is no such thing – rather it is the act of putting innocents in the target that creates the situation we find ourselves in – and it is Hamas who put the pieces for this war in place.

So, what is to be done about this situation?  Most commentators agree (and history shows) that if you begin a war against Hamas and then leave Hamas in control at the end of that period – all you do is guarantee another war.  As cruel as this response has been it would be even crueler to end it in such a manner as to do nothing but ensure we end up right back here again anyway.  Yet, despite this difficult but seemingly unavoidable logic all one reads here is how Israel “needs to adhere to the “rules of warfare” (as if the battlefield is the equivalent of a game of Risk where you simply look on the back of the box for the rules), must accept a cease fire while the enemy continues to hold hostages, weapons, territory and power - and should allow unnamed “third parties” to act as peacekeepers when there is absolutely no peace to keep.

When Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama or whichever American president or notable shows up in Ireland he is grandly feted and the country virtually shuts down. They are accorded levels of respect and granted degrees of wisdom that – and as an American I can say this – probably extend well beyond what one should reasonably expect. That is – they are given these accolades in all areas except when it comes to Israel. Then they are merely seen as being manipulated by the puppet masters who represent certain unspecified “interests”.  Then they are gullible Yanks slave to the influence of parties with another (unnamed) agenda.

Interests?

Agendas?

Puppet masters?

You couldn’t be inferring that these might involve – oh, I don’t know – those infernal Jews?

Certainly not.  Shame on me for even bringing that up.

“WINK”

3.    3. You conveniently ignore the conduct of those that you would ordinarily condemn, simply because that conduct is targeted at the group for which you hold a prejudice.

Hamas, the aforementioned group that rules Gaza with an iron hand and makes its own citizens a part of their terrorist machinery – are – to put it mildly, not good guys.  Yet it seems to bring a tear to the eye of a huge portion of the Irish population whenever Hamas causes a conflict and Israel retaliates.  Here is what Amnesty International said about Hamas' reaction the last time they instigated an Israeli response:

Many of these unlawful killings were publicly billed as attacks against people assisting Israel during the July and August 2014 conflict as part of an operation, codenamed “Strangling Necks”, to target “collaborators”. However, in reality, at least 16 of those executed had been in Hamas custody since before the conflict broke out. Many had been awaiting the outcome of their trials when they were taken away from prison and summarily executed.

Hamas forces also abducted, tortured or attacked members and supporters of Fatah, their main rival political organization within Gaza, including former members of the Palestinian Authority security forces. Not a single person has been held accountable for the crimes committed by Hamas forces against Palestinians during the 2014 conflict, indicating that these crimes were either ordered or condoned by the authorities.

“Instead of upholding justice, the Hamas authorities and leadership have continuously encouraged and facilitated these appalling crimes against powerless individuals. Their failure to even condemn the unlawful killings, abduction and torture of perceived suspects leaves them effectively with blood on their hands...”

So – while the vast majority of Irish roundly condemn Israeli actions against Hamas – Hamas seems to view it as an opportunity to clean house.  There is no way that any reasonable person should be treating anything associated with Hamas as admirable or even worthy of sympathy.  Furthermore, and without unduly belaboring the point, this should extend to the outside operators who supply Hamas, mainly Iran and Qatar. Both of these countries could really care less about the plight of the Palestinians. What they are really doing is ensuring that the endless state of conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people continues.  So long as there is an Israeli (read “Jewish”) bad guy out there this can be used to create a convenient target or, yes, “scapegoat”, for the potentially troublesome citizenry of those countries.  Qatar is the master of this tactic – invest in a World Cup, funnel money to terrorists – anything to keep the general public from questioning why, in the 21^st century, it is ruled by a hereditary monarch holding near complete power.  In Iran there is even more reason to fulminate conflict away from the homeland. Iranian dissenters have been taking to the streets in increasing numbers and the best-known of them, Narges Mohammadi, was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work on behalf of women’s, and more generally, human, rights in Iran. It would have been interesting to hear her Nobel lecture, but that couldn’t happen because she is in an Iranian prison. These are the sorts of people that align themselves against Israel.

And make no mistake about it – when I say they align against Israel I mean they target Jews specifically.  There is no distinction made between Israel as a country and its citizenry.  There are no Israeli civilians – they are all Jews, and all Jews are enemies as far as Hamas and Israel’s Arab enemies are concerned. The phrase “from the river to the sea” sounds innocuous but what it derives from is an unambiguous message of hate. It describes the goal of pushing all Israeli Jews from the Jordan river into the Mediterranean Sea. It posits a genocide. Take a look at this quote from a book outlining the role of the United Nations in the Middle East:

With the UN patrols gone the Egyptian and Israeli soldiers faced each other with no buffer in between, while the government controlled radios in Cairo and other Arab capitals blared martial music and slogans like “Death to the Jews of Israel, drive them into the sea”.

That’s actually from a children’s book – published in 1968, more than a half century ago. Nothing seems to ever change. When uninformed people chant “Intifada” or “From the River to the Sea” – they aren’t expressing solidarity with an oppressed people – they are (hopefully unknowingly) advocating the extermination of Jews.

There is no way that most Irish people would associate themselves with regimes that routinely enslave people, murder dissidents, abuse women and advocate genocide. But that is what is being done in the most matter-of-fact way all the time when common cause is found with Hamas and its allies.  Why is that?

Well – it can’t be anything to do with the fact that we are talking about Israel, a country full of…

C’mon you know what I mean…

Orange groves?

Nope.

Winners of the Eurovision contest?

Only one of those – c’mon now, what is Israel known for?

Surely you can’t be referring to people of the Jewish faith?

Well, yes.

Let me assure you – in its support for the Palestinian cause the handwringing denizens of Ireland have never, sir, never – even considered the fact that there are a large number of Jews in Israel to be relevant.

Certainly not…

“WINK”

4.    4. You routinely engage in expressions of false equivalence.

Let me be clear about something from the outset of this section. I do not consider the current government in Israel to be even remotely blameless for the mess that currently exists in the region. One can only hope, and it appears that this day is arriving soon, that the people of Israel hold Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for spending far more time over the past decade worrying about his personal legal defense than about the defense of his own country.  I think there is ample evidence being accumulated that shows the right-wing interests in Israeli politics felt the continued presence of Hamas in Gaza actually helped them – and so endeavoured to keep them around on the assumption that they could be “controlled”.  Well, how’s that working out for ya?

But there is still an enormous difference between the Israeli government and the forces arrayed on behalf of Hamas.  For one, there is the ability to criticize the Israeli government – as I just did and as millions of Israeli Jews and non-Israeli Jews are doing. If the same thing were to be done by an opponent of Hamas in Gaza – they’d be shot.  That’s a fairly trustworthy sign that attempting to equate the two regimes is an exercise in false equivalence. 

Why then do so many people do it?  Anti-semitism is an easy avenue to follow – and I think its (largely unacknowledged) existence provides a slippery slope for people who would otherwise not fall into this trap.  Because they have this built in prejudice it becomes easy to end up advocating for causes that are not worthy of their consideration. 

So do I think anyone who I suspect of holding such prejudices to be a “bad person”? Strangely – no, I do not.  Of course, I think anti-semitism is bad – but people come by their prejudices in many ways and sometimes may not even be aware they hold them.  I point them out here because I think people sometimes rely too much on the escape that a “WINK” seems to offer. So, I don’t think you are necessarily a bad person if you ignore the roots of your mistaken belief.

I just think you’re delusional.

I think – and this is the real point of my taking the time to write this – that you may very well be a good person – and you very clearly know the difference between good and bad.  What you don’t understand is the difference between bad and evil.

The United States’ approach to the siege in Waco Texas was bad policing, bad tactics and resulted in a bad outcome.

Timothy McVeigh pulling up with a half-ton of explosives to blow up a building full of children and clerical workers is evil.

The pursuit of a war in Iraq to effect regime change was a bad policy that gave rise to enormous suffering.

The circumstance that gave rise to that war was Al Qaeda commandeering four planes and flying them into multiple buildings as part of a sick semi-religious mission. That was evil.

The acts of the Israeli government in allowing Qatar to fund Hamas in an effort to maintain a semblance of government in Gaza while using the continued existence of Hamas to prop up its own legitimacy?  That was a foolish and bad undertaking, for which a price should be exacted.

Flying terrorists into a rock concert/rave and invading peaceful villages to murder, rape and kidnap in the name of killing Jews? – flat out evil.

We have to be able and unafraid to differentiate between these two types of events, those that are merely bad and those that represent a true evil. If we do not do so we will never overcome the single greatest threat that continuing to equate them creates – that of normalizing evil. Increasingly, behaviour that would have been seen, at one point in time, as well beyond the pale is now being treated as just the next inevitable step in the road to anarchy. Known evils – like incipient anti-semitism – make the trip down that road so much easier to take.  Hamas is an evil organization – and until that is recognised the people of the region – Palestinian and Israeli, Jew and gentile, will continue to suffer.  As difficult as it is to see happen it is better to have this done with now than to plaster over the wound, let Hamas grow back and then do all this over yet again.  Keeping the prejudices of anti-semitic tropes alive only creates more suffering – it doesn’t solve anything.

 So, there you go.  I’m certain that having written this entry I have brought light to the darkness and  straightened out this entire mess.  No one will ever make this same mistake again.

Problem solved.

“WINK”