Reading stuff we don't agree with

I was at the library many months ago and decided to give a chance to a couple of people whose books I knew I would unlikely benefit from, Mostly, like most people, maybe everyone, I read stuff that interests me or which, if political, I'm attracted to because I already think that way. But, I insist on challenging myself once in a while and sometimes to great benefit. I've read many books by those who make outrageous arguments (from Adolf Hitler to Eric Michael Dyson [no comparison intended]) often to my great dismay. One of the books I recently read was by presidential candidate Marianne Williamson - A Politics of Love. Despite some interest during the first debate, her "love" approach to beating Trump hasn't exactly grabbed the party. But, you never know. Many writers I agree with are relatively unpopular, so why not give her a shot? The other was Antonio Scalia's On Faith, which is a posthumously edited collection of his writings on religion. He was a very religious man and one of his sons, who was involved in this collection, became a priest.

I admit, I didn't expect to be transformed by either book. I know from television that I liked both of them personally. But, both are religious. I'm not. And, pretty much after a chapter of each, I confirmed my suspicion.

Williamson begins by mentioning that in 1983, when she was 31 (I have to say, at 67 years old, she looks very youthful) that she was giving lectures on a book called A Course in Miracles. Hard for me to take that seriously. Sounds like the type of book she writes, but this was a self-help book written by others. And, in this first chapter, she goes right on the attack, and it doesn't sound much like love to me:

"Our political establishment was gobsmacked by the success of Donald Trump in the last presidential election for exactly that reason. It didn't see it coming, but it should have. In its arrogant reliance on what it considers "hard facts," the political establishment failed to hear the galloping of a million hooves coming at it. And it didn't hear those for one reason only: it wasn't listening. Psychological pain doesn't register on its radar. The chronic economic despair of millions of people--despair that our political establishment had in part created and largely failed to address--had been going on for years, and it was going, to make itself heard in that election.

"The political establishment was caught off guard because words like "despair," "anger," and "anxiety" refer to emotions, and the establishment mind-set sees emotions as "soft"                      rather than "hard" political factors. . . . .

"We don't just need a progressive politics or a conservative politics; we need a more deeply human politics. We need a politics of love. . . When politics is used for loveless purposes, love and love alone can override it. It was love that abolished slavery, it was love that gave women suffrage, it was love that established civil rights, and it is love that we need now.

"Fear has been politicized once again, and once again love must respond. . . ."

This was just the first chapter and I disagreed with almost everything she wrote (obviously, I gave you a smattering). First of all, our political class does not rely on hard facts. Everyone is very much aware that people do things like vote for those they emotionally like or think are like them, and highly emotional issues like race, resentment, abortion, class warfare and the like dominate elections. And, if she doesn't think that the politicians understand economic pain, why are they always accusing each other of fear tactics? Economics does matter, a lot, in fact, but very few people can cite ANY hard facts. They just KNOW intuitively that their side is good for the economy and the other side is bad. Maybe because she really isn't a politician (like Trump), she isn't aware of this.

Although the idea of a politics of love sounds good, great even, it's the quintessential road to hell paved with good intentions. It reminded me of a friend of mine who wanted schools to stop football, which she didn't watch and teach morals. I asked her "Whose morals, yours?" I then gave her a few examples of what those politically opposed to her might think was teaching morals. She didn't like it much. Yes, she finally said, she meant her morals.

Which is the politics of love? One that is pro-choice or pro-life? Well, the pro-choice people don't think it's very loving not to care, in their view, about women's health and lives. And the pro-life people don't think it's very loving to not care about the aborted baby's lives.

And, perhaps love had something to do with abolishing slavery or women's suffrage or civil rights. But, there was love wanting to abolish slavery for a long time. What really abolished slavery was the destruction of the South and the lost lives of 600,000+ persons. Extreme violence. What really ended Jim Crow was the power of the federal government and the relative lack of it in the South. There's still bitterness and resentment over it.

No, I'm not saying that the intangibles aren't important. If we learned anything from the greatest movie ever, Miracle on 33rd Street (although only the first version), it is that those lovely intangibles matter.  But, love in itself is helpless, sometimes without a gun, and sometimes, as in World War two, which she uses as another example of love triumphing, its with a lot of guns and the "arsenal of democracy" (and "capitalism") buying those guns. After all, love didn't integrate Southern schools, did it?

And, like the rhetoric of all of the other D candidates and most Trump haters I know, she seems to have drowned in an emotional deluge when Trump was elected and sees fascism when he says we need a border and Hitler if he says if you don't like our country, go home (to, unfortunately, some Americans he thought were born elsewhere). You'd have trouble convincing me that Trump isn't a little bigotted, like my elderly deceased relatives, even my parents were (although I doubt they'd see it). Perhaps we all are to some degree too. He's very ignorant about a lot of things I'd like our president not to be ignorant about, but Hitler? Come on. But, the over-reaction to his election, which I've written about before, is astonishing. Just this past week, the "friend" I refer to here as "Eddie" put on his social media page a split image of Trump and Hitler's face. Trump's a knucklehead in many ways, but if you don't understand the difference between someone who is a blockhead and maybe is a little prejudiced and someone responsible for the holocaust and millions of lives, you are either incredibly ignorant (much more so than Trump) or are just engaging in out and out partisan bellowing. Actual Nazis and Klansmen, are awful, obnoxious and idiots. Agreed. But, in the political mainstream the last few years, the only ones we've, by a large margin, seen using at least some fascist tactics, are on the left - beating up speakers, taking over the floor of congress, shutting down rallies, confronting politicians in public and even at their houses, publishing political donors' and politicians' addresses. They aren't killing people often, but some on both sides do that. But, you know its coming and then they will say, as they did recently when crazed gunmen killed multiple persons, it's Trump's fault. One good villain is worth a 1000 heroes.

For all the love talk, Williamson is engaged in the same kind of hysteria. She writes things like:

"Today, Americans are living at the behest of a tyrannous economic system that puts the               short-term profit maximization of huge, multinational corporate entities before the health                 and well-[being] of our people, the people of the world, and the planet on which we live."

"America has fallen, and now it's time for us to rise."

Really, how is that so different than "Make America Great Again?" She uses a very telling example, one not surprising for a "hippie" (she doesn't deny it) of her generation. She recalls a young man asking her if it wasn't true that her generation was just "into sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll!" She answers, "Uh . . . that was just part of the day!!. We spent the rest of the day stopping a war."

Uhhh, stopping a war? Obviously, she means the Vietnamese War. That's not only a pretty ignorant statement, but a dangerous sounding one to me. First, no doubt, the hippie generation (really people a few years older than me - and by no means most young people then - were against the American participation in the Vietnam War. They did not always combat it with what anyone would call love, of course. Violent protesting even, by very few, domestic bombing and more vicious confronting than goes on now, were also part of it. And, they did not stop the war, which went on for a few years after our laughable "Peace with Honor." But, our politicians, Johnson and Nixon, did give into the fierce opposition against it, and finally, we withdrew all our troops. Unlike Russia and China, we then abandoned our ally, the South, monetarily, while those countries, then trying to make communism the world political order, poured it on. LBJ certainly understood that, despite the opposition that drove him from office.  I take a pause from our regular programming for this speech of his:

"The world as it is in Asia is not a serene or peaceful place. The first reality is that North                    Viet-Nam has attacked the independent nation of South Viet-Nam. Its object is total                   conquest.

Of course, some of the people of South Viet-Nam are participating in attack on their own government. But trained men and supplies, orders and arms, flow in a constant stream from north to south.

This support is the heartbeat of the war.

And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to their government. And helpless villages are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities….

Over this war—and all Asia—is another reality: the deepening shadow of Communist  
China. The rulers in Hanoi are urged on by Peking. This is a regime which has  
destroyed freedom in Tibet, which has attacked India, and has been condemned by the  
United Nations for aggression in Korea. It is a nation which is helping the forces of  
violence in almost every continent. The contest in Viet-Nam is part of a wider pattern of  
aggressive purposes.

Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in South Viet-Nam ?

We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President  
has offered support to the people of South Viet-Nam….

We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand,  
are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they  
are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people                    in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result  
would be increased unrest and instability, and even wider war.

We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a  
moment that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be 
renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the  
appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to  
prepare for the next….

In recent months attacks on South Viet-Nam were stepped up. Thus, it became necessary  
for us to increase our response and to make attacks by air. This is not a change of  
purpose. It is a change in what we believe that purpose requires.

We do this in order to slow down aggression.

We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South Viet-Nam who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties.

And we do this to convince the leaders of North Viet-Nam—and all who seek to share their conquest—of a very simple fact: We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired."

Wrong. We fought the war very badly and many lives were sacrificed. In the end, we gave up. How many American lives were lost because of this debacle?  Usually, it is said to be about 58,000. A far greater number than in Iraq and Afghanistan (roughly 7,000 Americans) in a shorter time. Of course, there were far more casualties.  But, how many Vietnamese died? Far, far more. How many S. Vietnam lives were lost because we abandoned them in the end? It is impossible to know but reports go as high as twice as many in the two years after we left than in the previous entire war. How many were sent to re-education camps where they were tortured and starved? Perhaps 300,000? How many fled the country or otherwise perished? Who knows? There are many things you can say about the Vietnam War, and this isn't even a post on it (although probably seems like it by now). The South Vietnamese government was incredibly corrupt and made horrendous mistakes themselves. Corruption, ineptness. Situation normal, worldwide. 

I'm not arguing that the Vietnam War was a plus for anyone, even if we should have stayed (I think we should have). It was a loss all around, including to the N. Vietnamese and Viet Cong, who were triumphant. It's this. If love, as she concludes, ended the Vietnam War, it seems to me, it caused more deaths and pain for our allies than they deserved. If love ended the war, it did so at a tremendous cost of life. Nixon himself acknowledged that the war could have easily been won if the U.S. had destroyed, by bombing, the dikes in North Vietnam. He didn't do it because he believed 250,000 (I believe the number I read) North Vietnamese would have died by drowning. Otherwise, he would have. But, in the end, would the opposite of love, hate, have saved more lives? And if it did, would hate have caused more love? Maybe it would have. Did abandoning the fight destroy our aura of invincibility and reputation for stalwartness? I believe so, and it remains the case to this day.  

I'm just not comfortable with the statement by Marianne Williamson that "they" stopped the war (as if our idiot politicians, wrong-headed Pentagon, North Vietnam and the Vietcong had nothing to do with it) and without a discussion of the aftermath. Russia and China had their own problems and the Soviet Union ended, at least, and China, at least minimally modernized its approach to capitalism. But, is there doubt that our adversaries believed, still believed, because of Vietnam, that we can be defeated by simply waiting us out and that a good portion of Americans will be for simply cutting and running if we face any obstacles, particularly death? That it seems, is what we do.

Everything in Williamson's book seems plausible, maybe on the face of it, desirable. I mean, I like this:

"It's my personal goal-at times I'm successful and at times I'm not--to dissolve the personal negativity I sometimes feel toward those with whom I politically disagree, while retaining the passion and conviction of my disagreement. I've read enough words of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. and studied enough treatises on political nonviolence to know the goal. I know that we have to be the change. It's practicing all that's sometimes hard.

All of us have our fingers pointing at someone today. 'They're the problem.' 'No, they're the problem.' But in a spiritual sense, the pointed finger is the problem."

and

"It's as though no one today has any impulse control; anger and anxiety spew out everywhere, making much of our public discourse dangerously toxic and mean-spirited. From both Left and the Right come harmful shutdowns, aimed at those whose only transgression was the audacity to share an opinion that doesn't align with someone else's preconceived notion of truth. Aiding to the chaos, a constant bombardment of disconcerting news has millions of Americans on edge each day. Our very nervous systems are assaulted by these things, increasing the possibility of mistakes and inappropriate responses. And all of it mitigates against the wise, deep thinking and communication so needed . . . . 

It's the kind of stuff I preach all the time (and, yes, I make exceptions for tolerating fascists - left, right or otherwise). In the end, she recommends the solution of prayer and meditation. I find it difficult to swallow. Not meditation, but prayer was certainly plentiful during most wars. Meditation had never worked for me. Arguably, I wasn't doing it right, but, I'm pretty disciplined when I've decided to try something and gave it a shot. Nothing. I do know many people who swear by it. If they do, they do. I just don't see it as a solution. What is the solution for making America better? Education, particularly in history and economics, family guidance, upbringing, and perhaps the model of at least a few politicians behaving well. 

So, why am I not on board with her? She says, after all, that she blesses the president and prays for his happiness and enlightenment while feeling free to resist him when he runs counter to the values of democracy and works hard to defeat him. Fine. My problem is, she seems to much in line with those who have become literally hysterical and lost all reason when it comes to him. She calls the current situation a "crisis." She compares it to those marching at Selma and that, if traumatized, we should keep marching. Selma? She invokes Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. Does she really think that she or those she feels connected to have to suffer through what King and Gandhi did? 

That's where she and I part company. If you value moderation, which is what she describes, you have to have some moderation in what you believe. I'm not suggesting don't have values, don't prefer one side to another, don't think this is right or this is wrong. Someone at a discussion group I attend implied that if I listen to everyone, I don't have values and wouldn't have fought the Nazis. I disagreed. I said what my values are is pro-freedom, pro-free speech and conscience, democracy and enlightenment values. I oppose those who fight against them. I may disagree with your economic prescriptions, but the hatred and vitriol that people feel for each other is raised to a high degree that ruins civil discourse and democracy if people actually believe they are victims going through a holocaust.

She makes some of the same prescriptions I do. She has a whole chapter on education and what we need to teach our children other than math and science. But, I have a feeling that the children would be taught very different history than I would teach, if she was running things. I was pleased to be, not long ago, at the graduation of a class at a charter high school for minority women. Their college-bound rate was astonishing. The spirit and collegiality of the class wonderful to behold. Imagine my disappointment when one of the speakers briefly spoke about the times we live in and all but mentioned Trump's name. I was able to ask her why she did that. She told me, she didn't want to. She hated doing so. But, that was the compromise with another speaker who wanted to castigate Trump by name. So, we have a class of bright, high-spirited and very educated women going to college - all who have been taught that they are victims and hate Trump and, I infer, all Republicans.

That graduation, of course, had nothing to do with Williamson. But, it seemed to me that it was my problem with her book. Peace, love, moderation, fairness . . . as long as you realize who the enemy is and what the problems are.

I am summarizing a book. You could undoubtedly find statements in it to argue against me. But, that's what I got out of it, what I thought its main fault was - the premise that Trump, if not evil, is dangerous (she's careful what she says but implies). That is also what I got out of two debate appearances. She's going to fight with "love," but . . . . 

Let me leave her and go to the Scalia book. Her book is called Politics of Love. His is called, by his son or editors, On Faith.  But, either book could have been published with either title. They are, very similar books, although the formats are somewhat different. Hers is a long essay broken up in chapters. His is a series of different essays strung together with the same theme. It may be what lawyers call a distinction without a difference.

The first chapter in On Faith called Not to the Wise. I can't agree with it, or much of it, though, like with Williamson, there are parts I can get on board with. So, I will make his argument first, at least to the main point, before criticizing

There is a second half to the title - the Christian as Cretin. He is a Christian, of course, so, obviously, he is not throwing out a slur. Cretin, he explains, is derived from the French - Chrétian, meaning Christian. It was used, oddly, to refer to cretinous people in the alps who were Christians; used to remind that these Christians had souls and were not animals.

He finds that it can be used to refer though in a different way to those who except traditional Christianity - not just a belief in God or a human Jesus with a good message. But, to believe in Jesus was God, that he rose from the grave, that his church pronounces the will of God for man, that hardship and suffering are to be embraced as sharing in his sacrifice, and that those who love God and obey him will also rise from the dead and live in heaven - the others burning in hell. Those things, he says, are not considered very sophisticated, rather simpleminded.

Not to the Wise alludes to a gospel passage in Luke and Matthew. "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to little ones." Also St. Paul writes similarly to the Corinthians, including - "Let no one deceive himself. If anyone of you thinks himself wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may come to be wise.

He compares the actual New Testament to the Jefferson Bible, where Jefferson, in 1804, excised all the nonsense and kept what he found to be the wise stuff. He was sure that the superstitions and nonsense were later interpolations. It was easy, he wrote to a friend, to separate the wheat from the chaff. He now gets to his main point:

"My point is not reason and intellect must be laid aside where matters of religion are concerned. Assuredly not. A faith that has no rational basis is a false faith. That is why I am not a Branch Davidian. It is not irrational, however, to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses, who had nothing to gain by dissembling, about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and about what Jesus taught them; or for that matter, to accept the evidence of        later miracles that establish the truth of the Church that Christ founded. What is irrational, it seems to me, is to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of miracles in general, and of Jesus Christ's resurrection in particular--which is, of course, precisely what the worldly-wise do. They just will not have anything to do with miracles."

I am not going to revert to one of my atheist screeds here. Done that before. Leave aside that we don't know if this is the testimony of eyewitnesses or not. All I will say is that many years ago a very bright co-worker whose argument in favor of astrology was "We are foolish if we think we know everything." My response was, "We are more foolish if we believe anything, however unlikely, because we can't know everything." We just shouldn't just accept things like astrology that make little sense in the reality we know. And I don't accept religion just because we can't.

He goes on to describe a local example of stigmata (look it up) and statues crying. As far as witnesses could tell, he writes, the priest was not a charlatan. I wonder if those witnesses were believers. He didn't say. But, he does say that he didn't go, because one more miracle would not make him believe more than he already did. Really? Frankly, I doubt he saw anything like that before. I wouldn't have gone either, just as I don't go to mediums. Because the appearance of something miraculous is not going to make me believe something that seems so improbable any more than the very convincing ghostly experiences I had in Virginia made me believe in ghosts. So, it was evidence to him, without investigation. It was a hoax or at least misunderstanding to me, also without investigation. 

He goes on too Sir Thomas More, a British Renaissance man who defied his king by insisting that only the Pope, though he himself had found the church corrupt, could sanction the divorce of Henry VIII. Scalia writes: "I find it hard to understand the reasoning those wise people who rever Thomas More as a saint rather than a world-class fool for dying to support the decision of Medici Pope Clement VII concerning King Henry's divorce of Catherine of Aragon, but who themselves ignore and indeed positively oppose the teachings of Pope John Paul II on much more traditional and less politically charged subjects."

He concludes with what he thinks are wise words. I'll let him sum it up:

"Are we thought to be fools? No doubt. But, as St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "We are fools for Christ's sake." And are we thought to be "easily led" and childish? Well, Christ did constantly describe us as, of all things, his seep, and said we would not get to heaven unless we became like little children. For the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world for these seeming failings of ours, we lawyers and intellectuals--who do not like to be regarded as unsophisticated--can have no greater model than the patron of this society, the great, intellectual, urbane, foolish, childish man that he was. St. Thomas More, pray for us.

Well, there's something to be said for that. As with Williamson, I can get on board with some of it. I have spent my life being considered a fool for things I think important. Some of the most complimentary things that have been said about me have been intended as insults, at least mocking. I have always enjoyed those who say things like the stoic, Epictetus: "If you wouldst make progress, be content to seem foolish and void of understanding with respect to outward things. Care not to be thought to know anything. If any should make account of you, distrust thyself." 

Thomas More died because of devotion to principle, convicted of treason. It was a tough way to go, and it wasn't worth it. Nothing could change because of his sacrifice at that time and place. No one else lived because of him, no one else was more free because of him. I doubt he would he would have wanted them to be, he who had others hounded, even put to death, as he was dedicated to his strict religious principle, not a strict principle of freedom. 

But, what of Scalia's wise words? Well, I don't mind being thought a fool for what I think (I'd better not).  But, I hope I don't believe in things that are highly unlikely just because I was conditioned to or committed myself to when young. Much wiser are the writings of Mark Twain. I highly recommend his Mock oration on the Dead Partisan and Inconsistency. Not to mention - "Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world - and it never will." 

I chose these two books to read because despite being from opposing parties and probably in many ways, completely opposed to one another. I give those I don't agree with a chance (within reason). That doesn't mean I have to accept anything that seems to me unreasonable just to be fair. 

I can imagine Williamson and Scalia (were he alive) finding an awful lot in common. After all, Scalia and RBG were best friends. And the books were uncommonly similar in some themes. Both are incredibly successful people who did not have all that many advantages. For me, Williamson and Scalia make the same error. They have values I believe are truths, but then seem to focus them all through their prism. Well, that's fine as far as having these views. But, then, they both seem to focus on things that seem unreal to me AND exclude consideration of other views. Both open themselves to reason. Williamson recounts how she was with Dennis Kucinich and was shocked when he told her that Lindsay Graham, who they had run into, and whom she reviled, was a great guy. Scalia acknowledges that faith without reason is not faith, but insists it is a good idea to be considered foolish by clinging to things that even he (tongue-in-cheek) seem to think are absurd to believe. But, for both of them, it seems to come down to faith. And, when it comes to mystical things, well, I like reading about them, but I don't really have any.

I read both of these books many months ago and never posted this. I was reminded of it watching the Democrats and Republicans fighting over impeachment. Though the Democrats are to my mind far worse right now than the Republicans, they remind me a little bit of what both Williamson and Scalia, both also political people, are talking about, a faith in a political narrative as well as a religious one, that they seem almost willing for us to die for - and politically, or perhaps as a country, perhaps we will.

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.