Month: May 2021

As some of you may know, I am a big Stephen King fan. All during the pandemic I basically read nothing but Stephen King books – most very good, some only fair or mediocre, and some outstanding. In my opinion, his best are “The Green Mile” (also a great movie) and “11/22/63” (an extremely long, interesting, and unusual look at of the JFK assassination on Nov. 22, 1963). Right now I am reading “Cujo,” which is about a rabid bloodthirsty St. Bernard by the same name. Even though it’s too early to tell how this story will turn out, I have learned that dogs, including Cujo, have an innate skill of being able to recognize fear and weakness in a person. 

In today’s world that same fear and weakness reminds me of our own CUrmudgeon JOe biden (CUJO), although in a reverse way as right from the git-go, enemies of the USA sense fear and weakness in CUJO and they stepped right up and challenged him. 

In March 2021 shortly after CUJO took office, he summoned his Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to meet with the Chinese delegation in Alaska. At that meeting the US delegation was embarrassed by China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, who had the audacity to state, “Many people within the United States actually have little confidence in the democracy of the United States.” Apparently Jiechi sensed fear and weakness and consequently went for the throat, just like the St. Bernard does in King’s book. 

Here in the last two weeks multiple other examples of the same.

The Colonial Pipeline was shut down by Russian hackers. The response from CUJO … nothing! The advancement of Russian troops to the Ukraine border. The response of CUJO … nothing! The Chinese harassing Taiwan and taking liberties in the South China Sea. The response from CUJO … nothing. Hamas from Gaza lobbing over a thousand rockets into Israel. Why? Could it be that they were emboldened by by the weakness and timidity of CUJO? Our southern border is now a mess. Many of those who are stampeding to get into the USA may not speak English, but just like the dog Cujo they can sense the weakness of our own CUJO. 

Are all these crises at the same time just a coincidence? I think not. 

But, hey, at least our CUJO is not a “mean-tweeter!”

Most of us have vivid memories of 9/11. Just as us older folk recall where we were and what we were doing when JFK was assassinated back in 1963, those less than sixty will always have similar memories for 9/11. They will always recall where they were and what they were doing on that horrific day. Whereas for those less than thirty 11/22/63 will merely be an historical event, and 9/11/2001 will be a fuzzy memory at best, is it only a matter of time before another sentinel event scars their memory.

Why do I say this, and perhaps more important, why do I say this now? 

Today I read an article by Byron York who five days a week writes his Daily Memo for the Washington Examiner. The article on 5/17 was about the border crisis, and it contained some impressive numbers . . . “impressive” in a bad way despite what Biden-Harris administration is trying to sell us.

From York’s article entitled, “A Disaster Entirely of Joe Biden’s Thinking”:

“The more we learn about the true dimensions of the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, the worse it is. Now, a new report says that in the last few months, U.S. authorities have encountered illegal border crossers not just from Mexico, or the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, but from 160 nations around the globe. People are coming to Mexico from the most distant spots on the planet in order to cross illegally into the United States, confident that President Joe Biden will let them stay. And Biden is doing just that.”

York continues:

“More than 12,500 Ecuadoreans were encountered in March, up from 3,568 in January,” The New York Times’ Miriam Jordan reports. “Nearly 4,000 Brazilians and more than 3,500 Venezuelans were intercepted, up from just 300 and 284, respectively, in January. The numbers in coming months are expected to be higher.

“Aid workers report seeing migrants from everywhere — “Arabic, Haitian Creole, Hindi and Portuguese speakers,” among many others.”

How many foreigners are crossing our southern border?  For those of you who are buying the “what crisis?” mumbo-jumbo of the Main Stream Media, more than just a few, in fact quite a lot. They are crossing the border in record numbers –178,622 known cases in April, on top of 172,331 in March. 

The Biden-Harris administration is silently trying to convince us that those who are crossing are all good guys … and I emphasize the word “silently.”  They intimate that these are good guys”(men, women, and children), who are justifiably escaping bad stuff in their native countries. However, those of us who are not drinking the Kool-Aid that this administration is handing out realize that it’s only a matter of time before one, or more likely many, of the present day border crossers perpetrate some horrific attack on the US and its citizens. 

When? I don’t know, but it will certainly be something that will scar the memories of my grandchildren – assuming they are fortunate enough to survive.

It’s only a matter of time!

“To Tell the Truth” was an old TV Quiz Show on which a celebrity panel would try to guess which of the three contestants was the real Mr./Ms. XYZ. The panelists would ask questions and the real Mr./Ms. XYZ would need to answer truthfully, whereas the two imposters could lie and ad lib. 

Keep in mind that this show had some relatively famous individuals as contestants, including Berry Gordy Jr. (founder of Motown Records), 

Ted Geisel aka Dr. Seuss, Alex Haley (Author of the book Roots), and 

Gordie Howe (a famous professional ice hockey player who went by the nickname “Mr. Hockey”).

After the three panelists asked questions, they would then choose which of the three contestants they thought was the real Mr./Ms. XYZ. After their choices were displayed, it was then that the host would say . . . “Will the real XYZ, please stand up.”

At this point you might be saying . . . “Nice useless old TV trivia, but who cares!” The segue here occurred this morning as I thought about this relic of a TV quiz show when I asked myself, “Who is the real Joe Biden?” 

Is he:

#1 A docile looking senior citizen with the gray hair who more often 

      than not appears somewhat confused?

#2 Merely a figurehead who is being controlled and manipulated by 

      some unknown puppet-master(s)?

#3 A cantankerous and vengeful old man?

If on that old quiz show when the question was asked, “Will the real Joe Biden please stand up?” . . . After a short pause, #1, #2, and #3 would all simultaneously stand up, as the real Joe Biden appears to be all three!

It seems more and more that the day to day life of the little guy is being manipulated, controlled, and pushed around by big business and big corporations. To me these recent developments are not “politics as usual.” A practical definition of a politician could be someone who tries to influence, mold, or form the opinions of the little guy. (“Global warning is bad for you, and so you must do X. It doesn’t matter that gas prices have gone up about $1.00 in the last few months. Suck it up for the good of the team!”) A lot of politicians feel comfortable with selling the little guy a bill of goods, because they feel that that’s their job. Truth, veracity, honesty, etc. does not need to play a role. Does the little guy realize that the term, “honest politician” is often an oxymoron? Probably not, but that’s what politicians do.

On the other hand a business is in business for the most part to sell the little guy it’s product. (“Eat or drink X or Y because it tastes good, is good for you, costs less, etc.”) That’s what companies do. They advertise. They market. Oftentimes they stretch the truth, but they are not politicians . . . until here just recently when some companies have decided that it is part of their job description to manipulate and control how the little guy thinks.(“The state of Georgia gas been a bad boy, and it is our duty to educate you little guys on what should be done. Boycott Georgia, because we do not agree with the Georgia legislature.”)

How does the little guy feel about this role transformation? How does the little guy feel about corporations stepping into politics? Take a guess. Maybe we should do a poll . . . Already done:

CV NEWS FEED // A new NPR / PBS NewsHour / Marist Poll found that a sizable majority of Americans oppose corporate influence in politics.

The poll asked “Do you support or oppose American companies using their public role, position, or events to influence political, cultural, or social change?” 

Among all respondents, 57% said they oppose the influence of American businesses, while only 36% said they support it.

This polling result is particularly significant in light of recent efforts by major corporations to put pressure on GOP legislators not to pass any bills to ensure against voter fraud.

So why are corporations acting like this? Why have they entered into the slimy realm of politics? Could it be because they feel that the little guy is not sufficiently “woke?” . . . whereas they are.

What’s next? Will politicians tell the little guy to drink Coke or fly Delta? Or worse will big businesses next be telling the little guy how to vote?

A very slippery slope. Be very careful, American little guy.

Are they “drinking the Kool-Aid” or is this a new religion? For those not aware of this term perhaps some background.

Over forty years ago the term, “drinking the Kool-Aid” originated 

from events in Jonestown, Guyana, on November 18, 1978, in which over 900 members of the Peoples Temple movement died because they were all persuaded to drink a powdered concoction laced with cyanide by Jim Jones, who convinced his so-called disciples to participate in this “revolutionary suicide.” 

In today’s vernacular “drinking the Kool-Aid” refers to accepting an idea because of popularity, peer pressure, or persuasion, and it has evolved further to mean extreme dedication to a cause. For selected Democratic politicians this cause is an intermingling of “women’s rights” and abortion. They seem to be able to justify just about anything if they include “women’s rights” in the catch phrase. I sometimes wonder, “Is it the right of a woman to murder her husband, boyfriend, mother, brother or child because the now dead person had ‘offended’ her?”Most everybody would say, “no” as the victim in these situations also has rights . . . the most prominent of which is the right to life. Here if someone were to say that the victim had no rights and a politician agreed with that, a lot of us sane individuals would say that the said politician had “drunk the Kool-Aid,” and we would all understand what that meant.

WARNING: The following has to do with partial birth abortion and  may not be pleasant reading (from Townhall):

In 2003 President George H. Bush signed into law the partial birth abortion ban (18 U.S.C. 1531) which takes great pains to describe partial-birth abortion as follows:

“Partial-birth abortion is an abortion “in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child’s body until either the entire baby’s head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby’s trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child’s skull and removing the baby’s brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant.”

WARNING: It gets worse (still from Townhall):

In 1992 Dr. Martin Haskell described his method:

(In the usual intact D&E [“dilitation and extraction”] the fetus’ head lodges in the cervix.)

“At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and ‘hooks’ the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors.”

Haskell continued: “He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. [T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely.”

Is this gruesome procedure not murder? To us sane and rational individuals, the answer is obviously, “yes, it is murder.” Partial birth abortion is indeed murder – it is not a woman’s right to murder anyone. Those politicians who think that this is okay have drunk the Kool-Aid!  

And what is worse is that some of the more prominent ones profess to be good practicing Catholics.

FYI: Joe Biden (President of the United States), Xavier Becerra (US Secretary of Health and Human Services), and Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) all  profess to be “practicing Catholics.

Are they “drinking the Kool-Aid” or is this a new religion?

Alan Jackson is one of my favorites. I like many of his songs, but I especially like “Where I Come From.” Over and over in the chorus is the refrain “where I come from,” XYZ. That song in addition to a poem that was recently sent to me, got me to thinking, “where is the country that I thought I came from?”

That poem written by a fifteen year old in Minnesota starts off as follows:

Now I sit me down in schoolWhere praying is against the ruleFor this great nation under GodFinds mention of Him very oddIf scripture now the class recites,It violates the Bill of Rights

It goes on for another twenty-six lines, but here’s the stanza that captures the gist:

It’s ‘inappropriate’ to teach right from wrong.We’re taught that such ‘judgments’ do not belong.We can get our condoms and birth controls,Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,No word of God must reach this crowd

I thought that it was well written and on the money, but more importantly it got me to thinking . . . “What’s happening to our great country?” Or perhaps more to the point and pertinent . . . “What’s happening to our great country under of guise of ‘freedom’?”  What is happening to the country “where I come from?”

I do not want to be perceived as standing up in a pulpit, but to me it seems that “our country is slowly being undermined by evil.” I know, strong words, and perhaps I ought to rephrase it . . . “Our country is slowly being undermined by evil disguised as “freedom.”

I hear “Nonsense! Give me some examples.”

If one questions what happened in the last election, he/she is deemed a conspiracy theorist. The fact that there were many strange occurrences in many different states are pushed aside . . . “everyone deserves to have their vote counted,” without mentioning what the term ‘everyone’ actually means. Although not verbalized precisely by some . . . “it’s okay to cheat in elections because . . . err, yada, yada, yada, something to do with everybody having the “freedom” to vote. Where I come from cheating is wrong and to sanction it as ‘okay’ is evil.

It’s okay to riot in the streets and destroy property because protest is one of included freedoms that we have. If one tries to replace ‘protest’ with  ‘peacefully protest’ in the conversation, then he/she opens him/herself to woke criticism. From where I come from wantonly destroying the property of others is wrong. To sanction it as ‘okay,’ is evil.

Where I come from killing is wrong. A few years back when ISIS was killing, raping, and pillaging innocents, most thought that they were evil. However taking the life of an innocent fetus is “okay,” because a woman has the freedom to decide what to do with her body. To that I ask, “When does a fetus become a person and thus have the same freedoms that everyone else has?” Perhaps at conception, but certainly when it has a heartbeat. Where I come from, if it has a heartbeat, it is certainly alive.

Does a fictional Supreme Court Justice in “The Keneally Chronicles” think in the same way? BTW “The Keneally Chronicles” is available on Amazon both where you come from and where I come from!

Again to be honest right from the top, I am far, actually very, very far from being a Biblical scholar. In fact one of my goals for 2021 was to start to read or, second best, have the Bible read to me. “The Bible in One Year” podcast by Father Mike Schmitz from Duluth has thus far been my vehicle for this journey. I am behind schedule but still gradually making headway. Presently I  am just starting Joshua, the sixth book of the Old Testament. Let me tell you, it’s been slow-going, but things should now pickup as the Jewish people have crossed the Jordan River and are now entering the Promised Land. At this point one thing I can say for sure is that there is no way I will finish the Bible in one year.

Be that as it may, today elsewhere I read a quote from the New Testament, specifically from the Gospel of Matthew … Matthew 7:16, that seemed very apropos to the present controversy involving our “very Catholic” and “devout” President, at least according to the Washington Post and his backing of abortion.

The quote:

“By their fruits you will know them. Do you

gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?”

The following is from Dean Larson of the Church of the Latter Day Saints:

“Those of us who seek wisdom in the Bible might do well to heed its admonition: “By their fruit ye shall recognize them.” We are also well-advised not to be taken in by appearances, even appearances of those who seem to be religiously observant. They, too, can, as the Bible says, “appear to people as righteous but on the inside” be “full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”

I am not a Mormon, but I thought that this statement by Dean Larson was in itself, very prophetic.

Jesus states that one will be able to identify false prophets by their fruits. False prophets will not produce good fruits. Fruits, which are a common metaphor in both the Old and New Testaments, represent the outward manifestation of a person’s faith, thus their behaviour and their works.

Aha! Suddenly it all became clear … “outward manifestations” or actions is how to identify false prophets. With this as a guide, is it possible that an outwardly “very Catholic” and “devout” man is a false prophet? 

Indeed, something to think about and moreover, something to pray about.

5/16/21

I just viewed a most interesting graph by WalletHub that compared the fifty states and the District of Columbia on multiple individual parameters related to Covid. These individual state parameters included death rate, a restriction/freedom index, an unemployment rate, presence or absence of a state level mask mandate, and a Republican/Democrat Governor.

The graph initially divided all fifty states and the District of Columbia into four basic quartiles based on death rate per 100,000 (y-axis) and a restrictive/freedom index (x-axis) with more freedom on one side and more restrictions on the opposite side.

Let’s focus first on the restriction/freedom index which included thirteen key metrics, including such things as travel restrictions, large gathering restrictions, school restarts, restaurant and bar reopening, strictness of “shelter in place” mandates, etc. These parameters were weighted, scored, and added together. The sum of these added parameters then allows the states and D.C. to be ranked from the least restrictive to the most restrictive. (The five least restrictive states in order: Iowa, Florida, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas)

The death rates between the red-governor states and the blue-governor states are approximately the same, however in terms of the restriction/freedom index, there is no comparison as the red-governor states score dramatically better (much less restrictive) than the blue-governor states – in other words the much more dramatic restrictions of freedoms in the mostly blue-governor states did not translate into a lower death rate.

Was there anything else that was apparent in those states which scored much lower on the restriction/freedom index (more restrictive). Yes, in fact, the most dramatic correlation was that the unemployment rate was impressively higher in those states that imposed more restrictions on freedoms. Not surprising these states were overwhelmingly blue-governor states.

In other words the restriction of freedoms in mainly blue-governor states did not alter the death rate, but did cause dramatically higher unemployment rates.

For the sake of completeness the states with Democratic(blue) governors captured 21 out of the 24 top spots on the more restrictive scoreboard, signifying more lockdowns, etc. and more unemployment, but no decrease in overall death rates.

So who benefitted? Not those who lived in blue states!

How does a rational person explain Joe Biden? 

Is it possible that he is a “nice old man” who doesn’t really realize the full extent of what is going on? Could he be a modern day Trojan horse, or a more modern day “Stepford husband” playing a submissive role . . . but playing a submissive role to whom?

Yesterday there were two pretty amazing and at the same time potentially frightening news stories.

First, at the end of a very short press briefing, when questions were being hurled at him as he was attempting to leave, the nice old man said,

“I’m not supposed to be answering all these question. I’m supposed to leave.”

When multiple issues are actually on the front pages even of the liberal newspapers, it means that they are indeed some serious issues. Israel-Gaza . . . a serious issue. A major gasoline pipeline cyber-attack causing lines at gas stations in some states . . . a serious problem. Record inflation in the month of April . . . potentially a very serious financial situation for all Americans. The crisis at our southern border with record numbers of detentions (100K in February, 172K in March, and almost 180,000 in April) . . . even though not really commented on much by MSM, another serious situation and getting worse.

And yet the assumed leader of the free world says, “I’m not supposed to be answering all these question. I’m supposed to leave.” !!! 

If he is not supposed to be answering questions, who is? When there are serious problems . . . Joe, “who ya goin’ to call, Ghost-busters?” It seems to me that someone should be informing the American people on 

 at least some of these serious things. Someone other than Jen “I’ll get back to you on that” Psaki.

But just as serious, who is telling him what he is supposed to do? Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a President who was actually in charge, and in control of when he could talk instead of being subservient, and only doing what someone else tells him what he is supposed to do? Oops, we did have such a President, but he was a “mean tweeter!” At least Joe doesn’t tweet, and thus comes across as a docile nice old man that will do what he is told. 

Meanwhile more than 120 retired generals and admirals have signed a letter saying that the U.S. is in “deep peril” under the leadership of President Joe Biden, specifically warning that the mental condition of the nation’s oldest commander in chief “cannot be ignored.” The letter was released by Flag Officers 4 America, and was signed by 124 retired “military officers entitled to carry a flag indicating their rank.”

It doesn’t take a genius to discern that this group is probably made up of those who lean to the right. However, seriously think about it for a second. If by his own words someone is telling him what not to do . . . “I’m not supposed to do …”, or what to do . . . “I’m supposed to do …”, who will be the puppet-master telling him what to do if, God forbid, the North Koreans aim a missile at Los Angeles or Seattle? Likewise who will be playing the role of Edgar Bergen when Charley McCarthy, err Joe Biden,  needs to say something important or make an important decision?

Should CDC stand for Consistently Damn Confusing ?

Friends of mine just returned from Hawaii. Apparently it was quite nice, as Hawaii is usually nice. The one bugaboo, besides the frequent Covid testing that was necessary to travel into and out of the island state as well as with inter-island travel, was the wearing of masks on the beaches. They related that everyone was wearing masks while walking on the beach, and if perchance you did not wear one, you got the steely-eyed intimidating stares. I could relate to that, as the last time I walked on the beach here, it was the same. The only thing more insane in the “wear a mask, or else religion” is the wearing of a mask when driving alone in a car. Huh??

What does the CDC say about wearing a mask while strolling on a beach? Keep in mind that the source of most mask confusion these days is actually the CDC (in addition to the mainstream media). Sometimes I wonder if the CDC has hired a special speech writer/editor whose job it is to make all of the CDC’s statements confusing. If so, give him/her a raise!

The following is from the New York Times:

“When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidelines last month for mask wearing, it announced that “less than 10 percent” of Covid-19 transmission was occurring outdoors. Media organizationsrepeated the statistic, and it quickly became a standard description of the frequency of outdoor transmission.”

However this statistic is very misleading for a number of reasons. First of all, what does “less than 10 percent”  actually mean? Does it mean 9.9 percent? Does it mean 5 percent? Or does it mean 0.1 percent? All of these numbers are “less than 10 percent!” To me this “less than 10 percent” is deliberately misleading if the true incidence is anything other than 9.5-9.9 percent. (Note that “deliberately” is my emphasis!) 

As best I can tell the incidence of outdoor transmission can be much more accurately stated as less than 1 percent, and perhaps even closer to 0.1. percent. Again from NYT:

The benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.

Apparently there is not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table.

Hmmm!

But it gets worse (NYT again):

If you read the academic research that the C.D.C. has cited in defense of the 10 percent benchmark, you will notice something strange. A very large share of supposed cases of outdoor transmission have occurred in a single setting: construction sites in Singapore!

Likewise in a study, in which 95 of 10,926 worldwide instances of transmission are classified as outdoors; all 95 are from Singapore construction sites. In another study, four of 103 instances are classified as outdoors; again, all four are from Singapore construction sites.

This is obviously a big mess, and apparently had to do with what is considered indoors versus outdoors in the Singapore data base. Did the CDC actually read any of the studies from which it abstracted its data? Hmmm! Double Hmmm!

To me there are two possible conclusions here:

First, mask wearing is not necessary outside except in extraordinary circumstances.

Second, the best thing would be to ignore the CDC completely.

5/13/21