How can John Brown and Gandhi both be great men?

Back before the young radicals destroyed what we old folks used to call a sense of humor, someone might have started a joke with Thoreau, Tolstoy, King and Gandhi go into a bar.

Well, maybe they shouldn't go into a bar during the pandemic. But, let's say they did. Would they, speaking to one another, express pride in today's purported successors? The carnage with which of the BLM movement has left of some of the inner cities, the damage they've done to actual justice by demanding it be social (by which they mean according to skin color or other superficial characteristics and not according to actual justice), the numbers of dead, mostly minorities at other minority hands still going on over two months after George Floyd's death, the viciousness and illogic of their arguments, and also the a-religiosity of it, would have left them all cold (except for Thoreau, who would have cared only about the immorality of it). 

If the topic wasn't so serious and happening now, I'd write a short play in which Sartre came in at the end, deux ex machina style, and says not - as in the actual play - "Hell is other people," but, "Hell is white people." Or "Hell is white men." Well, isn't that the mantra we have been listening to?

King, Thoreau, Gandhi, Tolstoy were all unique and fascinating people.  I have read biographies, sometimes more than one (in Thoreau's case - many), on all of them. They were all unique individuals, but they had one thing in common. Non-violence. 

For Thoreau it was a matter of reason and morality to resist an unconscionable law (Fugitive Slave Act) by refusing to pay taxes he believed would pay for it. For Tolstoy it was mainly a Christian thing (though he quoted Thoreau in both his fiction and non-fiction), and it took him not just to non-violence as a way of life, but a rejection of government and modern civilization. For Gandhi, non-violence = Truth = God. He was inspired by Thoreau and Tolstoy (both of whom he would quote). For King, the religion and justice were intertwined, and he admittedly based it on Gandhi's Satyagraha, and that he read Thoreau in college and was inspired by the idea of refusing to cooperate with evil.

The historical chain is easy to see. Thoreau inspired Tolstoy. Tolstoy and Thoreau inspired Gandhi, who wrote about both of them; in fact, Tolstoy, shortly before he died, and Gandhi became correspondents. King based his movement on Gandhi's ([The Gandhian philosophy is] “the only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” He read and was inspired by Thoreau and I'm told Tolstoy, although I don't myself remember him quoting or referring to Tolstoy off the top of my head. But, if he read Gandhi, and we know he did, it would be hard to imagine he did not know Tolstoy. In any event, they are all philosophically linked. 

Thoreau started his plea for Captain John Brown with words I could use as a capstone for my own posts on the pandemic revolution -  

"I trust that you will pardon me for being here. I do not wish to force my thoughts upon you, but I feel forced myself. Little as I know of Captain Brown, I would fain do my part to correct the tone and the statements of the newspapers, and of my countrymen generally, respecting his character and actions. It costs us nothing to be just. We can at least express our sympathy with, and admiration of, him and his companions, and that is what I now propose to do."

So I feel in my efforts here, virtually unheard (a voice crying out in the wilderness), to call attention to the lies spread by the media in our own day and the absolutely fascist tactics that are succeeding in our own country.

I will not, again, babble on ad nauseum about what Thoreau said in his plea for John Browna pretty close to one hundred years before I was born. But, I will quote from it a few paragraphs I think particularly relevant - 

"'In his camp,'" as one has recently written, and as I have myself heard him state, 'he permitted no profanity; no man of loose morals was suffered to remain there, unless, indeed, as a prisoner of war. "I would rather," said he, "have the small-pox, yellow-fever, and cholera, all together in my camp, than a man without principle.... It is a mistake, sir, that our people make, when they think that bullies are the best fighters, or that they are the fit men to oppose these Southerners. Give me men of good principles,--God-fearing men,--men who respect themselves, and with a dozen of them I will oppose any hundred such men as these Buford ruffians.'" He said that if one offered himself to be a soldier under him, who was forward to tell what he could or would do, if he could only get sight of the enemy, he had but little confidence in him."

It's not my point at all here that we shouldn't curse (I curse a lot) or should be God-fearing (I'm still an atheist who thinks we should try to behave as if we believed in a benevolent God). I actually disagree with many things that even Gandhi and Tolstoy believed (I mean, Tolstoy was essentially an anarchist and an anti-modernist and Gandhi thought it was better to kill his daughter than that she be would be dishonored [raped?]). The important thing is that this is all about principles, and important principles, the most important ones being refusal to cooperate with evil, non-violent methods of political change, the improvement of ourselves and trying to inspire our enemies, not destroy them. They were not cooperating with their enemies, but they were not trying to destroy them either. Whether you agree or not, with that, it is what made them great men. It is fascism which must be destroyed. Some would say - hate the sin, love the sinner. 

Why then do I (and Thoreau) think Brown was a great man, when his means were violent? He took the war to the slave owners and the system that protected them. The reason is, because it matters who you are fighting and the reasons you are doing it. Gandhi recognized that beliefs were relative and subjective. And, indeed, he wrote that he preferred courageous violence in the face of oppression before cowardice and burying your head in the sand. We are faced in our country with an ignorance based on addiction to a very dishonest media (you know who I mean CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, the three networks, sometimes even FoxNews - such as when they referred to the violent takeover of several blocks in Seattle as mostly peaceful or supported BLM).

In our modern times, we must fight against those who would, using racism as a club, revive the same views as the slaveholders held - that skin color is what matters in judging someone and that justice should be based on that skin color rather than our individual deeds and intent. It is because of these outrageous beliefs, which took so long to defeat in America, but had been nearing death for decades, that they must continually lie and use the media to mount a false narrative, and the education system to proselytize the children into believing false things.

King famously said that he had a dream that one day his children would live in a world where they, that is, of course, all of us, would be judged by the "content of their characters" and not the "color of their skin." This the modern-day version of purported "civil rights," has turned on its head so that they and we shall all be judged by the color of our skins. What else does "black lives matter" mean, if skin color isn't the key?

Whose side do I think Gandhi and Brown would be on now? Of course, I think mine. But, you know, who cares? I'm sure those on the other side from me would either completely disagree or, probably more typical of the times, just brand them racists - as they have Gandhi. Maybe he was at one time, but clearly the mainsprings of his movement and life were a testament to anti-Racism, or MLK, Jr. would have hardly built his own movement around Gandhi's.

When do we decide that someone who uses violence or the threat of it is okay - that he or she is a good guy or gal as opposed to the opposite? I mean Hitler used and threatened violence against his neighbors, claiming he was simply protecting oppressed Germans. And Churchill used and threatened violence against Germany? And many times the forces I approve of, even hero-worship, lapse into the kind of behavior of which I can never approve. They might even agree, but say, we have to, for all of our sakes. You do your worst, and we will do our best (Churchill if you didn't know), even if it looks like the same thing from the point of view of the one being garroted, beaten, humiliated or shot with or without a blindfold. 

I'm not going to tell you that you can never use or threaten violence. Sometimes, many times, you have to. In a civil society, we hope people are so raised and successful in their view of their lives that they will not want to do so, and that it will not be a part of their daily or regular lives. We also hope that is true internationally, on a government level. And there is evidence it is more like this now than it has ever been in history in the last century, even with two horrible world wars (see, Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature). But, we also know that violence and oppression still has tremendous staying power, because it so often works. Unless we are blind, we see it all over our country and the world.  

I'm not giving away any terrible secret by telling you that this is utterly subjective. One man's this is another man's that, and all that stuff. Of course, it is. And that's why it is so important how we raise our children, so they learn what is important. In my view, if they aren't raised with certain "enlightenment" values, that character matters, that ethnicity does not, that freedoms of expression, conscience and association, among others are critical; that the rule of law and not men which promotes both order and freedom, that history and education are important, and so on, then we are pretty much screwed. You try and have faith that good people will do their best to make sure this will happen, but I'm not sure it is true if they don't see a financial advantage for themselves and those they care about. 

Of course, those on the "other side" will say that this is exactly what they are doing. I expect many or most of them believe it so. It is hard to believe, when you are passionate about these things, that the other side is evil and just wants power. 

So, all I can tell you is where I draw my lines and why I feel both John Brown and Gandhi are both heroic (yes, I know, others too - they are my examples). 

It's this simple - as the great 20th-century spy, Austin Powers, told us - "It's freedom, baby, yeah," and, "Freedom didn't fail. Right now we have freedom and responsibility. It's a very groovy time." 

Yes, the answer to these questions is your view of freedom. Because wrestling is often more like real life than politics, I turn there. It's the reason we root for Hacksaw Jim Duggan and not King Kong Bundy. It's the reason wrestling fans know the moment a "face" becomes a "heel" and visa versa without having to have a deep philosophical discussion with themselves. 

Unfortunately, life really isn't wrestling either. There, we get to be almost omniscient, whereas in real life, particularly in the modern age, we are subject to the power of the media. And, though they can be very good, they can be very bad too. It's a huge distraction, and more people I know who I consider to be on "my side" in this difficult time -- believe that the media is the most dangerous, and disgusting, part of our society right now. 

You know that I can go on forever, down every rabbit hole, and in each one, we will find subjectivism again, and then another paean to freedom. So I will leave it at this - John Brown, who used violent means to try to obtain freedom for blacks in America, and made the ultimate sacrifice, was a great hero. So, was Gandhi, who used peaceful means to obtain freedom for Indians. Because - it's about freedom, baby, yeah!    

     

What is fascism?

 What is Fascism? Good question.

 I used to maintain that the use of fascism to describe almost any American ideology or political party was wrong-headed or even offensive. I’ve started to use it myself, as I see fascist behavior rapidly increasing. The question comes to mind, what are we all talking about? Like most things that seem simple, it gets complicated real fast.

 First, let me get rid of the first objection that I sometimes here and find almost laughable. That is, the “you know, fascism only describes an Italian political movement in the first half of the 20^th century and you really shouldn’t use if for anything else” objection.

Nonsense. Yes, that’s where it came from, but even in Italy, what it meant morphed quickly. Go read Wikipedia if you want to see a history of that. It’s now a word – fascism, just like some people call me (wrongly) a Luddite, thinking I hate technology (I love technology that I love, but it is neutral – neither good nor bad in itself. What I hate is technology that is used for or tends to lead to making people more fearful or capable). In any event, when called a Luddite, I don’t say – “you know, Luddite only refers to groups of English workers who destroyed industrial machinery to protect their jobs,” because a secondary meaning, as with fascism, has arisen. We all know what it is, even if we can’t define it.

I have an easy way of doing this. I could post right her the ENTIRE essay the famous anti-authoritarian author George Orwell wrote on the meaning of fascism right here – because it is really short, but, though I usually ignore the average attention span when I write long posts, I’m trying not to these days for a number of reasons (foremost of which might be laziness). So here are his first and last three paragraphs, which really says it all:

“Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’

* * *

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.”   

So, Orwell says that we usually mean by fascist, a bully, which is pretty good. I’m going to take his point that you can call pretty much anyone you don’t like of a certain type, whatever side of the political aisle he/she might be on. But, I think bully is just not enough, because while we usually hate bullies, we usually don’t get as angry, worried or or fearful when someone says here comes the bully, as we do when we say – here comes the fascist. It’s sort of like saying a kitty cat is a lion.

Here’s my definition of fascist: A fascist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to accomplish his or her political goals and to control others by those means, and it is most often accompanied by the victim’s self-identification with some allegedly oppressed or endangered group.

I think from there you can figure out what a fascist group, a fascist society or a fascist dictator is.

In other words, dear readers (that is the kind that always reads my posts to the end and isn't a spammer), the kid who asks you for money at the end of the lunch line, the politician who tells you that if you elect the other side it’s going to suck, and so on, are not fascists. Fascists are - even if they call themselves the opposite – the guys and gals who have been stopping free speech, accosting political figures in the street and in restaurants, tear down statues they don’t like, who take over the streets or block traffic or threaten to (or do) threaten to burn down buildings or our system.

And we know who that is in our society right now. No, don’t tell me that could describe those who marched in Selma or many other 1960s era civil rights advocates. They were actually oppressed. They reacted overwhelmingly, in general, with peaceful resistance, except some of them sometimes when threatened themselves.

Here’s the probably more important question. Are the young people of this country, so long proselytized by their educators, the media and now business, going to believe that they are fighting for truth, justice and the American way when they are gleefully watching some violently imposing their will on others? I hope not, but I don’t know. The last four years give me little confidence.

Sorry, ended it on a downer. How about this ending (based on the traditional “One thing we do know” grand finale) – “One thing we do know, our - 'Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor' are again at stake. "  

The Last Debate

 It was the last debate. The last time Trump had a chance to address the American people who don’t follow him on Twitter (and it wouldn’t surprise me if they cut him off totally before the election).

He had so many opportunities for home runs, things which he could catch Biden out on or shut him up. I know, I know, I know, some people think he’s some kind of genius communicator. I don’t think so. I don’t think his constant repetition, going off track (sometime part way through a sentence) or inability to know the facts well enough or string them together well enough to put out a repartee, are strengths. He’s hard to listen to, even for many people who are voting for him, like me.

What could he have done better? One, be prepared. Two, make it more difficult with Biden. To give him some credit, he did it with fracking, and Biden outright lied (or really is so cognitively declined that he forgot a major position – I doubt it). And he did nail him with about who built the cages.

In responding, Trump had to keep in mind that his adversaries are never going to be persuaded to vote for him. They already call him a racist and a fascist, even if that is what they are. He can’t worry about pleasing them or the media, which has become, for the most part, part of the “resistance. Here’s how Trump should have responded to some soft balls:

When Joe Biden said he’s going to be president for all the people (the first time – they gave the challenger the last word), Trump should have said:

“You are going to be president for all the people? Really? It’s this simple Joe. Say like me – “All Lives Matter.” Three little words. I know you can’t say it because you’d lose too much support in your base, but it proves you couldn’t be president for all the people.”

And then, when he wouldn’t, ask the host to ask him if she wants to be fair to everyone.

When asked specifically what he thought of BLM, he should have said:

“Are you kidding? This is the movement that tells people that they are racist because they are white, that is, because of their skin color. This is the group that calls people murder because of their skin color and the color of the skin of the person who died, regardless of what happened between them. This is the group that a think tank that measures violence all over the world said had about 550 violent marches and rallies in America since George Floyd’s death. This is the group that sometimes chants “death to cops,” or to fry them. BLM is the frequent cry in Portland and Seattle where they are trying to tear down government. This is the movement where the violence and rioting and looting, which even Joe opposed has been responsible for hundreds of homicides, mostly of minorities, in the soaring crime rates – while they call for less police. We all know, most black people want the same amount of more police, so the gangs don’t take over.”

When given any chance to talk about what he’s accomplished, he should have teed off”

Joe’s all but admitted in his silence that they built the cages and we stopped it. I stopped the wild attempts for large numbers of people, not refugees, to storm our country by working with Mexico and Salvador. We have done something no other president has been able to achieve in over 40 years, get peace treaties between Israel and Muslim countries. I had America keep its promise to Israel and recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – Obama had his ambassador sit silent in the UN while Israel was condemned. I have a successful campaign going throughout the world to decriminalize homosexuality. I signed a criminal justice act that somewhat stopped the punishment of blacks through Joe Biden’s signature legislation for all his years in Senate, and during which he called blacks “super-predators,” the Crime Control Act of 1990 which destroyed black families. And unlike Joe Biden says he’d do, I worked with the states to stop COVID, and the only reason we had so many deaths we had was because of long time Democratic strongholds like NY and California. Are you blaming them, Joe? And, yes, shame on me, is that what you are saying, my economy before COVID shut down the whole world, we had record low unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, women and others. Shame on you, if you think that’s bad.

When he was accused of being responsible for COVID and so many deaths, he should have said:

“Joe’s been down in the bunker too long because his own side is afraid of what he will say. He may not actually know or remember that this is a worldwide pandemic, and millions of people have died across the world. Europe is spiking? Is that my fault? Is he accusing me of being responsible for deaths in India and Russia and China too? What’s wrong with him is what people should be asking.

When Biden claimed his character was superior, Trump should have said:

Character? Someone who worked for you and is still a Democrat said you sexually assaulted her in a horrible fashion. We just had a business partner of your son say that you got 10% of the money he made off of your name while you were vice president while he was escorting him on Airforce 2 around the world. We saw on video you laughingly threaten Ukraine to hold back military aid to them, which they needed to stop Russia from lapping up their territory unless they fired the prosecutor looking into investigating the company your son was making millions from? We know you got money from China and from Russia. You want to see character, America. CNN and the NY Times won’t tell you go to google and type in Biden fondling women and watch the horrific videos. His own wife had to promise to make him stop. Type in a search engine Biden admits plagiary and lying when he ran for president the first time. You can watch him admit he’s a liar. Character? Like when you threw the Hyde Amendment under the bus, something you pretend is important to you, just so your constituents can demand the government now pays for abortions. I don’t think people even know you because the media has protected you so much.

Okay, I’m done. I want Trump to win, not because I particularly like him or think he’s smart. But, against the most ferocious opposition we’ve seen since Lincoln, he’s accomplished a lot. My advice to everyone is to stop listening to the media harping on what he says and look at what he’s done.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but COME ON TRUMP!

If

My favorite real poem of all time is If by Rudyard Kipling. Kipling, the British author of such classics as Kim and Jungle Book, was also a poet. Though you can easily criticize Kipling these days by applying modern mores to him, in the usual way, he was a man of his times. He was living in America when he wrote If, a short stoic set of instructions made for boys (yes, horrors, not boys and girls – though it could just as easily apply to girls). And though I’ve read that Kipling did not live up to his own high falutin’ philosophy, I highly recommend If to everyone. It is something to aspire to, although very hard to live up to, and I fail at some aspect or another of it daily. But, I’ve written my own If and merely stolen the title, which I will apologize for if we end up in the same afterlife neighborhood. This If is about the modern insanity over racism. And, given that my own poetic instincts immediately become paralyzed after “Rose are red, violets are blue,” I also must abstain from any attempt at lyricism. Nevertheless –

If

If believing that saying “All Lives Matter” matters;

If believing that intent matters too;

If believing that we will prevail by all by identifying as Americans, and fail if we balkanize or separate into separate nations;

If believing that we should judge one another by the “content of our characters” and not “the color of our skin”;

If believing that that our children are being harmed by being taught some are minorities who need extra help by virtue of their skin color and others are privileged by virtue of theirs;

If believing that having any color skin does not make you responsible for things that other people with relatively the same color skin did to people with different skin colors;

If believing that that there is no difference between saying that “black lives matter” than “white lives matter”;  

If believing that sports should and does unify people in large and should not be made a vehicle for political ideology;

If believing “sticks and stones shall break my bones, but names shall never hurt me,” is wise;

If believing that people should not lose their jobs or be punished for having different political or social beliefs;

If believing that demonizing a politician as racist because they have different beliefs which have nothing to do with race is wrong;

If believing that calling someone racist who isn’t, to attain some perceived or real advantage, is no better then calling them a racial slur;

If believing that the death of hundreds of people, perhaps more, mostly self-identified minorities, including little children, as a result of the mayhem set off by “black lives matter” riots after George Floyd’s death, was far worse than his lone death, however horrible that was.

If believing that all those deaths are proof that the one thing the leaders of “black lives matter” movement don’t care about is “black” lives;

If believing that those people of goodwill who believe in the "black lives matter" movement should condemn the violence and death that it has caused, and cease to protest until it stops, or have no credibility that they are peaceful;

If believing that excusing bad behavior because someone identifies as a minority is harmful to everyone, including people who are minorities;

If believing that the hundreds or thousands of deaths from “black on black” homicide, is not only a far greater problem for “blacks” than the relative handful of wrongful black deaths from police officers of any skin color;

If believing that the best friends of any law-abiding minorities are the police and that most minorities know it;

If believing that some of our school systems have not only begun long ago to proselytize our children, to make them increasingly racist, to accept multiple “blood libels” as true and to destroy the greatest hope poor people, whether minorities or otherwise have – capitalism;

If believing that there is a national delusion of “systemic racism” and widespread “white supremacy” foisted upon us largely by our media and the entertainment industry in creating and increasing racial and ethnic division and disharmony;

If believing the political and physical assault on cops in many cities in this country is not only to all our detriment, but especially to the poor and minorities;

If believing that those who call for defunding or doing away with cops are mostly gang members, criminals or those who seek nihilism or anarchy;

If believing that “black lives matter” and Antifa is promoted by “whites” as well as “blacks” and that their threats and violence make them the spearhead of neo-fascism in our country;

If believing that the fascistic nature of the movement is demonstrated as already begun by the intimidation of millions of Americans, particularly those who work in or for education, government, entertainment, technology or large corporations from speaking their minds due to reflexive firings and suspensions;

If believing that co-employees who falsely state that they “don’t feel safe” because another employee has an opinion they don’t like are American “quislings” and Nazi collaborators;  

If believing that “Heil Hitlerization” of the “black lives matter” slogan found all over stores and the web is a far larger problem for all Americans than the largely imagined “white supremacy”;

If believing that otherwise good ideas for holidays are spoiled by having them rammed down our throats and are deserving of our opprobrium and non-participation;

If believing that countries without borders are not countries, nor deserving of being called so;

If believing that those who unlawfully tear down statues and destroy public memorials to those who were racist in past days, including some of whom were heroes and saviors of minorities like Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, are no different than the vandals of old, the Nazis who sought to destroy Jewish culture, the Taliban who destroyed the statues of the Buddha, or any modern or historical iconoclast;

If believing that the idea that many “white supremacists” exist in America is a delusion and a heinous hoax when even watchdog groups have recently numbered them in the few thousands;

If believing that a country that twice elected Barack Obama president, has had Marshall and Thomas and other minorities on our highest courts, has innumerable enforced federal and state anti-discrimination laws, some which are grossly unfair to “whites” and some minorities, and a country which financially enriches and actually hero-worships many “blacks,” is not systemically racist;

If believing that the idea of reparations is not only impossible to work with even the slightest degree of fairness or sanity, but that will further entrench what little racism that is left and grossly enflame it, and is an insult to more than anyone else – to “blacks.”   

If believing that statements and policies such as “silence is violence” and every variation of it are themselves just an excuse for the speakers to be violent as if they were acting in self-defense;

If thinking that one of the biggest problems the “black” community has in America, is following the worst leaders imaginable and rejecting those who could really help them, and that large numbers of this generation have now been lost to a movement that teaches them that self-victimization, a rejection of history and violence or social unrest will bring them success, rather than hard work and education;

If believing that Barack Obama was correct in repeatedly saying even a few years after the commencement of the black lives matter movement statements such as this – and to applause from largely “black” audiences:

"I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. 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.”

If, having spent a large part of my adult life studying the millennia-long and never-ending struggle for freedom from the Sumerians and Egyptians on, including Americans of African descent and other minorities, and literally reading every speech, book and article Martin Luther King, Jr. has written or spoken, I’ve come to believe that the black lives matter movement is figuratively assassinating Martin Luther King, Jr. all over again, in turning on its head his dream that his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" and insisting, rather, that only skin color matters;

If then - my believing some or all of these things – makes you define me as a racist – then racist has become a thing to be proud of, because it means that you have merely bought into a national delusion which labels racism as anti-racism and anti-racism as racism.

Courage, foes of actual racism! It seems an American custom to fight back only when all seems lost – we’d rather go to work, raise our kids and watch television with blinders on – But, if we are to prevail, then we must reject the neo-fascistic end of actual progress, democracy and freedom in America and make some sacrifices. At the very least, speak your minds.

And vote for the imperfect and knuckleheaded, rather than open the gates of doom!

The hearing - you know which one.

Well, I watched the last three days of the hearings. Normally I’d have watched the opening statements too, but I was traveling back from Bar Harbor, Maine, that day, and it’s a long drive. From the lack of dramatic headlines, it seemed pretty boring. I imagine the very same statements that were made for three days were made on the first too by everyone.

What was this about? Well, technically, this is the procedure, although hearings are not required by law. The nominee goes through the committee and if voted out, there will be argument and a vote the following week. I’m sure the Ds will do whatever they can to delay there too. Senator Graham, the chairman, took it in stride in the committee, but it’s cutting closer to the election for their vote and it might get dramatic. For the Rs, it was going through the motion and Graham taking a tough approach.

This was not Kavanaugh redux. Although some D Senators were a little impolite (hard to attack a judge personally who has 7 kids, two adopted from Haiti), it was relatively peaceful. For the Ds, this was an opportunity for campaign rhetoric. They mostly brought up the ACA, over and over, as if the judge was a super-legislator who should make policy decisions and they accused her subtly and not so subtly of having been put on the bench by Trump to vote for him if there is an election case and to overturn Roe v. Wade and the ACA. Ds in large have made it clear that they are going to try to make the ACA the defining issue of the campaign. While it’s true that there is a case ready when she is confirmed (if confirmed - but so far, so good) on the ACA, I still think the Ds are panicking over nothing. Benches usually, in past experience since I’ve been paying attention (about 40 years), move left, as Roberts seems to have done. And Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem to be available to do so too on the right cases even more so. I think Trump would have to win the election and then get another pick from an empty seat now held by a liberal (say, Breyer retired), to feel that he has a solid right-wing majority. I know the Ds would rather have another D, but these are the cards right now.

The judge. They were all impressed that she didn’t use notes. I’m not that impressed. She has been a con law professor at Notre Dame and also knew her own cases. She’s in her 40s, so her memory should be sharp. Despite all the testimony as to her niceness (the blind law clerk she helped was a nice touch by the Rs), there was also a no-nonsenseness about her, but one that never lapsed into incivility. She was unafraid of the Senators, as a nominee should be and would push back and tell them when they were wasting their time.

Should she have answered more questions about her policies? This comes up every nomination. The judges don’t want to give personal opinions and often deny even thinking about controversial subjects. No one believes them, of course. Both sides like to call this the Ginsberg rule about no forecasts, etc., of whatever might come up before them. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh steered clear of it, but so did Sotomayor and Kagan.

The Ds pointed out that Ginsberg had, despite her no-forecasts, given her opinions. E.g., she’s all about Roe v. Wade. Sen. Durbin says that it is disturbing that she wouldn’t discuss cases or opinions with them and pointed out that Scalia (98-0) and Ginsberg (96-3) did. No one on the R side decided to tell him why, but I will. Here’s it in short – that was then, this is now. Since Ginsberg, there’s been a ratcheting up in incivility and partisanship. If Barrett gives opinions on anything, she knows that the Ds will demand that she recuse herself on every case they can, not to mention claim at the hearing that she can’t be fair. No R judge, in particular, is going to get a unanimous vote, maybe even not more than a few votes. Other than Roberts, who got 78-22 after what many commentators said, neither Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh got 58, 54 and 50. Kagan and Sotomayor got between 63 and 68. In other words, some Rs are more likely to vote for Ds than vice versa. The last one, only a single D, Joe Manchin, the most moderate D, voted for Kavanaugh. Gorsuch got 3. Kagan and Sotomayor didn’t get much more, but more, 5 and 9 R votes. Kagan famously wrote an article saying she thought nominees should be more forthright about their views, but at her hearing, she said now that she was there, she changed her mind, and no one (that is, Rs) really pressed it. Why, because it was safe to do so when Scalia and Ginsberg (and even Breyer) did it, but it's not anymore.

But, you can skip all the other previous events and go straight to Kavanaugh’s hearing if you want. It was so hostile, so ridiculous, with Ds literally scheming and interrupting the proceedings with the same motions and pleas, to stop it, were (yes, my view) disgusting in their attacks on him and attendees screaming in the back of the room. Frankly, after that (I’ve said this many times), what many people describe as the worst thing they’ve ever seen in politics, the Ds are lucky they got a hearing to question her, rather than just a floor vote. Whatever the rules in the Senate, they should have changed them if it would have stopped such a vote, because this is what the Ds say they are going to do.  After Kavanaugh, I'd abolish these hearings until there was a promise to behave. Frankly, I think there was - just privately agreed to between Sens. Graham and Feinstein.

In this hearing, the Ds made only one ridiculous political maneuver.  On the day of scheduling the vote for the committee, which is done in the “business session" of the committee, only Durbin showed up among the Ds, claiming per the rules that at least two in the minority needed to be present. Graham didn’t care and casually held his vote anyway, saying to Durbin that if the Rs did what the Ds were doing, he (Durbin) would also hold the vote. Big surprise, Durbin had all the D senators proxies to vote and then they all showed up pretty much right away. Hiding in the hallway no doubt. And, not that the Rs don't do similar things. Nonsense, but, compared to Kavanaugh, cake.

Is this the first time ever that a Supreme Court confirmation has been held in an election year? Not by a long shot. As Sen. Cruz explained, one-half of presidents have nominated a justice in an election year. It’s happened 29 times. When the senate was the same party, they mostly got through, 17 of 19 times. When the senate was the other party, they mostly didn’t, only 2 of 10 times. Of course, it is easy to say the Rs are hypocritical for not holding a hearing for Garland, but doing it for Barrett. Fair argument. And, in my view, although legal, it was foolish and didn’t help. But, from their perspective, it was turnabout is fair play. They hold against the Ds not only Kavanaugh, but the Thomas “high-tech lynching” and the famous Borking (the only nominee I’ve watched testify who I would not have voted for*). And, Miguel Estrada was kept from a vote on a Court of Appeals after coming out of the committee with 100%. The Rs have their own “bad acts” when it comes to nominations (e.g. Garland) and Jesse Helms used to make me sick with his refusals to bring D nominees to a vote. But, when it comes to the judges, the Ds have the worst of it, even including Garland (who’s non-hearing which I disapproved).

As I mentioned a few weeks ago the first time I addressed this issue, in no way do I buy the appeal to let the people decide. The people decided in 2014, 2016 and 2018 elections, who the president and senate are. This will be true for me no matter who the parties in power are.

*With Bork, one, I thought there was something off about his personality. That might be unfair, but it was my impression. Two, though he had abandoned it, he at one time had some crazy first amendment notions, not favorable to free speech – and if he held it at one time, what might come next?*

That being said, the Ds weren’t that bad this time. Sen. Feinstein said at the end of the hearing that it was one of the best hearings in her memory. Interesting, considering that the Ds acted as if the world was ending during it, or at least health care.

Some personal character assassination by me.

As I’ve said before I do not like this Sen. Mazie Hirono at all. I’m sure she thinks that she is fighting the good fight, but she has given the nod to left-wing terror groups like Antifa, and strikes me (this is pure opinion) as someone who will okay with re-education camps, torture and the like should she ever be in power. During Kavanaugh, I despise many, most, of the Ds on the judicial committee for what was a great breach in our democracy and behavior that reminded me of the Bolsheviks when they didn’t quite have power, and the Nazis on their rise. But, she was the worst of them. Even though most of the Ds behaved well, politicizing the Coney-Barrett hearing, but mostly respectfully, she was again the worst. Her twisting of words and her question as to whether the judge had ever raped or assaulted anyone just make a lot of people think she’s literally – mentally ill. I don’t know if those are the right words, although I’ve used them myself. I just know I don’t like her and we will rue the day she has any power. 

The other two who stood out for me were Klobuchar and Booker (I take it as a given that Blumenthal is a reprehensible man, and that Durbin is hanging onto to decency by a thread). Klobuchar was the nice one in the Kavanaugh hearings. He even apologized to her at one point for lashing out (after he had been tortured). But, I think her presidential ambitions have gotten the best of her as she came out more assertive and strident. Again, this is my impression and someone who has different political beliefs might not agree with me. They’d perhaps see her as righteous and courageous. Whatever, if her questions had for me, really gone towards seeing if Judge Coney-Barrett was qualified, maybe I’d see it that way too. Sen. Harris, who was also pretty embarrassing, I’ll leave alone. She’s running for VP and nothing she says can be taken seriously.  The last one, I’ll leave for his own section.

Sen. Booker – please look in the mirror.

Look, he was part of the anti-Kavanaugh gang, and bears that taint like the rest of them. He seems to me, based on the primary debates, to have a far-left agenda much like most of his peers. But, despite that and the insecurities that have him repeatedly mention his Rhodes scholarship and his football prowess, I like him more personally than many of his peers on that debate stage – I guess he has found a good way to present himself. He's likeable, but I can like someone with whom I disagree, personally, even sometimes someone who has done me wrong or has committed a crime. Understandably, that is something that is hard for many people. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, towards the end of the business meeting, he made an impassioned speech about fairness and non-partisanship. Those are my words, not sure he used them, but that was the tone of it. I thought it as a really good speech. I agreed to a large extent. But, I have some advice for him –

Great speeches like that are meaningless except when delivered to one’s own party. What he was doing is asking the Rs to give up their power, even though they were voted into the presidency and the majority of the Senate, just so that his party could exercise more power if Biden wins.

That, of course, would be reprehensible of the Rs. It is something they are entirely capable of, as I find the party cowardly, shrinking in the face of accusations that sting, like being called a racist. But, that’s one of the good things about Trump, for all of his personal faults. He usually stands up for people he appoints, like Kavanaugh, and, no doubt Coney-Barrett during what will likely be a last stand effort to stop the upcoming votes to send her out of the committee and confirm.

Of course, Sen. Booker’s speech was a lot more pleasing than Sen. Whitehouse, a clownish partisan in my book (it was he who made astonishing conclusions from Kavanagh’s calendars), who yesterday threatened to get revenge when they have the power, although of course he didn't use that word. What a laugh. The Ds are going to do whatever they can to forward their agendas regardless of what the Rs do when they have power. Both parties do that. E.g., the Ds used their power to ram the ACA down the Rs throats when it passed and the Rs will do whatever they can to say, see how you like it. Or not, because in the end, at least one or more Rs usually falters. At least, of late. 

Balance on the bench?

What happens if Coney-Barrett is confirmed? Will the bench swing very right? No doubt, it will swing rightward, but I don’t think that far. In fact, it will probably become more balanced, even with 6 conservatives.

Here’s why. Obviously, she’s a conservative. But, I think just as obviously she is dedicated to precedent and believes only rarely should it be reversed. But, there are three members of the “right” coalition already who will sometimes vote with the Ds in controversial cases, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Roberts, at least relative to the other two, Thomas and Alito.

Every year, the justices get an (unofficial) Martin-Quinn score (named after the authors of a 2002 paper), which measures the political ideology of the justices in a dynamic (that is, changing) way. So, zero is a perfect ideologically moderate judge. Positive numbers are for conservative ideology and negative numbers for liberal ideology.

In 2019, there were four generally liberal judges and five generally conservative judges. But, the liberals were more liberal than the conservatives. The liberals had a score (added up and divided by five) of -2.015. The cons had a score of +1.504.

In other words, the Ds were, by this generally respected measure 1/3 more liberal than the Rs were conservative. 1/3 is a lot. But, without something else, it is meaningless, as they are the minority. One of more of the con judges were more likely to cross-over than the Ds were likely to cross to them on this bench. There are many statistics on this, but, it is so well known, I don’t think it is disputable, that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will cross the most of the judges, which Roberts a little behind. It may be opinion, but I think Roberts will be the most likely on cases that he considers of epoch importance. I trust Kavanaugh and Gorsuch do what they think is right, but I know longer trust Roberts, who I believe is bent on having his courts seen as less divided. Just an opinion. D judges do cross-over too, of course, on occasion, and even Justice Thomas, who has the most ideological rating of all of them.

Some criticism of the judge.

These hearings continue to be a waste of time, if, in some cases, deplorable. All we heard or learned from this hearing were things we already knew. I’m glad it was not as deplorable as the last one.

One thing that did disturb me that was said, however, was by Justice Coney-Barrett. After fending off every attempt to get her opinion on topical issues, she gave an opinion on the most contentious issue of the day. And it was something that MIGHT come before her on the court. That would be her opinion on George Floyd’s death. First, she said that she cried and had to explain it to her children. Then, she said that it was evidence that racism still exists in America.

First, let me say, of course racism still exists in America. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think that. What’s controversial these days is what makes someone a racist. Is it being white? Is it refusal to acknowledge you are a racist if you are white? If you use different words you think are not offensive but others do, are you a racist? Does intending to discriminate matter at all? Or, God forbid, of course, is it because someone is actually racist? And, naturally, there are other questions (if you would not marry a person with a different shade of skin – are you a racist? If you tend to think people of one particular shade are less attractive - are you racist? Etc.)

But, no one knows at all if Officer Chauvin was behaving in a racist way, or just unconscionably without a racist thought. There’s no indication I’ve read that he dislikes blacks or has treated them worse in the past. Why does she think so? Clearly, the media and BLM narrative has succeeded with her.

Was I Derek Chauvin’s lawyers, I would argue that he cannot get a fair trial anywhere in the country after she stated that it was evidence of racism. They would lose, but, it would be a fair argument. And, what if, as criminal cases sometimes do, it comes to the Supreme Court? Should she recuse herself? I think she should. How can a litigant you've called a racist feel you are unbiased. However, not recusing herself would be typical of Supreme Court Justices. In WWII, some of the judges were very close with or worked for the executive branch. Justice Scalia was personal friends with Dick Cheney. Justice Ginsberg made inappropriate statements about Trump. Yet, they did not recuse themselves from handling cases involving the administration. I’d be disappointed if she didn't recuse herself in this situation, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if she didn’t.

It was the wrong thing for her to say. She should have said – this could come before me as a case, so I can’t talk about it. Few, probably none of the Ds aren’t voting for her anyway, no matter what. Perhaps, the success of the BLM/media movement has been so successful (you can barely go to a store in some towns without seeing “black lives matter” on the window) she is convinced of the rhetoric. 

Another thing she said that disturbed me was her apologizing if she offended anyone in the LGBT, etc., community, by using the phrase “sexual preference.” One, no one knows the reasons for sexual orientation or preference. There is no gay or heterosexual gene that we know of, at least not yet (if there is, it will most likely be a combo of genes). No one knows if there is a psychological reason or some combination of physical and psychological reasons. So, saying "preference" rather than "orientation" doesn’t mean anything as far as claiming it is a choice (I don’t think it’s a choice how you feel, whatever the cause). 

Second, despite Sen. Hirono’s reflexive condemnation of her for using the phrase, Joe Biden, Ruth Ginsberg, Sens. Blumenthal and Durbin have used it. Why? Are they homophobic? Of course, not (I mean, I think). Shouldn't someone ask Sen. Hirono if they meant them. 

And, besides all that – of course the word “preference” is non-offensive. It has nothing to do with choice/not choice. If they except orientation as better than preference – where does orientation lead except to a preference for one gender. I have an orientation and a preference. It might even be the same thing. In fact, I think it is. 

But, what bothered me about the judge was her apology, which fits into the modern-day trends towards only identity matters, towards apologies when no ill-will was intended. Intent matters. Intent matters.

Last, and this is not really criticism of the judge (and the two above examples were very minimal complaints – people get room to make mistakes or disagree with me), but of our custom at the time. This was not NOT Justice Ginsberg’s seat. More, it is not a “women” seat. It’s a seat, and the nomination comes from the Pres. and the confirmation from the Senate. There was no reason to fill it with a woman, just as there will be no reason to fill a seat with a man because Breyer, Roberts, etc. leave, no reason to fill a seat with a black man or woman when Thomas leaves, a Hispanic when Sotomayor leaves, etc. I do not care if we have 3 black justices, 7 women (or why not 9 as Ginsberg said) or 4 LGBT. We need good judges, whatever that means to those whose job to appoint them.

All that said, she looks like a good one and I hope it goes smoothly in the next two weeks.  

 

 

 

Top ten lists

I haven’t done top ten lists in a while.

Guitar heroes.

I know this list would make some people crazy because there’s no Hendrix (may he rest in peace), Van Halen (may he rest in piece) or Clapton on it, but, my list . . . .

1.     1. Estas Tonne – I don’t know how to explain him or why I like him so much. Ukrainian Jew with no fixed address, looks like a stereotypical image of Jesus, travels the world making people happy. It’s usually just him, his guitar and his equipment but occasionally he has some strange musician or other alongside him. He uses a lot of reverb, which I like. I saw him live once in NYC. His music is so relaxing it was hard not fall asleep. Sometimes I play him at night when I can’t sleep. Try The Song of the Golden Dragon. https://www.youtube.com/watchv=7gphiFVVtUI&ab_channel=LiebensteinMovies.

2.     2. Stevie Ray Vaughn – blues guitarist, died at the height of his fame. Died, like it seems too many musicians do, in a plane crash. I don’t really like the blues all that much, but I did like his guitar playing a lot. My favorite SRV piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzWYsS-VHww&ab_channel=stevierayvaughnVEVO.

3.     3. Carlos Santana – Who is more celebrated than him these days. Made his bones at Woodstock. Has an immediately recognizable sound and style all his own. What to pick, what to pick of his? Ah, Black Magic Woman (not written by him, as I had thought, but by recently deceased Fleetwood Mac founder/guitarist/singer Peter Green (who probably should be on the list, but . . . nope). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyQUCYl-ocs&ab_channel=SPARTAN0805.

4.     David Gilmour – Pink Floyd’s master guitarist. Another original. No one I’ve heard sounds like him either. This is him without PF as an older guy. Still great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiXNIjGX1hY&ab_channel=DavidGilmour.

5.     John Williams – not the composer, but perhaps the most revered classical guitarist. Here he is playing one of my favorites, Asturias, originally a piano piece, but most often played on guitar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDAHl54V0CU&ab_channel=Rmontoya.

6.     George Harrison – Not saying he was better than Lennon and McCartney, but saying I liked his guitar playing better. Here he is playing with his buddy, Clapton, on My Guitar Gently Weeps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDs2Bkq6UU4&ab_channel=MarcoPulgar.

7.     Chuck Berry – Before God created the universe, there was Chuck Berry, probably playing the guitar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ROwVrF0Ceg&ab_channel=pigcityrecords. Johnny B. Goode. 

8.     8. B. B. King – As I said, not a huge blues fan. But I am a B. B. King fan. Maybe he should be first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mMIWL3ygLw&ab_channel=javeca.

9.     Al DiMeola – Another creative force who goes his own way. He once stopped a concert to tell an exuberant crowd to shut it if they wanted to hear him play. Loved it because I hate noisy crowds. But, his music is always pleasing. Here he is playing the always entertaining Libertango. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2JdBwaLYH0&ab_channel=AlDiMeolaArt.

10.  10. George Thorogood. Ummm. . . another Blues guy. What can I tell you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6UkHsEEgNo&ab_channel=GeorgeThorogoodonMV.

Beatles songs

I must have done this before, no? Well, I’ve probably changed my mind since then anyway. I doubt many people will agree with this list. The Beatles really had an amazingly varied songs. I don’t know if any other group compares that way.

1.     Across the Universe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90M60PzmxEE&ab_channel=TheBeatles-Topic. Though, my favorite version is by a Celtic harpist, Áine Minogue, you can’t find that one on youtube for reasons unknown to me. It’s an odd song Lennon wrote after a fight with his first wife, and he thought McCartney didn’t care about it and didn’t like himself how it came out. He was wrong.

2.     Blackbird. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Man4Xw8Xypo&ab_channel=TheBeatles-Topic. Almost like a folksong. But, one of those unusual tunes that makes me think, how’d he think of that? Paul says it is about civil rights and in sympathy for blacks in the deep south.

3.     Hey Jude, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_MjCqQoLLA&ab_channel=TheBeatlesVEVO. Not my no. 1, but arguably one of the greatest songs ever.

4.     Back in the USSR. The Beatles at their most Beach Boy-like. At one time, my favorite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS5_EQgbuLc&ab_channel=TheBeatlesVEVO.

5.     The Long and Winding Road. Just one of my favorites. I like the imagery of the long winding road. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdf_w1JcSQ&ab_channel=SirGeorgeHarriSong.

6.     Here comes the sun. A number of my top ten Beatle songs are Harrison songs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGKPHFrHVVY&ab_channel=grinnersrwinners.

7.     While my guitar gently weeps. There’s a link in the previous segment. Fine, I’ll put it here again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDs2Bkq6UU4&ab_channel=MarcoPulgar.

8.     My Sweet Lord. That plagiarism verdict was ridiculous. I mean, does it sound like the Chiffon’s He’s so fine? Well, yes, somewhat. But, not enough for me. If I were on the jury, it would have been no. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qJTJNfzvr8&ab_channel=nowhereman113.

9.     Revolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNdcFPjGsm8&ab_channel=TheBeatles-Topic. I guess it is a hard rock song, but I don’t think there is another like it. I saw a video recently where Paul said he thinks Helter Skelter was the beginning of hard rock. Which, is ridiculous as it had already started (and it’s not in my top any-number Beatle’s list). But, Revolution was still great.

10  Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da. Really, who writes songs like this other than The Beatles? Maybe Paul Simon. But, not many. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J9NpHKrKMw&ab_channel=TheBeatles-Topic.

Runner up: Let it be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDYfEBY9NM4&ab_channel=TheBeatles-Topic. Second runner up. A Day in the Life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYeV7jLBXvA&ab_channel=TheBeatles-Topic.  They never get old. A Day in the Life and has an interesting history. Here’s a link for 10 things you didn’t know about it. https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/beatles-a-day-in-the-life-10-things-you-didnt-know-191427/.

Pudd’nhead Wilson

My favorite Mark Twain book is neither Tom Sawyer nor Huckleberry Finn, although I enjoyed them both. I seriously doubt many people have even heard of Pudd’nhead Wilson, a short Twain novel, though they should. My mom introduced me to it when I was probably in my 20s.  It’s a lot shorter than his more famous books, but that is not its only benefit. It’s a typical Twain plot – typical 19^th century plot, actually - but the writing makes all the difference. At his best, almost no one was Twain’s equal. Pudd’nhead was his detective way down south and . . . not going to tell you what happens in the book, in case you actually want to read something great. However, I will tell you that Pudd’nhead kept a calendar into which he jotted little thoughts. These are my top ten of his thoughts, some of which have acquired a lot more fame than their source. Although they are usually attributed to Twain, it is normally without mention of where they came from:

            “One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat only has nine lives.”

            “The holy passion of Friendship is of so sweet and steady and loyal and enduring a nature that it will last through a whole lifetime, if not asked to lend money.”

            “When angry, count four; when very angry, swear.”

            “As to the adjective: when in doubt, strike it out.” 

“October. This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August, and February.”

“Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits.”

 “Behold, the fool saith, ‘Put not all thine eggs in the one basket’ - which is but a matter of saying, ‘Scatter your money and your attention’; but the wise man saith, "Pull all your eggs in the one basket and - WATCH THAT BASKET.               

“If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.”

“Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.” 

“April 1. This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other three hundred and sixty-four.”

 Ten best bouts I ever saw. 

              Now, keep in mind, I was really watching fights from the ‘60s through the ‘80s, but, fortunately for me, that was a golden age of boxing. The rules are, I had to see it as it was being fought or within a few weeks after. Many I’ve seen on video don’t count (like the Marciano v. Walcott I just watched). Back when I was watching you often couldn’t see a fight for a week or two after it was over. These are my personal favorites. I will struggle with an order for them, but don’t put too much stock in it.

1.     Ali v. Foreman – This must be on everyone’s list. They fought in extreme heat, Ali inventing Rope-a-Dope, that last flurry and slow motion toppling of the fighter who had literally beat the hell out of everyone else with ease, and would continue, with rare exception to do so into his 50s. Of course, this fight has generated books. The build up to it in Africa was almost as great as the fight.

2.     Matthew Said Mohammad v. Yaqui Lopez. Two great fighters. In the 8^th round, one of the greatest in boxing history, with powerful boxing by each, Lopez turned the tables on Mohammad and gave him a beating no man should stand up to. But, then, Mohammad did, and came back to win on a TKO between the 11^th and 12^th round with both Lopez’ eyes closed or closing. Two years later, with Mohammad the light heavyweight world champion, they did it again, with a 14^th round knockout by Mohammad, and it was deservedly voted fight of the year. I’ll take the first fight here because of that 8^th round. Lopez had a long career, and except his last fight, only lost to champions or top contenders. In one of championship match, against John Conteh, he arguably should have been given the belt. Still alive in his late 60s. Mohammad ended up with a sad string of losses, became bankrupt and died homeless. Boxing is a rough way to live, is more destructive to almost every fighter than good for them, even the champions. But, like war, in its own way, it is also glorious. Worth it? I less and less think so.

3.     Arguello v. Pryor I.  OMG. What a battle. I was emotionally invested in it. Arguello hit Pryor with some shots that seemed like they’d knock out an elephant and Pryor shrugged it off. We know now that almost certainly Pryor’s trainer helped him with a little antihistamine in his water to add to his lung capacity late in the fight. Even if you give that to Arguello because of cheating, in the next fight, Pryor beat him again with a 14 round KO, so I have to give him his due. They became friends and both had tragic lives, Pryor pulling out of his homeless at the end to become a preacher. Pryor actually retired with a 39-1 record, losing only once to a mediocre good fighter late in his career after two years plus out of the ring due to drugs.  Due to poor management and bad luck, he never fought Leonard or Duran, but the two fights with Arguello with one against Kim Sang-hyun in between was his hey-day.

4.     Hagler v. Sugar Ray Leonard. I thought Leonard was the greatest fighter of his generation, and what a generation it was. Both of them were past their prime when they had this fight, but it was still awe-inspiring. Some thought Hagler won. Maybe. I couldn’t complain either way. Perhaps a draw would have been fairest.

5.     Salvador Sánchez Narváez v. Danny “Indian Red” Lopez. Lopez was a great and colorful fighter, a hall of famer. But, Sanchez was an all-time great fighter – that is, one of the best ever. Dying in his Porsche in a wreck at age 23, he had already a 44-1-1 record, losing only once as a young man against a Mexican champion and drawing once. Lopez was one of my favorite fighters and has two fights on this list. The other one he won. But Sanchez was almost a force of nature. He beat every world champion or future world champion he fought. Then again, so had Lopez, who was world champion when they started the fight. Both of their fights were in 1980. Sanchez had a great record, but to look at was not impressive. Few expected him to win. But, he knocked Lopez out in 13 after a grueling and beautiful match. Later that year, in case anyone thought it was a fluke, Sanchez knocked him out again, after which Lopez pretty much retired (fighting long after once more like so many idiotically do). Sanchez defended his title 9 times against great fighters before his accident, and was already considered one of the greatest featherweights ever while still young man. He never got his fight with Arguello, which might have made him more of a household name.

6.     Lopez v. Mike Ayala.  I can’t imagine how amazing this fight would have been if Ayala hadn’t been on heroin at the time. Still, it was deservedly Ring Magazine’s 1979 fight of the year. I put this fight after Lopez’ fight with Sanchez, because it just fit better writing-wise, for me, but it was the better fight, one of the greatest ever. Although Lopez, a brawler, knocked down Ayala several times, it was an all-out war. I had seen Ayala fight before, and he looked all but unstoppable to me. I thought he was going to take Lopez, a huge puncher, but not one who made a lot of effort to avoid being punched himself. However, I didn’t know about Ayala’s drug addiction until recently, and though he had an impressive career, and I admire anyone with the guts to get punched in the face for a living, I feel he squandered what could have been a hall of fame career. Lopez earned his. Both are still alive, both in more prosaic and less painful careers.

7.     Hagler v. Hearns. I really admire Tommy Hearns. He was a great fighter. He won 6 world championships in 5 weight divisions (7 if you include the IBO), starting in welterweight and going up to light heavy (or again, Cruiserweight if you include the IB)) – an incredible spread. He knocked out Roberto Duran. He beat Wilfred Benitez. But . . . he also fought in the era of Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler. Sugar Ray beat him in their first fight, and deserved it, stopping Tommy while behind on all cards. They drew much later in their careers, and Leonard has acknowledged Tommy probably won. But, why am I going on about them when this is the Hagler fight I’m talking about. Hagler knocked Hearns out in the third round. But, what 3 rounds these were. Go watch the fight. I mentioned 5 fighters in this paragraph it was a pleasure to watch in the 70s and 80s. More than any others, they made it a golden age.

8.     Frazier v. Ali III. Ali-Frazier I was between two undefeated fighters. Frazier won. II was between two longstanding champions, and, though Ali clinched a lot, it was a great fight. Ali won. Ali barely won III, The Thrilla in Manila, which some think the greatest fight ever. Though Frazier’s manager through in the towel rather than see Frazier get irreparably harmed, little did they know, Ali was trying to quit in his corner, but his manager wouldn’t let him. He later said it was the closest he ever came to dying. The build-up for this fight was something that doesn’t happen anymore. But, the fight lived up to it. Maybe I’m crazy. Maybe this should be number 1.

9.     Wilfredo Gómez v. Lupe Pintor. Wilfredo Gomez is a very underrated fighter. He retired 43-3-1, with 42 wins by knockout, his first fight being the draw. After that draw, he knocked out 32 fighters in a row. He still has the record in all weight classes of 17 consecutive championship defenses. His three losses came to Salvador Sanchez and Azumah Nelson (who Sanchez also beat, but another great champion). The last loss was to . . . who cares? Unless you die by accident young like Sanchez, they almost all stay too long. One of Gomez’s fights was against another great fighter, Lupe Pintor. Pintor  didn’t have a glowing overall record, but really lost most of them starting in 1985 when he had been fighting 21 years as a pro (although, ironically, he was Ring Magazine’s comeback fighter of the year that year). Come on. 21 years in such a brutal sport. Gomez and Pintor both had great fights with others, but, this one I remember as a brutal and expertly fought fight, with Pintor winning into the 14^th round, when, though both were terribly injured, Gomez found another gear and knocked him down. The ref eventually stopped it. The courage of these guys is astonishing.

10.  Leonard v. Duran I. I’m a big Sugar Ray Leonard fan. He lost this one according to the judges and a lot of people I know. I thought he won. He said that Duran had gotten under his skin and scared him. He sure didn’t fight like it. Stood right in front of Hands of Stone. But, Duran was great too. It was a great era for fighting and they were among the best. I am choosing fight 1 rather than 2 because, despite the fact that Leonard lost, it was the better fight. Duran quit in fight 2 - he says because of cramps, but I think it was because Leonard was humiliating him and he couldn’t take it. Just my opinion.

Feel free to comment. I know it was a problem for a while, but I think it can be done now with ease. I have to remember to check the comment box and approve them, of course. Please no slurs, cursing or being mean to someone else who comments, though of course you can disagree with them or me about anything.