No Good Reason for Being Cheerful

There really isn't.  But, as I've often said, unless we manage to keep moderately even-tempered, we're not going to be able to respond if some sort of emergency requires us to do something.  That's my theory.  I'm not an expert. 

BTW, I watched a video of Josh Johnson commenting on the Epstein files, and it was so funny that I was laughing out loud, to the point that my spouse, who was doing a jigsaw in the dining room—as you do—demanded that I wear headphones!

I know something has to be done, but—not by me, messeurs.  I'm tired and old, and whoever faces up to bewildered MAGA people looking for answers has to sign up for a longer haul than I'm going to be around for.  Repairing the social safety-net (that took close to a century to put together) is going to take a long time, a lot of thinking, and a lot of work. 

Arch 

High-Church Doggie

Our little dog is a little unusual!

A friend gifted him with a set of little 'blankets', so he can have something to bite down on (chew on, really).  But he has accorded these little squares of flannel (metered out to him one at a time) a special status.

When visitors come, he rushes to the front door to greet them, and then he runs back, and brings them his little blanket.  Just to show them.  Then he runs back with the blanket and throws it on the floor where he can get it when he wants it!

My sister-in-law calls it his ceremonial blanket!  He doesn't really give it to anyone, just shows it to them.  Briefly.  Strange. 

Arch 

Constraints on The Presidency

There are many expectations from the Presidency of the United States of America.  The Founding Citizens (usually called The Founding Fathers, but in the modern spirit of gender equality, I'm calling them Founding Citizens) tried to list many of these expectations in the Constitution.  But if political parties feel free to allow people of low ideals to run for the Presidency, it is quite possible that, once elected into office, the president will disregard these expectations.

We find ourselves dealing with this president with psychological tricks, as though he has to be cajoled to do his duty, and gently dissuaded from doing what is bad for the country, and, indeed, dissuaded from breaking the law.

We have here an unfortunate confluence of a 'House' under the control of the president, a Senate under the control of the president, and even a Supreme Court under the control of the president, who is, in turn, under the control of powerful business interests, and wealthy racists.

Much as we would like to avoid this circumstance in the future, it cannot be legislated against.  The Supreme Court, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Presidency, the Judiciary, and the Armed Forces will all be open to abuse, now that it has been abused without much public outcry once.  The expectation will now be that all these offices and positions can be abused without fear of reprisal.

Arch 

Pendulum?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who believes that Trump is the result of an over-reaction to the unprecedented success of Barack Obama's presidency.  Obama's achievements are a mile long, though many millionaires consider most of these achievements as blows against the financial upper-class.

Put the financial upper-class—the people Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria O. Cortez, and others often regarded as the socialists or the Communists by the MAGA group—call the 1%, and the racists (or even just the prejudiced), and the Anti Feminists, and those against the LGBTQRX, and you've got a winning majority that really can't hold together for more than one election cycle. 

If the supporters of this administration consider this a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate all the wonderful things a 'sane' set of legislators in the government can do (such as pushing back on laws that are unpopular with the conservatives), matters could backfire, and some very 'progressive' legislators could be elected in 2026.

Unfortunately, there appears to be no political home for anyone even as mildly progressive as Elizabeth Warren, or as progressive as Bernie Sanders, or even as (hardly progressive at all) Cory Booker.  The DNC is so fearful of being labeled as 'left' that they appear to be imploding.

Arch 

Distraction on a Huge Scale. Huuuge

The US administration has taken some big steps, and is debating bigger steps, which will increase hardship to the weakest and the most vulnerable components of US society: immigrants, women, children, the elderly, the sick, those who need medical support, and so on.  Opposition to President 47 is mounting.

Meanwhile, the president seems inclined to appease US Jews who are belligerent towards the Islamic neighbors of Israel.  So this attack in support of Netanyahu was not unexpected.  The president pretended that it was a huge surprise; there is no way to verify how much of a surprise it is.

This strike will start a war against Iran, which will be joined by several other states, and provide a lovely distraction from various major missteps in national governance.  Opposition to the president will continue to grow, support for him will continue to wane.  Civil liberties will continue to be withdrawn, and civic unrest will become more widespread.

Gasoline and eggs will be more expensive.

Arch 

Father's Day is Different

Mother's Day was invented by a little old lady (Ann Jarvis, and her daughter Anna Jarvis; the holiday was later repudiated by the younger Jarvis*), and later co-opted by Hallmark as (as far as I know) the first Designer holiday, for the purpose of selling cards.  If you didn't know I was a cynic, now you know. 

But at least, everyone knows who their mother is; there are usually witnesses.  Of course, a person could have been switched at birth, and then you wouldn't know anything. But even in the best of all possible situations, it's possible that the identity of the father of somebody could be in doubt.

I think that, given that the relationships between a person and his or her mother, and his or her father are not symmetric, the two 'feasts', if you would, are not symmetric either. 

A mother usually has a strong influence on a person's upbringing for various reasons; the more conservative or traditional the childhood of the person, the bigger the influence. 

The influence of a father on a child varies far more greatly from one family to the next; some fathers are heavily involved with child-raising, while other fathers are determinedly hands-off.

In the past, fathers were more interested with the upbringing of their sons than of their daughters; they would supervise the boy doing all sorts of 'guy things,' while the mothers would model various 'girl things' for their daughters, again, in a traditional home. 

But in the sixties and later, public schools took over the obligation of training all kids in both arts considered appropriate to women and to men.  For instance, my own daughter learned woodworking and metalworking, in addition to needlework and cooking.  Unfortunately, I think some conservative families were apparently unhappy with this, and I'm not sure that this plan has been continued.  The school even taught all the children—regardless of gender—to operate a motor vehicle, and I believe that's standard across the country.  Otherwise,  it would fall to a parent to pass on this skill.  (I don't know why I brought up that fact.)

So when we celebrate fatherhood and motherhood, we could be celebrating very different things.  But it is not uncommon for fathers to feel that Fathers' Day is rather a consolation prize!

Arch 

* P.S. The story of the founding of Mothers' Day is a long, and ultimately unsatisfying story you can look up.

Initially, Ann Jarvis began to work for what she called A Day of Peace for Mothers, as a response to the American Civil War that was just winding down.  She felt that a large international congregation of women—mothers, specifically—might succeed in preventing violence, where men had failed.

Julia Ward Howe (a well-known poet and hymnodist) took up this effort, and briefly succeeded in establishing a Mothers' Day in June. 

The movement to establish Mothers' Day in the present form, to remember and recognize the mothers of individuals, was taken up by Ann Jarvis, the daughter of Anna.  Over the years, the feast was enjoyed more by florists and greeting card manufacturers than by mothers, a situation recognized by Ann Jarvis with increasing anger, and she set out to call for the abolition of the feast of Mothers' Day, with no success.  She is said to have died penniless, and it is reported that she was buried with financial support from the florists and / or card manufacturers.  So the popularity of Mothers' Day never let up, despite all Anna Jarvis' efforts to destroy it. 

(In the above, I have confused Ann Jarvis with Anna Jarvis at least once; please forgive me.  I dare not attempt to rectify the errors, for fear of making them worse.) 

 

John Lennon—a Lot to Unpack

 

I've always been an admirer of John Lennon (and the Beatles, as a group).  

The Beatles I admired because of their music.  It is extremely difficult to explain or describe why The Beatles were so awesome; it's a sort of IYKYK* thing; if you got them, they were awesome.  Some people find their music very ordinary, just like I find Elvis's music.  (I think Elvis was amazing; don't get me wrong.)  I got on the Rolling Stones's wavelength late in life, so the Beatles were higher in my hierarchy than either of Elvis, or the Stones.

At first, when Yoko Ono and John got together, I was a little resentful; I thought John was being a drama queen, etc, etc.

After John was killed, I got to hear the John Lennon interviews for the first time.  Only then did I understand the ideological transformation of him that Yoko had achieved.

First, she had to teach him to look past the rhetoric that people were laying on him.  It's not that people were lying to him all the time; people were telling him exactly what they felt would make him think in a way useful to them.  John was doing the same thing, so he had to learn to stop being manipulative, too.  This was huge information; it gave him a platform on which he could build all his interactions. 

Second, she described the gender model that John had taken on from his social environment.  Like other guys around him, John felt he had to dominate the women in his life; if he didn't, he expected to be controlled by his womenfolk by their constant criticism and nagging.  Yoko got him to really listen, to Yoko, and to Cynthia, and to Julia, and Mimi; to understand the information, and discard the rhetoric.  (Like most guys, he assumed that it was all rhetoric.)

Thirdly, she described the rhetoric coming out of the US government about the Vietnam War, and placed it in the context of all wars, and especially US resistance to 'Communism.'

These were all difficult subjects, and honestly, most Americans did not have a clear view of the political issues, not to mention the sociological ones.  It is amazing how Yoko persuaded John to take a rational (i.e., logical) view about all these issues.  John resisted many of her ideas (at first), actually because of his intelligence.  The bigger they come, the harder they fall!

I recently recalled John's song Cold Turkey.  (It's in the Shaved Fish album, which is a sort of Greatest Hits, but not exactly.)  The song ostensibly describes the agony of Heroin withdrawal.  But it's also a parody, and utterly funny, IMO.

Only a very intelligent person could deliver a song of that kind.  The story of how hard it was for Lennon to strip himself of all (well, many of) the illusions in his life is very, very long.  He was a man of many fractured parts, and finally Ono was able to forge him into an integral person.  Chapman's murder of him is all the more tragic. 

Over years, Lennon tried to convey to the world (in songs, in writing, in interviews) all his revised thinking, and his political epiphanies, but not everyone was prepared to accept it.  In his last few years of life, he focused on being a family with Yoko, and their baby Sean.  That was a much easier task!  [Edited for clarity: 4-June-2025.]

Arch

* 'If You Know, You Know.'