Republican President? No Thanks.

When I think about it, the Republican presidents in my lifetime have pretty much been swine. 

The last Republican POTUS who I believe deserves an ounce of respect, was president when I was born: Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ike was a WWII leader on the battlefield, he built the U.S. highway system, he helped establish NATO, and he left us with a preiesnt speech about the military industrial complex that you should all go watch right now. 

Next, we had a Democrat in JFK. As with all presidents, he was far from perfect. However,  he was a beloved leader who started the space program, stood up to Russia in the Cuban Missel Crisis, and started the Peace Corps. He gave people hope. Yes, he also helped escalate Vietnam and lied about it, as did his successors. But to me, he goes in the plus column. 

Next up is Lyndon B. Johnson. Despite his many shortcomings and rough exterior, Johnson did push forth the Civil Rights laws that helped eliminate Jim Crow in the South. He also oversaw a decent economy but faced backlash and violent protests because of Vietnam. He was a political animal,  and Kennedy only selected him as Veep to garner the Southern vote. 

Nixon came next, and the man was pretty much scum. He recruited disenfranchised racists in '68 in the Southern Strategy to get elected, demonized black folks to gin up great amongst white voters, escalated Vietnam even further, and was finally removed from office in the Watergate scandal. Oh, and his economy pretty much sucked. 

He does have two things on the plus side: 1) he finally did end the draft and the Vietnam War, albeit under duress, and 2) he started the environmental protection agency. 

But respect? Nope, he gets zero. 

Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, the first election in which I cast a vote. Carter was hamstring by the rough economy Nixon handed him, and interest rates soared into the high teens. But the time I was about to graduate college, the job market was awful, and then the Republicans used the hostage situation in Iran and the canceled Olympic games to finish Carter in '80.

But despite those negatives, Carter was (and is) a good man who served his country admirably  and lived the life of a true public servant even to this day. He gets respect for his humanity. 

Reagan, however,  was a disaster. Like Nixon, he has many friends in organized crime. He aligned himself with the religious right and allowed them to get their filthy hooks deep into our government. He used racism and fear of the dark people to get himself elected, though the economy under Carter was clearly the main culprit.

His policies drastically increased governed debt, buried the middle class for decades, and actually demonized government itself, leading us into this trickle-down, supply-side economy that only works for the rich.

His one plus was that he helped end the cold war and saw the removal of the Berlin wall, which united Germany. But to be clear, he was unfit for the office he held and was not a person who wrote policy. He was simply an actor who they put in front of a camera and told what to say. 

Zero respect. 

Riding on Reagan's evil coat tails, George H.W. Bush slithers in next. His brief tenure was marred by the disastrous Desert Storm action, more rising debt, a giant arms scandal, and not much of anything that was good in the b late 80s and early 90s, as the results of Reagan's foul policies continued. 

In 1992, a smooth talking, unknown Southern Democratic governor somehow wrestled the reigns of power after 12 years of Republucan rule. Bill Clinton inherited a rotten economy and sky rocketing debt. 

All he did in his eight years was balance the budget and build an economy that boomed into the 2000s. These were really good times for American workers, as wages rose,  jobs were created, and we managed to avoid any foreign conflicts. 

Clinton's personal life was another story, and I won't be defending that here. But for his job performance alone, he has my respect absolutely.

In October, A Response to a Moron

Let's start with media coverage. You conflate two completely different issues. First of all, it is obvious to anyone who was paying attention that the media went HARD after Biden after the debate. He looked bad, and he sounded bad. That is inarguable, and it prompted the media to go into hyper-overdrive about his inability to "do the job." For weeks, until he resigned, we heard nothing but coverage of his frailty.  It was a feeding frenzy, and it had NOTHING to do with his standing in the polls. It was about his performance in the debate, period. To deny that they killed him over that is to deny reality.  

Meanwhile, for literally months on end, Trump has talked stupid, slurred words, been unable to stay on topic, made horrible comments about people, called parole names, had zero intelligent answers for ANY questions he has been asked (you don't get brownie points for taking questions you don't answer, Rich), brought forth NO policy positions ("I'm going to fix everything" is not policy), and generally acted like a buffoon. From the media: silence.

Now let's talk "softball questions." Guess you missed his town hall, Rich? That was normal behavior. Those were "tough" questions, huh? And then the dolt played music for 40 minutes. Did you see the Bloomberg interview, where he responded to virtually nothing? And when he did respond, he showed zero knowledge of finance and elicited embarrassing laughter from an educated audience. Again, he gets no points for going into "hostile territory" if his appearances there just suck. And they do. He is great in front of his morons because they are as dumb as he is, and he can just talk stupid so they can lap it up. Fools give him credit for "speaking the truth" or speaking his mind" when everything that comes out of his mouth is either dumb or hateful. That does not deserve credit. It deserves scorn. 

Now, Harris. If you think she can not talk intelligently or explain her positions and policies well, then I have to wonder about your ability to understand English. I wonder if you also think Obama is not intelligent, Rich. Do you? Harris is clearly intelligent, well-spoken, and knowledgeable, and she has a deep and strong resume, a huge step above. "I had a rich daddy." She has expressed her opinions and positions very clearly and succinctly, and her policies, both the whys and hows, are fully spelled out on her web page, which you surely have not read. She has changed positions on a few issues, but the orange moron was a Democrat for most of his miserable life, so I guess people change. It is frightening when people such as yourself are unable to differentiate intelligence from ignorance. It's disturbing. As an example, Vance speaks intelligently. I can recognize that. No argument there. He is a well-spoken monstrous, dangerous liar.

As for Howard Stern, he has always been one of the best interviewers out there, whether you like him or not. I did not see the Harris interview, but I've heard him interview many people over the course of his career, and he is very good at it no matter what you think. I can not comment specifically on the Harris interview as I did not see it.

Now, let's talk immigration and her Fox answers. Point #1, remind me how long she has been President, Rich? Because if you can answer that one, then you can tell me what policies she set. You want answers on Biden's policies? Ask Biden. Veeps do not set policy. 

On the immigration bill, that is utter bullsh!t. You can debate the merits of that bill until you're blue in the face. But it was a bipartisan effort written by Republicans that had a 100% chance of passing. It was not perfect, but it was, according to both sides, a massive step forward. Your boy did NOT kill it because it was a bad bill. He killed it for solely political reasons. He stopped a bill that would have helped the immigration situation to help his election chances. You spin that any farking way you want and it still comes up wrong, pal. So your criticism of the bill is disingenuous at best, sheer ignorance at worst. 

Oh, and let's be clear: the border policies that Biden removed were stopped because they EXPIRED.  Trump used the COVID crises to close the border. Once the crisis passed, those rules simply became illegal. Get your facts straight, man. Closing the border in any meaningful way requires legislation, not executive actions.  Trump had four years to get that done. Please show me what legislation he got passed. The answer is "none."

Your NATO argument is also a complete falsehoods. Trump negotiated no such thing, and you are simply parroting what you've heard on Fox News. The U.S. was never stiffed for unpaid NATO bills. It's utter bullsh!t and you can look it up. None of what he says about NATO is true. 

Now Afghanistan. More bullsh!t. Trump and Trump alone negotiated the Afghanistan withdrawal. He pulled large numbers of troops and resources out and left the remaining forces there without the ability to execute a safe exit. And he KNEW it but doesn't care because he knew Biden would take the blame for it.  Biden had to abide by the terms Trump negotiated with the Taliban. That mess belongs on his shoulders. Period. 

As for the rest, she has limited time to talk about much of anything on the campaign trail. If you really cared about her positions, you would read what's on her website. But you don't care, and you won't read them.  It's easier to complain, right?

The educational stuff I mostly agree with. If we don't do something about the cost of college and change our thinking there, we will be left with a society of people who do not understand civics nor how the government works.

They'll be just like Trump.

In Defense of Pete Rose (Finally)

I am a huge baseball fan, and always have been. I played the game from 1965-1968, again from 1973-1976, and then, after over a decade playing softball from 1976-1992, returned once again and played from 1993-2017. A lot of my life was spent between those white lines, and they are moments I would never give back. I loved every second.

So today, I want to write about the complicated legacy of Peter Edward Rose.

Let’s face it: like a lot of professional baseball players (Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, Lenny Dykstra and Wade Boggs come immediately to mind), Rose was not a rocket scientist, nor was he a candidate for the Nobel Prize.

But his job description was not “Rocket Scientist” nor was it “Nobel Prize Winner.” Nope.

Pete’s job was getting hits, catching and throwing, and winning baseball games. Anyone who says he did NOT do those things at a Hall of Fame level has never held a baseball in anger. The 1980 Phillies simply do not win a Championship without Rose. This is inarguable.

But Pete was his own worst enemy.

Every day, he walked past a sign in every MLB clubhouse than warned against the dangers of gambling and promised every player that, should he get involved with gambling, that he WOULD be banned from the game for life.

I suppose Pete thought he was above such things. He was arrogant in that way, and really, that same kind of arrogance may have been what made him such a great player given his rather pedestrian skill set.

I am certain he gambled on baseball. I am certain he gambled on his own team. Yet I am 100% certain he bet on his team to win.

For years, I felt no pity for him. He made his own bed. Thanks to his friends Joe Morgan and Mike Schmidt, Rose finally did get a meeting with the Commissioner of Baseball, Peter Seitz. In that meeting, he was told that, in order to get back in baseball’s good graces, he would need to cease any association with gambling and gamblers. That was made very clear to him,

Pete went directly from that meeting with Seitz to Las Vegas to sign autographs and kibitz with his gambling buddies. That’s self-destructive behavior if I’ve ever seen it.

But things are different in baseball today. After a century of decrying the evils of gambling, now I have to sit through ad after ad PROMOTING gambling. The announcers at each game even have the audacity to give the odds of “Alec Bohm driving in a run tonight” or “Aaron Nola getting seven strikeouts or more tonight.”

I find it infuriating, and I find it hypocritical.

How can baseball or anyone else now keep Rose out of the Hall of Fame if they are literally IN BED with gambling on a nightly basis? How long will it be before some addle-brained superstar gets in knee-deep with the wrong people and gets himself banished from the game? You already came dangerously close with the Ohtani mess.

In closing, I have the following advice for baseball: 1) get all this gambling bullshit off the air every night and away from the game; or 2) put the goddamned guy in the Hall of Fame where he belongs. Shoeless Joe, too, for that matter.

It’s just common sense.

Calling A Violation

My dear cousins and me had a text chain going. It was all about our family and about a Cousins Dinner that is held in Jersey several times per year. This message is for them. It is NOT political.

We all grew up the children of five wonderful women who raised us all pretty much collectively. I can only speak for my mom when I say that I never heard politics discussed in the household. The only things I can remember are discussions of JFK and RFK when they were assassinated. My mother loved them both, and I believe all of our parents were lifelong Democrats. But that's not the point.

When one of my cousins posted a political cartoon on that text chain, I was very, very upset, and I openly apologize here to them all for my reaction, which was heated. But I need to explain WHY it was heated, and what it meant.

We certainly have different views of the current political landscape, and you are all well aware of mine. But I never, ever shared those views in the text chain, because to me, that is scared. It's like a digital version of our family homes when were growing up — all about family, not politics. Most of the conversations my mom had back in the day in her kitchen were about Aunt Rosie, Aunt Millie, Auto Mary and Aunt Lulu and their kids. That was their focus, and their "life's work," as it were.

Times are different now. We are scattered around the country and cannot spend each weekend visiting each other like in the old days. There are responsibilities to attend to and lives to live. But we CAN connect digitally, share old stories, and spend time together via text chains like this, and via other digital means.

And that's why that text upset me so much. To me, it violated a sacred trust and destroyed a "safe haven" for me. I have ZERO problem with any of you posting your political views on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, wherever. There I am able to mute or block them should I not agree with them. And I do disagree MIGHTILY with some of you.

But here? In our "digital family home?" That just wasn't right. And honestly, I think you all agree with me on that point, though I know some of you most certainly do NOT agree with me politically. Which is fine.

The basic message here is that we should all stay in our lane when it comes to family conversations. If you wanna argue on Facebook or one-on-one, bring it. I am happy to handle myself in either forum, if need be. I have receipts.

Here in the safe space, though, let's talk about who's mother made the best meatballs, please.

Love you all.