Month: May 2019

“Houston, we have a problem” is a popular but erroneous quotation from the radio communications between the Apollo 13 astronaut John Swigert and the NASA Mission Control Center during the Apollo 13 spaceflight, as the astronauts communicated their discovery of the explosion that crippled their spacecraft. 

“Denver, we have a problem.” This could well be the response from U.S. Attorney General William Barr in response to a letter written to him from Denver Democratic Mayor Michael Hancock about a problem. No, just because Mr. Hancock is a mayor doesn’t mean that he is adding his name to the list of unqualified presidential candidates ! Rather his letter basically was asking the U.S. Attorney General to not do his job . . . more specifically not to enforce federal law. Here we are speaking of one ramification of the problem that Colorado law and Federal law are at odds when it comes to marijuana. Everyone knew that eventually this would be a major problem, if not with Colorado, then with one of the other ten states and D.C. that have legalized marijuana or one of the fourteen states that have decriminalized it, as marijuana is still classified as an illegal substance federally. The problem as addressed in the mayor’s letter involves immigrants who legally use marijuana in Colorado or who work in the Colorado cannibas industry. These permanent residents can be denied citizenship by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, even though marijuana use is legal in Colorado.

This dilemma initially arose because during the Obama era, the federal government eased up on enforcing federal laws against marijuana, however closing one’s eyes like a toddler trying to hide while playing hide-and-seek does not make a problem go away. Subsequently while he was Attorney General, Jeff Sessions stopped playing hide-and-seek and rightfully opened his eyes when he stated that it was part of his job to enforce federal law.

What little I know about William Barr makes me think that it very unlikely that a letter from a Democratic lightweight mayor would persuade this Attorney General not to enforce federal laws. I am sympathetic to the plight of these legal immigrants who are caught up in this game of monkey in the middle. Perhaps Congress should seriously address this issue instead of frivolously searching for phantom collusion, etc.! The longer Congress shirks it’s responsibility, the more likely we will hear, “Boston, we have a problem” or “L.A., we have a problem” or “Seattle we have a problem,” etc.!

This year Memorial Day weekend has turned out to be different and unique for me because of three separate things, all of which happened over the last day or so. What makes these three unrelated things even more eerie is that each is a “Michael-thing,” as I will explain. 

The first “Michael-thing” was sent to me in an e-mail by a acquaintance of mine, Michael Mc. It was a YouTube video entitled “Price for Freedom,” which was a display of multiple cemeteries, mainly scattered throughout Europe (Italy, 4402; Luxembourg, 5076; Sicily, 7861; Netherlands, 8301; multiple areas in France with thousands of graves in each) and also in North Africa and the Philippines (16,366). Set to the music of “Hymn to the Fallen” by John Williams, each of these cemeteries had row upon row of graves marked only by white crosses. Thousands and thousands and thousands of graves, each one for an American serviceman killed in battle. The final cemetery with its approximately 303,000 graves was Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. A truly moving video. These are the real heroes. Thank you, Michael Mc.
The second “Michael-thing” was an article in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal by Michael M. Phillips entitled The Medals They Carried, which chronicled multiple Medal of Honor recipients. For those not familiar with the Medal of Honor, it is America’s highest award for combat valor, and as the article points out, “it is both a gift and a reminder of what is often the worst day of a veteran’s life.” While detailing unbelievable acts of bravery by recipients of the Medal of Honor, the article emphasizes how difficult it is for some of these recipients to wear or even view the Medal because many of their comrades died despite their valor. These are real heroes. Thank you, Michael Phillips.
The third “Michael-thing” was pure serendipity, as yesterday when I was pushing my granddaughter in her stroller, we ran into my neighbor, Michael. Even though Michael has lived only two houses from me for about twenty years, I have never really gotten to know him. He is quiet, sometimes bordering on aloof, and on more than one occasion I have refrained from asking him about his “Oxford” scarf. Anyway yesterday for whatever reason, he was unusually garrulous and started talking about the recent 50th reunion of his Vietnam unit. He spoke of Vietnam things that he could not remember very well and also talked about the one thing he could remember very very well . . . the day that he lost thirty-five of his men during a Vietcong ambush. He was a medic, and thirty-five of his comrades were killed in a single afternoon . . . “I could not save them, and I still wake up nights, terrified, in a sweat, even though it’s been fifty years!” Where did this catharsis come from? Why did I never suspect that my neighbor was a Vietnam War hero? Thank you, Michael.
I consider myself a big backer of the military. Even though I was in the Navy for many years, I was never in combat, and never had to put my life on the line. Perhaps that is why I never stand at athletic events when the PA announcer asks that all veterans stand in order to be recognized. I stay sitting so that I can applaud the real heroes, like those buried in unmarked graves marked only by white crosses, those who have distinguished themselves by their acts of unheralded bravery, and those like my neighbor, Michael.
5/27/19

On Thursday, 5/23/19, at her weekly “Days of Our Life” press briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters she is concerned for the well-being of President Donald Trump.

While standing next to Schumer, who is looking more drained and sluggish by the day, Nancy said, “We don’t want it to be partisan now, but I can only think he wasn’t up to the task of figuring out the difficult choices of how to cover the cost of infrastructure legislation that we had talked about . . . I pray for the president of the United States. I wish his family, his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country.”

Does she actually think that anybody other than her lapdogs and of course, Sluggo Schumer, actually believe any of this drivel? Perhaps, even more important does she actually believe any of this drivel? (If she sincerely believes any of this, then maybe we should be praying for her!) 

I suspect that she purposely insulted President Trump just before their scheduled meeting on infrastructure. Infrastructure repair and replacement is more his baby than it is hers, as it was one of his campaign promises. So why not torpedo the infrastructure meeting before it could get going? She undoubtedly suspected that her statement that morning about him covering something up would piss him off . . . and after the recent exonerating Mueller Report, it did piss him off . . . understandably. Only a fool would think that it is okay to insult someone in the morning, and then sit down with them in the afternoon and play buddy-buddy. So either she is a conniving wench or she is a fool. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she is a mere fool, as the more this Democratic intransigence persists, the more foolish she and most of the Democrats, in general, are looking.

Rumor has it that her chauffeur never even turned off the car when she exited for her meeting with the President, as he/she apparently suspected that Nancy would be back very shortly. (Another rumor has it that President Trump basically told Nancy and Sluggo Schumer something like, “I am pretty busy getting ready to go to Japan for my meeting with Shinzō Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, and so perhaps you two ‘shin-go away’!”)

According to a poll taken just today, her bit about “praying for the President” is now running a close second to syrup of ipecac when an emetic is indicated and vomiting is a necessity. Her comments about her concern for the well-being of Mr. Trump did not even move the dial one iota on her “The Days of Our Life” credibility scale. Why did she say some of these obviously unbelievably phony things?

Nancy is aware that the Dems have steadily falling numbers and that they have neither a real message nor any real ideas on the radar either now or in the foreseeable pre-2020 future! And so . . . Desperate Nancy Says Desperate Things!

Well, it was only a matter of time before the Dems went for the throat of a black member of President Trump’s cabinet. Predictable ? Yes!

Not to be dissuaded by facts, earlier this week House Democrats Carolyn Maloney (D, NY), Juan Vargas (D,CA), and Maxine Waters (D, CA), etc. took to innuendo and character assassination to attack Ben Carson, Housing and Urban Development Secretary at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. Their comments were used to condemn the proposal discussed by Mr. Carson to ban government aid to residents of HUD who shelter illegal immigrants. The rule change would end a Clinton-era regulation that allowed immigrants to obtain aid without having to disclose whether they were here legally. This Carson (Trump) plan could free up an estimated 32,000 public housing slots, according to HUD, as 1.6 million applicants nationwide wait to be considered.(Nationwide, it is estimated that 32,000 public households are being taken up by illegal immigrants. Keep in mind that this could be either an over-estimation or an under-estimation. I will bet that it is actually an underestimation, but either way it is a lot.)              

Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) set the tone by accusing Carson of leading an agency that is “actively causing harm,” sentiments that were shared by other Democrats on the panel. Carson subsequently pointed out that this policy was not going to have an immediate effect as the Trump administration is giving illegals 18 months to get out of taxpayer-subsidized public housing.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., dragged the political discussion to a new low, calling Carson “despicable,” saying he will “rip apart families and be throwing children on the street.” (Carson calmly reminded Maloney that there are hundreds of thousands of children in need of decent housing whose parents are here legally. “Do you suggest that we prioritize” families breaking the law instead?”, he asked . . . there was no immediate response from one of the richest members of Congress.)

Rep. Ayanna Presley (D, MA) was also one of several Democrats on the panel to basically tell Carson he’s in the wrong field. “Today you are not here as a doctor or even as our surgeon general, which I think might be better suited for your talents, but as the official task of leading the agency overseeing our nation’s crumbling housing stock,” she noted. “And for that I do believe you are unqualified.”( For those of you who are interested I would highly recommend any of a number of Ben Carson’s books that detail his life story and his personal experiences with poverty and his growing up in Detroit. Personally, I will take Mr. Carson over Rep. Presley, who in 2009, served as United States Senator John Kerry‘s (D-Mass.) political director . . .  nuff said!) 

Democratic Rep. Juan Vargas of San Diego County chimed in as he couldn’t believe Carson could be so “mean-spirited” in prioritizing law-abiding people over law-breaking ones.

“There is an affordable housing crisis in this country, and we need to make certain our scarce public resources help those who are legally entitled to it,” explained Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson. (Call me crazy, but this seems pretty reasonable.)

And so it went: 

Carson seeking at least a partial solution to a big nationwide housing problem. Democrats resorting to innuendo and character assassination rather that addressing some solutions. 

I have not seen anything, as of yet, from the Main-Stream Media, but I would venture to guess that they will congratulate the Dems for “winning” this battle, although the Dem’s predictability nullifies the results of any of these short term skirmishes. Remember, neither the skirmish at Fort Sumpter, nor the first Battle of Bull Run, both won by the Confederacy, were important in the long term outcome of the Civil War.As I said before to me the only real surprise was how long it took for the Dems to get around to attacking Mr. Carson, who has been Trump’s HUD Secretary for over two years. Delayed, but predictable nonetheless.

The Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K program was a very well done study that evaluated the results of Pre-K in Tennessee. There was a control group, and the children were followed and compared until 3rd grade. I was amazed when I read the results of this Voluntary Pre-K (VPK) study, because basically the control group (RCT) did equal to or in some instances better than the VPK children!

I have tried to summarize the results of this study in the next few paragraphs:

The study found that children who participated in VPK experienced considerably greater gains in literacy, language, and math skills during the pre-k year than the control children, and that this difference was recognized as greater preparedness for grade level work by kindergarten teachers at the beginning of the following year.

However, those positive VPK effects on achievement largely disappeared by the end of kindergarten with children in the control group catching up to the VPK participants. Moreover, by second grade the performance of the control children surpassed that of the VPK participants on some achievement measures. This pattern was echoed on the 3rd grade state achievement tests for the full RCT sample. VPK participants scored lower on the reading, math, and science tests than the control children with differences that were statistically significant for math and science.

On other outcomes, including teacher ratings of classroom behavior, retention in grade, disciplinary infractions, and attendance, there were generally few overall differences between VPK participants and control children across the years, although school records did show somewhat more disciplinary actions for the violation of school rules for the VPK participants.

The other question is whether some demographic subgroups of children benefited more from VPK participation than others. Considering the number of combinations of subgroups, outcomes, and school years involved in examining this issue, relatively few differential pre-k effects were found.

I would suggest that everyone reread the last few paragraphs at least once. Wow!

As a bonus I have included the conclusion of the study exactly as it was printed.

Conclusion:

“We are mindful of the limitations of any one study, no matter how well done, and the need for a robust body of research before firm conclusions are drawn. Nonetheless, the inauspicious findings of the current study offer a cautionary tale about expecting too much from state pre-k programs. The fact that the Head Start Impact study – the only other randomized study of a contemporary publicly funded pre-k program – also found few positive effects after the pre-k year adds further cautions (Puma et al., 2012). State-funded pre-k is a popular idea, but for the sake of the children and the promise of pre-k, credible evidence that a rather typical state pre-k program is not accomplishing its goals should provoke some reassessment. It is apparent that the phrase “high-quality pre-k” does not convey enough about what the critical elements of a program should be. Now is the time to pay careful attention to whether the country’s youngest and most vulnerable children are well served in the pre-k classroom environments currently operated and to explore innovations with the potential to serve them better.”

Wow!

Keep in mind that Pre-K is not free! Is Pre-K worth the cost? How much does this program cost California? The short answer is, “a lot!”

In 2015-16 California boosted total spending on Pre-K by $200 million (a 17% increase from the prior year). That put the total spending at greater than $1.4 billion! These increases accounted for more than 1/3 of overall spending increases in the entire U.S.A. for Pre-K. Wow!

So not only does California spend an unbelievable amount on Pre-K, but they also do it inefficiently. Per year, California spends $6409 per child enrolled in Pre-K compared to the national average of $4976. Wow!

So it appears that in this very well done “Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K study”, published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly states that not only is Pre-K is not beneficial for the children, but also in some instances these VPK children appear worse off!

Yikes!

Any chance that California will now re-examine it’s Pre-K policies and spending based on these new facts? Short answer . . . “NO!”, as to me, this freebie is just another way for the Democratic politicians to buy votes!

What if something that logically should benefit a lot of people turned out not to be beneficial?

Would that something be stopped or at least revisited?

What if the proof that something that was helpful turned out to be very marginal proof, would that proof be revisited and re-examined?

What if that something that was thought to be beneficial cost a lot of money, would the powers that be re-examine the cost/benefit of that something if the benefit was significantly less than advertised?

I would think that the answers to all of the above questions would be would be an easy, “Yes.” Why would something that has marginal or no benefit, and costs a lot of money be continued without at least a cursory re-evaluation? Welcome to California! For here in the Golden State appearance and political correctness take precedence over fact, especially if the actual facts seem to go against what you have been programmed to believe.

The question that I am going to be examining in this two-part series is . . . take a deep breath and hang on . . . “Is Pre-K schooling beneficial?” Is it worth the cost?

Believe It or not, I think I heard that collective audible gasp! In general, the response to what I just said is going to be something like this:

“Of course, Pre-K is beneficial. There have been studies showing that this is a proven fact – at least that’s what I have read. How could it possibly not be beneficial? The more education that a child has, the better. Right? Many states, especially California, have been spending a lot of money providing Pre-K to those children who are in the lower economic levels of society. How can this not be good?”

I could easily assume what you thought about this subject is summarized by the quote above, as this is what I had thought. However, a few months back, I came across Notable and Quotable in the Wall Street Journal which was entitled, “Does Pre-K Help?” This short blurb was from a randomized control trial, involving thousands of children, published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly. After reading this I then googled the lengthy article and read it in its entirety. Before getting into the findings and the conclusion of the randomized study, I was able to discover the origin as to the expected benefits of Pre-K. This expectation derives mainly from longitudinal research that reported positive outcomes on school completion, employment, marriage stability, criminal behavior, and the like for two model programs – Perry Preschool, mounted in the 1960s, and Abecedarian, begun in the 1970s. Both programs served a small number of children in a single location, and neither has been fully replicated in contemporary publicly funded programs.

So it turns out that the actual purported benefit of Pre-K “from studies” is very weak to start with. Are there any other studies proving the long term benefits of Pre-K?

What about Head Start?

The following I taken directly from Early Childhood Research Quarterly: “In this context, the Head Start Impact study (Puma, Bell, Cook, & Heid, 2010; Puma et al., 2012) warrants attention. While not a study of state pre-k, it is the only previous randomized study of a public pre-k program. This study began in 2002 with a national sample of 5000 children who applied to 84 programs expected to have more applicants than spaces. Children were randomly selected for offers of admission with those not selected providing the control group. The 4-year-old children admitted to Head Start made greater gains across the pre-k year than nonparticipating children on measures of language and literacy, although not on math. However, by the end of kindergarten the control children had caught up on most achievement outcomes; subsequent positive effects for Head Start participants were found on only one achievement measure at the end of 1st grade and another at the end of 3rd grade. There were no statistically significant effects on social–emotional measures at the end of the pre-k or kindergarten years. A few positive effects appeared in parent reports at the end of the 1st and 3rd grade years, but teacher and child reports in those years showed either null or negative effects.”

So interestingly the only other study of something quite similar, in fact, did not demonstrate any benefit! The latest study reported in the Early Childhood Research Quarterly is that of the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K program.

State tuned!

From Forbes in March, 2019: “Fears of a U.S. recession are again stalking markets, with the closely-watched and clearly declining spread between the 10-year US Treasury bond yield and the 2-year yield—i.e., the “10 minus 2”—nearing inversion, a historically reliable harbinger of economic downturns.”

Some economist see the Trump economy slowing drastically before a possible recession in 2020 at the earliest because: Economic growth was significant in 2018, boosted by tax cuts, but those benefits should fade in 2019 and growth will get back to its longer-term pace of near 2 percent. A group of 10 economists, including the Fed, have an average forecast of 2.4 percent for 2019, according to a CNBC survey. Three big factors are behind the slower growth — fading impact of tax cuts, trade wars and tariffs, and the Federal Reserve’s rate-hiking policy. Recessions, in general may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, some sort of economic shock, or the bursting of an economic bubble. Back in 2007-08 the economic crisis and the subsequent recession were caused by the mortgage bubble. Are there any potential bubbles out there that we should be aware of ?

What about college loans? Is this a potential bubble? In August, 2018, the New York Times reported that 43% were not making payments on their student loans. The Urban Institute recently pointed out that 250,000 student loan borrowers see their loans go into default for the first time every quarter! Wow! While this involves millions of student loans, in the overall scope of things, this potential bubble is not nearly on the same level. In 2007 the mortgage debt at its peak was about 66% of GDP whereas the present student debt is only about 7% of GDP.

What about credit card debt? Is this a potential bubble? According to Experian’s latest State of Credit report, the average U.S. consumer holds about two bank-issued credit cards and carries a total balance of $5,551. That’s a lot of money, especially if you’re paying interest of 15% to 20%. However, this doesn’t tell the whole story, as there is a big range of indebtedness, and the average includes consumers who don’t owe anything at all — and there are a lot of them. According to a separate study from ValuePenguin (which found a similar average credit card debt of $5,700 per household), only 38.1% of all American households carry any credit card debt at all. This implies that the average household that carries a balance owes a whopping $16,048! Even though these schmos that owe $16K are in trouble, the total amount of indebtedness is not nearly on the same scale as in 2007.

What about high risk mortgage loans? Is this a potential bubble? I would have thought that lenders would have learned a lesson after the debacle of 2007-08, but according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) just reversed a decision that they had made in 2016. In 2016, the FHA loosened underwriting standards when it removed an earlier rule that had required manual underwriting for mortgages with credit scores below 620 and a ratio of debt to income above 43%. (For those that are unaware, the FHA tries to boost home ownership by insuring loans to those with sub-average credit.) Apparently the FHA is now expressing concern that certain lenders are making loans to borrowers who can’t repay. This sounds like déjà vu all over again! Could a similar crisis again occur?

Potential bubbles and a resultant recession are concerns to all of us. For me if this predicted future recession is going to come, I only hope that it doesn’t occur until 2021. I say this for two reasons:

First, I do not want a recession to interfere with President Trump getting re-elected in 2020. Second, when the recession hits, I want Donald Trump in charge as he would be the best person to guide the country through it.

Why are the Jewish people in the U.S.A. overwhelmingly Democrats? I have struggled with that question for a long time, and I must tell you, I remain flummoxed. For instance, last year 79% of Jews backed Democrats for Congress. Is there any hope for change? Perhaps, as it appears more and more, here lately, that the Democratic Party is taking the Jewish vote for granted. A recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out that in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, sympathy for Israel among Democratic Party members has dropped from about 45% in 2010 to 26% in 2018, while among Republicans sympathy for Israel ha increased from about 65% to 77% over the same length of time. Likewise several members of Congress, all Democrats, are supporting BDS, a movement to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.(Which side typically is the first to launch rocket attacks against the other?) Similarly when a Democratic member of the House, Rep. Ilhan Omar, made recurrent anti-Semitic comments, the Democrats in the House could not get together and condemn anti-semetism! Talk about a lack of hutzpah . . . and by that I mean that they were gutless! Likewise when the far left MoveOn called for a boycott of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which is allied with Israel, six of the Democratic presidential contenders made up lame excuses and did not attend.

On the other hand, in December, 2018 President Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and ordered the relocation of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He did this while presidents over the last 20 years had refused to do the same and instead had exercised a waiver. Likewise, in late March, 2019, President Trump signed an executive order recognizing the Golan Heights as being territory of Israel. This is of critical importance as it takes bargaining over the Golan Heights off the table in any future Israel Palestine negotiations, and can only be viewed as an extremely pro-Israel position. In October, 2018, President Trump went to Pittsburgh to pay his respects to the victims of the anti-Semitic synagogue attack, and in his recent State of the Union address he mentioned two Holocaust survivors including one who survived the Pittsburgh shooting. So despite the Washington Post recently basically preaching to Donald Trump as to why American Jews will not be joining him and the G.O.P., I am seeing some hope for change.

“Hands up, don’t shoot!”
Those words, rose to the public consciousness following the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri.
As noted in Politico on 12/14/15, this phrase subsequently took off, becoming a rallying cry for protesters and others trying to draw attention to the death of Brown and other African Americans at the hands of police officers.
In November 2014, some members of the St. Louis Rams ran out on the field during pregame introductions with their hands raised above their heads, an action repeated by four members of the Congressional Black Caucus on the House floor in December 2014.
One problem here: He never did that or said that! (According to Eric Holder’s DOJ report released in Mar., 2015, Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown.)
How do these things that never actually happened get wings and then take off?

Fast forward to an unrelated conversation that I had with a liberal friend who accused President Trump of a “racist” reaction to the 2017 tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a white nationalist plowed his car into a crowd, killing one and injuring several others. She insisted that Trump downplayed the horror of the Charlottesville tragedy by stating there were “good white nationalists and bad white nationalists” or “good neo-Nazis and bad neo-Nazis”.
Now at that time I was unfamiliar with what President Trump actually said, but this did not sound like the Donald Trump that I was familiar with. In fact, after looking in to it, it turns out there was one major problem here: He never said that! How do these things that never actually happened get wings and then take off?

Similarly, just recently Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel referred to Trump’s Charlottesville response to blame him for the Jussie Smollett hoax. “This is a President who drew a moral equivalency between people who are trying to perpetuate bigotry and those who are trying to fight bigotry. … When you go back to Virginia, this is a person who said, and I quote, ‘There are good people on both sides!’”
One problem here: President Trump did not say that. How do these things that never actually happened get wings and then take off?

In his widely misquoted press conference three days after Charlottesville, Trump said there were “very fine people” on “both sides” of the issue of whether it is appropriate to display Confederate monuments in public.
Here is what Trump said: “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
In case there was any doubt, Trump, in response to another question, said, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.”
The next time I hear that President Trump supposedly said something that just does not ring true with me, I am going to first suspect that he probably did not say it!

“It was Stagger Lee and Billy
Two men who gambled late
Stagger Lee threw seven
Billy swore that he threw eight
Stagger Lee told Billy
I can’t let you go with that. You have won all my money and my brand new
Stetson hat.”
“Stagger Lee“, also known as “Stagolee” and other variants, is a popular American folk song about the murder of Billy Lyons by “Stag” Lee Shelton in St. Louis, Missouri at Christmas, 1895. The song was first published in 1911, and was first recorded in 1923 by Fred Waring’s Pennsylvanians. This was based on the traditional blues/folk song, “Ballad of Stack-o-Lee.” According to Wikipedia, there have been over 170 recorded versions, including four by Taj Mahal and eight by Mississippi John Hurt, released over the past century. A version by Lloyd Price, recorded at the request of Dick Clark, reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1959. This was the first rock ‘n’ roll record to hit #1 despite being censored.
Who was telling the truth? What number did Stagger Lee actually throw? Obviously, one of the two was lying, as the number thrown was either one or the other. In this particular situation it was not a matter of interpretation or opinion . . . it was either a seven or an eight. It did not appear that there was a witness who could verify what number was actually thrown. Basically Stagger Lee said that Billy was lying – not exaggerating, not merely mistaken, but lying!

Sometimes someone can be exaggerating, “The fish I caught was at least a foot long,” but when actually measured, it was only eight inches long. Is anyone going to say, “He lied!”? I would say that most everyone would agree that exaggeration is much different than lying. Likewise if I say, “That statue is a thing of beauty,” but Joe Blow disagrees and thinks the statue is ugly. We have a difference of opinion. He would not be justified in calling me a liar, as we merely have a difference of opinion. If I comment on the green flash that I saw last night as the sun was setting, someone should not call me a liar because he/she did not see the green flash for whatever reason. 

Now to the present day where the Democrats are in panic mode and sinking faster than a murder victim with rocks in his pockets. They are beside themselves over the recent conclusions of the Mueller report. In reality they have nothing so they are resorting to their typical fall-backs . . . name calling and innuendo!

From the Wall Street Journal: On 5/2/19 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat said of Attorney General William Barr, “He lied to Congress.” Now Ms. Pelosi did not say, “Mr. Barr and I have a difference of opinion,” concerning what he meant when he said ‘such and such’.” She did not say, “I believe that Mr. Barr did not speak the complete truth when he said ‘such and such’.” There should be no confusion here about what she said. She called him a liar. 

Apparently Ms. Pelosi does not appreciate the gravity of calling someone a liar! Even for Ms. Pelosi, being in Congress, and thus at one of the lower margins of respectability in our society, calling someone a liar today is a big deal, although not nearly as big a deal as it was in 1895. Luckily for Rep. Pelosi this is not 1895 as:

“Stagger Lee shot Billy. Oh, he shot that poor boy so bad. ’Till the bullet came through Billy and it broke the bar-
Tender’s glass”