War, What Is It Good For?

Many of us remember this rhetorical question from Edwin Starr’s 1970 protest song, War.  He answers his own question in the third line with, “Absolutely nothing, uhh.”  This song protested America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.  The lines “good God y’all” and “absolutely nothing” were ad-libs by Starr and not part of the original lyrics.  These are some of the most remembered ad-libs of all time.

That war was perhaps the first to be so widely covered in the news.  There was a seemingly endless barrage of war-related words, photos, and film.  It was certainly the first war I had any interest in as it was the one going on while my wallet held a draft card.  I was born just days after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, and lived through Korea as a child, but Vietnam was my personal sword of Damocles.  Now I was interested in politics and history.  Now it all had meaning.

Since Korea, the US has been involved in conflicts (read war) in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Persian Gulf, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Indian Ocean (Operation Ocean Shield), Libya, Uganda, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.  You may have seen some listed more than once because, contrary to popular belief, nobody ever wins or ends these things.  “Mission accomplished” is never a true statement.  We often have to go back to “accomplish” our mission again and again.

My point here is that, within my lifetime, my own country has been “involved” in a conflict somewhere on earth for most of that time. 

Beyond US involvement in some conflict, the world has been engaged in warlike activity non-stop since Ogg first picked up a stone and threw it at a nearby cave dweller.  With the advent of mass communications, we have all seen the horrors of such wars.  Those images assault our senses.  I am reminded of the character Alex from A Clockwork Orange and his comfort with violence as a way of being.  We eventually become more blasé than outraged.

We are currently being numbed by the visuals of the atrocities of Ukraine being wrought by Vladimir Putin.  The mere fact that a single individual can initiate a conflict so evil that tens of thousands of innocent civilians will die, is difficult to contemplate.  In war, civilians always die, it just seems that in this case, it is part of a strategy.  The civilian casualty was to be a tool of war to force submission.  So far, it has had the opposite effect.  It has steeled the efforts of the Ukrainians and observers in areas of the world where some semblance of a free press still exists.

We have no defense against a primary nuclear threat nation save economic sanctions, and our ability to supply ammunition, weapons, training, intelligence, and logistical support to Ukraine.  Europe is in an especially tenuous position as Russia is the source of much of its energy needs.  Oil, gas, and coal play a significant role in the leverage Putin has over much of the EU.

The ultimate outcome of this most recent display of one man’s greed and thirst for power is undecided.  What has been decided is that cities have been destroyed and tens of thousands of people have been slaughtered or made homeless to satisfy the wants and desires of a single individual.  Putin’s recent appointment of General Alexander Dvornikov, the so-called Butcher of Syria, to lead a new initiative on the Donbas region, speaks volumes as to his sadistic and callous nature.

General Alexander Dvornikov gets Hero of Russia Star from Putin

All war is evil and senseless.  The earth needs to stand still for a moment and reflect.  Perhaps Gort could be of assistance.  You remember Gort, the seven-foot-seven-inch robot from The Day the Earth Stood Still.  From that movie we have, "The universe grows smaller every day, and the threat of aggression by any group, anywhere, can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all, or no one is secure.  Now, this does not mean giving up any freedom except the freedom to act irresponsibly." – Klaatu.

Vlad (imir) the Putin and his predecessor, Vlad the Impaler share a common personality trait.  Both have used extremely cruel measures to inspire fear in those who got in their way.  There are conspiracy theorists who believe that they are one and the same person.  They claim Putin is immortal and thousands of years old.  There is even a series of 3 photos showing a soldier in 1920 and one in 1941 that bears a resemblance to the Vlad-Putin of today.  Who said this world couldn’t get any stranger?

Vladimir Putin will have to step up his game however if he wants to go down in history as one of the “best” at his profession of instigating human misery.  Joseph Stalin engineered a famine in eastern Ukraine in 1932-33 where 3.9 million died. 

Stalin Rule by Starvation

Stalin imposed collectivism to counter Ukrainian nationalism.  He replaced Ukraine’s small farms with state-run collectives to punish the independence-minded Ukrainians who threatened his authority.  The resultant famine was known as the Holodomor, which was a combination of Ukrainian words for starvation and the infliction of death.  Farmers died of starvation or were imprisoned for not meeting quotas.  With fewer farmers, the famine got worse.  Stalin then moved Russians to Ukraine as replacements.  The whole thing was a disaster of epic proportions.

Stalin’s efforts in Ukraine to eliminate their culture, stamp out their language, and force submission had the opposite effect.  Ukrainian resentment for their Russian overlords brought about a renewed sense of nationalism.  Perhaps that is some of what Vlad the Putin is seeing in the form of resistance from the Ukrainians who haven’t forgotten this previous oppression.

If history is to be the judge, Putin will certainly be labeled another in a long line of Russian despots.  Why he is idolized by Donald Trump and some in the GOP remains a puzzlement.  Where dictators prevail, corruption and abandonment of morality soon follow.  "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - English historian Lord Acton (1834–1902).

I will leave you with a few more quotes that deal with the futility of war.  We all know what it is good for.

“To devastate is easier and more spectacular than to create.” ― Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange

“You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one”

John Lennon - Imagine

WOKE, huh?

Is anyone else tired of hearing the word “woke” being hurled as an insult without context?  This would be where the listener is left to guess at the underlying objectionable behavior?  I hear the word being uttered by those who are clearly attempting to insult.  It seems to be a catch-all disparagement requiring little thought by the speaker, which, in most cases, would be beyond their ability.

Fox News wrote an article (yes, I read them too) that defined woke as anyone who is “alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice.”  This was reported as a shift from the previous definition of being “well-informed and up-to-date.”  They went on to explain that the changes were brought about by “AAVE” described as African American Vernacular English.  They attribute its origin to a 2008 rap song titled "Master Teacher" by Erykah Badu who repeatedly used the line “I stay woke.”  An even earlier reference and interesting use of the phrase was in a New York Times article, If You’re Woke, You Dig It, published May 20, 1962.  The link to that article is below.

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1962/05/20/140720532.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0&fbclid=IwAR2XBBJOcOinG5BO1boPNULmPRG36e_vzb1E8E5EABIc0vb_4rGqvYeGekE

The term woke became entwined with “cancel culture” in the minds of many conservatives.  While none of the assigned definitions of “woke” are derogatory, in the minds of those who use it as an insult it seems to be a reference to anyone who might be concerned with racial inequalities and injustices.  That inference is red meat to a racist and they get the not-so-inside meaning of the slander.

To me, those who use “woke” as an insult are just lazy.  If you object to something, just spell it out.  Come out of your racial closet and tell us where you truly stand.  Just make sure your sheets are cleaned and pressed.

[postscript]  The NYT article of May 20, 1962, that is linked is an interesting time capsule of that period.  That was 60 years ago. My 1962 was spent as a junior in a totally segregated Florida high school when Miami still had Colored and White water fountains and in many stores, they would have four bathrooms separating the sexes and races.  Are we “woke” yet?

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐫𝐚 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩

A Trump supporter friend recently recounted the appointment of Elon Musk to the board of Twitter following Musk’s investment in that company.  He expressed hope that Donald Trump would now regain his Twitter account access.  He questioned whether speech in America was “really free” or was to be controlled by the “Liberals and Dems.”  While I share his concern for free speech, I can’t say I miss the daily barrage of news media memes reposting Trump’s latest epithets of derision.

a damaged Iranian launch site after an explosion. Trump's message tweeted to Iran, "I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One."

I must admit that I knew that Trump’s Twitter account had been suspended indefinitely but, given that this happened amidst the chaos of January 6th, I hadn’t delved into the specifics.  I was somewhat surprised by the weak explanation from Twitter of the straw that broke the camel’s back.  Their reasoning was not that Trump had said something that specifically violated their rules but that his words were being interpreted by others in a specific way.  I then read the two tweets, issued in the days after January 6th, that pushed things over the limit.  In isolation, they were innocuous.  

[I won't post the original content for fear that I could land in Facebook Jail.]

They were, however, considering concurrent events, certainly incendiary.  This pointed out just how thin that tightrope of Free Speech must be.  This reminds me of the classic explanation where speech is not free, specifically, yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre where there was no fire.  In that example it was not the specific word that was the problem, it was the reaction that word would have on others that would unnecessarily put them at risk.

The word “fire” is not, in isolation, a bad word but in certain situations, it could cause injury or death.  In Trump’s case, what he said in his tweets was benign, but given the power of his office, the incendiary environment, and his specific target audience, it was viewed as a call to arms or violence.  In the wink, wink, nudge, nudge times of the QAnon era, free speech may have met its’ final hurdle or met its’ match.

We have always had some limits on free speech but are loathe to enforce those limits except in extraordinary times.  January 6, 2021, had to qualify as one of those times.  When I step on my social media soapbox, I reach maybe a few dozen people, the POTUS reaches millions.  My audience is somewhat restricted to folks I know or know of.  Most are rational folks, the rest of you know who you are.

With QAnon now in congress and in bed with a Justice of the Supreme Court, not to mention the Q t-shirt and red hat crowd of Neanderthals that have crawled out from under their rocks in the last decade, we have a new environment and test of our limits to free speech.  Drawing the line between tolerated and not-tolerated speech is a dangerous task.  It is always highly subjective.

In the case of one Donald J. Trump, this subject is somewhat ironic.  For a man who heaps praise on Vladimir Putin and Russia’s machismo form of government, he forgets that there is no free speech allowed in Russia.  “Free Speech” is only for those who have the reins of the government at that particular moment.  By January 8th when Trump’s Twitter account was suspended, to use a western movie analogy, Trump not only didn’t hold the reins of government, but he had also fallen beneath the wagon, had one hand on the rear axle, and was about to be deposited in the ruts of the dirt road below.

From Wikipedia:  “Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.”

I call special attention to the two items listed as, “speech integral to illegal conduct, and speech that incites imminent lawless action.”  I feel it was a real stretch by the “rules enforcement” department of Twitter to deem those two last tweets by DJT to fall within that definition.  But, when you take into account the previous 4+ years of tweets, his widely known public pronouncements of proven falsity (last Washington Post count total was 30,573), his position as the former POTUS, and the events he had already inspired on January 6th, I find fault with Twitter only in the “too little too late” category.

For those of you wondering what the included photo has to do with any of this topic, I will explain.  It was a classified intelligence photo that Trump tweeted from a highly classified U.S. reconnaissance satellite known as USA 224.  It was a "whoops-tweet" that revealed a great deal to our enemies.  For anyone other than the president of the US to have done this would have meant time in Leavenworth.  The photo shows a damaged Iranian launch site after an explosion.  Trump's message tweeted to Iran,  "I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One."  Nobody knows what the purpose of such a message was and why we needed to divulge top secrets to our enemies to get that message out.

"𝙎𝙝𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙛𝙛 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙤𝙤𝙡'𝙨 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙖 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙡𝙤𝙧𝙮." -- Bruce Lee

Cancel Culture

In an era of labeling others with names with negative connotations to simplify arguments and avoid debating an issue, the term Cancel Culture has been a common gauntlet thrown by the conservative right to wound the opposition.  This contemporary phrase is supposed to describe the indiscriminate ostracism of others for a transgression, real or perceived.  It has been most often used as a tool to level an otherwise unlevel playing field.  Boycotting a person or business by an aggrieved minority population was effective.

While the concept of “canceling” someone has been around for eons, it has only recently been used as a GOP whipping post.  They deride the “cancel culture” and use it as a means of denigrating those who use it as a tool.  The term “people who live in glass houses” comes to mind.  How often have you heard the right labeling someone “un-Christian” or “unpatriotic” to “cancel” that person without debating the true topic?  Let’s face it, both sides of the political spectrum use “canceling” as a tool, but the right has used its ambivalence to hypocrisy to declare it the exclusive domain of the left.

I will have to admit that some on the left side of the political equation have gone beyond rational thought by having sicked their ire on less important issues.  As a child, I watched as Pepé Le Pew pressed his amorous intentions on resistant females, but I doubt it warped my personality.

Millions of children, and a few adults, have enjoyed the series of Dr. Seuss's books but six titles were recently pulled from production due to insensitive depictions of Asian and Black characters.  Likewise, Disney’s Dumbo, Peter Pan, Swiss Family Robinson, and The Aristocats will be pulled as unsuitable for the under-7 crowd for perceived slights.  In Dumbo the singing crows were likened to minstrel performers.  I watched Dumbo as a child and I couldn't have told you what a minstrel was, these were just singing crows.

In other venues, perhaps it was time to retire brands like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben’s.  These brands and logos go back to the 19th century and did advance racial stereotypes.  On a more positive note, Nancy Green, Agnes Moody, Lillian Richard, Anna Robinson, Rosa Washington, Anna Short Harrington, Edith Wilson, Ethel Harper, Rosie Lee Moore Hall, and Aylene Lewis were hired as some of the first Black corporate spokespersons.  

On the flip side of the recent rebranding, descendants of models Lillian Richard and Anna Short Harrington had another thought.  Vera Harris of Richard’s family said "I wish we would take a breath and not just get rid of everything.  Because good or bad, it is our history."  Lillian Richard has a historical marker dedicated to her in Hawkins, Texas that is capitalizing on her fame as the “Pancake Capital of Texas.”

The cancel culture exists now and has been with us for a very long time.  It can be an important tool when needed but its' indiscriminate use should be avoided.  We have much to worry about in this world, we just need to focus on the most important ones.  Cancel, shame, boycott, or otherwise level the playing field when necessary but perhaps we should let a cartoon skunk flirt a little, within reason.  A quick note to Disney, maybe you could get Donald a pair of pants before he too becomes a pariah.

Perhaps a Little Perspective is in Order

While most sane individuals from the Americas or Europe will decry the imperialistic invasion of Ukraine by Russia’s Putin, perhaps a bit of historical perspective is in order.  By no means is this an attempt to justify Putin’s war crimes nor give him shelter for his desire to prohibit a free nation to choose its own destiny.  History tells us that we should proceed with caution.  This will, however, be an attempt to calm down the warmongers among us that advocate a more aggressive response from the US.

Biden                       Putin                       Zelenskyy

In the realm of international relations, there is an idea that most nations will consider any nearby encroachment by an adversary to be a hostile act that may warrant a preemptive act.  In October of 1962, when Russia moved missiles into communist Cuba, the US brought us to the brink of WWIII before Russia backed down and removed their missiles and IL Bombers.  That’s what most Americans remember.  Perhaps forgotten in the retelling is that Russia also felt threatened because we had already placed our intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) in Turkey and Italy.  For some perspective, the northern coast of Turkey is about 1,000 miles from Moscow.

Most would agree that Ukraine should have the ability to join the EU or NATO if they choose, but we also must see this from Russia’s point of view as the encroachment of an adversary.  If you believe in democracy and in a free nation’s right to choose their own destiny, the fears of a kleptocracy are hard to fathom.  Russia is today a capitalist nation with socialist needs being run by a dictator and a group of oligarchs (capitalists) who seek status and personal gain at the expense of the governed.  Most democracies see this as an abomination, but it is currently the Russian way of life.

If we jump into our DeLorean and set the dial for 1823, we will find our own President James Monroe espousing a policy whereby he held that any interference in the political affairs of any of the Americas (New World), by any nation of the Old World, would be considered a hostile act against the US.  This so-called Monroe Doctrine was US policy for most of the 19^th and 20^th centuries.  We would reciprocate and stay out of the affairs of Europe.  This policy would be reinterpreted and revised as necessary to suit our needs at the moment.

Now we return to the present in our Tesla Model Y luxury EV and we find that Russia has decided that Ukraine was headed to become a pro-western democracy, a member of the EU, and quite possibly destined to join NATO.  Was this potential “threat” of a pro-western democracy on its borders justification to invade that country?  Certainly not from our perspective, but Putin has declared it to be a threat to Russian security.  Would Putin have invaded Ukraine to reunite the former USSR as previously set as a goal by him, quite probably?  Had Trump been successful in destroying NATO, perhaps this invasion would have been avoided and Putin would have had an easier time just installing a new puppet government.  In any case, we are beyond that now.

Russia invaded, has committed war crimes by targeting civilians, and Putin’s people are suffering.  His propaganda machine will keep the Russians calm for now, but that may end when the coffins start returning from the front.  You can declare victory for a while but the body count will dictate domestic sentiment.  What can the local populace do to topple Putin’s ambitions, probably not much as he is well protected?  He needs to protect his oligarchs however because if they suffer too much, he may run out of food tasters.

So Now You Know

For those of you who supported Donald Trump and cheered his bromance with Vladimir Putin, perhaps now you can see the attraction.  Putin was first elected to office in 2000 and has been the de facto president since then.  To skirt the pesky limitations of their constitution, Dmitry Medvedev was allowed to take the title in name only for the required 4 years in 2008, while Putin still controlled things.  Putin again took office in 2012 and has been in office ever since.  While the Russian constitution restricts presidents to two terms, it was amended in 2020 to allow an exemption for Putin and “other living presidents.”  Trump would love such a deal and must be envious.

Anyone who challenges Putin and wants to legitimately run for that office faces a few problems.  Ivan Rybkin tried, and he mysteriously “disappeared” from the face of the earth in 2004.  

Alexander Litvinenko also challenged Putin and was forced to flee Russia and go to the UK.  In November of 2006, he fell ill, was hospitalized, and died 3 weeks later.  He had been poisoned with polonium-210, a favorite of the FSB.  [note, Putin was the director of the FSB in 1998]

Alexei Navalny also tried to challenge Putin.  On 20 August 2020, he too was poisoned, this time with a Novichok nerve agent.  He was hospitalized in serious condition, was flown to Berlin for treatment, and survived.  He flew back to Moscow and was jailed.  Trump would love to be Putin and have such control, but he wouldn’t understand the jailing of Navalny on charges of fraud related to money diverted from a charity, in this case, the Anti-Corruption Foundation.  As Trump knows, diverting money from a charity is just business as usual.

Yes, wannabe authoritarians admire those who have achieved that title.  Trump loves Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-un.  Even as Trump sits on the sidelines in his lair at Mar-a-Lago, he continues his admiration for Putin.  Where did this come from?  

Putin wanted Ukraine.  He installed a puppet government in the form of Viktor Yanukovych who served as president from 2010 to 2014.  Back in 2004, Paul Manafort was hired to overhaul Yanukovych’s image.  Manafort specialized in such image modification.  He had done so for Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Angolan guerilla leader Jonas Savimbi, and Zairian strongman Mobutu Sese Seko.  Yanukovych’s main rival was Viktor Yushchenko so, one month before the election, he was poisoned and nearly died.  Yanukovych, who trailed in the polls by double digits somehow won by three points.  The election was declared a fraud and a new election was held which, even with Manafort’s help, Yanukovych lost.  But, even with a loss to his credit, Manafort kept his Russian/Ukrainian consulting jobs for another decade.  

In 2010, Yanukovych got his second chance with Manafort’s help.  This time he pledged to abandon any bid for a NATO alliance and improve relations with Russia.  This made Putin happy.  Yanukovych won and became another corrupt Putin autocrat.  Who else would Trump hire but Manafort to help him with his presidential bid?  

Today, Ukraine has been invaded by a nuclear superpower.  Putin is fulfilling his personal dream of getting the band back together, in this case, the old USSR.  He controls the media inside Russia and has threatened to jail anyone who reports anything outside his own narrative.  He tells his people that he is merely trying to demilitarize Ukraine by using his military to invade a country that posed no threat.  That’s logic that no sane person could understand.  How do you use a military invasion to demilitarize an area?

A case could be made that Donald Trump is responsible for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  If Trump had been re-elected, Putin would have had an ally in the US, any hint of a Ukraine-NATO consideration would have been off the table, and Putin could have just chipped away at Ukraine and made another run at installing a new puppet government there.  He would have had no resistance from Trump who has been aligned with Putin ever since Paul Manafort worked as matchmaker.  But as we all know, Trump lost the election.  He was so bad at his day job that liberals, independents, and even some Republicans voted against him.  Putin lost his leverage over NATO and was forced to conduct an all-out invasion.

So, for those of you who supported or still support Donald Trump and his bid for an authoritarian overthrow of our democracy, look no further than Vladimir Putin for a glimpse of what that future could be.  No more elections, a press controlled by the state, and a country run explicitly to benefit a single individual.  The president and a few fat-cats would get fatter but, for the rest of us, to quote Seinfeld’s character the Soup Nazi, “no soup for you.”

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗔 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗿, 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆

In the never-ending struggle between good and evil, Hollywood tells us that good will usually triumph. In the real world, that isn’t always guaranteed. In our recent presidential face-off, good barely survived. Good and the 𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞-𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫-𝐨𝐟-𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐞 delivered an apparent crushing blow to the evil villain, Donald J. Trump. The previous mid-term elections also saw the forces of good (Democrats?) tip the scales of what we call Congress, with an apparent slight leaning in their direction. Democrats then wanted to break out the tambourines and declare this a kumbaya moment.

Not so fast Bunky. Without tossing out the filibuster rule we were on an overloaded tanker with a bent rudder, in rough seas, with engine trouble, a mutinous crew, and pirates on the horizon. Sorry for the Hollywood-like description. Toss in some climate-change-related natural disasters, a global pandemic, and a nuclear super-power amassing an army threatening an invasion, and now you have the making of a real blockbuster.

Will there be Donald J. Trump, the sequel? Will the forces of evil institute an election process that assures a directed outcome? Will the Democrats, Independents, and responsible Republicans see the threat to our democratic way of life in time? Will good again triumph over evil? All good questions without a clear answer.

Democrats, for their part, will have to take off their rose-colored glasses, put down their tambourines, take the bull by the tail and face the situation.  It's not a pretty sight.  Republicans will have to find the stomach to see that the emperor has no clothes and that their party will not long survive an association with Nazis, white supremacists, and the nut-job extremists in their midst. I have never had a problem discussing policy with responsible and sane Republicans, Libertarians, or Independents who can debate topics without relying on a priori assumptions.

Democrats need to realize that they are not negotiating from a position of power and that, while many items on their agenda may be worthy of future consideration, this is a time to address issues of more significant concern to a broader base. We are spending far too much time talking about the most vocal rabble within the opposition party when we should be pushing forward with more important matters.

It is time to talk loudly about the potential benefits of infrastructure improvements and other items in current pending legislation, the jobs that will create, and how life will be made better for all citizens. It is time to put pressure on passing a budget for 2022 and get the Appropriations Committee to finalize things and not just pass short-term spending bills. Let the public know why bridges are collapsing, roads are unimproved, rural Internet expansion is halted, and construction and manufacturing jobs are put on hold. Identify those responsible for the delays with petty infighting for pet projects. Public works projects across the nation are all being delayed by just a few people. State budgets are held up awaiting federal funding decisions.

Infrastructure Spending Please...

Point out people like Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama who is delaying these life-changing programs ($1.2 trillion) because he wants more money for the Pentagon. Yes, the same military budget that is currently at $777.7 billion, is larger than the combined military budgets of China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, and Japan, and was used by Donald J. Trump to fund his unfinished border wall.

If Democrats keep harping on Covid restrictions, investigations into January 6, climate change, and a list of progressive measures, they will lose the mid-terms and all hope of advancing any of these worthy items. Democrats can’t afford to abandon the middle of the country and continue to place all their eggs in the basket of the northeast and west coastal areas of America. When you do good, flaunt it. When you do bad, own it. I believe Joe Biden is a good person and an experienced politician, but we need someone who will be able to challenge the likes of a Ron DeSantis if he should win the Republican presidential nomination.

Democrats can't ignore red-state America
(note, some marked blue are really purple)

If Biden decides not to run in 2024, who do the Democrats have? Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Stacey Abrams, and Amy Klobuchar would be front-runners. While all are good people, and most could do the job, would they stand a chance of moving red-state America to trust a Democrat? I doubt it. Hillary Clinton had skills and experience but came with more baggage than an airline carousel. Chauvinistic it may be, but there are many in America, especially red-state America, not ready for a woman president. Regrettably, we may not be there yet. Mayor Pete, the only male on the list, would be one of the smartest and most capable entries, but his single carry-on won’t fit in the overhead bin for a large vocal group of Americans. Is there a shining star somewhere in the Democratic party that I missed that stands a chance? I can only hope.

One long-shot would be California Governor Gavin Newsom. Last September he defeated Trump, or at least he defeated a Trump-supported recall election effort with 64% of voters. Yes, they were California voters but it was still a positive sign. While none of this should matter, Newsom is male, straight, and handsome. Yes, a woman should eventually be president, and someone from the LGBTQ community should have that opportunity as well, but not in this current environment.  Not while we have some in our midst still fighting the Civil War and others wanting to resurrect the ideals of Nazi Germany.   Our advancement as a society is moving at a glacial pace and our planet is getting warmer.

You can believe that leprechauns ride unicorns across rainbows carrying bags of golden hen’s teeth, but most of us are still choking on the Big Lie and not ready for another fairy tale. This is not a movie set, it's the way things really work.

Leprechaun riding a Unicorn over a Rainbow,
a beer in one hand, and a bag of golden hen's teeth
in the other. 

Ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ ｌｅａｖｅｓ ａ ｌｏｔ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｉｍａｇｉｎａｔｉｏｎ－

Ｊｏｈｎ Ｌｅｎｎｏｎ．

Enough with all this serious stuff, just remember these 5 rules for life that I stole from someone cleverer than I:

1. 𝙈𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙣’𝙩 𝙗𝙪𝙮 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙧𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙈𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙤𝙣 𝙖 𝙗𝙞𝙠𝙚.

2. 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙢𝙮 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙙’𝙨 𝙣𝙖𝙢𝙚.

3. 𝙃𝙚𝙡𝙥 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣.

4. 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢.

5. 𝘼𝙡𝙘𝙤𝙝𝙤𝙡 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙫𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙨 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙣𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙠.