Category Archives: government

The Peace Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Less than six months before his murder, President Kennedy spoke to the graduating class at American University in Washington, D.C.  It became known as his “Peace Speech.”

Today we are going to recall those remarks, delivered June 10, 1963 because they speak of a nation to which we should yearn to return and to be dissatisfied with leaders who want to deliver anything less.

We are not engaging in nostalgia with this entry. We are engaging in hope as it was embodied in a President who believed in doing for his country, not for himself, and summoning his generation to follow in that spirit.

(If you wish to hear President Kennedy’s voice as you follow along, go to Bing Videos.)

The ‘Peace Speech’

It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914.

This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst’s enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of the public’s business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation’s thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.

Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

“There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university,” wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities — and his words are equally true today.

He did not refer to towers, or the campuses. He admired the splendid beauty of a university, because it was, he said, “a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see.”

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived – and that is the most important topic on earth: Peace.

What kind of a peace do I mean? What kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age where great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War.

It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need them is essential to the keeping of peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles — which can only destroy and never create — is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war — and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament — and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it.

But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude — as individuals and as a Nation — for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward — by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the Cold War and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First, examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view.

Our problems are manmade. Therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and goodwill of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace, no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers.

Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process, a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor, it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.

And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

And second, let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims, such as the allegation that “American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars, that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union, and that the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries and to achieve world domination by means of aggressive wars.”

Truly, as it was written long ago: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning — a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and families were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two-thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland, a loss equivalent to the destruction of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again, no matter how, our two countries will be the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours.

And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this Nation’s closest allies, our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle with suspicion on one side breeding suspicion on the other, and new weapons begetting counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours, and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

Third, let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace.

Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy, or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America’s weapons are non-provocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people, but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system — a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.

At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and Canada.

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. These alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.

Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope, and the purpose of allied policies, to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others.

The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve world law, a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other’s actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about our first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.

The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920’s. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects are today, we intend to continue this effort, to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security, it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.

I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on this matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.

Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives, as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government — local, State, and National — to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within our authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever the authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of others and respect the law of the land.

All this is not unrelated to world peace. “When a man’s ways please the Lord,” the Scriptures tell us, “he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights, the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation, the right to breathe air as nature provided it, the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can — if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers, offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough, more than enough, of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it.

But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on, not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

-0-

The speech was delivered only eighteen years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and only eight months after the Cuban Missile Crisis that frightened leaders of both countries into starting back-door discussions. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev called it “the greatest speech by any American president since Roosevelt.”

A few weeks later, the United States and Russia signed the first nuclear test ban treaty outlawing tests in the atmosphere, under water, and in outer space.

But that was then. This is now.

Maybe in looking back we can find hope in moving forward

(Photo credit: Google Images)

Kakistocracy

Posted on by
Reply

My fellow scribes have used various “tocracy” words to describe the deplorable condition of our national government but I think I have found the correct one.

Writers have a tendency to collect volumes of famous quotations, historical quickfacts, and thesauri, dictionaries—-I even have one by James Lipton that gives the proper word to describe flocks of various animals (a murder of crows,

The other night I was loafing through Peter Bowler’s The Superior Person’s Book of Words, a tiny thing packed with words such as usufruct and bucentaur and manque or noyade or quakebuttock or (the last word in the book) zzxjoanw.

Bowler defines “kakistocracy” as:

Government by the worst citizens. For reasons which can only be speculated upon, there is no word for government by the best citizens. Aristarchy means government by the best-qualified persons, but the latter are not necessarily the best—indeed, an aristarchy could quite conceivably be a kakistocracy. 

‘Nuf said.

Married to a Feminist 

Posted on by
Reply

The perils of doing research that involves going through old newspapers is that it is easy to be distracted from the purpose at hand when the eyes drift to an article unrelated to the topic.

So it was one day several months ago when I came across an article from Grand Forks, North Dakota republished in the Jefferson City Tribune on January 24,1922 about a man who married a FEMINIST.

Not just a feminist but a “blazing feminist” according to the article.

This was the era in which women had achieved the right to vote after years of public and private pressure. Two or three generations of descendants of those women would set fire to some of their “unmentionables” and force their way to even more significant standing in society.

The lead character in the article was university of North Dakota Professor Albert Levitt, who secretly married Elsie Hill, at the time an assistant law professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Elsie Hill was a self-proclaimed militant suffragette and also was the Chairman of the National Woman’s Party.

Levitt proclaimed himself the “luckiest married man in the world.”  He solemnly said he was content, “even eager to lose his ‘sex arrogance.’”

“I am in luck because I married not a plaything but a companion; not a chattel but a a chum. LA man who marries a feminist sees clearly that problems of civilization cannot be solved until they are approached from the feminine as well as the masculine point of view,” he said.

Here’s another thing about stumbling across a story such as this that gets in the way of time-efficient research: What happened to this luckiest man in the world and his feminist wife?

They turn out to have been quite a couple, actually, although his luck ran out and they divorced after 35 years of marriage.

Here’s a picture of Albert in 1937 on his way to the U. S. Supreme Court.  He was there to challenge the seating of a new member of the court as part of a historic collision between the Executive and the Judicial branches of government.   But we’re getting ahead our story.

Albert, described at his death as “the unbelievable, improbable little character,”  was born in Maryland and waited until he was about 35 to get married. He was 17 when he joined the Army and went to a seminary for a while after he got out and then picked up degrees from three Ivy League schools and served as an assistant pastor at a Unitarian  chapel before he went back into the Army where he served as an ambulance corpsman for the French and then became a U.S. Army chaplain, during which time he was wounded and survived a German gas attack.

Post-war, he became a lawyer where he helped National Women’s Party leader Alice Paul write an Equal Rights Amendment (he wrote 75 drafts before the NWP was satisfied) that failed to go anywhere in those times.

He and Elsie eventually settled in Connecticut where he dabbled in politics. He ran for office several times in his career and was never elected. Ahe helped Wilbur Cross, a Democrat, become governor in 1939 and hen campaigned against Cross’ re-election.

His support of Democrats caught the attention of President Roosevelt, who gave him a job in the Justice Department and in 1935 he was appointed by FDR as the judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands. He lasted a year in that job and returned to the department.  But his break with Roosevelt in 1937 cost him his department job.

He objected to Roosevelt’s appointment of Alabama Senator Hugo Black, whose past association with the Ku Klux Klan and his anti-Catholic public positions made him a target of opponents, to the Supreme Court in 1937. He charged Black had violated the emoluments clause to the Constitution.

The case was based on Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution that says no member of Congress can be appointed to any civil office for which the salary had been increased during that member’s term.  In other words, a member of Congress cannot take a government job made more lucrative by the actions of Congress.

During Black’s term in the Senate, Congress had created a new pension program that allowed Supreme Court Justices to retire and continue to collect their salaries. for members of the Supreme Court during Black’s membership. When Justice Willis Van Devanter took advantage of that clause, Senator Black was appointed to succeed him. The Supreme Court refused to hear his case and held he lacked legal standing to file it, a decision that University of Chicago Law professor William Baude wrote in a 2019 Texas Law Review article was worth closer examination.

“Upon closer inspection, it turns out that Levitt’s standing is more plausible than the Court acknowledged. Indeed, such a plaintiff would likely have standing today. Worse, on the merits his claims were correct: Hugo Black was unconstitutionally appointed to the Supreme Court. The Court’s treatment of the case and the broader controversy suggests some uncomfortable facts about the role of the Supreme Court in settling constitutional questions.”

Black went on to a 35-year career on the Supreme Court, the fifth-longest term in court history.

Levitts stayed in the Justice Department until his opposition to Roosevelt’s plan to pack the Supreme Court cost him that job. He returned to Connecticut, practiced law and became involved in Republican politics although he endorsed FDR’s fourth-term campaign in 1940..

Albert and Elsie moved to California in the 1940s.  His name became a familiar one on various California ballots through the years, always as a fringe candidate (he was last in a field of six in the 1950 election that made Richard Nixon a U.S. Senator). He also became a strong critic of the Catholic Church and considered it a threat to American Democracy.  He and Elsie divorced in 1956. He soon remarried and died twelve years later, two years before Elsie’s death in 1970.

And Elsie?

She stayed a dedicated feminist the rest of her life. She was born in Connecticut, the daughter of a ten-term Congressman and his wife. In 1901, her father traveled on the first trans-Siberian train during an around-the world trip. Elsie, at the age of 84, was on Pan-American Airlines’ first New York-Moscow flight.

While teaching high school French in Washington, D.C. in 1913, she became involved with the College Equal Suffrage League and quickly moved into the leadership. She was a big supporter of the 19th Amendment—the women’s suffrage amendment

She was arrested for speaking at a rally in Washington in 1918 and later in Boston. She did some jail time.

She kept her own name after marrying Albert, chaired the NWP and led the party’s national council for four years.

Her marriage to Albert merited a story in the New York Times that referred to her as a “militant” who was “Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Woman’s Pary and a prominent picketer.” It was a secret event with only relatives present. He told some of her suffragist friends about it the next day.

“Miss Hill will not change her Christian or maiden name, thus following the example of several other women—artists, authors, actresses, suffrage leaders and others.,” said the Times. The two didn’t have much of a honeymoon.  Albert had to return to his law-teaching duties at the University of North Dakota while her duties with the NWP kept her in Washington until June when they could get together for the summer in Connecticut.

. The ERA that Albert drafted was submitted to Congress in 1923 and was not ratified.  It was reintroduced in 1971 and approved by the House and, in 1972, by the Senate. It lacked three states of being ratified when its time limit ran out in 1982. Nevada (2017), Illinois (2018) and Virginia (2020) have passed ratification resolutions.

Missouri has never ratified the ERA.

Traditional?

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump, who often has accused his accusers of engaging in witch hunts, appears to be off on a witch hunt of his own, a witch being anyone who does not advocate “traditional views.”  HIS “traditional views.”

We hope somebody asks him for a comprehensive definition of “traditional views” so that I know whether I am involved in “domestic terrorism,” another subject that it would be entertaining to hear him define.

During the weekend a memo written by loyalist Pam Bondi, whom Trump has designated to supervise the Justice (rather loosely defined these day) Department, was leaked. It tells the DOJ to put together a list of “domestic terrorism” groups.

What constitutes such a group?

It is what the Trump/Bondi DOJ chooses to consider “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”

In other words, it’s those who disagree with President Trump who, in our observation, is never going to rival Noah Webster in defining words and terms.

Reporter Ken Klippenstein revealed the memo.  And who is he?

An interesting character. Young, used to work for The Intercept, a nonprofit news organization considered to be well into the political west wing, a former correspondent for The Nation, a  liberal magazine, and a part of the growing online news world. His father is a theoretical chemist at the Argonne National Laboratory. He says his mother’s family was undocumented immigrants from El Salvador.  College grad with a degree in English literature. He has broken other stories using leaked material, too.

We wonder how quickly his name is in a Pamagram sent to the list.

Trump is not the first ruler to impose his “traditional views” on the people.

Tomás de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition from 1483 to 1498 under appointment of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain, the patrons of Christopher Columbus who ventured forth during a period of extreme persecution of Jews and Muslims to spread those traditional (Christian) views to whatever heathens he found when he arrived someplace that he did not know he was going to.

Going back even earlier, we can talk about Pope Stephen VI, who in a remarkable fifteen months pulled all kinds of stunts including the calling of the infamous Cadaver Synod in which he put his dead predecessor on trial for perjury and the illegal assumption of the papacy.  He dug up the corpse of Pope Formosus, put papal vestments on it, propped it up on a throne and had a mock trial.

The corpse did not mount much of a defense and after being found guilty was stripped of his vestments and ceremonially maimed (three of his fingers were cut off) before the remains of his remains were thrown into the Tiber River. There was widespread disapproval of Pope Steve’s definition of “traditional views” and he wound up in prison where he was strangled to death, apparently by non-traditionalists.

Long before Russia had Stalin and his “traditional views,” it had Ivan the Terrible—Ivan IV—who reigned for more than fifty years. He, too, started by promising reforms but quickly was consumed by paranoia and formed his own secret police that terrorized and murdered his subjects by the thousands, one of who was his own son.

Romania in 15th century had Vlad III who once ordered 20,000 enemy soldiers impaled, their bodies remaining on display as a warning against disloyalty. Vlad the Impaler, he is still called.

His cruelty wasn’t just reserved for outsiders; he targeted his own people as well. Vlad would punish dishonesty and laziness with extreme torture, sometimes impaling entire villages. Laziness and dishonesty also were abhorred by our Puritan ancestors, but they just stuck people in the stocks for a few hours—

—Unless they were witches.  Hanging, pressing, and drowning seemed to have been the Puritan Christian cures for those tendencies.

As far as I know, nobody has accused President Trump of being a Puritan. So we’d appreciate it if he’d offer a clear explanation of his terms sometime when he’s awake and not playing the Game of Invective all night on his social media account.

We don’t want to spend any more time—although we could—listing other rulers who sought to protect “traditional values” as they defined them. And we certainly don’t want to suggest that President Trump fits the mold of those we have cited and others on various lists of vengeful rulers. But punishment for differing with any ruler who considers himself the only one to define “traditional values” has a past that must raise questions about a person of questionable personal ethics setting a national agenda for you and me.

The Trump memo also demands creation of “a national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”

The President’s definition of “domestic terrorism threat” as being any organization that uses “violence or the threat of violence” to oppose “law and immigration enforcement, extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders, adherence to radical gender theology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government” and the aforementioned “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.”

Except for MAGA and January 6, 2021 celebrants.

You will excuse me, I hope, if I cannot consider Donald J. Trump in any way fit to determine nation’s views “on family, religion, and morality.”

The Constitution aside, this is a pretty broad mission for our national ruler. Just about everybody falls into one of these categories in one way or another, including me. And you.

Apparently, however, there is a way that we can become immune to prosecution under this policy. We just have to cough up a nine or ten-figure amount to pay for decoration of the monstrosity of a Trump Worship Center that will stand for decades as a tribute to his bad tase and his desire to have more monuments to himself than anybody since the ancient Egyptian pharaohs.

I’m going to put an orange jumpsuit on my Christmas gift list to make sure I’m properly dressed when the traditional values Pamgoons come for me.

 

 

Notes from a Quiet Hill (Dork edition)

Posted on by
Reply

Would Donald Trum’s campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize be more successful if he could get a truce between Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate?  That would be—what? the tenth war he has ended?

What a great ceremony that would be!

In the Trump Ballroom.

So far, he hasn’t suggested the nation’s capital be renamed Trump, District of Columbia.

What did the members of the United States House of Representatives do during the longest government shutdown in our country’s history?

There is one thing they did NOT doing with all of this free time—visiting the folks back home, going around to the cities in their districts, holding meetings or shaking hands with constituents who are shopping at Wal-Mart.

Given the continued deterioration of the economic situations of millions of Americans, it is logical that they would prefer to hide out instead of holding community meetings.  In a time when wisdom is in short supply, perhaps they are wise not to show their faces in their districts after all.

We cannot recall the last time the congressman representing Jefferson City visited here and met with the good folks who sent him to Washington. Coming to Jefferson City to file for another term doesn’t count.

Come to think of it, his predecessor was no prize either. I went to his office once, found the door locked, and when somebody opened it I was greeted with an attitude that asked, “What are you doing here?”

Maybe next year we should elect somebody who won’t ignore us for a change.

-0-

Does anybody else think the President looks like a Dork in his baseball cap?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dork squared.

Does he wear it to cover his apparently expanding bald spot?  Or does he wear it because he didn’t shampoo his mane?

At least he didn’t wear it during his visit with the King of England or in his recent United Nations, uh, speech.  Had he done so, this is the one that would have been appropriate, if any cap was appropriate.

This is the cap he wore while speaking to the Ameircan troops during his recent visit to  Japan. If we were a person in uniform engaged in the serious business of defending our country, we might struggle with our composure while listening to some old guy in a necktie and a ball cap ramble on about how he’s so abused by critics. I’m not sure I could salute my commander in chief who thinks dorkiness is fashionable.

-0-0-

Speaking of wretched excess (a White House ballroom, a marbleized Lincoln bedroom bathroom, a $400 million used jetliner), there is this home in Jefferson City where “going overboard” is woefully inadequate in describing Halloween decorations.

What better time to display “wretched” excess than Halloween?

These folks in Jefferson City obviously like Halloween but we wonder where they store this stuff the rest of the year—-especially since they put up comparable decorations for Christmas. If it’s at their house, where do they live?

A second thought occurred to us that maybe they do this to make it impossible for trick or treaters to make their way to their door.

They have a lot of fun with Halloweek and Christmas. Can’t wait to see what more they add to their Christmas decorations in a few weeks. We’ll try to remember to show them to you.

But will Santa be able to find the house?

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear (of Ourselves)  

Posted on by
Reply

It was a cool-ish morning, a few degrees above chilly and several degrees above cold, the early sun making the warmth inside my car welcoming a few hours after results of this week’s elections had been announced.

As I had fast-walked my mile around the track at the Knowles YMCA in Jefferson City a few minutes earlier, two moments in history came to me as I thought about the first elections since Donald Trump began his second term.  Two phrases from those events  seemed appropriate:

“The people are coming, armed with pitchforks”  and “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

And I thought the Tuesday results amounted to the people armed with political pitchforks, a story springing from the French Revolution of 1789. And my mind added a phrase: “and the grooves in the guillotine are being greased.”

It was October 5, 1789 when 7,000 angry women, armed not only with pitchforks but with pikes and muskets, marched six miles in the rain from Paris to the palace at Versailles to confront Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette about the people in Paris who were starving while the Royal First Family of France ate well in their palace. There had been significant events preceding the march including the famous Storming of the Bastille, the infamous Paris fortress and a prison for Parisians charged with various offenses against the crown, and the circulation of “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.

Four days before the march, a banquet was thrown at the palace, welcoming the troops that had arrived to protect the royal family. There were toasts and expressions of loyalty to the throne, a lavish banquet that outraged the hungry people in Paris when the newspapers publicized it.

Now, on October 5, those 7,000 rain-dampened working women were at the palace chanting “Bread, Bread,” to the rhythm of a beating drum, a moment captured two centuries later in the Broadway musical Les Miserables:

When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

The twenty-thousand French National Guardsmen were unable to keep the women from breaching the gates and demanding Marie face them alone, which she did from a balcony. The mob by now recognized the strength of its position and demanded that she and the King accompany them back to Paris to witness the misery of the people from whom bread had been withheld.

They had no choice. The next day, they became prisoners of the revolution and two years later went to the guillotine.

The dropping of the blade on the neck of Louis XVI meant the future of France would involve no kings.

We will learn more a year from now how much the story of the No Kings movement in France almost 250 years ago will be played out in our streets against President Trump, who held a sumptuous Great Gatsby Party at Mar-a-Lago hours before the Food Stamp Program expired, leaving millions of his citizens wondering how they could afford bread and other necessities of life as he and his friends dined on fine food.

Tuesday’s election results from coast to coast showed an undeniable revolt against Donald Trump.  It is easy and perhaps simplistic to draw parallels with his party and the banquet at Versailles in 1789, when a ruler and his supporters ate very well at a time when many Americans wondered if they could afford bread—and other necessities.

Trump’s reaction to the results illustrates his tone-deaf self-centeredness, his attitude that he is above the mob: “Trump wasn’t on the ballot, and shutdown, were two reasons that Republicans lost elections tonight, according to pollsters,” he wrote in all capital letters on his social media page.  As usual, he did not cite any pollsters supporting his attitude.

The fact is, Trump WAS on the ballot Tuesday.  And his party loyalists who have tried to blame the shutdown entirely on minority Democrats clearly have not convinced a lot of voters they are speaking the truth.

Trump never campaigned for any of his party’s candidates in this election cycle. In the New York Mayor’s race, he didn’t even endorse his party’s candidate and his name-calling against the eventual winner failed bigly.

Our two political parties face important decisions in the aftermath..  Democrats need to keep the public pot boiling for 2026, perhaps not a huge problem as long as Donald Trump keeps doing and saying Donald Trump things.

Is it already too late for Republicans to keep control?  A year is a long time in politics. Candidates and parties historically have found ways to get off the mat.  The Democrats did it Tuesday. But Republicans surely must be questioning how much continued slavish loyalty to Donald Trump will be a major liability for them as individuals and as a party in 2026.

How relevant will Donald Trump be to what the party needs to do in the next year to avoid being irrelevant to voters?  The party surely must confront the reality of the danger Donald Trump embodies to its continued power.  How will the party move beyond him for its self-preservation?

Mayor-elect Zahron Mamdani of New York told well-wishers Tuesday night, “We can respond to oligarchy and authoritarianism with the strength it fears, not the appeasement it craves.  After all, if anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him.”

On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt opened his first inaugural address this way:

This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today.

This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.

Republicans surely understand that they have been warned, that the No Kings rallies are now emboldened, the pitchforks are out, and the pikes are ready for Republican heads next year. The beating of the drum and the beating of the national heart will intensify.

After Tuesday’s elections, it appears the only thing the Republican Party has to fear is itself.

 

The Hating Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

President Trump has branded antifa a terrorist organization. It’s just more hot air because there is no organization named antifa. If there was, the word would be capitalized and would have a campaign bank account and would have officers he could arrest.

But if he wanted to see the face(s) of his enemy, all he had to do was watch some non-football news coverage last Saturday when organizers of more than 2,600 No Kings protests say more than seven million people had something to say to and about Donald Trump.

 

 

Organizers claimed a total of more than 7 million people turned out at more than 2,600 protests across the nation.

He missed a great chance by not dispatching his ICE goons to those rallies to round up antifa terrorists as well as brown people or people with names ending in “z,” and some plain American citizens while they were at it.

In an Air Force One news scrum, Trump called he rallies “a joke.”

“I look at the people and they’re not representatives of this country,” he continued. “I looked a all the brand new signs paid for, I guess it was made by Soros and other radical left lunatics…The demonstrations were very small, very ineffective, and the people who worked out, when you look at these people, those are not representatives of the people of the country. “

“And by the way,” he concluded. ”I’m not a King…I work my ass off to make our country great.”

George Soros is one of Trumpisms favorite boogeymen. And the phrase “radical left lunatics” was tiresome the second time he said it. But it’s his phrase of the moment so he’ll beat all the blood out of it.

The Speaker of the House and some other Republicans are calling these events “Hate America Rallies.”  But polls and rally turnouts indicate an awful lot of people aren’t buying the name game that Trump addicts try to apply to these gatherings.

And we don’t know what television coverage he was looking at, but those demonstrations were NOT “very small.”  And he is likely to learn in next year’s mid-term elections if they were, in fact, ineffective.

Organizers of anti-fascist or anti-kings rallies have to be careful, though It’s ten months before the 2026 primaries, more than a year before the general elections, especially in the Trumpmandered congressional districts.  The people behind the “No Kings” rallies—-that’s what they prefer to call themselves regardless of those who try to convince the public that these folks hate America—don’t want to peak too soon.

As far as these people being haters?  Au Contraire, mon frere.  These are people who love America and they love it enough to hold mass rallies that so far have burned no stores, looted no television shops, and broken no large numbers of windows.  In the sixties, anti-war demonstrators sometimes stuck flowers down the barrels of guns that soldiers were carrying.  Today, maybe some will give flowers to the ICE goons.

What organizers have to be careful about is peaking too soon.  This is a time for Democrats to be finding their strongest candidates and rounding up big money from Democrat or Independent million-and-billion-aires.

Antifa might need to go into what the Continental Army called “winter quarters,” to conserve energy and to let Mr. Trump give himself more and more rope.

Republicans who might notice the declining favorability of the Trump administration might wish to quit dismissing these events as “Hate America Rallies” and recognize them for what they are—people who love America and are concerned with the direction that President Trump is taking America. Name-calling will not eliminate the threat these rallies could be to their side of the aisle in a few months and might, in fact, only fuel the efforts of the No Kings folks. Finding a platform that is BETTER than what the “No Kings” voices are expressing and offering candidates more loyal to their oaths than to their president might be a better use of their time and resources.

What is happening now is likely to only intensify as elections draw closer and if the present direction of national leadership follows its present arc.

Those of us who remember the demonstrations of the sixties know that dismissal is the wrong direction to go.

It is dangerous to shake a beehive and believe you can ignore the swarm.

Keep Them Ignorant and Pay the Cost

Posted on by
Reply

I was in Romania a little more than a year after the Iron Curtain fell and the people of Romania revolted against one of the most oppressive regimes that had been behind it. The Romanian Revolution was part of a historic period when unrest boiled over in several former Iron Curtain Countries that were still controlled by dictators—-it was the same year of the Tiananmen Square Protests in China that did not turn out as well.

In December of 1989, a church leader’s speech against the government triggered huge protests in Timisoara, which led to a military crackdown under Premier Nicolai Ceausescu (Chow-chess-kew).  He made a speech from his palace, which wasn’t too far from the hotel where I later stayed, and from the Hall of the People where I lectured and interacted with young journalists wanting to learn how to be free journalists.

The crowd at Ceausescu’s speech began booing and chanting “Timisoara!”

The military turned on him. Ceausescu and his wife, who also was the Deputy Prime Minister were driven out of the palace and captured by some of the angry citizens. They were take into some woods near Bucharest and shot to death on Christmas.

A new government took over. The death penalty was abolished. An election was held the next May and the new government was overwhelmingly approved and quickly moved to enact democratic reforms.

While I was there, Moldova declared its independence from the Soviet Union. I remember seeing people sitting in their cars listening to reports of what was happening in their neighboring Soviet satellite, now a free country.  It was of particular interest because many of the people in Moldova are of Romanian ancestry.

Romania joined NATO in 2004 and the European Union in 2007.

I have thought often of the people of Romania—and of Poland, where I did seminars in Warsaw after traveling from Bucharest—as I have watched Ukraine hold on against Vladimir Putin’s major effort to reassemble the USSR and I know from those long-ago days that the people of Romania and Poland are living with uncertainty, knowing that if Putin wins in Ukraine, Moldova and Romania and Poland might be next.

All of this is the long way around another impression I had in Bucharest, where my hotel, still displaying bullet marks in its stone walls, once was a nice hotel in the pre-Communist times but now was reminiscent of a 1950s hotel that had never been updated.  My room had a big square television set, black and white, and there were only two or three channels, all former government-run stations, none of which told viewers much about the outside world or even about Romania.

Were it not for a small Radio Shack shortwave radio I had brought with me to listen to the Voice of America, I would have been ignorant of what was happening in Romania and Poland, in Europe, and in the word. The Iron Curtain was down. But the window of open information was still being opened.

You will understand, then, why I watch the Trump administration’s increasing efforts to choke off the free flow of information and discussion in this country whether it is by threatening broadcast licenses or the recent despicable action by the Secretary of Defense (Sorry, Donald, I’m not going to use your word for the department any more than I am going to call the Gulf of Mexico by the name  you demand it be called).

A few days ago, somebody posted this sign in the correspondents’ corridor near the Pentagon press room.  

“Journalism is not a crime.”  To Pete Hegseth and his boss, Donald Trump, it would be, complete with prison sentences, if they could get away with it.  And it would not surprise me if Trump someday accuses a particularly persistent reporter doing the job reporters must do in a free society with treason or some other crime.

Trump heartily endorses Hegseth’s ban on reporters doing stories questioning what he says and does, and banning those who do not agree to be just a mouthpiece for Hegseth’s part of the administration. “I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace,” said the man who calls people such as me “enemies of the people.”   He went on, “The press is very dishonest.”

Only one news organization is now accredited by the Pentagon, The One America News Network, an organization that wants to curry a lot of favor with Trump.  Even other networks that lean more to the right  such as FOX, the Washington Post, and NewsMax  have refused to abide by Hegseth’s rules to limit the flow of information to only that which is politically favorable.

It’s another effort to keep the people at large ignorant not just of what is happening but who is making it happen, often for their own great benefit.

The thing about trying to repress journalism in this country is that it just makes journalists work harder. But if Trump/Hegseth think they can control the flow of information to the public in this country, they are mistaken. We will learn of their increased militarism at home and abroad no matter how many press room doors are closed in however many places.

Trump knows his policies have turned many of his supporters away from him. Newsweek reported last week that every swing state—-the ones he constantly interrupts his speeches to brag about carrying in ’24—is now against him. He’s -8 in Wisconsin, underwater by five points in Michigan, down by three in Nevada and North Carolina. He’s minus-2 in Pennsylvania and Arizona and minus-1 in Georgia.

You might not like to listen to or see CNN or MSNBC or any of the three over the air major networks and I’m not saying you should like them. But this nation was great long before the MAGA crowd came along and decided greatness should be determined not by the people but by one person. And he seems determined every day to burnish his future credentials as the worst president in American history. Taking abusive steps to shut off any reporter questioning his administration’s actions or his personal statements will not go well.

It is never good to poke a Tiger with a stick.

The swing states are sending a message that Trump can bluster about and lie about his own magnificent popularity. But a lot of people aren’t buying his garbage anymore.

We aren’t going to see an Army revolt and military overthrow of our government, as has happened in many countries but we have to ask how far he can push our military without the first blowup.

He’s not going to be taken to the woods, Ceausescu-style.  But the people are stirring; many are up-to-here with this man and his cronies.  The “No Kings” movement is growing. His polls are tanking. He is deathly afraid that a measure of political justice will be brought down upon him after next year’s elections, which might bring a measure of political justice down on a political party that, like Ceausescu’s loyalists, pays the price for blindly following and defending him.

He will do anything to keep journalists from their rounds, from questioning his policies, his actions, his intimidations, his lies, his business dealings as President, his character–

He will fail.  Dictators always fail. I saw the past, the present, and got a glimpse of the future in those days in Romania and in Poland. It is in my mind as I watch our president’s grasp for absolute power and the people’s growing disgust of it.

Our system provides for a peaceful overthrow of a tyrant. History shows the people will use whatever means their system gives them to do just that.

Carl Sandburg:

The people will live on.
The learning and blundering people will live on.
They will be tricked and sold and again sold
And go back to the nourishing earth for rootholds,
The people so peculiar in renewal and comeback,
You can’t laugh off their capacity to take it….

Time is a great teacher.
Who can live without hope?

…In the darkness with a great bundle of grief
the people march.
In the night, and overhead a shovel of stars for
keeps, the people march:
“Where to? what next?”

The poem is called “The People, Yes.”   We must find strength in one another to resist the worst that he can do.  He wants us to forget that long ago this country placed its faith in the concept that government flows from the consent of the governed.

But in this darkness with our great bundle of grief, we know and more are coming to know and the people are starting to march, for we are “the people so peculiar in renewal and comeback.”

That is the spirit behind the “No Kings” protests.

And neither National Guard troops invading other states nor goons from ICE snatching people from our streets can stop that march.

It has become, to borrow a phrase from another purpose and another time, “too big to fail.”

 

Vanity of Vanities. All is Vanity

Posted on by
Reply

This phrase, drawn loosely from the Old Testament Book of Ecclesiastes, came readily to mind the other day when word got out that the U. S. Mint has been ordered to plan production of one-dollar coins –apparently illegally—promoting our President.

If only he deserved such an honor, or ever will.

His self-absorption and self-promotion know no bounds. Previously, he had mused on how great it would be to make him the equal in stone of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. He believes he can jawbone his way to a peace prize he is massively unqualified to receive.  Now there is this proposal:

We aren’t sure what he means when he has “In God We Trust” as part of his image. He does have a pretty elevated image of himself but this much?

The Treasury Department apparently is on the verge of producing these things. Samples have been circulated within the Mint’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing and “set-up” coins have been ordered stamped.  Those are practice coins that make sure the new coins are properly designed  when they go into production.

Not that it matters to Trump, but some people believe the coin violates part of an 1866 law.  “No portrait or likeness of any living person shall be engraved or placed upon any of the bonds, securities, notes or postal currency of the United States,” it says. The provision was recently removed from the Treasury Department’s web page.

Reports in the public press note that the first Trump administration reversed a Treasury Department  plan to take Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill and replace him with the image of 19th century Black civil rights leader Harriet Tubman. Trump called the plan “pure political corruptness.”

The creation of the Trump Dollar had not been known until The Treasurer of the United States, Brandon Beach, posted on social media draft images of the coin—which will be legal tender going into circulation next year.  The blog site Defector.com quotes a Treasury Department source saying the usual process for creating such commemorative coins takes months and includes a review by the Citizens Coin Advisory Committee that last met on September 16 without any indication such a coin was in the works.

This coin proposal was whipped from nothing into pre-production, says the source, in four days—September 29-October 2.

Commemorative Coins also are supposed to be approved by Congress.  Congress hasn’t heard anything about this plan.

The Treasury Department put out a statement to USA TODAY puffing about the “historic leadership” of President Trump and saying, “While a final $1 dollar (our faithful editor hopes you will pardon the department’s redundancy) design has not yet been selected to commemorate the United States semiquincentennial, this first draft reflects well the enduring spirit of our country and democracy, even in the face of immense obstacles.

Nine years ago, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco underlined the ban on living persons appearing on our currency: “To avoid the appearance of a monarchy, it was long-standing tradition to only feature portraits of deceased individuals on currency and coin. That tradition became law with an 1866 Act of Congress.”

The Legal Institute at the Cornell Law School cites federal law: 31 U.S. Code 5112—“No coin issued may bear the image of a living former or current President.”

Congress passed a collectible coin law in 2020, during Trump’s first term authorizing the issuance of five different designs of commemorative coins for the nation’s 250th birthday. The Congress said one of the coins should honor a woman and others may honor innovators and Native Americans. There’s nothing about a President hijacking the idea.

Well, we all know of Trump’s disdain for the Constitution, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve. And we all know that he idolizes himself above all others who as individuals or as groups put him deep in their shadows in all kinds of criteria.

USA Today columnist Rex Huppke encapsulated the situation well, writing—

“The planned coin will be a commemorative,  presumably commemorating how everything is perfect now that Trump is president again! Perfect, as long as you disregard the fact that the government is shut down, National Guard troops are being dispatched to cities Trump diesn’t like, U. S. citizens ae routinely eing rounded up by masked and warrantless immigration agents inflation and food prices are rising, electricity prices are rising, the job market is weak, the president’s poll numbers are tanking , [and] Republicans are doing everything to avoid releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files, and the 79-year-old Trump himself doesn’t seeme entirely tethered to reality.”  

Perhaps while his Treasury Department prepares to stamp thousands of these coins honoring him, it also can stamp out his own Nobel Peace Prize Medal—with his profile from the coin replacing that of Alfred Nobel.  Better yet, create the Trump Peace Prize that he can award to himself, much the same way he consistently wins the club championship at Mar-a-Liego. That’ll show those stuffy people in Stockholm a thing or two.

Or maybe he can arrange to ship a few thousand of these coins to his subjects to be used to pay his tariffs on many of the things he has arranged for his peasants to pay more for.

0-0-0-0-0-0-0

The Bunny, the Bully, And A Sing-Along 

Posted on by
Reply

It has been more than 46 years since a bunny has made headlines such as this—when President Jimmy Carter saw a swamp rabbit swimming his way and either splashed water on it or hit it with his canoe paddle to keep it away.

It was a minor thing, really, but you know how the press is. The Associated Press broke the story and the commentators and comedians started having a field day with Carter fending off a “killer rabbit.”

Now we have Bad Bunny lined up to do the halftime show at the Super Bowl, the first male Latin performer to do that show, and the MAGA crowd is having a cow.  Especially Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

When President Trump was asked for his reaction he offered his usual, “I never heard of him. I don’t know who he is” response, which he has used too often for us to count to deny knowing people he knows. “I don’t know why they’re doing it, it’s like crazy. … Then they blame it on some promoter that they hired to pick up entertainment. I think it’s absolutely ridiculous,” he continued.

Interesting, isn’t it, that it’s ridiculous to hire somebody he never heard of?

So, for him as well as for those of us of his well-advanced generation, here’s some information about BB and why the MAGA crowd has its undies in such a knot:

He’s 31 years old, a performer from Puerto Rico (real name: Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio) who has made Spanish rap music popular worldwide. He’s been a star for almost a decade. From 2020-2023 he was the world’s most-streamed artist on Spotify. His sixth studio album, described as “a love letter to Puerto Rico and his heritage, was number one on the Billboard Top 100 albums earlier this year.

He’s also a WWE pro wrestler and a former 24/7 champion, which—if he weren’t Puerto Rican—might entitle him to take part in the 80th Trump birthday celebration wrestling matches at the White House.

Earlier this year he wrapped up a 23-performance tour of Latin America, Europe, Japan, and Australia—but not the United States because of concerns that ICE would pounce on fans going to his shows.

And that is what has smoke coming out the ears of some MAGA people, including Noem who has proclaimed that her ICE agents will be out in force at the Super Bowl.

In an interview, it was clear that she has become a graduate of the Trump School of Nonsense: “I have the responsibility for making sure everybody who goes to the Super Bowl has the opportunity to enjoy it and to leave, and that’s what America’s about. So yeah, we’ll be all over that place. We’re going to enforce the law. So, I think people should not be coming to the Super Bowl unless they’re law-abiding Americans who love this country.”

As for the NFL, she spouted this head-scratcher: “Well, they suck and we’ll win, and God will bless us and we’ll stand and be proud of ourselves at the end of the day, and they won’t be able to sleep at night because they don’t know what they believe. And they’re so weak, we’ll fix it.”

Huh?

Her intelligence deficit was mirrored by MAGA influencer Tomi Lahren on her podcast interview with The Hill’s Krystal Ball (yes, Krystal Marie Ball is her real name), when Lahren asked Ball what she thought about whether BB was a good choice for the halftime show.  Ball admitted she didn’t know much about him but that he “seems like a great American artist, so sure.”

That’s when Lahren put her foot in it. “He’s not an American artist, but—”

Ball: “He’s Puerto Rican. That’s part of America, dear.”

Huff Post reported Lahren plunged ahead and criticized BB’s criticism of ICE only to have Ball remind her, “America agrees with him on that…A majority of Americans think ICE has gone too far. They’ve watched videos of, like, 79 year old business owners being slammed to the ground and their ribs broken by ICE. So I think the American people are probably on board with that message at this point.”

The best retort Lahren could offer was, “Whoever you’re talking to, I’m sure is. I’m not so sure the rest of the country is.”

Well, the fake news just reports fake polls, you know, and you shouldn’t pay attention to them.  It’s better, after all, to believe the First Golfer, who says he’s so popular that nobody has ever seen anything like it, to quote one of his favorite phrases.

Also chiming in is longtime Trumper Corey Lewandowski, now an adviser in the Homeland Security Department (If you can’t give a favorite ego-feeding supporter a specific job at the public trough, you can always make them an “advisor.”), who called the BB announcement “shameful” and charged Bunny “just seems to hate America so much.”

Lewandowski is lying. BB doesn’t hate America. But he doesn’t want his fans put in the sights of ICE agents emboldened by Lewandowski’s boss.  Bunny told i-D magazine, “There were many reasons why I didn’t show up in the U. S. and none of them were out of hate.” He recalled he had performed “successful” and “magnificent” concerts many times and has “enjoyed connecting with Latinos who have been living in the U.S.”

The whole incident has become great fodder for internet denizens.

Trump’s antagonism toward Puerto Rico is widely known. When he tried to fire three members of a board that oversees the territory’s financial management, a federal district judge ruled he had likely violate constitutional due process rights and federal law.

Last year, a comedian at a Trump fund raiser referred to Puerto Rico as “a floating island of garbage.” Trump’s reaction to Tony Hinchcliffe’s comment was the usual: “I don’t know him, someone put him up there. I don’t know who he is.” But he didn’t repudiate it.

He told a Puerto Rican native at a campaign roundtable in Pennsylvania, “We helped you through a lot of bad storms. I’ll tell you we really had some bad ones. You remember you were there when I brought the hospital ship against everyone’s advice and we got it there and took care of a lot of people. But I think no president’s done more for Puerto Rico than I have.”

Few viewed his visit to Puerto Rico some nine days after Hurricane Maria in 2017 as anything more than “insulting,” as San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz,  a “PR, 17-minute meeting.” They remember that he threw paper towels to a room crowded with victims hoping for something much more important, a “terrible and abominable” image that “does not embody the spirit of the American nation.”

“They had these beautiful, soft towels. Very good towels,” he recalled on a Trinity Broadcasting Network interview. There was a crowd of a lot people. And they were screaming and they were loving everything. I was having fun.”

He visited only one small part of the island for a short time—-and then piled insult on insult by minimizing what was facing those people who needed a whole lot more than paper towels. “Every death is a horror,” he said, “but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina and you look at the tremendous—hundred and hundreds and hundres of people that died, and you look at what happened here, with really a storm that was just totally overpowering, nobody’s ever seen anything like this.”  He belittled the storm by noting there had been only sixteen confirmed deaths. Mayor Cruz said Trump showed no interest in reaching out to suffering Puerto Ricans.

About that hospital ship: Reuters reported the Pentagon did not dispatch it until three days after defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Twitter that Trump and his Secretary of Defense James Mattis “should send the Navy…to Puerto Rico now. These are American citizens.” Further, the Inspector General in the Housing and Urban Development saw calculated  that the administration had withheld about $20 billion in hurricane relief after the island was hit by Hurricane Maria in 2017.

MSNBC talked to the Executive Director of Deadline Hollywood, Dominic Patten, who says Noem’s comments and the MAGA World’s reaction to the Super Bowl choice is rooted in three things—a hatred of capitalism (“Bad Bunny’s a big star; he’s going to make a lot of money for the NFL”), ignorance (“They might want to remember that Puerto Rico IS part of America”), and “a bit of the loser syndrome” (BB’s criticism of ICE).

As far as Noem’s claim that the NFL sucks, is weak, and “won’t be able to sleep at night because they don’t know what they believe,” Patten responds, “The NFL don’t care. The NFL is the NFL. They’re the biggest game in town.” Digit elevated.

The Super Bowl halftime show is organized by Roc Nation, founded by rapper Jay-Z, considered the “live music entertainment strategist for the NFL.”  The show is sponsored by Apple Music.

“Let’s also not be naïve,” said Patten. The NFL and Jay-Z knew exactly what they were doing. They decided to poke the paper bear and they’ve done a very good job of it.”

Well, the paper bear has decided to let loose with a jingoistic growl (We’ll save you the effort of looking up “jingoism,” by citing Britannica’s definition: “an attitude of  belligerent nationalism, adherence to the rightness or virtue of one’s own nation, society, or group, simply because it is one’s own.”). Turning Point USA. Charlie Kirk’s creation, has announced it is going to host “The All -American Halftime Show” as an Bunny alterative. It is taking an online survey of what music its adherents want. The first choice is “Anything in English,” a cheap shot at BB, who performs in Spanish.

It is clear that Mr. Bunny, although a native of a United States territory, just isn’t American enough for the TPUSA/MAGA crowd.

What do you want to bet that the song getting the biggest crowd reaction at that alternate even will be Lee Greenwood’s God Bless the USA.

Tell you what—let’s look at the lyrics.

If tomorrow all the things were gone
I’d worked for all my life

(Such as the freedom to express an opinion without someone in an Army uniform pepper-spraying me or some goon in a mask and without a warrant yanking me into a white van and hauls me to a crowded lockup while my terrified family wonders where I am)

And if I had to start again
With just my children and my wife
I’d thank my lucky stars
To be livin’ here today

(unless my wife and our children who were born here are being deported to some secret and awful place.)

‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom

(unless I want to read a banned book, visit a museum that tells the truth about our history, or go to a national park that doesn’t have oil wells sticking up from the ground.)

And they can’t take that away

(Oh, yes they can. And they’re trying for more.)

And I’m proud to be an American
Where at least I know I’m free

(as long as I buy into the right kind of religion, don’t have a funny sounding name, think the 2020 election was stolen, and believe all I need to prove my Americanism is to wear a red baseball cap with the right letters on it)

And I won’t forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me

(Sixty-five thousand Puerto Ricans served our country in World War II including the seven Medina brothers known as “The Fighting Medinas,” and Agustin Ramos Calero, known as the “One Man Army,” who won the Silver Star and 21 other medals and decorations. About fifty were killed. About 48,000 Puerto Ricans served in Vietnam. About 350 were KIA and five earned the Medal of Honor.)

And I’d gladly stand up
Next to you and defend her still today

(Even if you think I should not be allowed to perform a Super Bowl halftime show.)

‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land
God bless the USA

(I agree.  I love this land as you do. But I think Abrham Lincoln had his priorities straight when he purportedly said, “I do not boast that God is on my side; I humbly pray that I am on his.”

One of the immediate reactions to the Turning Point announcement was to have Bad Bunny throw paper towels into the crowd to make a political point that would remind the audience of the Trump visit.

But that would be lowering himself to their level.

Here’s what would be incredibly classy and what would at the same time send a powerful message:

(Here, let’s sing the song together:

Si mañana todas las cosas se hubieran ido–If tomorrow all the things were gone
He trabajado toda mi vida—I’d worked for all my life
Y tuve que empezar de nuevo—And I had to start again
Sólo con mis hijos y mi esposa—With just my children and my wife

Agradeceré a mis estrellas de la suerte—I’d thank my lucky stars
Vivir aquí hoy—To be livin’ here today
Porque la bandera sigue en pie por la Libertad—Cause the flag still stands for freedom
Y no pueden quitarlo—And they cant take that away

Y estoy orgulloso de ser americano—And I’m proud to be an American
Donde al menos sé que soy libre—Where at least I know I’m free
Y no olvidaré a los hombres que murieron—And I won’t forget the men who died
¿Quién me dio ese derecho?—Who gave that right to me

Y con mucho gusto me levanto—And I gladly stand up
Junto a ti y defiéndala todavía hoy—Next to you and defend her still today
Porque no hay duda, amo esta tierra—Cause there ain’t no doubt, I love this land
Dios bendiga a los Estados Unidos—God bless the USA

Just between thee and me, I’d love to hear Bad Bunny sing this song in Spanish at the end of the halftime show, maybe while the words were on the big scoreboard screens so the audience could sing along. That would be delicious.

MAGA is too young to remember Jimmy Carter and how embarrassing and foolish a person can appear to be if they think a bunny is dangerous.