July 8^th

Mona Charen’s message today is that legitimizing gay marriage will affect your marriage and Mona will tell you how this happens….but she doesn’t! It is clear that she is very unhappy about the SCOTUS ruling; we get the usual “these five unelected judges yada, yada, yada.” Then she tries to convince her readers that their marriage is at risk because of this ruling: she asks, “How can extending marriage to gays possibly affect your marriage? The answer lies in the hidden message.” (If the topic weren’t so serious I’d be tempted to write, “OK folks get your magic decoder rings out so you can read the hidden message.”)

The problem, Charen tell us, has its origins in the feminist movement. “Feminists argued that there were no important differences between the sexes.” Mona throws in the weasel word “Important” which gets her off the hook for this nonsensical comment. Then she goes on to claim that if this were so “mothering and fathering would be interchangeable.” I assume she was speaking metaphorically and not biologically, but who knows? The upshot is it follows that two daddies or two mommies are just as good as one mommy and one daddy. Not really of course but Charen says so, presumably because both are called “parents.”

This is the crux of her argument:  She says that, “Every homosexual couple who chooses to raise a child together is denying that child a parent of the other sex.” She further claims that, “When homosexuals marry, any child raised must lose one natural parent. …the message to heterosexuals is to continue to devalue the biological importance of mothers and fathers and to discount the needs of the children.” Note this quote, “Any child raised must lose one natural parent.” No Mona, any child so raised has already lost one natural parent!

What an amazing oversimplification! Which children are adopted by gay couples? I suppose Charen believes these are happy kids from intact heterosexual marriages. They aren’t; they are single parent kids, often children of divorce because one of the parents is gay. In many cases the children have been abandoned by the other parent or lost in a custody fight. The result is that the child is raised by one parent unless the custodial parent remarries. If the gay parent remarries someone gay it will result in a gay marriage. The choice is that these children will be in a one parent household or a gay household. Charen talks as if the parental choice is between a pair of heterosexual parents or a pair of homosexual parents; it very simply isn’t that choice at all.

And finally Charen says nothing at all about gay marriages between older people who have been together for years and have no thought of adopting children. Not far from where I live two women, one eighty and one seventy-three, will be married soon. Give Mona time and she will think of some unfortunate effect this ceremony will have on the fabric of the country.

July 7^th

Today it’s Pat Buchanan’s turn to hold the stage. He has expanded Greece’s failure to pay its bills into “an existential crisis.” The real crisis, he maintains, is the influx of those pesky unwashed African heathen into “the mother continent.” The what Pat? Is Europe now the mother continent? From my reading of Paleoanthropology, I always assumed that Africa was the mother continent. Of course given Pat’s aversion to people of color perhaps he prefers to believe his ancestors evolved in Europe, perhaps with the Neanderthals?

Pat is in a swivet over the low birth rate of European countries compared with the birth rate of their immigrants. I believe Pat has to accept the fact that Europe and the United States will, over the years, just gradually turn more tan. I know he hates that, but like the ageing process, he’ll just have to get used to it.

There is one issue where he has a point: immigrants flooding into Europe. It takes time to absorb immigrants who come from a different culture and have different values. If too many, from a very different culture, arrive all at once the host culture will have some dislocation trying to absorb them; it happened here and it happened with my ancestors, the Pennsylvania Dutch. No less a founding father than Ben Franklin referred to them as, “Palatine boors who refuse to learn English and want to change the culture of Pennsylvania.” Actually they wanted to be left alone and they saw no need to learn English because they got along just fine speaking Low German. Still, their culture wasn’t very different from the Pennsylvanians already here.  If  anyone from outside Europe can simply put a foot on the continent they will then be admitted  as refugees and that has to be changed; how, and to what, is up to the Europeans but this system isn’t working and they must know that.

Not to be xenophobic, but the problem with the Greek economy is the Greeks. Some years ago I flew to Athens on Hellas, the national airline of Greece. Prior to take off my wife and I were buckled into our seats. There were still about twenty people standing in the aisle visiting with old friends also on their way to Athens. The attendants tried to get these folks to sit down so the plane could take off…forget about it. After about fifteen minutes of pleading with the aisle folks to sit down and being ignored the pilot took off anyway. Once in Athens an interesting traffic ploy emerged: if a red light up ahead had stopped a line of traffic, no matter; the driver of a small car would swerve on to the side walk, horn blaring at any pedestrians, barrel his way to the intersection and there make his turn into traffic.

It should not surprise anyone that 89.5 percent of Greek income taxes are not collected compared with 3 percent of taxes in Scandinavian countries. If people refuse to pay their taxes the country can’t pay its bills. (Grover Norquist take note.) Their politicians promise benefits but refuse to collect the taxes to pay for them. (We, on the other hand, fight wars and refuse to collect the taxes to pay for them.) It will be interesting to see what happens now!

 

July 6^th

Cal Thomas asks if he is allowed to repeat himself on his comments about the Iran nuclear deal. He answers “yes” because he says that’s what Iran is doing. (Frankly, I believe it’s more about taking some time off for the Fourth of July holiday.)

Thomas claims that Iran is not to be trusted to keep its word on the negotiations now in progress. Of course they aren’t, and no one claims they are to be trusted. That’s why this deal is replete with inspections. If our negotiators don’t get what they want regarding these inspections then the sanctions remain in effect. Thomas repeats the warning that the “Koran allows them to lie to ‘infidels’ in pursuit of their goals, could someone please explain how any agreement with liars forces them to stop lying?” Let me try: Perhaps Cal remembers way back to the Reagan administration which, when dealing with the Soviets, who were also considered untrustworthy, borrowed the phrase “trust, but verify” from the Soviets themselves. There will be many safeguards although not as many as Cal Thomas (and Israel) want.

Thomas says that the United States is in retreat around the world. This is demonstrated by China and their construction of tiny islands as well as Russian aggression in the Ukraine. These issues are supposed to show the weakness of the United States’ position. Thomas, as usual, has no suggestions about how these issues should be addressed.

It is clear from their comments that neither Russia nor China wants a nuclear armed Iran. I would guess that neither of them is happy about a nuclear armed North Korea either. Most realistic observers predict that Iran will eventually have nuclear weapons no matter what we do. Our best course is to consider just how we will deal with that eventuality. Condemning Iran’s religious views gets us nowhere.

July 5^th

Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” today interviewed Ted Cruz at some length. The subject was primarily immigration and, more particularly, what Cruz thought of Donald Trump’s comments. So what did Cruz think of them? Well, Cruz thought that was a “divisive question.” He claimed that these were questions the press loved to ask because they were meant to divide the Republican Party and he, Cruz, wouldn’t play that game. Still he said, “I salute Donald Trump for focusing on this (immigration) issue.”

Todd asked him what should be done about illegal aliens already here, and again Cruz played “duck ‘n’ dodge.” Cruz first wanted to secure the borders first before any other issues could be addressed. A secure border that would completely satisfy Cruz is certainly years away; consequently Cruz will get a pass on answering any other questions about immigration. Thus has Senator Cruz given himself a pass on this issue.

Cruz insists that all immigrants must follow the rules required to get into the country or be deported. Well, maybe not all of them; his father fought for Castro and then bribed a Cuban official there to get a visa and a green card to get into the United States. He stayed a short while and then got into Canada as a political refugee and while there married an American woman. They came back into this country because after his marriage to an American citizen he was now at the head of the line. Eventually, in 2005 to be exact, Cruz’ father became a naturalized American citizen. We don’t know what Ted thinks of his father’s interesting and apparently reluctant route to citizenship; he doesn’t talk about it.

The panelists on “Meet the Press” have discussed the variety of reactions to Donald Trump’s comments among the Republican presidential candidates. They believe that the responses have not been helpful to the party’s chances to win the Latino vote in 2016. Even the few who disagreed with Trump delayed far too long in saying so. Jeb Bush whose wife was born in Mexico and who speaks fluent Spanish was, today, quoted as saying that Trump was outside the mainstream of the party and that he was personally offended by the remarks.  But others, Governor Christie, like Cruz, were reluctant to be critical of Trump.

Jeb Bush, if he gets the nomination, might be able to salvage some of the Latino vote. Ted Cruz, even with his Cuban ancestry, has little chance, particularly when he declines to be critical of Trump’s comments…but then maybe he will be after a satisfactory fence is built.

July 4^th

No right wing columnists are trying to confuse the readers of our newspaper today. The result is that I have some freedom to change topics. I’m going to go out on a limb and fantasize about the future election. (As Yogi Berra said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”)

First, consider the Republicans: Donald Trump has thrown an explosive device into the ever expanding field of candidates. Trump’s derogatory comments about Mexican immigrants have earned him considerable criticism; Macy’s has stopped carrying his signature merchandise, various networks have dropped his shows and he probably has to give up the notion of an Acapulco vacation unless he buys the town. The curious thing about Trump is that none of the other candidates have criticized him. About the most severe was Governor Pataki who went out on a limb and called Trump’s comments “disrespectful;” really, that’s the best the Republican field can do to rebut Trump’s outrageous racist characterizations of immigrants? So what does this flabby response mean?

I’ll answer that: It means these candidates know that many of their supporters agree with Trump. Some, or perhaps all, of the candidates themselves agree with him too, but they are not willing to risk the loss of Latino votes by saying so. The evidence for this view is in Trump’s poll numbers. The commentariate claim his high standing in the polls is because of his name recognition. That’s partly true but much of his support is also because many conservatives are closet bigots. They can’t express their bigotry publicly (wouldn’t be prudent) but are happy to let Trump do it for them.

If the party does not reject Trump and his message they will surely lose much of the Latino vote and with it they will lose the election. But Trump has a message which is very popular with many conservatives; that doesn’t matter because party kingmakers (read donors such as the Koch brothers) will insist that he go. If he is rejected he will indeed go; his need to be admired and appreciated is as much a part of his nature as his iconic haircut. The result will be a third party; quite likely called the “Trump Party.”  Bumper stickers will read, “Party with Trump, vote for The Donald.”

If you think that Trump’s message doesn’t appeal to millions of Americans just read Ann Coulters latest effort, “Adios America” in which she spouts much the same racist rant as Trump does. She appeared on Bill Maher’s show and claimed that she agreed with Trump’s message. Coulter has to be taken seriously, just look at her sales; ten, probably now eleven, books on the “Times” best seller list. All of her books viciously denigrate liberals. People who don’t buy her message don’t buy her books. She is very smart and now she is very rich; what a great V.P. candidate to accompany The Donald.

July 3^rd

Thomas Sowell tell us that the “Supreme Court decisions could lead to disasters.” That certainly got my attention. I have lived through several disasters and I try to avoid them; there was the attack on Pearl Harbor, my attempt to pass engineering calculus and physics without studying for either of them, doing a paper on the evolution of the Christian religion for a Bible College professor, and several other disasters equally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I looked very carefully at Sowell’s piece to find exactly what disasters he was talking about. He has managed to hide most of them very carefully. There was one instance that might qualify: He writes, “When any branch of government  can exercise powers not authorized by either statues or the Constitution, ‘we the people’ are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our ‘public servants’ are really our public masters.” But this begs the question; the issue is whether or not the Constitution does authorize SCOTUS to act as it has done in the various cases described. Obviously the judgment of the court is that it is so authorized, and for Sowell to simply claim that it is not begs the question.

He has more problems with SCOTUS decisions. He disputes claims that “statistical disparities imply discrimination. That notion has created a whole statistical shakedown racket, practiced by government and private race hustlers alike.” Of course some statistical disparities most certainly imply discrimination; the pay gap between equally well educated men and women employees is a good example. Sowell gives not a single example of this “statistical shakedown.” Indeed he gives no examples of any of the “abuses” he complains about…with one exception.

He claims that Justice Warren’s decision about separate educational facilities being inherently unequal was quite wrong. It was wrong because he has found an all black public high school in the city of Washington which has sent a higher percentage of its graduates on to college than any white high school there; moreover they scored higher on tests than two of the cities three white academic public high schools. It is interesting that Sowell keeps the name of this exemplary school from his readers.

If I weren’t charitable I might suggest that Sowell was cherry picking here. Could there be other black schools not so able to educate their students? Let’s look at Prince George County: Prince George County opened its first black high school in 1939. Unlike its counterpart for white students, Robert Russa Moton High School had no gymnasium, cafeteria, lockers, or auditorium with fixed seating. Built with a capacity for 180, it contained 450 students by 1950. To house the additional students, the school board built plywood structures covered with tarpaper and heated them with pot-bellied stoves. These “tarpaper shacks” became a symbol of all that was wrong with segregated education. The all-white school board promised to build a new school, but never followed through. Finally, an eleventh grade black girl, Barbara Johns, persuaded the students to simply walk out. These kids did not have even one microscope for their biology classes.

I guess Tom Sowell’s usual Republican blinders keep him from seeing anything that doesn’t support his agenda; but to ignore the deplorable condition of segregated education in the south before Brown v Board of Education is simply unconscionable. Sowell should be ashamed of himself!

 

July 2^nd

Pat Buchanan is holding forth in a very predictable way about the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage; for him it represents even more evidence that Christians are losing the culture wars. He is amazed that the Fourteenth Amendment could be used to support the SCOTUS decision and he wonders what equal protection has to do with gay marriage.

Well, of course he does. He points out that this amendment has been around since the 1880s and this application “has just been discovered.” Buchanan seems unaware that Loving vs Virginia, which SCOTUS unanimously decided in 1967, also used the Fourteenth Amendment as part of its decision to invalidate laws against interracial marriage. Earlier arguments that favored that absurd law focused on the fact that since both parties were discriminated against the law wasn’t discriminatory at all!

Buchanan assures us that we are going to hell in a handbasket. He doesn’t say so, but I believe he would begin the descent with the abolition of slavery, and following in no particular order was a right to abortion, marrying someone of another race, no fault divorce, decriminalization of homosexuality, distribution of condoms to the poor and various other horrors. He cites an Italian, one Antonio Gramsci, dead these seventy five years, as forecasting that this awful realignment of social values must precede a communist takeover. According to this long dead communist theoretician, these changes were required before communism could succeed. Now that many of them are here, communism must be on the horizon…so assumes Pat Buchanan.

Pat howls about the “illegitimacy rate” in the black community and wonders if “any connection exists between these fatherless boys [He doesn’t mention girls] and the soaring drug use and dropout rates and the near quadrupling of those in jails and prisons over the last third of a century.” First of all let’s get some terms straight: an illegitimate child is not a fatherless child; it is a child whose parents are not married. In many cases these unmarried fathers are very much around.

Consider this “soaring” drug use. It’s soaring because poor blacks are booked for using marijuana while wealthy middle class whites aren’t touched. Another factor in the increased incarceration is the monetization of crime. Prison Corporation of America has contracts with government units that specify at least a 90% occupancy rate for the prisons they control. That’s how they make a juicy profit. If that’s the case is it any wonder that poor blacks find themselves convicted of “drug” offenses and then sentenced to increase the profits of a major American corporation.

Then Buchanan gets to another favorite right wing complaint: the decline of the white population here and in Europe. Because of abortion and contraception whites will no longer be in the majority. The appropriate response to this bit of racist intelligence is…So what?

Finally Pat bemoans the incontrovertible fact that “we can no longer even agree on good and evil, right and wrong.” That’s right Pat, we can’t, and we have never been able to do that…and again.…So what?