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.

David the Divider

So, wow. I'm been writing this blog for about 14 years, for much of it once a week and now, until recently, once a month. The last couple of months during the BLM and other crises, it's been more often. Usually, during its "history," a few people read it any given week and though there are a couple (literally) of steady readers over the years, those who read it changes all the time, and the "circulation" never gets very large. Not surprised. It's always nice to be read and everyone likes compliments (I enjoy the insults too), but, if I had been in charge of marketing, say, Christianity, you never would have heard of it. It has received, per Google, 145,000 or so page views in its lifetime (some blogs get millions a DAY), to be honest, a large percentage of that has to be spam. I'm not the Huffington Post.

But, last week, I got a momentary huge spike. I mean, for me. 250 page views one day, and a few other days large numbers. 

The title of this is David the Divider, but that is mostly tongue and cheek, because most of those who read it as a result of my daughter and gf's posting it on facebook seemed to like it (or so I hear). I will explain what I mean. But, some really did not.

Let me go back first in time to September. One of the people I'm closest with, and really a terrific person, ix generally politically very liberal and pro-BLM. He stopped speaking with me after I gave my evalovin' gf a chunk of links I was posting (or had posted, I forget) in my blog, which detailed the threatening and violent nature of BLM. I gave them to her because he was debating her on her Facebook page (and both were polite), challenging her about her support for Trump. He suggested that on her side were Kyle Rittenshouse, who is a martyr in my and her book, and two crazed mass murderers, who, if you research, you would see, have nothing to do with Trump or he with them. So, I gave her the links to show that BLM, which he had always supported and claimed wasn't violent, was in fact, extremely dangerous znc made repeated violent threats. She published it on her page in response to him, telling him they were from me. The language I gave her not only gave the links, but indicated that if you support them, you are supporting fascists. I meant it as a warning to the unaware rather than an insult, but, let's assume it was insulting to him.  He felt it was calling him and his friends fascists (which, neither I or my gf had said - I don't even know his friends) and were disparaging his "social justice work." Honestly, I still don't know what "social justice work" means (though I generally oppose social justice, as it is often another name for racism), or that he considered what he did "work." 

He texted me later telling me to "lose" his info if that is what we thought. I suggested it was pointless to text out an argument (though I know he prefers that) but explained, or tried to. After we went back and forth a few times, I  declined to go further without personally speaking, and he said he was "done." 

Shame? Of course. But, as I've learned, saying to Trump supporters that it is unacceptable to be one, that they are racists and/or, playing the "I'm not talking to you anymore," is just one more technique that has become imbedded in the "resistance," even if its unconscious. They are taught by example to try to twist you to be on their side by getting angry or making life uncomfortable. "No justice, no peace," right? Their outrage is, after Kavanaugh, Russia, the impeachment, etc., more than a little suspect from the onset. Yes, I'm sure they don't like hearing what they think is wrong (who does?) but, no, I don't believe they are outraged, anymore than I believe it when an employee says they don't feel safe when they don't like a co-worker's opinion. It's another technique. 

BTW, this same person who has stopped calling me, has repeatedly called DT a "fascist," as do many, without even suggesting why and also a racist many times, knowing that I, albeit reluctantly, support Trump. Somehow, in their minds, it is alright for him/them to suggest I support racists/fascists, but not the reverse. Come to think of it, he has called me a racist directly too and feels that is alright (though, I have to admit, he did it in the nicest way, if you can believe it). On the other hand, he has also said because he is white, he must admit he himself is a racist - though I sincerely doubt he believes it from our conversations. And, you know what? He can call me a racist, etc. and I don't get mad at him - at all. I think its crazy talk, but I didn't get mad at him. I have lots of friends and family who have opinions about me that I don't particularly like. That's life. But, although on rare, rare occasion, I have gotten mad at a friend, it has never been because of their political opinion. Should I get a medal? No. That's what we are supposed to do. Or at least, it used to be the case.

I've been through this before, a little, although this is my first, not talking to you. A couple of years ago, one long-time friend, who early on admitted to having Trump Derangement Syndrome, invited me to his house. He said "X" about Trump, and I, thinking we were having a discussion, said my usual - I don't like him much but I felt he was far better than "the resistance." He became outraged, twisted up a red face and said that if I insisted on talking about it, he was going to go upstairs. It was his house, and I was a guest, so I thought that a little much. I pointed out that he was the one talking about it and I just disagreed, and we just left off with him saying we shouldn't talk about it anymore. Naturally, every once in a while, he would throw in a jibe and say he couldn't help himself and we still shouldn't talk about it. Okay. That was a while back and I didn't have my back up about it like now.

And I have had a few other friends in the past few months who I didn't even know hated Trump say to me "let's just not discuss it" if I indicated I would vote for him. Okay. I prefer that to fighting with friends. One person I know told me a month ago we shouldn't speak until after the election. I said "Good idea," because I could tell she was getting infuriated (via email). But, she's a tough cookie (boy, is that an old expression) who, for example, if you say you don't believe in late-term abortion (like the overwhelming no. of Americans) will say you that you want women to bleed to death in alleys. But, she was always like that. Trump just makes it worse for her and he is very good at getting people to hate him. In any event, a week later she was emailing me and seemed to want to just not talk about it. 

If this was just my experience, it wouldn't be worth a post, and I'd just tell a few friends. I have had heard from others that they can't discuss Trump or almost anything with family who are really liberal or radical, because they will stop talking to them. And, I've read articles on the left, suggesting that they do just that. Many parents I know just try not to piss off their kids, who tend, at least generally, to be more liberal/radical. A couple of years ago I also had a conversation at someone else's family dinner with their family radical. We were discussing the Kavanaugh hearing. It was upsetting to her at first, and she teared up, but after a while she got it (I made an effort to calm her down without taking back a word), even if we couldn't agree, and we had an interesting conversation until her mother panicked and we had to stop. The truth was, like most of my friends, she was media-shielded from actual facts (e.g., she thought the R Senators were yelling at Prof. Ford, when they didn't even question her themselves).

Recently, another person I know who I got on well with, but an unapologetic Trump hater, told me at a party something that Trump needed to go because he "admitted" that he had committed a crime with Ukraine and we can't have that. Leaving aside how ridiculous the argument is to say he committed a crime (the Ds certainly didn't go with it in impeaching him) and equally that Joe Biden is actually on video demanding a quid pro quo that Ukraine fire someone in exchange for money and they could care less - what she said never happened. The only quote from Trump was that he didn't want a quid pro quo, that he didn't want anything except he wanted the president of Ukraine to do what he promised (clean up corruption). 

The anger is mounting. Close to elections, it always is, but as this is the worst hate I've ever seen since the '60s, some of it has become volcanic, and, like the violence, mostly on the left. Last week my daughter posted the link from my blog on her Facebook page and said nice things like that I had taught her to be fair and listen to both sides and that I actually read or watch things that are under discussion to form my opinion. Although, ironically, I didn't actually read her Facebook post, as I despise Facebook, but that's what I'm told she wrote. Most of her "friends" were very positive and my evalovin' gf also put in on her Facebook page, such that my page views, relatively speaking for me, briefly shot through the roof - my page views briefly jumped to some 25 times my norm. It's probably back to normal now, especially as yesterday I posted on art.     

But, a few of her friends on the left were infuriated at her posting my blog. One of her closest friends for most of her life emailed her or sent a private message (I don't completely know how Facebook works) to politely, even regrettably, say she had to step back from the relationship (I think maybe her sister too, although not sure how far that went). This was just from my daughter suggesting, essentially, try to be fair and consider both sides. Another woman, a friend of her mother, said something like there is no - "you being you" - with Trump. In other words, there is only one side to the argument - her side. She also insisted my daughter should take down a video she put up showing that Trump actually did denounce white supremacists. The same person who told me we shouldn't talk until after the election went on for a day or so peppering her with political questions. I think the point was to try to prove that my daughter was ill-informed (which, is what that same person told me I was), which was the only way, in her view, you could support Trump or say you should listen to his side too. 

A brother and sister I know who are fairly close aren't speaking right now over politics. He is on the right, she on the left. Again, she stopped speaking with him, although he admits he understands that what he wrote would upset her. Yet, I know her too and she says what she thinks, and doesn't really seem to want their to be another side.  

I've honestly never seen it like this before. Friends and family members are apparently posting (I'm told - again, not on Facebook) that if you vote for Trump you are a racist. I guess I could get angry by that.. It is very insulting. And some people do get angry at it. But, I shrug it off because I know it isn't the case and I believe they are deluded or ill-informed. That's my take. They don't have to like it.

I do find that those who won't talk about it or get really angry about it are often very ill-informed themselves. When they back themselves up at my request, the information is factually false or it is an opinion not based on a whole lot. I find that the problem is generally that they get all their news from CNN (or the like) and trust them. I make factual errors sometimes, it's human, and everyone I know does, but, when I have an opinion and write about it here, it's because I studied it some, watched whatever hearing or debate we are talking about, or caught up later on it. And, if I haven't done that, I say so and tell you its just a guess. I don't just repeat what I heard on tv (always exceptions - but I often say, I don't know, but that's what I hear). No one has given me a real reason that Trump is a racist or a fascist except because they feel he is, or, some gross exaggeration of what he actually said or did. Someone recently said to me via text that he didn't like the way he says "Chinese," and that makes him racist. Please. I've heard Joe Biden say "white men" like its a disease. I presume he is playing to his base and doesn't really hate them (although scared of what playing to his base will insist). We already know that if you think Trump is playing to his base, that it hasn't empowered white supremacists (of whom, I have explained recently, there are apparently only a few thousand in Klan/Neo-Nazies groups). White Supremacists are the same idiots they ever were, occasionally violent, but dwarfed by BLM/Antifa in size and funding.

Of course, there are Ds and liberals with whom it is easy to talk with about politics even if you disagree. I have had many conversations with Ds/liberals who I disagree with. Of course, some Rs and conservatives are just obnoxious or crazy in conversations too, so much so that I don't even like agreeing with them in public because I don't want to be associated with them.  But, even among them, and they often disagree with me too - but I don't think one has ever said to me we can't discuss it or became enraged. They always want to talk about it. Yes, this is all anecdotal, but, so is my experience with gravity and I feel pretty sure about it.

Of course, this stuff works and people give and just take it. Many people, faced with rage or outrage over politics, or even hurt feelings, give way over matters of principle. I'm not saying I never would, although, it's not my personality to do so. A word or phrase, like "racist!"  or "Black Lives Matter," is always better than a reasoned argument if you want to convince many people in this world.  I think the big push before the election will be to just keep repeating the word racist or racism as much as possible and claiming, falsely, that Trump wants to do away with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. 

This is what I told the friend who felt I was insulting his "social justice work." Nobody has to discuss anything with me (I was very reluctant with him, as with many people, to discuss it at all, but he persisted even before the dreaded Facebook episode and seemed fine with it). And, I rather they didn't if they are going to get their feelings hurt or insulted, but, no one gets to engage me in a discussion and then tell me what opinion of mine acceptable or not - not even my own daughter. And, if they do get insulted, and don't want to discuss anything with me anymore, that's a shame, but they don't get to guilt me into having an opinion. Try persuading me I am wrong. It is possible. 

These are difficult times. I like my friends and rather they didn't go away over political differences. But, somethings are too important to yield on. Free speech and my getting to express my opinion too, is up near the top. If my opinion divides us - then, really, it's your opinion dividing us. The difference is, I'm not disowning them (yet - I guess you never know).