Gabagoul!

Sometimes I've heard arguments about Italian words. I've even been in a couple of debates myself. I have always maintained that many Italian-Americans ("I-As") and those who grow up with them have their own pronunciation of Italian words, mostly related to food, which they think, incorrectly, that Italians actually pronounce the same way. That's because most I-As really don't speak Italian, but are repeating the few words they learned which were passed down through the generations.

I'll start with the common usage of the G sound for the letter C (actually pronounced in Italian as "Kuh" except after i or e) and dropping the last vowel with certain words. To my little 25-to-Life Sentence (that is, my gf, who is not Italian but was raised in an Italian-Irish Catholic neighborhood) and a number of my friends who are second or third-generation I-As) "calamari" is pronounced "galaMAR." I don't speak Italian. Sometimes I can make out some words or a sentence from reference to other languages like French, English, etc., and sometimes we all just know a little Italian through experience - Ciao bella), but, I've been to Italy three times and never did I hear anyone pronounce Italian that way, even in restaurants. It is the age of the internet and I have now confirmed it as best I can. Calamari is pronounced in Italian as it is spelled - Kal-a-mar-ee (Italian vowel sounds do not vary much and i is always pronounced as long - ee).

The I-As different pronunciation is not random. It actually follows a rule. What is really happening is that the consonants are changed from unvoiced (that is, the voice box does not vibrate) to voiced (there is vibration). Try it by placing your finger across your voice box. Say "cuh" for C and "guh" for G. Your box vibrates a little for guh but not cuh (it moves a bit, but doesn't vibrate). Then drop the last vowel. Calamari becomes galamar.

Why do they do that? Most likely, whoever taught them Italian food words was a descendant of an immigrant from southwestern Italy, like Naples, Rome or Sicily. But, since the 1840s, the Italic states, that is, the states that spoke some form of what became, collectively, Italian, came together and formed the country of Italy. The language began to slowly solidify too, as these things tend to happen, with variation between different areas gradually dying out. In the electronic age - radio, tv and now the internet - it has become even more so one dialect for the whole language in the home country. But, for many reasons, probably mostly random, the northern dialect prevailed and that is what basically, everyone now speaks. So, in Italy, they do not pronounce calamari as galamar. They say calamari (Italian is mostly pronounced as spelled, unlike English and some other languages, with some exceptions - e.g. Apuglia is pronounced a-pool-ya not a-poog-leea). Btw, in English, we say squid, but no one really knows where that came from either (I've read speculation it is sailor lingo for squirt - because squids squirt ink).

In any event, the same novel I-As pronunciation goes for other words. You have probably heard on tv or in movies - gabagoul or -gool. Gabagoul is a food, kind of like prosciutto (which I-As pronounce - proshoot - also not the Italian pronunciation). But, gabagoul, has become something of a joke too (sort of an inside joke where the outsider doesn't know what the others or saying and laughing about). In Italy it is not gabagoul. You might not even understand how it was derived from the actual Italian word, unless you go back to the rule. Capicola (also coppa, capocolla and other variations) is how Italians spell it and say it in Italy, with variations elsewhere - but all somewhat the same. Again, for American-Italian, you change the unvoiced c to a voiced hard g and do it again with the middle consonant (i.e., also change cuh to guh), then drop the last vowel. For some reason I don't know, they also lengthen the last vowels. Capicola becomes gabagoul. Gabagoul happens to sound funny too.  In fact, capicola possibly is derived from describing the head and neck area of the pig the cut is taken from: capo - head, collo - neck. As with the etymology of many words, no one can be sure of this. But, there is no doubt about how actual Italians (that is, in Italy) pronounce capicola

There are other examples. I-As say Rigott    instead of ricotta, etc. They also say Moozarell or even moozadell for mozzarella (though I read on at least one blog that some Italians may still say mozzadell - maybe - in the old style - it wasn't particularly authoritative).

I'm not Italian and didn't do original research on it. You can find many webpages from Italians discussing the way Americans mispronounce Italian foods. But, they are somewhat wrong. Americans can say whatever they like and it's not wrong. This is how language works, by changing over time and place. Sometimes we call the result dialect, sometimes a different language. Sometimes we disagree on which it is, but it is a grey line. What's wrong, is when out of some nationalistic pride, they believe it is really Italian. BUT THEY DO. And they feel it passionately. It's one of the things I've grudgingly learned you can't have a conversation about without hurting feelings. Sometimes I argue myself with them, sometimes not so hard when I see it is so personal for them. Sometimes I say nothing. That happens more and more with me over many topics.

Another question quite important to I-As is whether that stuff you put on your pasta is "sauce" or "gravy." It turns out that, mostly in the northeast and Chicago, some I-As call it gravy, and everywhere else in America it is sauce. I have had a few discussions in my life with I-As who insisted that there was no such thing as gravy in Italian and no real Italians use that word. The truth is, no Italian uses "sauce." I-As use it. Italians say either "salsa" (like the Spanish) or "sugo" or whatever the type of sauce is - e.g., ragu or bolognese. When you use bolognese sauce, it is a ragu, although oddly, in Bologna, there is no such thing as spaghetti Bolognese, a dish popular all over the world by that name. And the Bolognese are really passionate about that.

So, some I-As are adamant that it is sauce, not gravy, because they say there is no word for gravy in Italy. They are wrong about that. First of all, words used in other languages are not made or used in some kind of reference to English, although the words may be related and one may derive one from the other. It is not as if they say salsa and are thinking - "meaning 'sauce' in English. They are just using a word they know in their language. I know that sounds obvious but a lot of people have trouble getting it. Sugo or salsa can be translated into English as gravy as well as sauce. At least, that's what the dictionaries say, and dictionaries are what people usually go by. "Intingolo" is another word for it. Intingolo della carne (sauce from meat) obviously refers to the gravy you'd make from turkey, say, or a steak.

By the way, according to the Oxford Dictionary, which is often given a lot of weight in etymology circles, the etymology of gravy is:

If that seems complicated (and don't ask me why the chart appears three times because it doesn't appear at all when I edit this), the bottom row is earlier from left to right - so, from Latin to Old French and then into Middle English, ending up with gravy, which continued into Modern English. And the Middle English meaning was - spicy sauce - get it - a type of sauce?

In other European languages, there is also just no real difference between the words for sauce and gravy. Look up gravy in French (sauce), German (sose), Polish (sos), i - big difference), Spanish (salsa).* Even where not in a language using the s-vowel-s pattern, like Slovenia, just northeast of Italy, it is omaka for gravy and Imako for sauce - almost no difference! Get it? It's pretty much considered the same thing.

Other than etymologists, nobody cares so much except I-As, but Italian is not their actual language. English is.

*Where else can you use sauce or a derivative for gravy (or similar words too)?: Dutch - jus or saus; Greek - saltza; Estonia - soust; Turkish, Bosnian, Polish, Serbian and Croatian - sos; Swedish -sås; Icelandic - sósa; Norwegian - saus; Ukranian and Russian -  соус (sous). Probably the next most popular is sugo or derivatives. 

Both gravy and salsa derive from very similar meaning Latin/Romantic words - as you can see in the above Oxford chart for gravy, it derives from granum and then old French grain (meaning spice) or grané. So, grain or spice. Sauce or salsa derives from the Latin for salt - salis. Salsa-Salis. 

So why do the I-As care so much? I mean gravy is a type of sauce. I'm pretty sure it's just one of those identity things. They identify the pronunciation which they heard from family and neighbors and they don't want to hear that it's not actually Italian. You'll notice that I-As who normally speak without a stitch of Italian accent, and even some who are not I-As, suddenly become Giuseppe the tailor just off the boat from Palermo when they say what they feel is an Italian word. It's no different with traditions. People sometimes keep them, fight over them, even passionately, just because they feel that is what binds them with the group with whom they identify.

I've written here before on language that when enough people use a word in a certain way, that becomes a meaning no matter what other people think or say. So, if tomorrow you use chicken to mean fox, I can't go along (until enough people do - and it's a subjective number). Enough people in the world use sauce or a derivative to mean what we call gravy, I am fine with the usage.

I'm not criticizing anyone for liking traditions or pronunciations they identify with, unless although we do have some few generally accepted taboo words (the taboo is violated all the time). But, though I have my word habits, tradition for tradition's sake is sometimes not my thing. Of course, I follow American language and other traditions without even thinking about it, but I don't hold onto them because I feel they are American, and reject them when I don't like them. Maybe someone else could point them out to me if I'm wrong about that. I'm a product of my heritage, like everyone else. Everyone is to one degree or another. I probably like Chinese food as much as I do and slapsticky humor, maybe even have certain values, to some degree or other, because of being raised in a Jewish-American family. Maybe some because I'm a New Yorker (when I moved down south I did make an effort to talk softer and be more patient with people I came into contact with). My accent is New Yawkish (even when I lived in Virginia). But, wear a yamulka, celebrate Jewish holidays, eat kosher, speak with a slightly Yiddish accent (my dad did that sometimes even though he didn't know Yiddish other than a few words)? - Not for me. But, I have good friends and relatives who do, however, and it is very important to them.

I just like language and don't care when I learned something I always thought was X was actually Y. Usually, I can't wait to tell people about my mistake, although few seem that interested. I wish people were more comfortable finding out they were wrong about something, although they should research it themselves before they accept it. I do that, if I think I've been wrong or even if someone tells me I'm wrong (which happens frequently). I find the opposite is often true with many people. Even when they learn something they thought was this is really that, they soon revert to their original opinion. Habit is strong. Naturally, all of these observations are generalizations and like mph, your actual results may vary.

I am actively researching right now something I've blogged about at the beginning of my blogging career, which I then found a very persuasive argument, but now I've learned might be wrong. But, that's for another day and I have to do a lot of research. Trust me, if they convince me I'm wrong, I'll be mea culpa-ing all over the place. Probably a few months from now.

Enjoy Halloween and Thanksgiving. I'll be back after that to the delight of my massive audience.

Why I can't vote for Biden either.

The Super Fast Summary   Why I will not vote for Biden, the supposed moderate, in 2020, if he is the D nominee, you ask? Someone must have asked. I'll tell you. But, first, a superfast sum up of my view on the Republican/Democrat thing since Trump's birther movement. Trump is the worst thing to happen to the Republicans since Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich and they should not take his money or seek his help. That was something like ten years ago I first said that. But, they did take him in and then he took them over.

On the other hand, the D party has been moving further and further left since Al Gore lost in 2000, and he, apparently, was hiding his most lefty leftiness behind his back. John Kerry, who I think a particularly dishonest and backstabbing politician was deemed the most liberal Senator by Ds (there are publications that keep score) and they nominated him for president. Obama was considered the most liberal Senator (or nearly) and they nominated him in 2008. Why were they nominating their most liberal Senators? Well, that was the way they were sailing.

Obama may be a nice man (the only ones I know who don't think so are, not coincidentally, deeply politically opposed to him). But, he was the worst president in my lifetime, including Nixon, failing in almost every category, but most important to me, failing to live up to expectations with respect to racial harmony - rather than be a healer, he made a racial decision (he considers himself black rather than bi-racial) in most controversies and racial anger increased a great deal during his two terms. His foreign policy was astonishingly bad - all our enemies grew stronger - Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea and ISIS was allowed to germinate and spread while he called it and treated it as the "JV." Many of our allies were furious with us during his time, at least for a time (e.g., Germany, Brazil and especially Israel). Even his signature act - the ACA, caused so much dissension in the way it was enacted.

Though perhaps no Trump, who doesn't care if you think he is a liar and lies about the darndest things (and is the only honest pol about others), he was singularly dishonest with respect to the ACA, his campaign and the Iran deal among other things. Trump was helped to be elected by the D party, which also nominated an unsuitable candidate, and, by the press, which was more dishonest and biased in its approach than even Trump. Though I wouldn't vote for HRC or DJT, I did at least feel some validation that the press got a slap in its face. I'd rather they'd come to their senses, but while hopeful, I'm not crazy. We are in that culture war so many thought Pat Buchanan was crazy to suggest in 2000 and the media has become, not for the first time in our history, an active participant. So bad, I canceled my beloved NYTimes yesterday. One, almost every "article" on the front page was really an op-ed with one or two general themes - I only slightly exaggerate - Trump must die and Socialism is really really really cool.

Almost done. HRC was what I call "institutionally corrupt." That is, she and her husband have been playing the game so long, they no longer distinguish between right and wrong, just whether they win. Not that is much different than many other pols, but they still have sufficient reputation, loyalty and power that it is very hard for them to get in trouble. Apparently, there are enough protective forces around them, it is almost impossible. Leave aside Clinton's possible rape, and his affront to so many other women. Except that she was a Clinton, the party's hope and that same party running the Justice Department at the time, it is difficult to believe that she would not have been indicted for her handling of classified information and obstruction. Comey described her as violating every actual element of the law involved and then said no reasonable prosecutor would indict, because of an element not in the law.

Obstruction is a charge which I generally believe we have to be very careful about as it can be twisted by prosecutors to mean almost anything - but it seemed awfully clear that she not only violated the law but that her staff, if not her, and her husband (by boarding the AG's plane) at least attempted to obstruct justice. Apparently, they need not have done so, as the powers at the FBI were taking care of business for them. And no, Trump was his usual bull in a China shop, but he didn't collude or conspire with Russians and he didn't obstruct justice - didn't destroy emails or send emissaries to Mueller, to pressure him. He did want to fire him, and why couldn't he? He did want the press lied to and why can't he? They lie about him every day. And, there clearly was a deep state in the FBI, and it is being reckoned with as I write this. I don't know if anything will come of it though. These things rarely do.

Last, as usual, both parties move further left. I said it - left. It is sometimes a good thing for Rs (most, anyway), who adopt most liberal positions once they've lost (and they almost always do lose), become more moderate. Not always, but over their silliest stuff. For example, how many pols do you even hear talking about fighting same-sex marriage or reinstituting "don't ask, don't tell?" None? At least close to none. But, the D party is moving further and further from moderate, some openly espousing some form of socialism, if not as classically defined, and . . . well, just watch the D debates or read the NYTs, where there has even been a front-page article openly arguing that the Chinese may have the best idea for an economy.

That's the review. Maybe it wasn't super-fast, but I tried. Now for the coming election. First,

Biden. Joe Biden is not Hillary Clinton. Biden is likeable, which she often wasn't, at least in public. It makes a difference to a lot of people, even if it shouldn't. Like her, he is also smart, at least in the terms that he is experienced and seems to understand the issues. I utterly reject that he is dumb because of gaffes. More on that in a bit.

What he doesn't have, is the history of corruption she has, and didn't have a taint of it until recently. And I'm not even going there (by there - the Ukraine and China). But, I am going to tell you why I would not vote for Biden, if he is the nominee, even if he is the most sane of the Ds still running - it's because the party has become insane.

It's not because he can't stop touching women inappropriately. Even though it started to blow up (it happened again recently, even after he should have known better, but got about a day's coverage). Most of the press will not cover it explicitely, perhaps not even those he's running against. And no one really (seriously) thinks of him as a sexual predator. In fact, it's only because of the metoo moment that there has been any serious discussion of it at all. Not that even ardent metooers who are Ds (most of them) seem to care much if he crosses the line - hating Trump trumps everything for the left and they would possibly excuse everything but a rape on tape in their nominee. They have done it before with Clinton and, to be honest, I was right there too with them. I despised the Rs for making everything about sex, even if the president was a dog. But, the press will have to work hard to suppress Joe's clear touching problem. However, I have found lately, to my surprise, that some D women who limit themselves to the "mainstream" media, are not even aware of how bad it is, and there might be backlash someday. Doubt it though. Still, though it doesn't make any difference to me, if he occasionally pats someone's hair (someone should just shudder and say "please don't touch me!") it does seem there's something a little wrong with him.

These aren't accidents where he accidentally put his hands near a women's breast or even touched them inappropriately - such as kissing them. He acknowledges that this is just him - affectionate and hands-on. Where is the line? If Biden gets past a metoo test, then there is not much of it left. Why was Sen. Franken forced to resign again? He wants to know.  There are seemingly endless examples exist of Biden inappropriately touching women and children, far, far more than with Franken.

Nor do I care that Biden is the gaffe king. He's at least as bad as Dan Quayle was, if not worse. So what? No, it doesn't matter if he is in New Hampshire and calls it Vermont or tells his crippled friend to stand up and take applause (still my favorite). He's not going to be mad at Iran and scream "bomb Iraq." Gaffes do not mean you are stupid or incapable. Well, they do for your opposition and those who are gleefully partisan. Not for me. If you are out there talking as much as he or other candidates does, you are going to make mistakes and say stupid things. Some more than others and he most of all. It's just that I don't care. And neither will those who are partisan in his favor.

Biden has several attributes that are important to me. He says he likes many Rs and that we have to be civil. I believe him. He was among the more decent partisans, even when fighting hard for his side. Recently, he was beaten up in a debate for trying to show that he accomplished something important early in his career by being civil with segregationists, by Kamala Harris, who played the race card beautifully. And, Biden did something I hate, but which almost all pols do - he apologized, as if he had done something wrong. Yccch. I couldn't do it - apologize for something I shouldn't apologize about in order to garner votes, but I wouldn't get two votes for office (well, I'd like to think my daughter would vote for me, but my evalovin' gf of 29 years would probably give money to my adversary and maybe make anti-David commercials ("Tell David to stop listening to the tv so loud!" "Tell David to stop collecting clutter by his easy chair!!" "Tell David to empty the dishwasher!!"). But, still, more than any of the other Ds, he embraces what used to be common civility, and has a long history of collegiality and crossing the aisle. The other good attribute about him was his leading his boss's administration by the nose towards accepting same-sex marriage. It is true that this was where most of the country was going anyway and perhaps he was just the canary for his administration, seeing how it would go over, but, on its face, it showed some courage. I've seen a lack of that courage lately, but I have to give him his due or I am no different than the NYTimes, and I don't want to have to cancel my subscription to my own blog.

And, in the area of immigration, so far, he is the only rational voice. He was cowardly at the debate where everyone raised their hand to a question that really meant the end of border security (Biden raised his hand slightly to make it look like he was joining in, but could also pass for asking a question - who asks questions to the moderator?) He did say that it was crime to cross the border illegally. And in 2014, when the Obama administration actually had to deal with the refugee problem, he was sympathetic to the immigrants' fears, but reasonably said as follows:

" Look, as I said, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, this is what they're doing.  They are enhancing the enforcement and removal proceedings because those who are pondering risking their lives to reach the United States should be aware of what awaits them.  It will not be open arms.  It will not be come on -- it will be, we’re going to hold hearings with our judges consistent with international law and American law, and we’re going to send the vast majority of you back.

We’re moving forward with a plan to surge government enforcement resources to increase our capacity to detain individuals humanely, and adults traveling with the children, to handle immigration court hearings in cases where these hearings are necessary, to do it as quickly as possible.  In addition, we’re sending immigration judges, attorneys to represent these young people and families with young people, and asylum officers.  They have a right under our law to make the case -- make the case that we’re here because we’re avoiding persecution.  We’re avoiding something will physically affect our safety. 

They're being assigned to process cases of immigrants apprehended at the border who are claiming credible fear, and are eligible to apply for asylum.  But that decision will be made quickly, fairly, with -- but it will be made quickly.  We are committed to complying with the law and all international relevant standards.  That's how we do it.

But we are prioritizing the need to resolve these cases as quickly as position in light of the humanitarian crisis caused by the -- number of crossings.  

Make no mistake, once an individual’s case is fully heard, and if he or she does not qualify for asylum, he or she will be removed from the United States and returned home.  Everyone should know that.

We expect many of the recent immigrants -- migrants I should say to fall into this category.  My guess is a vast majority, and they will be going home."

I share the feeling of horror at what refugees must undergo, but also the horror of thousands literally storming our borders demanding to get in and go to states which will take care of them on the backs of Americans (yes, that includes Hispanic Americans) and which states will eventually, lets face it, demand to be paid for doing so as their financial problems surge. Immigration reform is probably impossible with Trump, if the Ds maintain their lead in the house and unlikely even if they don't. I blame both sides. But, it is important and there is probably a better chance of it under Biden. I will give him that. However, if it doesn't end catch and release, there is no point to it either. More, given his recent predeliction for flip-flopping (keep reading), I don't trust him at all. 

Of course, there is plenty wrong with Trump too and he wins a battle of weirdness or bad personality with most other pols, unless they are running for president. I don't know if Trump violated social norms in being too aggressive with women in the past, as some charge him. The last one - an accuser of rape - blew over quickly because she was clearly crazy (I believe she said "rape" was sexy on national television).  If Trump was abusive to women, he did it privately. But, the media has tried that and failed to show it. In fact, before he was even elected, the NYTs featured a story about a woman, Rowanne Brewer Lane, that he supposedly debased - unfortunately for them, she came out that day on tv to say it was nonsense, and that it was a hit job by the Times. Unfortunately, the tactics against Kavanaugh (I watched and have researched it) and the constant drumbeat against Trump means that I can't even believe what usually convinces me - a lot of women coming forward with similar stories (as with, say, Bill Cosby). Because clearly, if it is political, a lot of women will lie. I don't necessarily disbelieve accusations, but I can't give it much credence so as to have any effect on me unless there is a lot of proof (or I know them personally). That's what happens when you cry wolf.

So, what's the problem? I can't stand Trump personally, and though I think there are a number of good things about his administration - especially in the face of such a virulent resistance - part of the problem is how divisive he is. I mean, people hate him with a white-hot heat that this country might not have seen since Lincoln.

But, while the country doesn't deserve the "resistance," he does. He's a jerk so much of the time, it can't be ignored. But, put a gun to my head (otherwise I likely won't vote) and I'd pick him (good f'n God) over even Biden. Right now, anyway. Why? Especially when the thought of Biden inappropriately groping the faces or hair of female leaders of other countries has tremendous entertainment value.

But, seriously, the reasons are as follows:

Biden apparently lies a lot too. Biden either lies or makes the same kind of mistakes Trump does. What? It may be so. In a recent article on RealClearPolitics.com - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/31/trump_lies_biden_slips_-- _but_fact_checks_tell_different_story_141144.html - the author tries to demonstrate that fact-checking shows that Biden is no more accurate than Trump. Not talking about gaffes here, but falsehoods. Does he repeatedly lie, or is he just incapable of knowing what the truth is? Which is worse? It's a small sample, but remember, Biden is the same guy who had a run for president stopped because he somehow adopted the story told by a British politician as his own. It is true that previously, he had credited the politician, but then he stopped doing so. An accident? Maybe. I thought so at the time. But, he's the same guy who told the story of trying to pin a medal on a soldier who begged him not to - that the Washington Post even said was as false as could be (little pieces from a number of stories). Are they all just gaffes? Can they all be? Or is there something deeper? Does it matter? I can't give this one to Trump, but ask if the goal is to have another president we can't trust with facts?


                                          

He is a world champion flip-flopper He seems to have the same willingness to change his position that Hillary Clinton did in order to endear himself to minorities, particularly blacks. Worse, even than her. We know politicians kowtow to their extreme sides because they want to get the nomination and sometimes they then run a little more to the middle in the general election. One of the reasons I liked John McCain so much, was that he was relatively honest compared to other pols and often took the brunt of sticking to his positions (it hurt him a number of times). But, even though it made him more a leader than a follower, he kowtowed too at times, particularly to the religious right. At least he was honest enough to admit that he did that type of thing. He's the last candidate for whom I voted for president, so I can't be too tough on other politicians for the same fault either. I (we) actually only really care when I hate the new position. If they flip flop in my (our) direction, I love it - think they've grown.  Trump, of course, who seems to have few values which seem genuine, kowtows too. And is shameless in doing so. He'll bend this way and then that - he just wants a deal. So, while not wanting to be too tough on Biden for doing what others do - he does do it a lot and in a direction that frightens me. I'm not going into details right here, because they are other topics - but, both on abortion and race.

He's all about abortion now  If he had any claim to his "honor as a Biden" (yes, he referred to that recently; I hope he doesn't do that a lot) he lost it when he, after decades of saying he had reasons of conscience to be for the Hyde Amendment (if you don't know what that is, google it - but it is about the federal funding of abortion). In the last few years, the two sides have hardened their positions on abortion. The right has been tireless in trying to end it and the left in trying to extend it. As I get older, I move closer to the pro-lifers. Even some older lefties have told me that, for them secretly, they do too. Maybe part of that was having a child myself and now a grandchild, and also meeting so many children who were born premature and survived. I was shocked earlier this year by a woman I met who believes that fetuses are not babies, even minutes before they are born (and also, she believes men have no right to have an opinion).

And, clearly, there are a lot of people who accept that same position. I asked her if she thought something magical happened when the baby passed through the birth canal? Not surprisingly, there wasn't an answer.  I could much more easily understand no abortions than no limits on abortions. I'm not suggesting that all people on either side have fixed positions, but these are generalizations that are fair to make. It is the direction of the most active people in the parties. But, Biden has gone in the direction I reject - becoming more pro-choice. Even though many conservatives would categorize me as pro-choice because I can accept abortion in the first few weeks - I agree it is more humane to prefer they not have a heart and a brain. Trump, of course, now, is pro-life, if we can believe him. Although I don't think it controls his Supreme Court choices, they have at least been judges who I think will likely say that Roe v. Wade is strong or super-precedent (whatever that really means), and we are not changing it, at least more than the Casey case did.

In my opinion, Roe was bad constitutional law, but politically wise at the time because it stifled a boiling culture war. Maybe it should not have, but that's what happened. Both sides want to overturn Roe at this point, but, each in their own direction. I really don't think it will happen, but if it does - it would be a big problem to outlaw short term abortion for a number of reasons. But, it would be a disaster to take from the democratic process, the right to prevent later-term abortions. I don't know where Biden stands (because he couldn't be honest if he still opposed abortion to any degree and couldn't win the nomination) - but I know where his side stands. And he has shown he will do what they want if he feels threatened.

He will likely exacerbate racial tensions    Perhaps, given the direction of "civil rights" issues during the Obama administration, Biden had little to say and just stayed out of the way. But, now he wants to be president and he wants to use his serving under Obama as his way in. He is, in fact, the favorite of black D voters right now and is fighting mightily to maintain it. In doing so, he has said the words "white men" with contempt. In the D party right now, it is okay to say "white men" as if it is synonymous with racist or white nationalist. In the same conversation as he sneered "white men," he said that Anita Hill did not get a fair hearing. She didn't? Was there something that has come out about Justice Thomas that is considered important that wasn't said at the hearing? I wrote about the Thomas hearings recently. He was right, it was a high-tech lynching. He was a black conservative and, like all of the nominees, joyous, until the poison started. And what was he accused of - making a couple of jokes that can't even be considered blue anymore.* Nowadays, we can hear or read the president called a scumbag, and many people say or write "pussy," as if it was never considered a little much for public discourse. If you can say "pussy," why couldn't he make a joke about a pubic hair. And, of course, it was shown during the hearing, that she stayed friends with him even after he was no longer his boss. I was always appalled by the Thomas hearings, and at that time, I still leaned left a bit. The really disturbing thing to me was that rather than disparage how mild the claims were, even the Rs acted like it terrible. Even Sen. Hatch, very much in Thomas' favor (and friend to noted woman abuser Ted Kennedy), said anyone who behaved like that was insane (I think that was the word he used).

* I went to Wikipedia for the allegations: Asking her out, talking about sex at work, talking about sex, mostly movies with women having sex with animals, being raped or having group sex, graphically describing his sex life and describing his anatomy. She gave an example of him asking who put a pubic hair on his Coke can? That's the worst one mentioned. Her detractors mentioned that she followed him to a second job and even gave him a ride to the airport once. I don't really doubt that he said these things, though he denies it and I can't know. I just say, who cares? It doesn't seem like she ever told him it made her uncomfortable, he never touched her inappropriately or mocked her - he was boorish, which doesn't even pass for harassment in NYC.

But, we are talking Biden, not history.  He gives every indication of being completely in the tank for what is the new racism, the kind that says that racism is "overwhelmingly a white man’s problem visited on people of color." Which he actually said. No doubt, there was a time it was true. Not anymore. Here's what even Obama said in a speech:

"Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don’t worry — I’m going to get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be — what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you’d be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into — you wouldn’t choose 100 years ago. You wouldn’t choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You’d choose right now. If you had to choose a time to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, “young, gifted, and black” in America, you would choose right now."

Obama can say that to a predominantly black audience because he is Obama. Biden can't. Biden is going to run, and act as president, should he win, as if it still is the 1960s. I guess if a black person says he hates Biden because he's white, that's not racist to Biden. Don't expect anyone to ask him that. Let's see what happens when Black Lives Matter takes over his rally.

The rise of the reverse racism (or if you like - just more racism) when Obama took office is disturbing to me. It is the reverse of a long trend towards equality and less racism. I do believe Trump can be a little bigoted at times, but not in virulent ways. He's even accused of being anti-Semitic, though his own beloved daughter is Jewish and Israel named a whole area after him. Come on.

Climate change I'm still an agnostic on climate change. But, leave me out of it. Hillary Clinton wanted to put 60 billion towards it. Biden wants to put over a trillion. Over a trillion. Over a trillion.  Wait, it's actually 1.7 trillion. 1.7 trillion. That's nearly 2 trillion dollars. I got this from joebiden.com, so don't think it's fake news. So, what Clinton wanted times 28.

Does he believe the world is going to end in 10 years like some others on his side? I can't find that. I would say the answer is, it depends on his audience at the time.

Violence  It sounds like he is good with Antifa, which is a big problem with me. In Philadelphia, he asked a crowd whether “there’s a moral equivalence between white supremacists, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and those with the courage to stand against them?" I wonder if he understands that Antifa would knock his teeth down his throat if he disagreed with them. That when they take over an intersection, they are not battling fascists.
When they beat up journalists, they aren't fighting fascism.

Are they morally equivalent? Well, as a group, the officially Klan gave up violence decades ago. Any terrorism or fascism - using force or intimidation to get your way. But, they don't have any. At every rally, it seems, that they are heavily outnumbered, and by forces very willing to use violence. No doubt, there are crazy right-wing nut jobs out there who do kill people, But, they do seem few and are not going to change the country at all. Who is counting left wing violence as terrorism? If antifa and BLM aren't included, the statistics don't mean anything.

Witch-hunting  Biden may not be a member of "the squad" yet, but he might if he could get their endorsement. He just suggested that networks shouldn't have Rudy Giuliani on. Personally, I like Giuliani less than Trump, but, that's ridiculous. And they say Trump is a bully? Biden keeps saying he would beat Trump up. Literally, at least twice.

I do need a D candidate who will rail against those who attacked Kavanaugh so viciously, the wasteful Russia hunt and the endless seeking of means to impeach Trump.

And what about the others?  Biden is the alleged moderate in the field, along perhaps with Klobuchar. If the moderate wants to spend 1.7 trillion on climate change, thinks only white men can be racist, wants refugees to surge towards our borders, isn't that enough to just say no. Plus, while he was no. 2 in the White House, Al Sharpton was a frequent guest and BLM was there too. Who is next - Antifa? 

Yes, I do believe that Biden is more moderate than most of the other candidates. But, if they get the WH too, that's too much power for a party where most of their leaders want to end border enforcement, are pro-Socialist, at least to some degree, some are anti-Israeli, want to pack the Supreme Court, end the electoral college and some want to give felons in jail the right to vote (I'm all for it when they've "done their time"). Remember, many Rs in congress are basically cowards, politically, and tend to wilt in any fight - except Trump.

And, I have found some positive things to say about Trump. I was just reviewing the Kavanaugh hearing (though it makes me sick to do so). I realize that if any of the other Rs had gotten in, they'd have buckled and asked him to withdraw before it was proved that everyone (except perhaps Ford) were lying and large holes were put in her story, effectively ruining his life. He, alone it seems, had the courage to follow through on U.S. law and recognize Jerusalem, to demand that NATO countries actually pay what they promised.

But, most of all, after the violence during the campaign, or the Russia collusion claim or the obstruction claim, the brutality of the Kavanaugh hearings and the Ds refusal to vote for his nominees on important offices (far worse than the Rs were with Obama - I counted the votes myself), the medias endless attempts to blacken and misinterpret everything he says and does and refusal to acknowledge his successes (they claim Obama, who got a Nobel Prize just for being elected, gets credit for the good economy), to make school about learning about "white privilege (NYC and California), violations of the first amendment (NYC just passed legislation making saying "illegal aliens" finable up to $250,000), physical attacks on speakers on college campuses (go to thefire.org),  and so on and so forth (I could go on), I'm certainly not voting for whoever they nominate. There are no real moderates running, just relatively more moderates. Probably, Kavanaugh was enough to turn me off, but, with the new impeachment insanity (this is really hard to say), actually, the endless stream of pathetic attempt to impeach him - I might just vote for him. It's so hard to say - I really wanted never to vote for least worst again.

He doesn't deserve it. But the country doesn't deserve the end to our institutions that a radicalized party will bring. And the horror of some moderate Ds who will find out they can't control them, will not make it any better for the rest of us.