tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88621934176922971752024-03-18T04:58:51.539-07:00chessart's retirement diarieschessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.comBlogger689125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-41700537735527052542024-03-11T07:23:00.000-07:002024-03-11T07:23:18.275-07:00Ranking the First 95 Oscar WinnersIn honor of the 96th Oscar ceremony last night, a web site came out yesterday with a ranking of the first 95 winners of the Best Picture Oscar. I have a strong reaction to this misguided ranking.<p><p>
Four are clearly ranked way too high. These are, with the ranking in parentheses: Lawrence of Arabia (11), West Side Story (15), Rocky (19), and My Fair Lady (24). These are all mediocre films that had no business winning an Oscar, let alone being ranked in the top quarter of Oscar winners. Boo.<p><p>
Forrest Gump at 75 is ranked way too low. This film is a wonderful achievement and deserves to be higher. Same with The Bridege on the River Kwai at 57, Patton at 40, No Country for Old Men at 39, and In the Heat of the Night at 26.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-17436503006131987522024-03-05T05:32:00.000-08:002024-03-05T05:32:30.833-08:00Supreme Court Embarrasses Itself in Colorado Election CaseThe Suprme Court has once again injected itself into a political thicket, with predictably embarrassing consequences. By ruling yesterday that Donald Trump must remain on the Colorado ballot, the Court ignores the plain text of the Constitution. The result is that the Court will continue its descent into irrelevancy.<p><p>
The Court obviously decided how it wanted to rule, and then searched for some legal justification. Usually, the Court is able to come up with a plausible rationale for its concluson; but here, there was no plausible rationale, so the Court had to simply ignore the law and make something up.<p><p>
The Constitution gives each state legislature the power to choose the electors from that state to the Electoral College. If they want to, they could choose them directly, rather than having the voters decide. These days, each state has elections, but the power to run those elections rests with the state. There are no federal questions involved.<p><p>
Colorado ruled that Trump's participation in an insurrection disqualified him from its ballot, in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado couldn't apply the 14th Amendment, because Congress had not passed any "enabling legislation". This despite the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the insurrection provision cannot apply absent enabling legislation from Congress.<p><p>
The irony is that five of the conservative justices, who like to advocate for a literal interpretion of the Constitution, chose to completely ignore the text of the Constitution. <p><p>
An interesting aspect of the written opinions is that the five <b>men</b> constituted the majority, while the four <b>women</b> concurred in the result but wrote concurring opinions complaining that the majority had gone too far, deciding issues that didn't need to be reached to decide the case. And the four women included conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with the three liberal justices.<p><p>
In my Constitutional Law class, many years ago, we learned that the Supreme Court doesn't get involved in "political questions". There was a good reason for this, as the Court is supposed to be above politics. The idea is that political questions should be decided in the political arena, not in the legal arena. Sadly, the current Court ignores this time-honored principle, and in the process has disgraced itself.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-62685468459998560622024-03-03T15:22:00.000-08:002024-03-16T15:09:57.668-07:00Fascinating Hearing in the Georgia Election Interference CaseI was fascinated this past week by the closing arguments in the defendants' motion to disqualify DA Fani Willis from the Fulton County case. On the surface, it apeared unlikely, even silly, that the DA would be disqualified for having a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired. The evidence presented by the defendants was designed to show that the relationship already existed at the time the special prosecutor was hired. Both the DA and her boyfriend denied this. They acknowledged that they had met at a judicial conference a couple of years earier, but insisted that the romantic relationship started much later.<p><p>
The two of them also insisted that DA Willis did not benefit financially from the relationship. They claimed that Willis reimbursed her boyfriend with cash for her share of the expenses incurred during their many trips together. There were no records presented by either side as to how she acquired the cash, or why she didn't write a chcek to her boyfriend. But here's the kicker--since this was the defendants' Motion, the burden of proof is on the defendants, not the state, and the defendants produced nothing to refute what Willis was claiming, as far-fetched as her story seems.<p><p>
The facts paint a sorry picture. Willis paid her hired special prosecutor $700,000, and the case hasn't yet gotten close to trial. In the closing arguments, defendants' counsel talked as if a speech Willis gave at a church was almost as serious a problem as the special proesecutor mess. Prosecutors are not supposed to speak out publicly about a pending cvase like this, as it can poison the jury pool. In addition, she gave an interview to a writer who was writing a book on the case, further poisoning the jury pool. Also, she contributed to the campaign of someone running against a person she was prosecuting in an earlier corruption case, showing a pattern of politically-motivated behavior on the part of a DA, who is supposed to be above partisan politics.<p><p>
All of the defendants' counsel were very impressive in their closing arguments. Trump's attorney was especially imporessive (unlike the attorneys in his other cases, who have been largely incompetent). The prosecutor fron the DA's office seemed relatively inept by comparison.<p><p>
Fortunately for the state, the Motion will be decided by how the judge applies the facts and the law, and not by the ability, or lack thereof, of the attorneys in the case. It is a much closer case that it had initially seemed, and it could go either way. The judge expects to have a decision within the next two weeks. If Willis is disquaified, the case will likely fall apart as a new team would have to start from scratch.<p><p>
My guess is the judge will rule that the defense has not proven that DA Willis received a financial benefit from her hiring of the special prosecutor, and that she can therefore stay on the case, although he will surely chastise her for her ethical lapses. Put another way, the defendants have not proven that the DA's conduct, as reprehensible as it has been, has deprived them of their right to a fair trial. The Fulton County voters will eventually have the final say if and when DA Willis runs for re-election.<p><p>
<b>Update on March 16th.</b>The Judge has ruled and it is in line with my comments. DA Willis can stay on the case, but only if she gets rid of the special prosecutor who was her former lover.<p><p>
What bothers me is the Judge's reference to "the appearance of impropriety". When I was in law school in the early '70s, I was taught that part of the lawyer's ethical duty was to avoid "the appearance of impropriety". But my understanding is that at some later point this was removed from the ethical rules, with "actual impropriety" becoming the new standard.<p><p>
Apparently Georgia still has this outdated standard, which is not surprising from a deep South state. Still, I cannot argue with the idea that there is something rotten here, and I can't escape the idea that DA Willis is way over her head. The fact that she could not find any better qualified special prosecutor than someone who has <b>zero</b> experience with RICO cases shows just how weak her overly ambitious endeavor is. The Judge's observation that there is an “an odor of mendacity" about the testimony of DA Willis and her lover will continue to cast a dark cloud over the prosecution. The chance that Trump will be convicted in this case is close to zero.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-32819400605236982702024-02-18T14:54:00.000-08:002024-02-18T14:54:33.316-08:00Trump Is FailingTo anyone who doubts Trump's failing power and influence, I would suggest studying the life of Douglas MacArthur after he came back from the far East on April 18, 1951, having been removed from command by President Truman. He was extraordinarily popular, but as he gave talks it became obvious that he was more interested in nursing his personal grievances than in articulating a vision for the country's future, and he soon lost appeal. He lived out his life in a New York hotel, and finally died in relative obscurity in 1964.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-52162475972581729682024-01-30T12:27:00.000-08:002024-01-30T12:27:25.863-08:00Why Nikki Haley Should Stay in the RaceMany pundits are saying Nikki Haley should get out of the race against Trump for the GOP nomination, as have all the other candidates. There are many reasons these so-called pundits are wrong.<p><p>
There are ample reasons to believe that Trump is losing his cognitive functioning. He has repeatedly confused Biden and Obama, and confused Haley and Nancy Pelosi. He mentioned Haley's name five times as being in charge of security on 1/6/21, when he obviously meant Pelosi. He is slurring his words, and his speeches aare becoming more and more confused and rambling. In light of all the legal pressures he is feeling, there is every reason to believe he will self-destruct within the next few months, and it would be silly for the GOP not to have another candidate still in the picture when that happens.<p><p>
Some Democrats would prefer to run against Trump, since the chances of winning are so much higher (Haley beats Biden by double digits). But the down side of a Trump victory vs. Biden is just too great. as it would mean the end of our 248-year old democracy. And a Trump victory is quite likely. Trump has an easy lane to victory; he can simply brand Biden as a warmopnger, and boast about how there were no wars on his watch, and now three (counting vs. Iran) under Biden. Biden's speeches are now regularly interrupted by protestors protesting U.S. support of the genocide in the Gaza Strip, and this is only going to get worse. By the time the Trump machine gets done with him, he will be forever known as "genocide Joe".chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-29094409547817901082024-01-21T06:45:00.000-08:002024-01-21T06:45:04.150-08:00Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty?Last Saturday, two days before the Iowa caucus, the Michael Smerconish daily question was "Is the Republican nomination already over". I voted "no" in the early morning, but was shocked to see that the majority had voted yes.<p><p>
I was dubious about this, but then on the Smerconish CNN 9 AM show, he had an analyst on who pointed out that, while past Iowa caucus results were not very predictive of the final winner of the nomination, in all those past cases the winner never got more than 25% of the caucus vote. In this year, by contrast, Trump was polling around 50%, and that is in fact what he got. So, this analyst's conclusion was that the nominatin was in the bag for Trump.<p><p>
And now another poll shocker. The question in last Tuesday's Smerconish poll was, "Is Donald Trump a more or less formidable candidate than he was in 2020?" I voted "less", but, amazingly, the majority voted more! While I don't have much admiration for the intelligence of the average US voter, surely voters will take into account all of Trump's proven negatives this time around.<p><p>
Analysis in the past few days has shed a new light on the significance, or lack thereof, of Trump's big victory in Iowa. Analysts have pointed out that Iowa is totally unrepresentative of the Republican party nationwide. The bad weather helped Trump and DeSantis, and worked against Haley, based on polling of how enthusiastic each candidate's supporters were. Further, the analysts point out that the signifcant fact is not that 50% of caucus-goers voted for Trump, but thast 50% voted <b>against</b> him. The examople has been given of Obama running again, and having only 50% of his party opposing him. That would never happen. <p><p>
Similarly, some pundits make much of the fact that 2/3 of GOP Trump supporters say a criminal conviction of Trump wouldn't make a difference to their vote. However, other pundits make the more significant point that 1/3 of this group <b>would</b> be influenced by such a conviction. In a general election, this level of defection would be a disaster for Trump. Consider that he starts with less than 50% of the electorate supporting him. Lose a portion of that and he loses in a landslide. Consider that Trump's approval rating during his presidency never once reached 50% (it fluctuated between 35% and 49%).chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-80308231768401907192023-12-30T04:41:00.000-08:002023-12-30T04:41:19.888-08:00Misinformation on the Civil WarThe liberal media is blasting Nikki Haley for not mentioning slavery in her answer to a question about the cause of the Civil War. While Haley's response was not very intelligible, there was nothing wrong with her not mentioning slavery. Here is the correct response: "The Civil War was caused by Abraham Lincoln's obsession with preserving the Union. Seven Southern states were trying to peacefully secede, and Lincon refused to allow them to do so, and waged war against them for their desire to leave the union. While the secession was caused by slavery (among other reasons), the war itself was all the North's doing."<p><p>
When I posted this thought on Facebook, some of my friends seemed unable to grasp the basic truth I'm trying to express here. I will put it as simply and directly asd I can: Secession was about slavery, but the Civil War was about Lincoln's obsession with preserving the union.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-43269808856558357702023-12-27T04:46:00.000-08:002023-12-27T04:53:15.087-08:00Abandoning my support for IsraelI have long been an ardent supporter of Israel's right to defend itself. The Palestinians could have accepted the 1948 partition, as the Jews did, and lived ever since in peace, but instead they rejected the partition and vowed to destroy the state of Israel and "drive the Jews into the sea". Hence my lack of sympathy for the Palestinians.<p><p>
But what Israel is doing in the Gaza Strip goes so far beyond any legitimate right of self-defense that I have to abandon my previous support. By inflicting unspeakable damage on innocent civilians it is creating more future terrorists than it is destroying. The idea that killing all Hamas supporters is the answer makes no sense. You cannot destory an ideology by killing its advocates.<p><p>
Israel's claim that it is taking every precaution to avoid killing innocent civiians has been exposed as a complete joke by the fact that they killed three of the hostages that they were supposedly trying to free, killing them even though those hostages were shirtless, with their hands up and waiving a white flag of surrentder, and calling out in Hebrew.<p><p>
The United States becomes increaingly isolatd in world opinion the more it supports the Israeli genocide againt the Palestinian people. Since 1954 the U.S. has vetoed 34 resolutions in the UN Security Council concerning Israel. Our arrogance in ignoring world opinion is disgusting.<p><p>
President Biden's continuing support of Israel in the face of Israel's war crimes is wrongheaded and will cost him in next year's election, espoecially among young Democratic voters, many of whom will simply stay home home on election day. Biden should do more than lobby Israel in private, as he is doing now. He should announce publicly that the U.S. will no longer support the Israeli war crimes. <p><p>
Trump will stress in next year's election that two wars have arisen under Biden, while there was no war during his presidency. While this is a superficial statement, it is true information. and most voters cast their vote based on superficiality (like the current gas prices). Biden botched Ukraine support in the opposite direction, denying Ukraine any weapons that might possibly be used inside Russia. In both instances Biden has been guilty of timidity. And then there is the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which many think Biden botched, and the problems at our southern border.<p><p>
Trump has a solid example of his exercise of restraint. When an American was killed somewhere in Europe, the military wanted to do a strike in response. Trump asked what the civilian casualties would be, and the answer came back "about 150". With ten minutes to go before the mission was to start, Trump vetoed it, saying the response wasn't "proportionate". I haven't seen a better example of a U.S. president implementing the principle of proportionality to veto a military mission.<p><p>
Those, like Trump, who are troubled by the U.S. interference in the affairs of other countries are on the right side of history. There is no reason for the U.S. to have a military presence in over 150 countries, 3/4 of all the countries of the world. There is no reason for the U.S. to have a "defense" budget as large as the next ten countries combined. When are we going to come to our senses? And when is Israel going to come to its senses? The only people benefiting from this madness are the arms manufacturers.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-56362888204945979452023-12-21T04:07:00.000-08:002023-12-22T04:24:41.358-08:00Should Colorado be allowed to exclude Trump from the ballot?A recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump cannot be on the Colorado 2024 presidential ballot, because he violated the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment.<p><p>
Most commentators think the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue on appeal. If it does, it will be fascinating to see what the so-called "conservatives" on the Court will do. The true conservative view is that the federal government should stay out of the business of telling the states what to do. But the hypocritical right-wing Supreme Court justices have consistently violated this principle when political realities come into play, as in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, when the so-called conservatives voted to interfere in the Florida vote counting process. If the current court repeats this disgrace, it will lose what little respect it still has left.<p><p>
What the Court should do is to simply stay out of the process. By refusing to take up the case, the Court would allow each state to run its own elections, a part of which is to decide who can appear on its ballots. The issue of whether a candidate qualifies to be on the ballot is multi-faceted. A candidate younger than 35 cannot run. A candidate who is not a natural-born citizen cannot run. A candidate who has already served two terms cannot run. And a candidate who has engaged in an insurrection, having previously sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, cannot run. It is up to each state to determine whether a candidate qualifies to be that state's ballot. <p><p>
If the Supreme Court does take up the case, the conservative justices will be put in an embarrassing position, because their position has long been one of "originalism", or "textualism", meaning the provisions of the Constitution, and laws in general, should be interpreted as written. Doing that, Trump clearly does not qualify for the ballot, under the clear provisions of the 14th Amendment. <p><p>
Conservative philosoophy is that the court should not go into the legislative history, when the law as written is clear. But even if they <b>do </b>go into the legislative hisstory, there is an exchange between two Senators on record in which it is clerified that the provision <b>does</b> apply to the presidency, contrary to what the trial judge mistakenly found in this case.<p><p>
chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-53453770207989710602023-12-19T05:09:00.000-08:002023-12-19T05:38:08.720-08:00"The Real Majority", by Richard Scammon and Ben WattenbergThis 1970 book is about psephology, the study of elections. The word derives from the Greek psephos, meaning pebble. The material relied on by the authors are the election of 1968, and the ones leading up to it. They also examine the mayoral eelctions of 1969.<p><p>
The authors write about the great ideological issues of the past: The gold vs. silver issue of 1896 which dominated our politics for 30 years, and then the econoomic issues of 1932, which also dominated for 30+ years.<p><p>
But the authors demonstrate that in 1968 economic issues took a back seat, and social issues dominated. Crime became the number one issue, not, as most mistakenly believe, the Vietnam War. The authors rely on the numerous surveys done by the Harris and Gallup polling organizations which demonstrate that crime and racial unrest were the two main issues in 1968. Much was made of the fact that half of all women were afaid to walk alone at night. The authors predict that whoever can capture the center on these issues, as the GOP did in 1968, will win future elections. The claim that "law and order" was a code word for racism was a losing argument for the Democrats in 1968. All the middle of the road voters who were genuinely concerned about crime in the streets were being called racists, which was NOT an effective strategy for winning over those voters.<p><p>
What has happened since 1968 has certainly borne out the authors' prophecy. "Family values" dominated the 1980s elections, and abortion and other social issues have dominated recent elections. What has made the switch from economic issues possible is the success of the era when economic issues dominated. The success of the union movement has paved the way for many workers to join the middle class, and many of them have become more conservative.<p><p>
The issue of abortion in 2023 demonstrates the truth of the authors' conclusions. The right has taken an extreme position on abortion, out of step with the vast majoirty of U.S. voters, and it is costing the GOP at the ballot box. Every referendum on abortion to date has been won by the pro-choice crowd, even in red states like Kansas. The best chance Biden has to win next year would be to run every single ad showing Trump bragging about being responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade. Any other strategy would be a loser for Biden, who at this writing has an approval rating of a pathetic 34%, the lowest yet for his presidency.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-25703703112788915262023-11-27T06:33:00.000-08:002023-12-08T02:12:47.767-08:00"Suicide of a Superpower", by Pat BuchananWhen I got done with law school 48 years ago and went out into the adult world to practce law, the thing that shocked and upset me the most was the blatant racism exhibited by judges and fellow lawyers I came into contact with. I expected it among my blue collar clients, becuase they didn't know any better, but not among other professionals. How could people with 19 years of education still be so racist? It made no sense to me.<p><p>
Living and working in this hostile world was a source of continuing disappointment to me. I always felt like a reluctant visitor to an alien environment. I was a stranger in a strange land.<p><p>
In the reading and studying I have done in my retirement, I have come to understand that racism is a natural part of the human condition, which is to say that we are a tribal species. This is the central theme of Pat Buchanan's 2011 book, "Suicide of a Superpower". Buchanan gives numerous examples from all around the world of the emergence of tribalism as the dominant force in the world today. The more general, and probably more accurate, term he uses is "ethnonationalism".<p><p>
Concerning the United States, the superpower which Buchanan correctly diagnoses as dying, he says this: "Eisenhower's America was a nation of 160 million with a European-Christian core and culture all it own. We were a people then. And when, in 2050, we have become a stew of 435 million, of every creed, culture and color, fron every country on earth, what will hold us together".<p><p>
Buchanan's general point is that countries based on ideology do not survive. Considered in that light, the miracle is not that the United States republic is dying, as it surely is, but that it has lasted this long. The Soviet Union's ideology-based country lasted only 74 years; ours has lasted an amazing 247 years and counting.<p><p>
Buchanan's idea that we are a tribal species has received strong support in recent years from a perceptive article in "National Affais" by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch notes that "tribalism has been the prevalent mode of social organization for all but approximately the most recent 2% of years that humans have lived on the planet". He concludes that "the more parties weaken as institutions whose members are united by loyalty to their organization, the more they strengthen as tribes whose members are united by hostility to their enemy". So, the rancor today among different political and ethnic groups, so condemned by most of us, is really quite natural in human history.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-37364638408181574602023-11-23T06:02:00.000-08:002023-11-23T06:02:41.904-08:00The Dubious Value of an Ivy League DegreeThe recent epidemic of anti-Semitism on college campuses, and Ivy League colleges in particular, has drawn my attention to a long-simmering issue, which is, why do we think an Ivy League degree is so valuable? So much of what we hear from Ivy League campuses these days reflects a moral degeneracy. In an encouraging, though belated, indication of some pushback, some prospective employers are now asking for a list of Harvard students who signed onto a declaration blaming Israel for the 10/7 Hamas slaughter of 1,400 Israeli civilians, for the purpose of denying those misguided students future job interviews.<p><p>
With the benefit of this new insight, it seems absurd to me that the most prominent affirmative action cases all involve entry into universities. Bakke (1978) involved an application to a University of California medical school; Gratz and Gutter (2003) both involved applications to the University of Michigan law school; and Fisher (2016) involved admission the University of Texas; All of these cases upheld race-based admissions. But now we have two companion cases decided this past summer, one involving Harvard and the other the University of North Carolina, in which the Supreme Court broke with the past and struck down race-based admissions.<p><p>
I am incredulous at this obsession with what college you go to. To my way of thinking, a degree from a quality liberal arts college is more valuable, in any meaningful sense of the word, than a degree from one of the "elite" universities. The three things employers value most in an employee--integrity, honesty, and a good work ethic--are most likely to be found in a college setting which encourages and nurtures those values.<p><p>
To the extent that employers still over-value the elite degree, I say, so what? No man ever lay on his death bed and rued that he didn't spend more time on his business. The very thought is silly, what they always say is that they regret not spending more time with their family. <p><p>
If we look at the Supreme Corrt justices, almost all in recent years have been graduates of Ivy League colleges. And the result is that the Court has a historically low approval rating, because the Court is out of touch with the country. The prevalence of Ivy League graduates has been almost as damaging to the country as the prevalence of Catholics on the Court.
chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-17484085155703491692023-11-12T14:40:00.000-08:002023-11-12T14:40:16.694-08:00"Day of Reckoning", by Pat BuchananIn this book, published in 2007, Buchanan expounds on the themes he has explored in his other books, like "A Republic, Not an Empire" (1999), "The Death of the West" (2002), "Where the Right Went Wrong" (2004), "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War" (2008), and "Suicide of a Superpower" (2011).<p><p>
"Day of Reckoning" is Buchanan's resposne to Geroge W. Bush's war on Iraq, which Buchanan considers the greatest blunder in United States history. In fact, Buchanan felt so strogly about this that in 2002 he launched a new magazine, "The American Conservative", dedicated to opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq.<p><p>
The main concept Buchanan explores is the idea of ideology. He examines Bush's speeches after 9/11, and concludes that Bush became consumed by ideology, making statements lie "moral truth is the same in every culture i every time, and in every place", "the requirements of freedom apply fully to the true Islamic world", and "We are in conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name". Bush became consumed by his dsire to overthrow Iraq's ruling regime, and substitute a democratic state in its place. Buchanan calls this the use of ideology to justify war as nothing more than "war propaganda".<p><p>
Buchanan says that "ideology really means poitical fanaticism". He examines past U.S. wars, and concludes that couching our justification for involvement in ideological terms was, in every caase, an after-the-fact justification for wars which were entered into out of nationl interests.<p><p>
Applying Buchanan's principles to the current Israel-Hamas war, it can be easily seen that Isael is making a big mistake in invading the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu is couching it in terms of "fighting against evil", which it surely is, but to justify war on that basis is wrong. We also see tht Netanyahu, like Bush, is ignoring the Pottery Barn Rule, which says that "if you broke it, you bought it". Who is going to run the Gaza Strip when Hamas is destroyed? Another similarity is that by waging war on Muslims, you are simply creating more future terrorists. In referring to Islamic terrorists, Buchanan likes to say that "they're over here because we're over there". Hamas might be destroyed, but so what? Another group will be formed in its place. Then there is the problem of innocent civilians being killed.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-9064585639173165582023-11-09T09:28:00.000-08:002023-11-09T09:28:41.872-08:00The 2023 World SeriesThe Texas Rangers won in five games over the Arizona Diamondbacks. I was thrilled by this, as the Rangers had never won a championship in their 63 years of existence. They were twice within a strike of winning in 2011 against the Cardinals, only to have it cruelly ripped away from them. This time, hpwever, they were not to be denied.<p><p>
The first game was a classic, with the Rangers tying the game with a late-inning homer, and then winning in the 11th on another homer. The other four games were rather mundane by comparison.<p><p>
MVP for the Series was Rangers shortstop Corey Seager, who honmered in three of the five games. He became only the fourth player to win two World Series MVP awards, and only the second position player, joining Reggie Jackson in this regard. (Seager had previously won in 2020 with the Dodgers, while Jackson won in 1973 with the A's, and in 1977 with the Yankees.)<p><p>
A disappointment is the mediocre broadasting team which FOX Sports foisted on us. How I miss the halycon days when Joe Buck and Tim McCarver called the games! The pre-game and post-game team of ex-ballplayers was equally disappointing. The knowledgeable team at ESPN, folks like Tim Kurkjian and Karl Ravech, would have been light-years better than this group.<p><p>
Rangers manager Bruce Bochy made history by becoming only the third manager to take three different teams to the World Series (Bill McKechnie and Dick Williams being the first two). Well done, Bruce!<p><p>
An oddity is that in this World Series the visiting team won every game. And, most impressive, the Rangers went an amazing 11-0 in the postseason as the visiting team!<p><p>
Rangers second baseman and leadoff hitter Marcus Simien set an interesting record with the most plate apperances in a season (including postseason), in MLB history. He got to the plate an amazing 835 times! This was made possible by the enhanced playoff system in effect this year, but still an impressive record.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-22993904744689984512023-11-08T12:27:00.002-08:002023-11-08T12:28:42.636-08:00The Election of 2023Yesterday's election was a good day for Democrats and a good day for freedom. The two Ohio ballot issues passed easily. Issue One on abortion received 56.6%, and Issue Two on marijuana received 57.0%. This was a great win for freedom of citizens from big government overreach into our private lives.<p><p>
Kentucky's Democratic governor Andy Beshear won re-election. He gave a great victory speech, with the theme of the people of Kentucky not wanting to go left or right, but forward. His Repubican opponent had embraced Trumpism, and had enthusiastically touted Trump's endorsement. As with most Trump endorsements, this one fell flat, continuing quite a horrific losing streak for Trump-backed candidates.<p><p>
The third key election was for control of the Virginia legislature. Control had been split between the two houses, but now Democrats will control both. A huge loss for Virginia GOP governor Glenn Youngkin, who had spent much of his political capital trying to gain full control of the legislature.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-85626114076266403322023-10-28T05:28:00.000-07:002023-10-28T05:28:22.037-07:00The League Championship Series<b>Astros-Rangers</b>. The Houston Astros met the Texas Ranges in an all-Texas ALCS. The series was noteworthy in that the away team won every single gsme! Rangers right-fielder Adolis Garcia was the clear choice for ALCS MVP, hitting five homers in the last four games.<p><p>
The demise of the Astros meant that none of the six division winners will appear in the upcoming World Series.<p><p>
The Rangers were certainly the sentimental favorite, as fans cannot forget the Astros' cheating scandal of a few years ago, nor should they. One of the feel-good stories of the 2023 Rangers is the success of their manager, Bruce Bochy. With the Rangers win in the ALCS, Bochy became the first man ever to manage three different franchises to the World Series. <p><p>
I remember weatching Bochy during the 1992 season when he managed the Wichita Wranglers, the Double-A farm team of the San Diego Padres. I liked the way he handled his job, but I never could have predicted he would ever get to manage in the majors. But the Padres, to their credit, recognized his excellence asnd steadily promoted him within their system, until naming him as their manager for the 1995 season. He took the Padres to the World Series in 1998, and later managed the San Francisco Giants to the World Series three times in the 2010s.<p><p>
<b>Phillies-Diamondbacks</b>. The Philadelphia Phillies and Arizona Diamondbacks met in the NLCS. I was rooting for the Phillies earlier in the postseason, but here I had to cheer for the D-Backs, who are one of the great Cinderella stories of the 2023 season.<p><p>
The Phillies set a record for most home runs in a single postseason with 24. Their three sluggers, Bryce Harper, Kyle Schwarber, and Nick Castellanos, had five dingers each.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-39948864871113997592023-10-19T08:24:00.000-07:002023-10-19T08:24:17.059-07:00The Future of our Republic242 years ago today, British General Cornwallis surrendered, ending the Revolutionary War, and paving the way for the establishment of our great nation, the only nation in the history of the world established on an idea, rather than on commonalities like race, ethnicity, or religion. Our challenge today is whether we can keep this great republic, which has been bequeathed to us by our wise and visionary Founders.<p><p>
The reason for our current problem is that we have a significant group of people who refuse to accept the results of elections, and encourage violence against election oficials who are simply trying to do their jobs. We have a long history in this country of election losers graciously conceding to their victors, as exemplified by Jefferson in 1796, and Adams in 1800. That is no longer the case, which calls into question the viability of our system of government.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-38449233745723943662023-10-14T01:03:00.000-07:002023-10-14T01:03:27.391-07:00The Division SeriesNone of the four Division Series went to five games. Two ended 3-0, and the other two went 3-1. Three of the four teams with first-round byes lost in the Divison Series, suppporting my thesis that the time off is not helpful to the top teams.<p><p>
The only bye team to advance was the hated Astros, who took care of the Twins three games to one. The Rangers swept the Orioles, and the Diamondbacks swept the Dodgers, with the Dodgers never holding a lead in the entire Series! And the Phillies elilminated the Braves 3-1, with Nick Castellanos becoming the first player ever to hit multiple homers in consecutive postseason games.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-4237538567088817932023-10-11T11:39:00.000-07:002023-10-11T11:39:19.233-07:00The Evils of the Catholic ChurchVatican archivist Giovanni Coco has discoverd a "yellowed letter" sent by the German Jesuit Lothar Konig to the Pope's private secretry in December of 1942, informing the Pope that "up to 6,000 men die every day" in the "blast furnace" at the Belzec concentration camp.<p><p>
This puts the lie to the Vatican's long-standing position that Pope Pius XII never knew about the evils of the Holocaust. While this might be dismissed as the failings of one person, what cannot be dismissed are the repeated efforts of the Catholic church to beatify this guy. It has been widely believed that Pius XII must have known about the Holocaust, but now there is proof in black and white that he did. And yet, the Cathlic Church continues to be in denial. For shame.<p><p>
And now I have learned that William Tyndale was executed by the Catholic Church for heresy, for the "crime" of translating the Bible into English. You wouild have thought that a truly Christian institution would have welcomed this, but not the Catholic Chruch, because the Catholic Church does not want its members to be able to think for themselves.<p><p>
Many of the shortcomings of the Supreme Court in recent years is due to the prevalence of Catholics on the court. This number is currenly six of the nine, but has been even higher in recent years. Currently there are only two Protestants on the court, and that's being generous in counting the Episcopalian Neil Gorsuch, who was raised a Catholic, as a Protetant. The Catholic-dominated Court has repeatedly embraced the expansion of Executive power, to the point that the government is now free to make personal reproductive decisions for the women of this country.<p><p>
The Catholic Church mandates fealty to a patriarchal autocracy, in which people are discouraged to think for themselves, and are instead commanded to allow the Pope to dictate their personal decisions. This emphasis on Papal infallibilty is decidely unchristian, as the Bible teaches us that we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God, even the Pope.<p><p>
Liberals have been consistent in advocating "diversity" on the Supreme Court, but this has turned out to be a sham. The liberals' idea of diversity mandates diversity of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, but ignores the most important kind of diversity, that of religion, resulting in an almost total elimination of Protestant values from the Supreme Court. Martin Luther's 95 Theses exposed the evils of the Catholic Church, and it's time we undertood this and acted accordingly.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-69696635569735200092023-10-07T16:14:00.000-07:002023-10-07T16:14:34.693-07:00First Round of the MLB Postseason
The MLB postseason started this week, with a new and improved playoff format after the awkwardness of last year's format. Now the first round consists of eight best of three match-ups in what is being calloed the "wild card" round, with the top two teamss in each league getting a bye into the division round.<p></p>
All four match-ups resulted in two-game sweeps, and I was generally pleased with the results. The <b>Rangers ousted the Rays 4-0 and 7-1</b>. The attendance at the Rays stadium for the first game was a paltry 19,704, the lowest for a non-COVID playoff game since 1919! The lack of support this year by the Rays' fans is disgusting. The average home attendance this year was 17,781, ranking the franchise 27th out of 30. Tampa Bay doesn't deserve a team, and the rest of the league doesn't deserve to be forced to play on the atrocious artifical turf, in the monstrocity known as Tropicana Field. MLB shoud move the Rays to a city that will appreciate them, as they are one of the best-run franchises in the league. In addition, the Rangers deserve sympathy because they were leading their division for the last part of the season, only to have it snatched away from them by the hated Astros on the last day of the season.<p></p>
The <b>Phillies beat the Marlins 4-1 and 7-1</b>. Here again, we have a franchise in the Marlins whose fans don't appreciate them. Average hone attendance for the Marlins was a pitiful 14,355, next to last ahead of only Oakland. When is MLB going to realize that the Florida teams need to be moved? Florida has proven that it doesn't deserve any MLB teams. The Phillies, by contrast, have notoriously unruly fans, but at least the fans there care about the team, averaging over 30K per game, good for sixth in the league. And the Phillies owner has done everything he can to field a winner, opening his checkbook to sign top-flight free agents such as Bryce Harper and others. They deserve postseasson success.<p></p>
<b>Twins over Blue Jays, 3-1 and 2-0</b>. Both of these teams have good fan bases, but the Twins have an awesome new ballpark and have achieved a lot for a team in such a small markiet. In addition, the Twins had an incredible record of losing 18 straight playoff games, so it's good to see them getting off on the right foot this year, winning their first playoff series in more than 20 years.<p></p>
<b>Diamondbacks over the Brewers, 6-3 and 5-2</b>. The D-backs had a great year, as expected after their good offseason moves prior to the season. But I like the Brewers also, so no strong feelings about this match-up, although on balance I guess I have would preferred the Midwest, blue-collar Brewers to the desert-dwelling D-Backs.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-5644847512150233272023-09-09T04:11:00.000-07:002023-09-09T04:11:13.072-07:00The Trump LackeysThe Trump lackeys seem to be standing by him despite being charged themselves with serious felonies. All this is doing is making their attorneys rich, at least those who are lucky enough to be getting paid.<p><p>
A prime example is the case against former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows for interference in the Georgia vote count. His attorneys filed a frivolous motion to remove his case to federal court, on the ridiculous basis that he was performing his duties as Chief of Staff when he interjected himself into the Georgia election process. <p><p>
This was a meritless claim on so many levels that one hardly knows where to begin. He testified that he just happened to be in Georgia visiting his kids in college, and decided to stop in to observe the vote-counting process. Totally absurd, as the vote-counting is by law a state function and the federal government has no legitimate role in it, and he was not even permitted in the room under Georgia law.<p><p>
And the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from involvement in political activity, so by definition it could not have been a part of his duties.<p><p>
Faced with a loser of a case, a good attorney will advise a client to cut his or her losses and work out a deal to resolve the case. The Trump lackeys either have poor attorneys or are too stubborn to listen to them.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-37330425934263846032023-08-26T08:10:00.000-07:002023-08-26T08:10:33.527-07:00The First Republican DebateEight GOP candidates participated in Wednesday's debate. Here are some of my takeaways.<p><p>
Only two candidates indicated they would not support Donald Trump if he were convicted of a crime, the two being Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie. And one, Vivek Ramaswamy, indicated he would pardon Trump on day one.<p><p>
Ramaswamy was the most interesting of the candidates. He started out coming across as an electric, very charismatic, character, but by the end he had been so battered and bruised by criticism from the other candidates that he was revealed to be the inexperienced interloper that he is. Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, and Chris Christie were the most agressive critics of Ramaswamy, who really self-destructed when he called climate change "a hoax".<p><p>
Oddly, the candidates pretty much left Ron DeSantis alone and went after Ramaswamy instead. My theory for this is that they recognized that DeSantis is a failing candidate and would self-destruct if left alone. DeSantis came across as arrogant, angry, and uniquely unlikable. His performance was easily the worst of the eight. He repeatedly refused to give a straight answer to simple questions, instead going into prepared rants. He wouldn't answer whether he favored a federal abortion ban, even when asked by a reporter after the debate. And he wouldn't answer whether he thought Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6th, 2021.<p><p>
Mike Pence was unusually (for him) aggressive, which might help him some. But he also made a fool of himself by repeatedly interrupting the others, so much so that he had to be ademonished by one of the moderators. Pence used a line I'd hoped I would never hear again, which is that "we need a government as good and decent as the American people". To me this is total baloney. Pence seemingly was trying to be a reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, but there was only one Reagan, and Pence's efforts fell flat. Other candidates were correct in pointing out that we have serious problemns, and morale is low in this country. To say that our best days lie ahead of us, as Pence did, just sounds like nonsense, and ignores the need to solve the serious problems facing this country.<p><p>
Pence had a cringeworthy moment when he told Ramaswamy "I'll talk slower", a patronizing comment which was reminiscent of that infamous moment in the 1984 vie-presidential debate, when George H.W. Bush said to Geraldine Ferraro, "Let me help you with the difference between" (two named countries), a remark so condescending that it elicited audible gasps from the audience.<p><p>
Tim Scott gave a disappointing performance. He could have helped himself with a compelling performnce, but instead he was bland and unimpressive. Doug Burgum, the North Dakoota governor, had a unique prspective as a small town guy who espoused small town values. He will certainly move up in the polls.<p><p>
Nikki Haley probably helped herself the most. She would clearly be the best candidate for the general election. But, given the sorry state of today's GOP, there is little chance of her getting the nomination.<p><p>
Haley had several moments which stand out. She vigorously called out Ramaswamy for his lack of foreign policy experience, saying he had no such exerience, "and it shows". Then, turning to the audience, she repeated, "It shows". In discussing the war in Ukraine, she took a suble and very effective swipe at DeSantis, who had said that he would not support additional funding for Ukraine until European countries start doing their part. Without mentioning DeSantis by name, she pointed out that eleven European countries are spending more as a percentage of GDP than we are for the defense of Ukraine. A third highlight moment for Haley is when she asserted that the Republicans are as guilty as Democrats for the explosion in the national debt. She pointed to the $7.4 billion in earmarks requested by Republicans in the 2024 budget, compared to only $2.8 billion asked for by Democrats. “So you tell me who are the big spenders,” she said. “I think it’s time for an accountant in the White House."<p><p>
All eight shamelessly demogogued the abortion issue. Same with the inflation issue. They all repeatsedly blamed Joe Biden for the recent inflation, even though he is clearly not to blame. The inflation is caused by the cut-off of oli from Russia, the reduction in agricultural products from Ukraine, and the supply chain bottlenecks caused by the pandemic. U.S. inflation is less than in any of the other developed covuntries, so this should be a plus issue for Biden, rather than a negative. But this type of demagogic criticism is all the GOP can muster against Biden. And of course noone mentioned that unemployment is at a 50-year low.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-500561500092976132023-08-13T02:13:00.001-07:002023-08-13T02:13:38.401-07:00Football belongs in the fall, not the summerI was shocked to see the local high school football team practicing in the first week of August. Back in the day you couldn't start practice until August 20th. <p><p>
And now they're actually playing games in August! With global warming being what it is, the football season should be starting later, not earlier! Do we not care about the health and welfare of our youth?
chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-31810322551528580912023-08-11T12:13:00.000-07:002023-08-11T12:13:05.997-07:00The Iowa CaucusesAlmost all of the Republican presidential candidates are at the Iowa State Fair. I am totally perplexed by this obsession with Iowa. A review of the history reveals that the winner of the Iowa caucuses is the eventual nominee only about a third of the time in contested elections. <p><p>
This review shows these winners: for Democrats, Muskie won in 1972, with eventual nominee McGovern 2nd; Gebhardt won in 1988, with eventual nominee Dukakis 3rd; Harkin 1st in 1992, with eventual nominee Clinton 4th (with only 3% of the vote!)<p><p>
On the GOP side, Bush won over Reagan in 1980, Dole won over Bush in 1988, Huckabee won over McCain in 2008, Santorum won over Romney in 2012, and Cruz won over Trump in 2016.<p><p>
Caucuses are a horrible way for a political party choose its candidates. because only the most passionate party members turn out, and these are usually the most extreme party members. The result is we get radical leftists from the Dems, and radical rightists from the GOP, adding to the horrible polarization in today's politics.chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8862193417692297175.post-69201106845808964252023-05-24T08:00:00.002-07:002023-05-24T08:02:05.651-07:00"The Journalist and the Murderer", by Janet MalcomThis is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read. The author delves into the complex relationships between journalists and the subjects they are writing about.<p><p>
The book is about one of the most interesting legal cases I've ever encountered. Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted of the murder of his wife and two children, sued Joe McGinnis, whom he had authorized to write a book about his murder trial, and had made a part of his defense team. The book that McGinnis eventually published, called "Fatal Vision", took the position that MacDonald was guilty, which MacDonald alleged was a violation of the implied agreemnt between the two that the author would publish a book from the subject's point of view. A verdict was obtained for MacDonald, and the case was settled during the appeals process.<p><p>
Malcom interviewed all of the players in the case who would talk to her. In interviewing MacDonald's attorney, the attorney said that his initial reaction to MacDonald was that he was "libel-proof", meaning that it is impossible to libel a convicted murderer. But as he investigated the facts, which showed that the author had spent four years ingratiating himself with the murderer, thereby disguising the fact that the book he was writing took the position that the subject was guilty, he changed his mind and went forward with the case, and won it.<p><p>
Malcom's book is a philosophical essay on the complex relationship between journalists and their subjects. There are no easy answers here, but it is certainly a topic with exploring. Malcolm clearly believes that McGinnis crossed way over the line here, and, therefore, that she agrees with the jury verdict against him. But the question of where exactly the line is is something that cannot be clearly defined.<p><p>
Malcom impresses me as one of the four great female journalists writing intelligently and thoughtfully, usually in "The New Yorker", about issues in the last half of the 20th century, along with Renata Adler, Joan Didion, and Hannah Arendt.
chessarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05265192960662246841noreply@blogger.com0