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.

I Know What You're Asking Yourselves: Who Am I to Talk?

I've lived here 19 years.  I was a Commissioner.  Once.  And I would have had only a two year term, except we piggybacked ourselves onto the general election, so each of us got one extra year to synchronize us.  My three year term ended at the end of 2016, and I failed to get elected in two more attempts.  None of this is anything to write home about, at least not in itself, two dimensionally.  And if you accuse me of having stopped bothering to attend or monitor meetings, I won't argue with you.  You're right.

During those three measly years, we extensively renovated the log cabin, built the Administration building, did a tree-trimming project, and did some smaller projects which, to be honest, depended on the amazing good will and good heart of Roxy Ross.  We tried to step up the driveway and swale Ordinance, but we couldn't come to agreement.  We hired Sharon Ragoonan to replace Heidi Siegel.  We outsourced sanitation, because keeping it as an in-house program was an increasing mess and excessively expensive, even though we paid our employees less than poverty wage.  And we were careful to choose -- insistent upon -- an outsource contractor that would promise to hire every one of our guys at more than we were paying them.  Not one of them was interested.  Hmm.

And we have had a succession of awful, useless, and destructive Commissions since I left office.  We've had bad mayor after bad mayor, Commissioners who had neither agenda nor interest, a series of terrible managers, and no Commission since the one of which I was a member has accomplished anything of any value to the Village.  (David Raymond will say we've gotten some of the drainage system cleaned, and I'm not sure he's entirely wrong about that, but we have no long term plan to keep them clean.  So we still get flooding, even if it's less in front of David's and Amy's house.)

We cared.  We wanted something.  We wanted a better Village.  And that was the point: it was about the Village, not about us.  In the eight years since I stopped being a Commissioner, and David Coviello moved away, and Roxy and Chuck Ross moved away, none of that has been true.  Between the angry power-grabbers and the me, me, me shows, the Village has gained nothing.

In my time and before, we used to begin every new Commission (every two years) with a "visioning retreat."  Not any more.  No one has vision, and no one wants to make any attempt to find common ground among Commissioners.

I regret that you don't want more.  House prices, and therefore property taxes, have gone up, and we have more to work with.  You/we could have a better Village.  This is our home.  It's where we live.  And rear our children.  And die at some point.  Unless you move away first.  But really, you could have more, a better neighborhood, and a better life.  You would just have to give a shit.  And it seems hardly anyone does.

Go take a walk.  Look at all those medians.  Really?  That's good enough for you?