Ah, It's Give Miami Day

You have loads of choices.  I encourage you to support as many as appeal to you.

Just now, I got a text message I was asked to communicate.  Here it is:

"I want to share something close to my heart (True):  'Musimelange,' an immersive, multi-sensory concert series featuring world class musicians. (True) These events beautifully blend live classical (almost always) music or jazz (It was flamenco once) with gastronomy in a stage-less environment, creating a true sense of belonging. (True)

"They are also preparing concerts designed especially for 'kids' to spark their love for music. (News to me)

"This week, we're part of 'Give Miami Day' to bring our 2025 season to life.  Your support will help us continue creating these magical (True) evenings and inspiring the next generation.  (If you have kids, this might be a great way to get them redirected from lesser forms of music)

"Donate here: https://www.givemiamiday.org/team/Musimelange (If you just go to www.givemiamiday, you'll find all of the choices, including this one.  Although if you go to this link, and you donate, you'll be offered a route to other organizations.  So you'll get to the same place either way.)

"Even a $25 donation will help us reach our goal -- The Miami Foundation will give us an additional $25 for each donation, up to $1000!  We need 40 donations to unlock the full $1000.  Every contribution makes a difference!

"Thank you! (And then, there are some musical notes and a heart icon)"

I don't donate to musimelange on Give Miami Day, because I give them a larger donation separately.  Although I don't want them to miss out on the extra $1000, so I'll contact them, and ask if they'd rather get my donation today.  I most certainly hope they get more than 40 donations.  Ideally, it would be closer to 100 or more.  It's a very unique experience, and they don't have a lot of patrons.  I have written about them several or more times, and they shouldn't be missed.  It's all the top shelf wine you can drink, all the gourmet food you can eat, a spectacular concert (I have never been to one that was not spectacular), all the dessert you want, experienced in an intimate setting, and in the company of delightful and interesting people.  They should charge more, but they don't.  It's been $95 per evening, or $300 for the four-evening series.  They start in January, and the last evening is in about April.

I encourage you to donate to musimelange, and any of the other organizations that appeal to you, and really, please, do yourselves a huge favor, and attend musimelange's evenings.  They are the most unique cultural experiences you'll ever have.

You Busy? No, Not Today. I'm Talking About Saturday, November 23. You Know, Somewhere Around, Let's Say, 8:00 PM.

 Orchestra Miami presents Puccini's Legacy - Saturday, Nov. 23rd at Scottish Rite (youtube.com)

This will be the second Puccini presentation Orchestra Miami has put on this month.  The first was at someone's house on NE 72nd St and 7th Avenue.  You can preview a short snippet of the upcoming show by using the link above.  It's possible that the arrow in the middle of the picture below will take you to the same place on youtube.

The fact is that it doesn't much matter what Orchestra Miami does.  Every bit of it is first class.  The Artistic Director, and conductress/Maestra is Elaine Rinaldi, who founded Orchestra Miami about 18 years ago.  She chooses the programs.  And the musicians and singers.  And conducts.  And sometimes, if she doesn't have to conduct, plays piano.  And for what it's worth is a delightful person.

This is an example of the e-mails Elaine sends out for these kinds of shows:

Hello, friends! I hope you all had a beautiful Veteran's Day and took a moment to remember and honor those ho have served, and continue to serve in the armed forces. It was so wonderful to see many of you at our Unknown Puccini concert last night, which featured the Studio Artists of the Florida Grand Opera. We had a great time learning more about Maestro Puccini and playing a round of "Name That Tune- Puccini Version"! See below for some pictures. We're less than 2 weeks away from our main event- Puccini's Legacy! Now is the perfect time to avoid the rush at the door and get your tickets. I'm so excited to introduce to you our spectacular guest artists for the Puccini's Legacy concert. Scroll down to meet our guests! I can't wait to see you all on the 23rd. Until then, stay well!! Warmly, Elaine Rinaldi Founder & Artistic Director Orchestra Miami

Elaine usually undercharges for these shows, but I must be making contact, because tickets for this one are more of a fair price.  Still on the low side for this kind of event, but more fair.

It's most likely you're not familiar with the Scottish Rite venue, but when I started going to Orchestra Miami shows, most of them were there.  It's an interesting historic building, very close to downtown Miami, and parking is free in the grassy lot, or you can pay on the street.

Frankly, I hope you show up.  You'll love it.  For all I know, you might come to love Orchestra Miami, too.  Elaine and the crew perform at various places from as far down as Pinecrest Gardens to as far up as the Miami Beach Bandshell.

Reporting Back

Zak (the baker) Stern hosted a very delightful and very well attended event Friday late afternoon, October 18.  Zak has become very well known in Dade County, because of his sourdough-based baked goods, and he's a BP resident!  He lives on 118th St, two houses from where Sylvia Linke used to live, and he bought Sylvia's house as well, as a place for his offspring to live.

Zak served a variety of edibles, and he also provided wine.  When the general mingling ended, Zak recapitulated the story of his life, which started in Kendall, and his adventures in places like Israel and France, and finally, how he decided to make a career in the food business.  Zak settled into a storefront/bakery in Wynwood, which is still his base, and he bakes for that outlet, a number of local restaurants, and several nearby Whole Foods stores.  My sense is that Zak, who is a very nice guy, is modest, and my best guess is that he's very successful.

When Zak finished his presentation, about himself and his evolution as a frankly master baker, he offered to take questions (a Q&A component).  One person asked him what local restaurants he himself likes.  His top choice was Walrus Rodeo on NE 2nd Ave at about 52nd St.  Since I had no other compelling food plans on Saturday, I decided to try them out.

Walrus Rodeo is a medium-sized restaurant, and it seemed almost full when my companion and I arrived.  The maitresse d' said there were no available tables, and we would have to wait about 1 1/4 hours for one.  I said we'd leave, and maybe come back another time -- I had not the slightest willingness to wait that long -- and the maitresse d' suddenly found us an open table.  (Hmm)

Our waiter was a little sketchy about the sizes of items on order, and he suggested we order about four items, even though he said inconsistently that items were somewhat small, but large enough to share.  Since neither of us was terribly hungry, we ordered a "za" (pizza, like Kanye West calls himself "Ye") and a kale salad.  Between those two dishes and the absence of ravenous appetites, what we ordered was in fact enough.

I would not return to Walrus Rodeo.  I'll set aside what felt like the manipulativeness of the seating.  The food was too expensive.  A relatively small six-slice pizza was $22, and it was not nearly as good as a much larger (about twice the size) $26 veggie with no cheese pizza from Tomato and Basil, which is much closer.  The salad ($17, which was much too much money) was fine, but neither the pizza choices nor the salad choices, nor anything else on the menu, allowed me to keep my preferred vegan restriction.  The restaurant was oddly much too noisy.  The ceiling appeared to have been covered with some contoured metal tiles, and the ceiling was high, so maybe it was that.  There was a tiny, but bizarre, 2% add-on to the bill ($.75) , and it was called a "Health Care Service Charge."  I asked about it, and the waiter said he assumed it was the restaurant's attempt to recover the amount they spent for health care for employees.  Also, I'm not particular about water, so I asked for tap water.  There was an extra $1 charge for Vero water.  I'm happy for Zak if he likes eating there, but it was so trendy as to be annoying, way too expensive, way too noisy, and not as good as I can get elsewhere.

As I was leaving Friday evening's event, Ryan Huntington approached me to ask if he could talk to me about his campaign.  We agreed on Sunday morning at 11:00.  What was initially curious about Ryan's having approached me is that he has never approached me before (but clearly knows who I am), has never called me by name, has not (now twice) asked me to host one of his yard signs, even though it's inconceivable that Mac Kennedy has not mentioned this possible opportunity to Ryan (twice), and has not, for example, said that he heard about this blog, and my always ready willingness to have candidates be guest authors, so they can use the blog as part of their campaigns.  But I cheerfully agreed to meet Ryan (why he wanted to meet at the recreation center was curious and unexplained).

Ryan knocked on my door at about 10:00 Sunday morning.  This time, he addressed me by name ("Fred"), and told me he needed to cancel our meeting, because his wife wasn't feeling well.  He said he'd get back to me to reschedule.  It is now 6:30 Monday afternoon, and I never heard back from Ryan.  We had exchanged phone numbers, so all he had to do was call.  In fact, we could have had our conversation by phone, if his wife wasn't feeling well.  That does not appear to be what Ryan had in mind.  As it happens, I have one of Mac Kennedy's campaign signs, and a Harris/Walz sign, clearly visible in my swale.  Ryan didn't even ask if he could add his sign.  Neither did Dan Samaria, who had come by to drop off his campaign literature.

So that's my report.  I won't go back to Walrus Rodeo, and I'm not voting for any BP Commissioners.  Mac Kennedy will get the most votes, as he should, and I don't care who comes in second or third.  The only difference it might make is that Dan Samaria might use his time to argue with Mac, and Ryan might not do the same.  But it remains to be seen.  There might be three functional Commissioners, or there might be two.  I've spoken to Dan, but not to Ryan, and I can't be bothered to guess what either of them will do.  As it happens, Mac sent out an e-mail today, and he talked about what he considers to be the Commission's recent accomplishments, which he seems to say he powered.  If that's true, then he can create a functional majority after the next two years whether Dan gets a four year term or Ryan does.

A Problem With Democrats

Democrats don't have enough faith, or enough devotion.  They're Democrats -- they'll tell you that -- but they often lack tenacious commitment, especially to other Democrats.

In recent years, take, for example, the matter of Al Franken, who was a Senator from Minnesota for a time.  But a photograph surfaced showing Franken, who had been a comedian before he went into politics, pretending to reach for the breasts of a woman sleeping on a military airplane.  Franken had been a surprisingly (considering that his former career was as a comedian) wonderful Senator.  He was uniquely smart, and perhaps thanks to his former career in entertainment, he was very good at expressing himself, sometimes particularly in light-hearted ways that almost masked the seriousness of the matter at hand.

But when that photograph surfaced, Democrats urged him to resign, which he did.  He hadn't touched the sleeping woman, or done anything to her, but he was comedically non-serious in a way that his colleagues felt was unbecoming his office.  They didn't argue in favor of his value to the Senate, or to point out that he hadn't done anything to the woman in the photograph.  And they certainly didn't pretend he didn't do what the photograph showed him pretending to do.  They jettisoned, or abandoned, him.  Because he betrayed their idea of proper enough decorum.

Or take the matter of Bob Menendez, a Senator from NJ.  He was found with unexplained money and specie, which he shouldn't have had, and which it appeared he had gotten from Egyptian oligarchs.  His colleagues have leaned, and continue to lean, heavily on him to resign.  The "optics" are very bad, and there's every indication he accepted bribes.  His Democratic colleagues would have nothing to do with apparent behavior like that, and he, too, has been fighting off being pushed out by his own party.

Or think of Tulsi Gabbard, or Kyrsten Sinema, or Joe Manchin.  They were all reliable Democratic votes, but they were felt not to have upheld the Democratic agenda.  Gabbard and Sinema are out -- Sinema having changed parties (again) -- and Manchin is not running for re-election.

Much more recently, consider Joe Biden.  One bad debate, and Democrats quickly got all over him to abandon his re-election bid.

You don't generally find problems like that with Republicans.  They are mostly unwaveringly committed to their party, and if any one flinches, he or she gets extruded.  Republicans don't seem to care what their agenda or platform is, or who represents it, or how.  They are stalwart in standing alongside even the most absurd, ridiculous, or self-contradictory members of their party.  They will support even convicted felons in their party.  If anyone declares him- or herself Republican, a large number of other Republicans will have his or her back, no matter what.

It must be a great comfort for Republicans to know they can do whatever they want, and they'll get support.  Democrats don't have that advantage.  They have to behave themselves, honor the Constitution, and put country before party.  Their colleagues are rigorous in demanding all that, and they brook no lapses.

Yes They Do.

The comment made by Tim Walz was that JD Vance's theory about abortion is "two wrongs don't make a right."  Vance had reportedly never before met Walz, but apparently felt free to call him "Tim" -- Walz is a Governor, of which there are 50, and Vance is a Senator, of which there are 100, so if you think the office of Governor is a higher office, I agree with you, making it either simply disrespectful or cocky to call a Governor you don't know by his first name when you're meeting him in person, and you haven't been offered permission.   Regarding the "two wrongs don't make a right" crack, I was a child once, too, but not lately.  But Vance not only didn't confirm that this is his philosophy, but more importantly, he didn't explain it.  And it's worth considering whether Vance, even if his philosophizing is at the immature level of a child, is right.

Walz offered some examples of recent situations in which abortion was withheld.  One of them was of a pregnant adult woman who experienced pregnancy-related problems that could have been life-threatening, but instead turned out to damage her reproductive capacity so that it appears she is unlikely to be able to have children.  Since Vance has made repeatedly publicly clear that in his opinion, there should be more children in this country, and they should be born of American citizen parents, and not welcomed as immigrants, Vance himself would presumably count as a "wrong" that a woman of child-bearing age, who wants children, either dies or can no longer have them, because she didn't get an abortion.  (In very recent examples Walz did not raise, two women actually did die of pregnancy complications because the pregnancies were not terminated when the pregnant women were in medical danger.)

What happens to this arithmetic if we consider, for purpose of imagining, that abortion is "wrong?"  It then becomes the second "wrong."  But it restores women of child-bearing age to an ability to live, and care for their other children, and to have more children, which Vance favors.  So if becoming medically damaged or infertile, or dying, is "wrong," then the second "wrong" -- abortion, makes the situation "right."  It salvages "right" from "wrong."

Another situation Walz mentioned was about a 12 year old girl who was not only raped, but impregnated, by her step-father.  It is most likely that everyone would agree that no one, and certainly not 12 year olds, should be raped.  That, I assume, is what Vance might agree was "wrong."  It's possible that the 12 year old would not have gotten pregnant, but she did.  Vance likes the idea of American children, but we'd have to ask him if he likes the idea -- considers it "right" -- that 12 year old American girls become impregnated, especially if they didn't want the sexual encounter.  I'm very tempted to think that even Vance would find something at least partially "wrong" with a situation like that.

But again, suppose we imagine abortion to be "wrong."  If that raped-by-her-stepfather 12 year old now pregnant girl gets an abortion, so she's no longer 12 years old and pregnant, and can live a vastly more normal life, and perhaps her rapist step-father gets convicted and incarcerated, don't those two "wrongs" combine to make a "right?"  Doesn't the first "wrong" get corrected or eliminated by the second "wrong?"

It was Walz who said Vance thinks "two wrongs don't make a right" (is Vance really an adult?), but Vance didn't disagree.  It was a debate stage.  Both of them were there together, listening to each other.  Vance had every opportunity to correct Walz if he thought Walz misquoted or misunderstood him.  I think we have no choice but to assume Vance said and meant what Walz quoted him as having said.

If that's the case, and again, we don't have a basis to find a way out for Vance, then Vance appears to have been wrong: two "wrongs" really do make a right."  They make things right.  Unfortunately, listening to these examples did not lead Vance to interject that those were unusual cases in which abortion would, in fact, have been the "right" thing.  He's a very stubborn boy.  And perhaps to make matters worse, Vance and his ilk have so terrorized the medical community that they are now afraid to make these clinical decisions, for fear of being punished.  So even if Vance now said these were terrible and exceptional situations, and abortion should have happened, his opinion today isn't going to help dead pregnant women (with dead fetuses), women who can consequently no longer have children, and 12 year old mothers.

We Should Be More Sporting About This. It's Too Easy Just to Declare Myself Patently Right.

There is, of course, no such thing as "god," but considering all the boosterism, it seems unfairly unceremonious to dismiss this matter without at least playing at it.

GOP Congressman's Prayer "Should Be Offensive To Every Christian" (msn.com)

Frankly, there appears to be nothing to recommend Clay Higgins to anyone in any way.  Whether Mike Johnson considers himself an exception, or he was just lying, is not determinable.  Higgins is, and always has been, a nasty character.  He can't hold jobs, because he's intolerable, and he has no respect for anyone.

So, when Higgins got caught making his most recent hostile and destructive wisecrack (referred to as a "rant") on what Brian Cohen calls nuTwitter, at the expense, of course, of other people, he sort of panicked, in his pathetic way.  According to the report, Higgins sequestered himself to a corner of the House of Representatives (Louisiana; don't even ask me how such a thing could happen) to "pray" about what to do. 

It's unclear and unspecified to what Higgins prayed, but the result was that he decided to remove the nuTwitter twit, hosted by the nuTwitter twat.

And let's be clear here.  Higgins did not apologize to anyone, nor did he say he had come to realize he was wrong.  His big gesture was just to remove the twit.  In fact, if there was any way to add insult to injury, Higgins said he was right about what he decided should not be public.

And Johnson?  He accepted the intervention of prayer, and he described Higgins as a "dear friend and colleague [from Louisiana]," and he further described Higgins as "frank," "outspoken," and "very principled."

But here's the problem.  Or, as Shakespeare said, the rub.  If someone is acceptable as a "dear friend," is "very principled," and is reachable by prayer to some sort of hyper ethical almighty, why is he using "social" media to spew that kind of shit in the first place?  I am, of course, most prominently considering that he himself is a liar and full of shit, but if I don't do that, then it's a real head-scratcher.

Why would "god" let the faithful behave that way?  Or why wouldn't "god" take the same position Mike Johnson took, and reassure the supplicant that he is a good person, worthy of being someone's "dear friend," "very principled," and very simply expressing sentiments it is his every right, and perhaps even obligation, to express?  After all, if Haitians are horrible people who steal and eat their neighbors' pets, and ought to go back to Haiti, why shouldn't Higgins freely say so, and why shouldn't "god" frankly pat him on the back for his courage and efforts to protect, you know, real Americans?

Unless, I don't know, there's actually no such thing as "god," and all of this was a scam perpetrated on suckers willing to go along with it.  (You can't unread what people read, and since Higgins strategically didn't recant, well...)  I'd include Mike Johnson in that latter group, but I don't think he's one bit better.  Christians have no idea how many things "Should Be Offensive to Every Christian."

"More"

The watchword of addicts is "more."  I've probably spoken before about a friend of mine who has a very remote history of substance abuse.  My friend has been abstinent, and going faithfully and weekly to AA meetings, for 41 years. 

Generally, when we think of addicts, we think of one or another consumable substance (alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc).  Having/getting "more" means using "more."  But there's another thing to which people become addicted in precisely the same way, except they acquire "more," even though they have no use for it.  Those people are addicted to money.  The people with the most money don't need it, can't use it, and frankly don't even want it.  They're just addicted to getting it, and reminding themselves of how much of it is in their control.

The vast, vast, vast majority of people who get money are not counterfeiters: they don't create their own money.  The money they get they take from everyone else, and part of the frenzy is that they ignore what becomes of the people whose money they take, and how those people manage without the money from which they've been separated, simply so that someone with no use for it can claim it for him- or herself.

Warren Buffett, who is one of the people with way too much money (especially considering that he has and has always had a modest lifestyle), is famous for, among other things, essentially complaining that his secretary, Debbie, is in a higher tax bracket than he is.  He recognizes what's wrong with the tax code.  But he can't bring himself simply to pay a higher tax, or take fewer deductions.  I saw, but didn't bother to read, a recent article about him in which he identified a great new investment which had the distinction of not being taxable.  As I said, he's like any other addict, except he can't consume or otherwise use the thing to which he's addicted.  And he's said he just likes making money.  (We're talking here about someone with hundreds of billions of dollars.  And that person wants more, which is going to come directly or indirectly from other people, and disadvantage them?  Buffett has also said that the best way to make money is to have a monopoly.  He likes shooting fish in a barrel.)

Well, other people have an opinion about people who are addicted to money.  Whether they resent it, or it was their money the obscenely rich now have, or they're victims of "greedflation," or even if they're jealous, they have an opinion.

First of all, this chart is about "billionaires."  It's hard to imagine the people surveyed wouldn't feel the same way about people with hundreds of millions, or tens of millions, of dollars.  Especially considering that the dynamic is the same.

Second, we're talking about everyone.  Even more than half of Republicans, who tend to be more accepting of people with way too much money, think billionaires should pay a higher tax.  Over 2/3 of Independents and all likely voters surveyed feel that way, and over 4/5 of Democrats feel that way.

Data For Progress is described as left-leaning, and their "538 Rating" is said to be 2.6.  The highest rated polling organizations get a "538 Rating" of 3.0, and the lowest get a rating of 0.5.  So 2.6 has reliability to it, mildly exaggerated, presumably, by its left slant.  So even if these responses were discounted a little, and if the discount meant that not quite 53% of Republicans think billionaires should pay a higher tax, still, overall, most Americans do think that.

And whether they think it or they don't, what, really, does anyone want with that much money, taken from everyone else, many of whom live hand to mouth?  I saw a statistic not long ago about the surprisingly high proportion of Americans who could not meet a sudden need for $400, and a similar statistic about how many Americans have $1000 or less in savings.

A few weeks or so ago, I got a cold call from some investment company in Texas, and they were offering to produce a significant return on money invested with them, and loaned to private individuals.  They said they carefully screen the prospective borrowers, and the investment company is so careful about screening that only 6% of borrowers are late making payments.  The cold caller also said that most borrowers borrow $600-$1000.  I thought this sounded terrible: people were screened out (not approved for loans), those who were approved were so marginal that all they needed was $600-$1000, and still, 6% of them couldn't repay on time?  So I asked how much interest the borrowers were charged.  It depended on the loan and the borrower, but it was either 20% or 30%.  I would have thought that as a technical and legal matter, this was usury, but whether it was or it wasn't, there was no way I was going to be part of a system that extracted that kind of interest from people who were already that desperate.  So I refused.  I loan money to people -- mostly friends -- and I don't charge them any interest.  I told this company that if they charged the borrowers much less interest, and gave me 3-4%, I'd be happy.

But "we're all in this together," there's no reason to compromise other people, and no one needs to be a billionaire.  I don't know if there were any billionaires when Eisenhower (R) was president, but the highest tax rate during his administrations was in the 90%s.  Hardly anyone paid that level of tax, because of deductions.  I was a kid then, my parents had five children, my father worked, my mother didn't, and we got along fine.

Yeah, billionaires, the vast majority of whom are billionaires because they have dizzyingly high incomes, should pay much more tax.  These are people who live in this country because they choose to.  They should care about its welfare, and about the welfare of their countrymen.

I Don't Think I Agree

It is frequently enough said, and said even now, that debates don't affect political races.  The common reference now is regarding the election of the president.  But it seems to me that debates very much do, or can, change elections.

It was somewhat before my time, per se (in 1954, when I was too young to be aware of such things), that Joseph Welch, during Senate interrogations, had the following interaction with the infamous Joe McCarthy: "Until this moment, Senator, I think that I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.  Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting with what looks to be a brilliant career with us...Little did I dream that you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad.  It is true he is still with [Welch's Boston law firm] Hale and Dorr.  It is true he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr.  It is, I regret to say, equally true that he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you.  If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so.  I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."  This was not a presidential debate, but it was a formal Senate hearing, with witnesses like Welch.  McCarthy pressed on against Fisher, and this led Welch to say "Senator, may we not drop this?  We know he belonged to the Lawyers' Guild...Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.  You've done enough.  Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you left no sense of decency?"  McCarthy tried to ask Fisher another question, and Welch intervened.  The public who were present broke into applause, and Welch's TV performance turned the tide of the public and press overnight.  McCarthy was later censured by the Senate for bringing dishonor and disrepute onto the body.  The two sentences I have highlighted are widely considered to have changed the course of at least part of the rabid anti-Communist crusade at the time.  And they were very consequential to McCarthy.  This was not a debate in the usual sense, and certainly not a presidential debate, but it was a formal hearing, and its effect was dramatic.

In 1960, then VP Richard Nixon (VP for a very popular president for eight years) debated JFK, then a Senator.  That presidential debate was televised as well.  It has widely been considered that the debate, at least as much as anything else, got JFK elected.  The matter was style.  Nixon was obviously uncomfortable, stiff, and prone to perspiring, and Kennedy connected in a far more effective way with the public, even if they were watching on TV.  He seemed encouraging and trustworthy in ways that "Tricky Dick" did not.

Those interactions were a long time ago, but many more people will remember the debate between Carter, the incumbent, and Reagan.  Setting aside Reagan's slick delivery style (he was, after all, an actor), many people will remember his "there you go again" wisecrack.  Carter was not assertive, and most certainly not cocky, and the fact that Reagan would diminish the president of the United States this way, in public, added to his aura.  He bought himself a lot of votes with that crack.

Many years later, in 2020, Biden debated Trump, the incumbent, also on TV.  Biden called Trump a "clown," twice, and told him to "shut up" once.  And Biden won the election.  In my opinion, Biden's ability and willingness to rub Trump's nose in excrement this way bought him votes, just as Reagan bought himself votes by showing disrespect for the incumbent president.  And lest anyone think that Trump couldn't have won anyway, because he was, in fact, such a patent fool and a loser, it should not be forgotten that he got more votes in '20, after he proved himself to be a totally self-focused idiot and an inveterate liar, than he did in '16, when he just gave the public reason to have strong suspicions that he was self-focused, an idiot, and a liar.

And then, there was the '24 debate between Biden and Trump.  That debate pulled away many of Biden's supporters, and knocked him out of the race.  You couldn't in any way say that debate had no consequences.

As for Trump's debate against Harris, at least 2/3 of people surveyed say Harris "won" the debate.  And she made some mistakes, and could have done better.  But that debate assured many thus far "undecideds," and has certainly bought her considerable support.  For what it's worth, several people who are very popular in the entertainment industry suddenly declared their support for Harris, and have been breathtakingly effective at encouraging their fans to register to vote.

It might be true that presidential, or primary, debates often aren't dramatically consequential.  But sometimes, they most definitely are.

Who Ever Thought I Would Quote Spiro Agnew?

Trump’s dour negativity contrasted with Harris’s optimism about America | Robert Reich | The Guardian

I really never knew what Agnew meant when he whined about "nattering nabobs of negativism."  Clearly, at the time, he thought he was talking about people like...me.  Although if you're the VP for Richard Nixon, do you really think someone like...me...is a nattering nabob of negativism?

Agnew, according to Wikipedia, was a champion of civil rights, and in his term in office in Maryland was a "moderately progressive administration," with all the agenda of a moderately progressive administration.  Agnew died in 1996.  I wonder if, as a Republican (assuming he wouldn't be dismissed as a RINO), he wouldn't feel awash in nattering nabobs of negativism in his own party today.  He couldn't fight his way out of Florida.

And he very much didn't approve of violence: "we have a new breed of self-appointed vigilantes arising -- the counterdemonstrators -- taking the law into their own hands because officials fail to call law enforcement authorities."  What would Agnew have thought if the officials themselves actually provoked the counterdemonstrators into becoming self-appointed vigilantes?  Had he been Trump's VP on and before 1/6/21, would he have been stern with the soon outgoing president?

Wikipedia also quotes Agnew as having criticized "the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history" and "supercilious sophisticates."  It seems he had a flair for alliteration.  But then, it mentions his "slashing invective."  Donnie probably doesn't know any of the words Agnew used, but it's certainly true that he, too, is deeply fond of slashing invective, used against anyone, even in his own Party.

But then, in 1972 and 1973, it turned out that an investigation into corruption in Baltimore County uncovered that although Agnew had been receiving illegal kickbacks in the middle 1960s, which were no longer at issue because of the statute of limitations, he was still receiving them as VP.  So, you know, tax fraud and corruption, explained away as a, you know, campaign contribution, and rejected as "damned lies."  (Agnew had already expressed his opinion about the news media.  Very typical hard right views.)

But Agnew was checkmated, and he agreed to a plea bargain in exchange for no incarceration.  He had first tried arguing that a sitting VP could not be indicted (how prescient), but that flailing argument didn't get any traction.

So, he ended his career in politics, moved to his summer home in Ocean City, but had to borrow what was then $200K from his friend, Frank Sinatra, because he was drowning in debt.  And the Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred him, commenting that he was "morally obtuse."  (All that clever alliterative nonsense, and the guy turns out to be an idiot.)

In 1976, he published a novel (hmm), but got himself into some trouble due to references to "Jewish cabals and Zionist lobbies," which the protagonist (Agnew) said had a hold over American media.  On a book tour, Agnew addressed this, and reassured that it was true.  Although..."Agnew denied any antisemitism or bigotry: 'My contention is that the American news media...favors the Israeli position and does not in a balanced way present the other equities."  I can't imagine who could possibly have mistaken that for antisemitism or bigotry.

By 1977, Agnew had made enough money to move to California, pay Sinatra back, but was still whining about having been "bled dry."  So, he...reached out to a Saudi Crown Prince for an interest-free loan of $2M, to be deposited in a Swiss bank.  (Is this kind of thing genetic among Republicans?)  He was going to leave the principal there, and just use the interest.  And why did he want the money?  To "continue my effort to inform the American people of [Zionists']  control of the media and other influential sectors of American society."  No, it wasn't American Communists, or Haitian immigrants eating the pets of residents of Springfield, MO, but still...

In a 1980 memoir he called Go Quietly...Or Else, he continued to proclaim his innocence, but otherwise disappeared from view.

As a postscript regarding the illegal behavior that led him to resign from politics, a Maryland judge ordered him to repay the kickbacks, and interest, which he did.  Then, he argued that this repayment should be tax deductible.

And if you think I'm unfairly picking on Agnew for his outrageous behaviors, Wikipedia also says "Some recent historians have seen Agnew as important in the development of the 'New Right,' arguing that he should be honored alongside the acknowledged founding fathers of the movement such as Goldwater and Reagan...Agnew's fall shocked and saddened conservatives, but it did not inhibit the growth of the 'New Right'...Agnew helped recast Republicans as a Party of 'Middle Americans,' and, even in disgrace, reinforced the public's distrust of government"

Finally, the "might have been" offered about Agnew was "It is not a far stretch to imagine that if Agnew had contested corruption charges half as hard as Nixon denied culpability for Watergate -- as Goldwater and several other stalwart conservatives wanted him to -- [or half as hard as Donnie insists he was robbed], today we might be speaking of Agnew-Democrats and Agnewnomics, and deem Agnew the father of modern conservatism."

So I do quote Agnew.  And frankly, I agree with him about "nattering nabobs of negativism."  I just think he was missing one item: a mirror.

Perhaps I'm Just Not Man Enough.

Trump CRASHES AND BURNS at his OWN rally (youtube.com)

You already know about the 14 year old Georgia kid who wiped out two of his classmates and two teachers with an assault weapon he received as a present from his father.  They're both being indicted.

Maybe you care, and maybe you don't.  It's possible we have so overwhelmingly many of these mass shootings/murders in this country that you've sort of lost a sense of perspective about them.  Donnie Trump and JD Vance haven't lost perspective.

Donnie says he's surprised to see this kind of thing, and surprised to see it here.  Although it's unclear why he's surprised, at about 2:49, he gives you perspective: "you have to get over it."

I've been a psychiatrist for a long time, and I will tell you that the thing people never get over more than anything else is the death of their own offspring.  It makes you wonder about someone whose perspective is "you have to get over it."  Should we assume Donnie would get over the death of his own offspring, because at some level, frankly, he doesn't care about them, or is he giving "you" advice he himself would be unable to take?  I guess he would give the same advice to the families of the two teachers who aren't coming home: "you have to get over it."

And then, there's JD Vance.  At about 3:34, he says he "[doesn't] like this," he "[doesn't] like to admit this," and he "[doesn't] like to admit this is a fact of life."  He doesn't make clear what he thinks is a "fact of life."  That everyone will die?  Yes, that's a "fact of life."  That two 14 year old kids who went to school, and two teachers who went to teach them, aren't coming home, because some 14 year old kid whose dad gave him an assault weapon decided to go on a murder rampage?  No, that doesn't really count as a "fact of life" in the way we feel we have to accept it.  Vehicular deaths?  Cancer?  Horrible, everyone hates it, but yeah, "fact of life."  Getting gunned down by some early teen whose father has the world's worst judgment?  No.

Although Vance did go on to clarify what he doesn't like, and what he doesn't like to admit.  (No, it was not that a 14 year old with a tragically disturbed father assassinated four people at school.  That wasn't what JD didn't like, and didn't like to admit.)  JD doesn't like the "fact of life" that we're going to have to harden the schools, presumably with more armed people.  If you think this is a sick vicious circle, you're not going to get any argument from me.

There's something very wrong with this country, and with many of the people who live here.  Way too many of us are on a murder rampage, and someone thinks this is sort of OK.  Presumably, they would like to watch gladiators, or lions fighting people, or dog fights, or cock fights, too.  They just have a disturbing and pathological tolerance for violence and destruction.

Yes, of course I know they think there's a "Second Amendment," and that this somehow gives civilians the right to carry guns.  It doesn't.  The "Second Amendment," which has been informally and indirectly repealed, has nothing to do with guns.  It's about militias.  There are a lot of problems regarding militias, especially in modern times, but if you want to know about them, read Federalist Paper #29.  Fourteen year olds don't qualify.  But more important, militias have a purpose.  That purpose (there are actually two of them) is to protect the states from federal over-reach and domination, and to join the Union if it's attacked from abroad.  Either purpose requires militias to be armed as their enemies are armed.  But the meaningful arms required to do that are already illegal ("infringed") for civilian possession.  The fact is that militias have no role, and neither does the "Second Amendment."

Maybe if someone assassinates Donnie's children, he'll give us an object example of the process of getting over it.  And if someone assassinates JD's children, he can credibly advocate for more guns in and around schools.  No, of course that won't bring back his children, but he can show us how to man up.