A little clarification folks

In looking at a few of the comments on this post, I need to clarify things.  I am not saying capitalism has utterly failed, or we need to bring in the State, or it's time for socialism, Marxism, communism, or anything else. 

I'm saying it's OK to call out corporations and corporate executives when they do bad things, even if they are doing it to make more money.  Or make their companies more money  Or make their investors more money.  It matters not if they happen to create a few extra jobs along the way.  Wrong is wrong, and should be called out as such. 

That's all.  I don't think that's too much of a stretch.  It should have been done far more often than it was.  Because now those corporations have turned coat and become part of the anti-Western juggernaut, which has moved the ball halfway down the field against what conservatives value.  

To be honest, of everything conservatives have defended, from a 'defending capitalism' vantage point, the worst thing was defending corporations cutting corners and diminishing the quality and quantity of goods while pocketing the money at the top.  Because among young people today, so my sons have assured me, they see capitalism as that which gives less, produces less, and results in less, just so those at the top can have it all.  Since this practice was defended in the name of defending capitalism, it's not exactly unfair for them to link the two.  And when that is what they see, it's also not hard to understand why they are casting their nets in other directions.  

Again, it's OK to call out corporations. Not only is it acceptable, in order to defend capitalism, it should have been done every time corporations were doing things antithetical to what capitalism is supposed to accomplish.  Doesn't mean bring in the government or invoke our inner Stalin. It just means let people know that when corporations do such things, even if it does help their bottom line, it is not what capitalism is all about. 

Conservatism's greatest blunder

What youth associate with Capitalism, c. 2023

Was confusing the defense of corporate interests with defending capitalism.  

Back in the 1990s, when I was still in seminary, our oldest son was born.  At that time insurance companies were making news by cutting back on the days they would cover for new mothers.  By the time our oldest came along, it was dropping to a single day - 24 hours from the moment of birth - and then out you go. 

Now, if you've had a kiddo, you know that it takes more than a couple days in some cases for new moms to be ready to move out, or to make sure kids are altogether healthy.  In our case, he was born around 11 AM.  By the next day, he was supposed to be discharged.  The nurses knew neither he nor my wife were ready, though there was no 'smoking gun' problem to cite. They fudged things so she didn't have to leave until noon (and then dragged their feet about another hour getting things ready), so we didn't actually leave until about 1 PM.

That night, fluid developed in our son's throat that caused him to choke and stop breathing.  Fortunately my mother-in-law was staying with us.  As grandmothers are what I call 'pro-parents', she swung into action and was able to get him to cough it out and breath again.  Had she not been there, these two young and stupid parents likely would have been burying a first child. 

By the pediatrician's admission, this would have been avoided with an extra day or two of observation at the hospital.  Because of that, I became a staunch supporter of making insurance companies stop the madness.  I openly supported then President Clinton when he signed in the New Borns and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996. That act required insurance companies and hospitals to keep new mothers and newborns in the hospital for at least two days (48 hours).  Though I had several colleagues disagree with me and his legislation because free market and corporate liberty, I maintained something had to be done.  After all, it was obvious that insurance companies were happy to let come what may where kids' survival was concerned.

In subsequent years I had more than one colleague or acquaintance debate me on this (and other similar stances).  In almost every case the argument centered on some 'it's the government's fault, or this or that historical development's fault', but free market!  To which I would say it matters not, fix the cause eventually, but right now things have to be done to keep people from dying.  I especially enjoyed it when colleagues would explain to me that women were having babies for ages before our modern hospitals  (so obviously you don't have to have a hospital) - while deftly ignoring the cataclysmic infant mortality rate accompanying that fact.

The problem was that by the 90s, many conservatives decided that a company doing stuff and things for the bottom line, no matter what, was the deal breaker; the debate stopper.  That was it.  There is no moral compulsion for insurance companies, like any companies, to do anything other than what it takes to make gobs of money.  Never turn to the Government.  Perhaps consumer pressure in a better world.  But first and foremost it was that precious bottom line that was the Holy Grail.  No matter what insurance, or other companies, did, it was that bottom line that mattered.  The fault of anyone and anything might be true, but it always came down to defending corporate interests at all costs. 

That also included the clear and obvious development in the market we've seen in recent years of 'how to give less for more.'  Whether less includes shafting employees, bilking consumers, providing slipshod quality or diminishing quantity for ever higher prices - it was always defended under the principle that a corporation has got to corporation, and that's the important thing. 

If pressed, I would be assured that market forces would save the day.  Eventually those market froces will rise up and smack the corporate interests around and force them into a world where providing  the most for the least and encouraging competition and quality would once again rule the day. As if the global economic context of the market in the age of Lady GaGa was no different than the global context of Tommy Dorsey. 

Of course that didn't happen.  I see more and more conservatives starting to wake up to the realization that corporations have finally learned that countries based on democracy, freedom and equality, as well as civilizations based on loving God and your neighbor as yourself, are no longer needed for that magical bottom line.  Those conservatives may still try some 'it must be the government's fault' appeal. Others might hyphenate the situation.  That is, add something like 'crony' to 'capitalism' to explain what happened.  But more are starting to wake up and smell the frozen coffee.

What happened is pretty simple, and pretty historical, IMHO.  Capitalism arose at a time when multiple other developments kept it in check.  For the longest time, those with the money and power decided it was in their best interests to support and defend and advance such freedom and Golden Rule thinking, along with a robust free market, since that was where the money was.

Today that's no longer the case.  With China, you have 1.4 billion customers.  And a brutal Communist totalitarian regime that has learned it can set its lofty communist principles aside in order to court vast corporate interests, and ensure those interests they have little to fear but an increased bank account when doing business in China.  Likewise, in more than one part of the Islamic world, traditionally conservative states are learning to loosen up a bit - at least for those wealthy and powerful.  We're talking billions of potential costumers here.  What is America, with its paltry 330 million population, next to that? 

In fact, not only are those lofty old Western principles no longer that big of a deal, but increasingly they could be seen as an obstacle.  After all, if you're making bank on countries that routinely oppress, discriminate, marginalize and outright persecute swaths of their population, it's tough to do if you're singing the praises of good old Western democracy and values.  But let people believe that the West is as bad, if not worse, than any other place in the galaxy, and you're free to do as you please.  After all, what right does a slave owning, genocidal racist nation have to complain about doing business in China, huh?  Huh?  

Despite all this, I still see conservatives beholden to the unchecked support of any corporate decision because of course they do.  Last year I caught a radio program interviewing some fellow who wrote a book about the harm being done in the name of transgender ideology.  Apparently his book was banned by Amazon.  His conclusion?  He wasn't happy, but he would gladly defend Amazon's right to ban his own book.  A book that could, by his own admission, help save young people from suffering under the crazy.  He did this because free market and corporate interests you know.  There's saving youth from suffering, but then there is the bottom line. 

There's a time when an unwillingness to see the writing on the wall ceases to be conservatism and becomes foolishness.  I'd say those conservatives continuing to support the goals and agendas of the marketplace today without hesitation, given the marketplace's growing war against that which conservatives are supposed to value, might just be getting close to the second observation.  Or, what they meant by conservative was a world of difference than my understanding of the term in the first place. 

Yes, I've actually seen these fictional characters defended over the years in the name of Capitalism

Long and short summary:  Capitalism should ever have been the means to an end, and not the end itself.  Having forgotten that, and having allowed the market to become the antithesis of the market, has allowed young people to see Capitalism not as conservatives insist it once was, but to see it for what it has become.  And that's something conservatives had best see soon, or they'll loose both bathwater and baby where the economy and society are concerned. 

A little friendly social media advice

 If you're so beholden to the world of social media that you post this:

You might want to reconsider remaining on social media.  I tried to remember a time when I - or anyone I knew - would feel inclined to mention the passing of a relation while tacking on her politics, and I'm at a loss.  There might have been many things I would think of, some good others not, but it wouldn't have dawned on me to mention a "dead acquaintance (+ politics)*"    .  

When you remove God, the State happily steps into the void

*I notice he doesn't mention vaccinated, unvaccinated, masked or anything.  It appears enough to politically label the deceased.  

Step Two

We've already watched the developments in medically altering the bodies of young people based on  the transgender narrative of no objective gender:  

Step one: Nobody is suggesting we should teach minors about changing their bodies to fit their preferred gender identity.  

Step two: Sure we're talking to minors about this, but nobody is trying to change the bodies of minors.

Step three: It's great that we're increasingly using science to alter the bodies of minors based on transgender theory!  Though we will never do such a thing without the parents knowing about it. 

So now we see the second offensive in this little battle.  This one deals with parents' rights.  It's the same basic three step tactic we've seen a million times.  Start with insisting this movement will never do something.  At some point muddy the water a bit.  Finally rejoice that the we're doing what we were told would never happen.  Thus:   

Step one: Sure we're medically altering the bodies of minors.  But nobody is altering the bodies of minors without their parents' consent.

Step two: Hey, should parents be part of their children's decision to change their gender based on transgender theory? 

See how that works?  If I had a dollar - even fifty cents - for every time liberalism has said it only wants an inch but will never take a mile, only to take ten miles down the road, I could buy Twitter.  Thus Step Three will be when we're told it's a great thing that parents are sent to the cornfield for thinking they should have say about their kids' bodies. 

By now it is so routine that you can bet your bank account on it.  Because it should be obvious that when a liberal movement says it will never go somewhere, that somewhere is exactly where it intends to go. 

It finally happened

I saw a news article about Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday events being held on Monday.  It took this long.  Well, technically, I saw it referenced yesterday on a local news show.  It was an 'about town' segment, where the energetic young reporter was showing what parents could do in the area with their kids on Monday.   He mentioned they would be out of school due to MLK Day.  Until then I forgot the day was around the corner.  

I wrote about this development last year here.  It is no accident of course.  It never was.  I don't mean it was some vast conspiracy.  I merely mean MLK in one context was used for decades in order to drive home one form of the agenda.  Now that is no longer convenient.  Therefore, we're seeing the dawn of a new narrative.

I'm not saying it hasn't been mentioned anywhere.  I can't read every article and watch ever newscast.  I'm sure it has been mentioned before now.  As I said in last year's post, however, it could have been the middle of August 20 years ago, and I would have heard MLK referenced and quoted at least three times in a week.  By December I would hear almost daily countdowns to the holiday.  Now?  I think I've heard more references to Arbor Day over the last year. 

Again, it is no accident. 

A New Year and a new blog

Well, not really.  It's a new year, that much is true.  But pretty much the same blog, with a slight modification.   Fact is, I've grown rather tired out from keeping up with the 'issue' blogging.  I've said many times that I originally started the blog due to prompting from a local priest.  In the day, I did a lecture series in the area on Church history.  It was generally well received and well attended.  When he saw one of the lectures he suggested I write a book.  Because there aren't enough history books in the world.

Problem is, I am no writer.  I can edit others to a degree, but not my own writing.  It's just not something I ever invested in.  I prefer to read, since creativity has never been my strong point.  He suggested I start a blog and practice.  So I did.

In a bit of irony, my new venture was posted on the old Catholic and Enjoying It blog.  Mark felt it was good to promote a new Catholic blog.  Therefore, almost immediately, I ended up with more readers than a new blog like that should have.  It went up from there.  As other sites picked up and would share this or that post, I have to admit, I was happy to see and hear from others regarding my opining.  

Nonetheless, over time I concluded that blogging is a bit like hitting one's head against a brick wall.  Especially if you're on the wrong side of the wall.  I announced I was either quitting, or at least stepping away from, blogging a couple times over the years.  Almost as soon as I did, however, some crazy thing happened that drew me back in.  I believe the last time was the Brett Kavanaugh circus.  When journalists and politicians were saying it's time to get over these old tools of oppression like presumption of innocence, burden of proof and due process, it was hard to stay away. 

Still, as things move on in our family and the direction our society is going becomes clear, I'm pretty sure continuing to rant and rave on a blog is time taken away from things that might be more important. Not that staying in tune with current events and world developments is a bad thing.  But it's not something I get paid to do (with the exception of my stint at Patheos, I've never received money for my blog). 

My sons and I were talking about the state of things a few days ago.  They frequently bring up the futility of discourse in the modern era.  You either agree or you're Hitler.  And since so many of their peers spend so much time 24/7 obsessing over a million triggering topics on social media, that's a lot of chances to be Hitler.   I told them such radicalism isn't new, it's just that today it's universal.  I said that comes from politics becoming the all encompassing everything since love of God, Country and Family have all but been eliminated from society. 

Their response was what set me thinking.  They retorted that certainly we discussed political issues when I was growing up.  To which I responded that yes, we did.  We just didn't do it every stinking day.  In fact, they might be shocked to learn that we went days - sometimes weeks - without debating politics or current events or the latest social issue.  Heck, we even went days without being sexists and racists!  Yes, we did bring such topics up at different times.  And at times those were some pretty heated arguments.  Whether with friends, family, fellow students, coworkers, or whatever, it did happen.  But it didn't happen every day. 

And that was a good thing.  Because in hindsight, if we spent everyday arguing about politics or the latest activist driven issue, I think we'd have gone mad.  We certainly wouldn't have had many friendships.  I'm all for politics, and there was a time that was my college major.  But politics is a bit like a demolition derby.  It's fun to watch, but I wouldn't want to drive in one. 

Problem with today is that politics has become the Alpha and Omega in our nation today.  The beginning and end of everything becomes whether it is politically expedient or not.  I therefore fear that constantly keeping up with it does little more than keep the problem going.  Plus it burns you out.  As I told my sons, it wasn't a daily discussion in my younger years for a reason.  

For instance, my parents were Reagan Democrats (and not because of the rascally Southern Strategy), though my mom's family were staunch Democrats who would never vote for Reagan.  They didn't dislike him - in fact they liked him.  They just wouldn't vote for him (a different age to be sure). As a result, when politics came up it was quite an event.  But here's the thing.  Like my friends, peers, classmates and such, it usually only came up occasionally, perhaps once a visit.  One night they would delve into the political and social debates, but that was it.  The rest of the visit would be reminiscing, discussing Browns football, memory lane and ancient rhymes and such.  The same with my friends.  We might delve into politics (or religion) around a game of cards or at a High Street bar.  But not every day. The rest of the time it was this movie, that rock band, those girls, or whatever.  Even the most opinionated acquaintances I knew didn't spend every day spouting, unless spouting was a career choice. 

Therefore, that's what I'm going to be doing, in tribute to a saner time.  After all, to post every day on some issue means every day I have to delve where my younger, saner self knew not to delve on a daily basis.  Even cutting down blogging to a post a day as I've done  is still a daily delve into the cesspool of political discourse and rhetoric.   

I think it was seeing the collapse of Dave Armstrong that convinced me something has to change.  I like Dave.  We usually agreed more often than not.  Often we would banter about common interests like The Beatles (we're both fans, and we debated the exact degree of influence that their manager Brian Epstein had on their creative output).  We could do so because Dave, like me, was forever against the growing 'I have spoken, now obey or be damned' approach to the social media/punditry age.

Yet look what happened. Rather than end up going there, I decided I would cut back.  I won't 'leave', since I like having the outlet.  Plus it's nice hearing from others on an issue, even when they disagree. And let's face it, with the crazy in the world you can't just walk away.  Also, in the end, the world of social media is the way of modern discourse.  Just like telephones became back in the day.  I just won't do it all the time.  At least do it in terms of focusing on hot button issues and political topics. 

In fact, barring global catastrophe, I will keep 'topic/issue' blogging at once a week. On top of everything else, things are a-changiin' in the family, and time isn't what it used to be.  If I'm going to move mountains to blog, to be honest I'd rather keep it on fun, frivolity, faith or family.  There are certainly enough big family moments coming up this year to keep me busy. 

I figure delving into some big political, social or other ideological issue once a week is about where it was when I wore a younger man's clothes.  Given the relative sanity of that period in history compared to today, I'd say following what worked is a good way to go. 

It won't be one particular day, or even every week.  It wont' be 'Friday Fights!' or such.  I'll just try to keep it to no more than once a week. The rest of the time?  That will be what blogging was meant for: reposting a good article or meme, musing on our latest family fun, big family events, keeping an ongoing record of this or that game (my sons say that's a thing, though often in video form, and it seems fun), or just rambling on about the latest point of interest - as long as it's not hot button.  That will be a random time a week, if that.  

Happy New Year and blogging forward

Yes, the Earth has gone around the Sun again.  I say that as a statement of faith of course.  The math says that's what happens.  We've never actually seen the Earth go around the Sun.  It's just what our model of the universe says happens, and that's good enough for me.  As Sherlock Holmes observed, whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa has little direct impact on my day to day life. 

Nonetheless, another thing I accept is that once a year we celebrate the completion of this heavenly cycle.  For Catholics, this falls in the middle of Christmastide.  Christmas itself, as a season, is still going on.  Early on, long before we considered becoming Catholic, my wife and I embraced the '12 Days of Christmas' approach to the holiday. 

As a result, even though the world is fully back to secular rat race mode, we'll still have a few more rounds of celebration.  My second son's fiancée and her family are back in town. That means he's back to normal.  Of course so are schedules.  As a result, it won't be as much celebrating, but it will be something.  As the boys grow and obligations mount, the time spent in festive undertakings has been diminishing anyway. 

Therefore, like last week and the first part of Christmas, blogging will still be light.  That's not to say I was completely separated from the issue trolling of the day. Mark Shea emailed me and we had a back and forth about some things.  Well, a forth at least.  It went about as well as you could imagine.  But since it was private discourse, I'll do my part and not publically reveal the nitty-gritty.  It's enough to say it did occupy some of my time in the world of online opinion making, however fruitless it was. 

One thing I can say is a shout-out to our new bishop.  Since we became Catholic in 2006, we've had seven pastors and three bishops.  Stability is not a selling point for our parish, or our diocese. I began the journey to the Church shortly before Pope John Paul II passed.  The year we entered was the first year for the new bishop.  As bishops go, he was a bishop.  

Then he had to retire due to health issues, and was replaced by Bishop Brennan.  Now he was a bishop.  Almost immediately he came to town with the message that it's time for Catholics to be Christian again.  Sporting an almost theatrical New York accent, he clearly possessed a sympathy for more traditional Catholicism.  Within months, he had the diocese hopping.  But then he was transferred to his home town stomping grounds in The Bronx.

We wondered who would replace him.  On our parish level, any type of stable shepherding would be appreciated. Then we heard the news - some young priest from Cincinnati was going to be our new bishop.  Bishop Earl Fernandes.  The News Media, ever obsessed with group identity and skin color, made it about him being the first non-Anglo bishop in the diocese.  

Most in the area, being normal human beings, didn't care.  We just wanted someone to shepherd this wayward flock.  And shepherd he has.  The first order of business was doing something that caused the uber-left group that dominated The Ohio University's Catholic ministry to leave. Their one contribution was producing priests who put the lie to the old leftwing notion that there have never been clown masses or beer and pretzel communion.  Once a priest from that ministry spoke to our parish and was clear about the Church's need to embrace gay marriage, abortion rights, and a variety of socialist based ideas.  Exactly what happened to make them leave, I don't know.  Naturally the local news was shocked and doomsday predictions abounded.

But Bishop Fernandes has continued to push the diocese back to a more Christian and traditional based approach to the Faith.  Heck, the guy is an official exorcist, so that says something.  But he's everywhere.  Check the news, open a Facebook page, walk down the street - and there he is.  Almost every day he's meeting someone, somewhere. At a football game, at a homeschool group, at a charity, you can't go two days without seeing him out and among the people.  And he wears the Faith on his sleeve when he does so.

Being snowed in on Christmas Eve, we watched the Midnight Mass at the cathedral.  It was his first as bishop.  I haven't seen a Catholic bishop so filled with fun and joy at his job for some time.  Beyond being one of the finest homilies I've heard in many an age, he seemed almost bursting at the seams with joy and giddiness.  I'd say he's the type of leader who makes the serious faithful want to be better Christians.  I know he makes me want to be a better Christian.  In terms of religious leadership, that's about as good as you get.

So we're looking forward to the coming months.  No, you don't want your own pilgrimage to cue off of others.  But leaders are there for a reason, and one is to inspire.  Something I think that has been lacking in the modern Faith as so many leaders choose compromise, acquiescence and surrender in dealing with the modern world.  We're all waiting to see what he does next.  If it's like the first months since he's been bishop, it should be a ride.

So that is that.  I'll be back once the Christmas season has wrapped up.  Next stop: Twelfth Night and Epiphany.  I might post something if it hits me, and posts gushing over family fun and the latest round of board games are always a possibility.  Otherwise, continue to be blessed during this Christmastime, and I'll be back soon. God bless and TTFN. 

Our new bishop at a homeschool event - all smiles as usual

RIP Pope Benedict XVI

I just saw the news.   Time is crunch right now, and I'm sure others with far more credentials will comment on his life and papacy.  

Pope John Paul II passed shortly after we began our journey into the Church.  Therefore Pope Benedict was pope by the time we officially entered.  That's why we have a special place in our lives and a feeling of connection with him.  

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.  May he rest in peace.  Amen. 

How about that!

 Looky here:

That's a composite image I spliced together from the Columbus Dispatch piece.  The Dispatch is sort of the flagship paper for Ohio, right ahead of the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Cincinnati Enquirer.  The other bookstore mentioned is one that used to be a teacher's supply store.  It recently overhauled and went with being a children's bookstore.  Not too much competition in product or, quite frankly, in ideology.  If you get my drift. 

This unexpected exposure seems to have helped them since traffic has upticked significantly in the wake of this issue.  They need it, because of the two lost days right before Christmas due to the storm.  That hurt.

On the positive side, they are busy getting the online part of their store up and running.  They already have egiftcards, which brought in a surprising amount of sales (though payback, you don't get the money later unless they decide to purchase more). 

All in all, we've been pleasantly surprised that things have worked out, and the two youngsters have made quite a splash in the community.  Given some reviews and input I've read, they have forged a sort of 'two versus the world' reputation that many admire.  Especially because of times being what they are.  Even now, he received yet another boatload of donated books he needs help unpacking (and that has aided them immensely).  

They'll need the help, because anyone who has worked in retail knows they're heading into the Dead Marshes season of retail sales.  They'll need to pull some big rabbits out of their hat, and of course when the online store is up and going that can only help.  

Light blogging this week

The candle is lit - let the festivities begin!

Hope all have had a safe and warm Christmas.   Our second oldest is going through withdrawal at the moment, since his fianceé and her family are on their annual Christmas trip to Canada.  Both of her parents hail from the lands of the great north.  I think he's secretly looking forward to the chance to accompany them in the future.  This year, however, he's here with the us.  

Our two others are done with school, obviously. Our oldest experienced his first B+ ever, owing to a brutally tough seminar professor.  We told him to brush it off and keep going.  Our youngest is just happy to be on vacation.  Meanwhile, our third oldest, and manager at a local restaurant chain, moved heaven and earth to have as much time off as possible.  He refused to ask for the week, since he fears the earth will open up and swallow his charge if he's not there to keep it going.  

But he did manage to strike a balance with working, and doing so in as few days with the most forgiving schedule possible.  That way, accounting for our second son manning the book store in a solo act, we will still have time to spend through the upcoming week. 

Therefore, time will be funneled to the necessities in order to accommodate what free time we have with the four boys.  This being a sort of 'last hurrah', we want to make sure things are moved about on our side to enjoy the time we have together.  When things are wrapped up, I'll likely post on some reflections, new traditions and golden times and ancient rhymes.  

Until then, continue to enjoy and be blessed during this happy Christmastide.  And for our soon to be daughter in law and her family, a fun and enjoyable Boxing Day.  Be back soon.  God bless and TTFN.

Good King Wences'las looked out,

on the Feast of Stephen,

When the snow lay round about,

deep and crisp and even;

Brightly shone the moon that night,

tho' the frost was cruel,

When a poor man came in sight,

gath'ring winter fuel.

On this 2nd Day of Christmas - a reminder

A blessed and merry Christmas to all

 

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.  

Isaiah, 9.6

A happy and funny Christmas Eve

It's cold out there!  For those who wished for a white Christmas, read The Monkey's Paw next time.  Or accept things as they are, sit back and enjoy the following clip.  In a string of reports that would make Bruce Nolan proud, we learn that some reporters can be very honest, and wear their hearts on their sleeves: 

A very Cold War Christmas

Reagan addresses a relieved world in November, 1985

The best year of my life - before I met my wife (nice save) - was 1985.  Not 1984, though my boys would think otherwise.  They always laugh because almost anything we talk about when discussing events or releases or just general news from our past seemed to happen in 1984.  From Van Halen to Orwell, it was a year fully aware of itself.  But for me, the best year ever was 1985.

That was the year I graduated high school.  The summer after graduation was just what you'd want a summer after high school graduation to be. Someday I might post about some of our adventures.  I just need to research the particulars regarding the statute of limitations.

My first quarter of college was every bit as good and, to be honest, the best time I had in college.  There would be other good years in school, but that first quarter of my first year was what you would want your first experience in college to be.  

I only went to the nearby branch at OSU (we called it The Twig since it consisted of only one building).  But new friends, new girlfriend, still visiting old friends, visiting my best friend on the Columbus campus, and just a flood of memories of good and satisfying events made it the best of times.  There were parties with new acquaintances, being out and about in a new city, and just getting to know people I'd never met in a brand new setting. 

The Twig as it looked when I attended

Even the Christmas break was wonderful.  Old friends came back home and we attended parties, and watched movies, and played cards, went to arcades, attended more parties, and generally hung out together for what in many cases would be the last time.  On one weekend - my first after exams - my best friend and several others literally chugged through almost three straight days of round the clock parties and fun and shopping and games and movies.  By that Monday night, we had slept about four hours in three days.  I was sitting at my best friends house and the TV show Newhart was just coming on.  The next thing I knew I woke up the following afternoon at about 2:00 PM on their sectional.  It was that kind of a time. 

I also remember it was a time that seemed - no doubt coincidently - to be surrounded by pop culture nods to the Cold War and its waning presence.  One was a spoof, one a drama and one a Rocky movie.  Spies Like Us, which I wrote about before, was a John Landis project with SNL alums Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd; a lampoon of Reagan era patriotism and the much maligned Star Wars program.  Rocky IV was ham-fisted on the opposite side, with Rocky practically winning the Cold War against what could only be seen as cardboard cutout Russians.  Finally White Nights, starring Gregory Hines and defecting dancer extraordinaire Baryshnikov, was a drama with dancing.  In it, audiences were reminded that, for all its sins dragged out by Raymond Greenwood, the USA was still a better option than Soviet Russia.  All were late Cold War themed, and all were released within a week of each other around the first of December. 

So charging into the end of the quarter towards that wonderful break, things were still soaring, despite yet another loss to Michigan.  On top of everything, all of that fun and all those Cold War movies were given a boost because of a news story right around Thanksgiving. It was a little meeting in Geneva between Ronald Reagan and the latest Soviet premier, Mikhail Gorbachev.

By then I was paying attention to news, probably more than many of my friends.  I saw the laments of editorials worried that Reagan might botch this historic chance given us by the Soviets.  When he was there, I still recall some media generated outrage over something Reagan did when he grabbed Gorbachev by the shoulder and said something I can't remember.  

But as if to add cake to the year's icing, when Reagan returned from Geneva and addressed Congress, it was a strange moment.  Even Reagan's staunchest critics joined his supporters, and even most of my peers, and heaved a great sigh of relief.  For the first time it looked like we might really, really come through the old Cold War without mushroom clouds and Skynet strikes.  Hard to believe, but that was a light at the end of the tunnel many my age didn't think we would see in our lifetimes - if at all.

Not a bad way to spend an already wonderful first college Christmastime.  A fine year capped off by a fine time entering college.  A first quarter in school that rose to the occasion and was all I could have hoped.  And on top of it all, a meeting with our president that suggested what many were beginning to suspect:  That the Soviets were through, and we were going to come out of it all not only peacefully, but victoriously.  For a couple weeks that December, everything seemed focused there, and if that wasn't a happy holidays, I'm not sure what it would take. 

Official 1985 Cold War video

Bonus update!  The aforementioned best friend emailed me even as I was putting the finishing James Browns on this post.  I hadn't heard from him for some time.  His parents are getting down health wise and that took from his time, as it will.  He'll be getting in touch after the holidays, so that was a nice little bonus.  He lives in Las Vegas, but should be around some after the first of the year.  And yes, he's the best friend I often reference in various posts of nostalgia.  So a nice convergence heading into another Christmastide, you might say. 

What a loss to the culinary world

Every now and then I'm reminded just how much of a loss to the world of gourmet cooking that my son's food allergy caused.  

This year, owing to some unforeseens, as well as conflicting schedules and obligations among the boys, our birthday dinners were split and separated by a couple weeks from our actual birthdays.  Nonetheless, my wife decided to build on our third son's request from a past birthday - an African menu.  The boys got the ingredients, and my oldest spent a day working around an outpatient surgery and final exams preparing the meal.

This request was in part because of my son's involvement in that project I mentioned some months ago.   He's been working on compiling information about African Muslim immigrant communities here in the central Buckeye State.  The results of the project will be compiled and used for academic and government use. Among other things, that saw him step out of his introverted comfort zone and interview people from those communities. 

In his class most of the students were of that bent - African, immigrant, Muslim, Middle Eastern, and so on.  My oldest was an outlier, being mostly white, Anglo-American and Catholic.  His professor was Nigerian, and the helped.  Despite my son's demographics, we've had the opportunity to meet and get to know a variety of people from a variety of cultures over the years.  And in that group, Nigeria has been well represented. 

So while he made a generic 'African' (meaning south of the Mediterranean Sea) meal for his brother, this time he zeroed in and built the dinner strictly from Nigerian recipes he found:

From L to R: Yum; Yum Yum; Yum, Yum, Yum; Fabulous!

Except for the roast chicken, which was generic except for a Nigerian spice rub, the rest was straight from the Nigerian dinner table.  They were each a separate main course combined into one meal.  Lamb was the showcase meat of the hour, and the spices were, well, spicy.  Not in a 'burn your mouth like a flamethrower' manner, but still able to bring tears to the eyes.  All I can say is 'Yum!'  I could eat like that every day of my life.  

What a loss.  I've told him there is no rule against developing many skills and talents in one's life, even if you don't make a living from them.  Consider the late Vincent Price, who saw acting almost as a means to an end.  For him, his great passions were art and gourmet cooking.  Acting, as he once pointed out, merely paid the bills.  

Whatever my son does in life, and I know where he's planning - I'm just not saying yet - it will never hurt if he can whip up a five star dinner for those around him on his journey.  Just leave the fish. 

When you read this piece at NPR

About the discourse between public schools and parents, consider this scene from the Brit series Midsomer Murders (it's supped to be copied to the pertinent scene so you don't have to watch the whole episode - up through about the 1:22:51 spot):

Because what was that NPR piece other than manipulation?  Power of suggestion.  Note that there is nothing in it that screams 'propaganda piece for the Left!'  Nonetheless, you can't miss that the piece is nothing but that.  And you know, in your gut, exactly what you are supposed to think about the situation once you're finished reading the piece. 

It can be spotted, however, for several reasons if you think on it.  First we have context and know what it's all about.  We get the fact that parents, in 2020, were suddenly confronted with what their children were really learning or not learning in schools.  Then concerns brought to educators and school boards were met with pushback rather than dialogue in more than one instance.  Sometimes flagrant and condescending pushback.  Teachers, acting as if the Internet isn't a thing, were found on Zoom or other platforms calling hellfire down on conservatives or explaining why parents don't have the right to know what their kids are learning. 

All of which prompted parents to begin confronting the school boards when the opportunity presented itself.  No doubt some parents behaved as inappropriately as some of the teachers and school boards.  Note, however, the focus in the NPR piece.  

The piece also does the usual, emphasizing vast conservative funding networks, something almost never mentioned when the press discusses liberal activism.  Likewise, it suggests that the 'silent majority' is really on the side of the teachers and school boards who want this to go away.  The reporter knows this because it's the silent majority.  

Perhaps the giveaway part, however, is this little bit on down in the piece, quoting an anonymous principal who identifies as a Republican in a predominantly conservative district: 

"You can't [use newspapers] anymore. You can't use CNN because the parents will go nuts on you. You can't use Fox because it's so out there. It's hard to teach kids about what's going on in any kind of context, because there is no context anymore."

Note that.  You can't use CNN - because of those rascally parents going nuts on you..  Not that CNN is a problem.  The problem is those nutty parents.  You can't use FOX either.  Why?  Says the Republican in the conservative district - because FOX is "so out there".  The problem in this case being Fox, not the nutty parents.  

And I'm supposed to believe this is some conservative Republican principal who sees no problem with CNN but considers FOX out there?  This is as if to say 'see, Republican Conservative says FOX is a problem, but otherwise it's the parents when they question CNN'.  The power of suggestion. A big thing in our modern institutions and our modern media.  But if you step back and don't let distraction or misdirection fool you, and think things through, you'll be able to spot the illusion almost every time. 

Humor clever and stupid

For more unintentional hilarity, consider this:

Yeah.  Liars and cheaters make bad opponents.  When you literally call someone a Nazi for doing what so many you support proudly and openly did themselves, all hope for rational discourse and good will is officially lost.  

Heh

 From the New York Times:

I wonder if folks can see what's wrong with the above Twitter post.  And yes, it matters. 

I am about 14% convinced

That Donald Trump is a liberal mole.  I know, I know.  I'm half joking.  But there are times when he does things that seem 100% to do no good for conservatives, to play into leftwing stereotypes and hysterics about conservatives, and goes a long way toward undercutting conservative concerns about the emergent Left.

So news headlines exploded that Trump came out and said the election was so corrupt and illegal, it's time to ditch the Constitution.  Now there have been radicals wanting to abolish the Constitution since I was in school.  In recent years, the 'Constitution as racist slave doc' has picked up steam thanks to BLM and similar activism.  On Memorial Day in 2021, ABC News reported on a survey that found over 40% of Americans believe it's time to burn the old thing and start anew.  And this doesn't count those calling for parts of it, particularly certain Amendments to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, to be rewritten, reimagined, or done away with.

Conservatives are rightly incensed by this development. Not because they think the Constitution is holy Scripture, or God, or Gospel - a charge often leveled at them by those on the Left.  But because, just like those who say this non-heavenly planet is important in terms of climate change, how we order society is also important, even if society isn't Heaven.  And in the history of the human race, our Constitution is about as good as you get.  So the strong case for preserving it can be made.

Then lo, along comes Donald J. Trump and, according to media reports, says 'burn it, burn it now.'  Well conservatives just received another stone in their shoe when it comes to stopping this.  Oh, they can condemn Trump's statements, but it just gave those who want the Constitution burned an extra name to drop, and it gives the Left in general the chance to rise up and be bold defenders of our founding documents!

As a bonus, Trump did this just as the first Twitter dump occurred.  The dump suggested strongly that not only was Twitter purposefully targeting conservative accounts, but Democrats may have been party to the tactics.  This was a first in Elon Musk's grand restructuring and revealing of Twitter and its policies.  It should have been headline news.  But thanks be to Trump, most MSM outlets played an easy misdirection by plastering across the headlines that Trump was calling for an end to the Constitution.  The Musk and Twitter story being relegated to page fourteen behind the grocery ads. 

I get that Trump did some good things.  The Supreme Court likely being the best.  But there are times when he seems to go out of his way to harm the conservative brand as much as possible, to affirm leftwing stereotypes about conservatives, and undercut whatever opponents of the Left are trying to accomplish.  So while I wouldn't say I'm really 14% convinced he's a leftwing mole, I would put it around 4%. 

What Sandy Hook taught us

Any connection to the age of mass killings is pure speculation

Is a lesson we don't want to admit.  Basically, it taught us what AIDS already taught us:  That we will never admit we have been wrong in recent years, no matter how many millions die or thousands of children are murdered. 

Guns. That's the thing.  AIDS?  Hardly ever mentioned, even if the number of Americans murdered by guns in an average year are only a few thousand more than those who die of HIV/AIDS each year.  Betcha I know which cause of death you hear more about from our media, our pols, our educators and even our religious leaders*.

Of course basic horse sense and concern for the common good would make it easy for us to realize guns existed aplenty when I was growing up, yet we didn't have regular 'mass shooter drills' in school.  That's because mass shootings in school didn't happen on a regular basis.  They do now.  

Common sense and good will would lead us to realize we might have made changes in our society, somewhere between the time when such horrors didn't happen regularly and the time when they did, that shouldn't have been made.  But that is something we will not do.  Ever.  We will not admit we've been wrong. 

One of the morning news shows earlier this year reported on a NYT article that basically said fewer parents than ever spank their children, while violence among our youth is at all time highs.  Don't let that fool you, however.  Turns out spanking still makes kids more violent.  Again, we will not admit we were wrong.  Ever.

If millions die of AIDS?  So be it.  We're not going to stop pushing our sex and drugs culture. 

If students by the hundreds are killed in school shootings?  So be it.  We'll deflect to guns or bigotry if possible. 

If suicide among children reaches all time highs?  So be it.  We couldn't be wrong about our changes in family and child rearing. 

If drug overdoses, non-gun related suicides and AIDS kill more than 100,000 Americans a year?  So be it.  Except for those haters over there, we're the best. 

If drug addiction, drug dependency and emotional and psychological problems continue to plague our nation and our children at unprecedented rates?  So be it.  Focus on opioids and ignore the rest. 

We'll talk of guns and laws and cabbage and kings.  But we will never, ever admit that we've been wrong over the last half century or so. That is a sacrifice we simply are not prepared to make.  Not our press.  Not our politicians.  Not our national leaders and celebrities.  Not our educators.  And with few exceptions, not our religious leaders.  And if a million children must be aborted and a thousand children killed and ruined to avoid the horrible confession?  That is a sacrifice we are more than prepared to make. 

God bless those killed at Sandy Hook and in all such violence that defines the society we have built.  Let strength and peace be given in abundance to the loved ones left behind.  And may God have mercy on a nation that would allow this to continue rather than in humility concede what we will never admit. 

*Except Orthodox Christian leaders.  I noticed that many of them are willing to step up and say there just might be a connection between the global cultural and sexual revolution of the 1960s and the sudden spread of a disease driven largely by drugs and sex that to date has killed over 35 million people.  

This doesn't surprise me

Arneson (L.) and Gygax

One of my longtime readers sent me a link to a video here.   In it we learn that E. Gary Gygax and David Arneson, who created the famous and of much maligned roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons, were Christian.  At least Arneson was.  Gagyx was technically a Jehovah's Witness, though in later years I believe he did convert to Protestant Christianity. 

By Gygax's admission, that's why the early versions of the game sported demons and devils as possible opponents, but there were no stats for Satan. Much less stats for Jesus.  It's also noteworthy that while such demonic foes were out and about, there were no angels.  Gygax said he didn't feel right since 'demon' can be a generic bad guy found in many cultures, but angels were more specific to the Judeo-Christian tradition.   

Now this wasn't a shock to me now, or when I first heard of it when I began researching the game ages ago.  I've said it meant little to me for most of my life.  It was that game the press attacked that was based on things like The Lord of the Rings.  Only years later did I learn Gygax himself insisted any connection to Tolkien's works was just cheap marketing.  According to him, he personally despised Tolkien's works (at least LoTR).  I actually don't believe it, and have concluded Gygax is to be trusted with his memories in the same way George Lucas is to be trusted when talking about Star Wars. 

When I first heard they were Christian, however, it didn't surprise me.  For that matter, when I read this little article, it made perfect sense.  Not only were they Christian, but the game itself was infused with an implicit Christianity.  Beyond the clear biblical or cultural Christian references, an underlying Christian look and feel was there.  The early art and references to pop Christian religious attitudes and items (such as crosses) were plentiful. 

That's because the game was first published in 1974.  That was the year I was in first grade.  Believe it or not, a sort of Christian residue was still the default religious cultural reference in America at that point.  In my public schools, the first few teachers I had brought a tremendous amount of 'Christian' into various subjects.  At Thanksgiving we learned much about the pilgrims' Christian beliefs.  At Christmas we learned about various Christian elements of the holiday, as well as learning and hearing the Christmas story itself.  

Christian looking clerics in 1978 Players Handbook

Two developments are noteworthy, however.  By the time I was in late elementary school, the Christian elements of anything were fading.  No more guest speakers presenting stories about the first Christmas.  No more lessons about mangers.  By the time I was in high school, the 'keep Christ out of Christmas' movement was taking hold.  We hadn't gone to BCE/CE yet, but we changed our homeroom Christmas decorating contest to our homeroom holiday decorating contest.  

It was at this time, in ninth grade, I first heard of the game D&D.  By then the recent editions of the game no longer had much in terms of Christian influence.  New editions invented pantheons of fictional gods and goddesses, and explicitly Christian imagery and references were fast being replaced.  Crosses were now generic 'holy symbols' and artwork was becoming more religiously, if not culturally, androgynous.   

Beyond the clear pushing of Christianity out of the social fabric, there were also generations at work. When I think of those teachers in my school teaching us about that baby in the manger, they were old.  I mean near retirement.  The first couple would retire only a few years after I had them as teachers.  That means they were likely in their late 50s, early 60s.  Meaning they started teaching when my parents were in school in the 1930s!  Meaning they were schooled around then as well.

It's worth noting my kindergarten teacher was young, and an exception.  In hindsight, we were likely her first teaching job.  And while I have vivid memories of that first school Christmas, I remember nothing about the religious part.  We read The Little Match Girl.  We did Christmas bell art (I remember that like yesterday).  We had a Christmas party with Santa.  But nothing about the religious side.  She would have been schooled in the 1960s.   After third grade, my teachers were all in their early 50s to late 40s.  None of them brought religion into the discussion either.     

Contrast: A modern cleric pic

That's because in the time from the early 70s to early 80s, America went from a vague Christian identity to that identity and all of its references being eradicated from the popular culture.  That's because somewhere between the 1930s and 1960s, we were taught to do just that.  If Gygax and Arneson had published D&D in the 80s would their Christian influence have shown?  By the 80s, even while Gygax was still there (Arneson parted ways in the mid-70s), it was already being stripped away from the product.  

Today, of course, it is the eradication of the whole cultural roots of the game.  New editions of the game make sure to avoid any faux European medieval setting, and to sever the literary roots of the game when those roots are deemed hateful or offensive today.  Specific references to historical or cultural items or monsters are purposefully edited out.  On the off chance an old game concept from the past remains, outrage ensues and the publishers quickly expunge the offending reference.  It goes without saying that anything remotely Christian is as far removed from modern versions of the game as they are from most modern church events held in a public setting.   

So no, I wasn't surprised when I learned Gygax and Arnseon were Christian or Christian influenced.  Nor did it shock me to learn just how seeped with Christian concepts the early game was.  By the time churches joined the media's assault on the game in the 1980s, however, that was already beginning to pass, as it was in our nation in general.  Perhaps that will teach them next time.