A Greenland Checkmate – If NATO Nations Stand Fast

Clearly, a blizzard of impressions arise regarding the United States’ recent incursion into Venezuela, its capture and extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and what might come next. This note isn’t about that. (Some day, there may be a lengthy post on Venezuela that that tries your resolve and eyesight.) That said, there is one point to be made here about the Venezuelan raid that is relevant to what follows: President Donald Trump’s comment not long after the raid, reported by multiple credible sources, that “many” Cubans were killed in the process of capturing Mr. Maduro. (The Cuban government later indicated that 32 Cuban military personnel were killed.)

So much for the Cubans. From both domestic political and geopolitical perspectives, nobody in America cares about dead Cuban soldiers.

This is about Greenland, the world’s largest island, sitting in the Western Hemisphere mostly within the Arctic Circle, a colony of Denmark – a member of NATO — since before the United States declared its independence from Great Britain. As all who care are aware, given the Trump Regime’s repeated threats in recent weeks to capture Greenland by force if the Danes, Greenlanders, and other NATO nations are unwilling to voluntarily accede to the United States’ usurpation, some eight members of NATO have responded by stationing troops in Greenland on the professed pretext of assuring Mr. Trump that the island is safe from Mr. Trump’s expressed fears of a Russian or Chinese invasion (a completely fabricated concern; Vladimir Putin has his hands full in Ukraine and Xi Jinping is eyeing Taiwan; neither has imminent plans to invade a NATO territory now significantly less strategic to him), while clearly signaling their intent to militarily resist any assault on Greenland by American troops. Today, Mr. Trump will be in Davos, Switzerland, at the world’s most renowned annual meeting of political and financial bigwigs. If credible reporting is accurate, Mr. Trump plans to pressure NATO leaders to enable him to assume control of Greenland.

Make no mistake. I remain a foreign policy disciple of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, and there is a lot to be said about securing Greenland’s strategic position for all of NATO as well for the United States in areas such as missile paths, emerging commercial waterways, and rare earth minerals, most of which you already know, much and perhaps all of which could be achieved through deft diplomacy. There is also a lot to say about Mr. Trump’s increasing erraticism and seeming detachment from reality as he completes the first year of his second term (there does seem to be something that’s changed in the President’s behavior in the last several months – even by the standards we judge him — beyond his aging reversion), but perhaps we’ll get back to that in a future post. The focus here is on the impending – and extraordinarily silly, if the matter wasn’t so serious — military crisis brought about by the Regime’s thuggish, blatantly illegal approach to wrest control of Greenland from Denmark. I was initially frustrated by the NATO nations’ response to the Regime’s bellicose overtures – to the effect that aggressive action by the Regime “would mean the end of NATO” – because such tepid responses seemed to indicate an obliviousness to the reality that Mr. Trump wants to destroy NATO, and to invite a Greenland assault would provide him a way to do so. I have since been incredibly encouraged by the NATO nations’ stationing of troops in Greenland. The question now is whether the NATO leaders have the internal fortitude to stand up to Mr. Trump’s formidable personal pressure. If they do, I would submit that no matter how outraged Mr. Trump may be – unless he is now truly delusional, which one can no longer rule out – he will see that he has been checkmated.

The bulk of this note addresses somewhat antiseptically the domestic political ramifications Mr. Trump may face if he orders a military assault on Greenland – how such an order might affect him, which is all he cares about. What can’t be ignored at the outset are the moral, legal, and potentially tragic personal consequences of what would be a deranged order to invade the island: Denmark and Greenland control Greenland. They have for centuries. We don’t. We’ve offered to take control of the island. (If they were willing, I’d support it.) They’ve said no. There is no legal or moral gray area. In a civilized world, that is the end of the story. As to the potential personal consequences: As the NATO nations with troops in Greenland make clear their readiness to confront any offensive American assault, I am outraged and terrified for the American troops and for the NATO troops — who have each sworn to serve their nations and NATO as a whole – whose lives may be forfeit, as was National Guardsman U.S. Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom’s to a Trump Regime publicity stunt, to Mr. Trump’s attempt to fulfill a totalitarian vision of hemispheric conquest which can no longer be distinguished from the Nazis’ 1930s claims of their need for Lebensraum (“Living Space”). (Don’t forget the President’s ongoing references to Canada, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s current spirited defense of Greenland. Mr. Carney clearly recognizes that if Greenland falls – I deliberately use a wartime battle reference – Canada is next.)

Credible polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of Americans – including an unusually notable segment of Mr. Trump’s hardcore base — think his designs on Greenland are completely unwarranted. Although many of these Americans may not have cared about dead Cubans, and may not understand the importance of preserving NATO for America’s security, I would submit that they will care about dead Danes, dead Canadians, dead Brits, dead French, dead Germans, dead Swedes, dead Finns, and dead Norwegians (I may be leaving a nation out; if so, I apologize) if we launch a military assault against an ally when we are so clearly in the wrong.

And much more than that: they will most certainly will care about dead Americans. NATO troops know how to shoot. I suspect that in the Greenland meetings taking place this week, one or more of the NATO leaders will make it clear to Mr. Trump — make it, as they say, crystal: If the United States makes an aggressive incursion into Greenland, there will be dead Americans.

A second factor with which Mr. Trump should be considering when pondering his malign invasion: that Congressional Democrats’ recent video reminding American military personnel about their obligation to disregard illegal orders, taken together with the Regime’s vitriolic counterattacks against those members, have made every U.S. service member acutely aware of his/her oath to disregard illegal orders. Any order to invade Greenland – an ally — will place all American troops, from commander to grunt, in a grotesquely unjust ethical quandary. If Mr. Trump orders the invasion, how many will demur? Aside from the troops’ dilemma, Mr. Trump should realize from his own self-interest – again, all he cares about — that if he loses command of the military, his presidency is effectively emasculated.

The first dead American in Greenland – and perhaps even the first dead NATO soldier – will not only mean the end of NATO; I will venture that it will mean the end of Mr. Trump’s presidency (although it may be the beginning of his dictatorship). Some Americans will reflexively jump to an “America, Right or Wrong” stance; I submit that the a vast majority will not. The domestic paroxysm resulting from a Greenland invasion added to the continuing protests related to Renee Good’s killing and ICE’s brutal immigration enforcement activities will inflame protests and violent skirmishes across this country.

Unless Mr. Trump is willing to go the final mile – declare Martial Law, and declare himself a de facto dictator (again, assuming that the American military will even follow him) — a united NATO front in Davos will effectively checkmate his designs in Greenland. I understand the NATO leaders’ continuous coddling of this President Manchild; they have seen it as their best approach to ensure that he continues to provide his lukewarm assistance to their efforts to support Ukraine. That said – and I suspect that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would agree – no amount of appeasement will deter Mr. Trump from abandoning NATO and Ukraine if he gets it in his head to do so, and NATO leaders’ obsequiousness regarding Greenland is at least as likely to encourage Mr. Trump’s arbitrary abandonment of Ukraine as deter it. I would further venture that Mr. Trump’s tariff threats against these NATO nations are strategically toothless. He can tariff these NATO nations all he wants; but for a very brief respite in the 1990s through the early 2000s, they have lived under the threat of Nazi and then Soviet/Russian aggression since 1933. Given principles of sovereignty and democracy as fundamental as exist here, tariffs are not going to cow them. (Any Supreme Court decision hereafter holding that Mr. Trump cannot use tariffs to effect his whimsical non-economic initiatives will obviously sharpen an impending Constitutional crisis.) Politically, these democratic NATO leaders can blame America for their citizens’ ensuing economic hardships, and their citizens will support them.

In the last months, I have obviously made a number of provocative comparisons between the designs and actions of the Trump Regime and past autocratic regimes, mostly in reference to the Regime’s ICE forces’ immigration enforcement measures. It is clear that the Regime’s autocratic inclinations do not stop within our borders. Although I could cite a dozen of Mr. Trump’s own comments to make the point, instead I’ll quote comments about Greenland made by Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller a couple of weeks ago. As all who care are already aware, Mr. Miller, who wields tremendous influence in the White House, said the following in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper:

“Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland. … We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

Compare that to the following:

“In this case we must not let political boundaries obscure for us the boundaries of eternal justice. … [L]et us be given the soil we need for our livelihood. True, [the nations possessing the land we covet] will not willing do this. But then the law of self-preservation goes into effect; and what is refused to amicable methods, it is up to the fist to take.”

Who do you think said that? (I know; I made it too easy.)

Adolf Hitler; Mein Kampf, Vol I, Ch. IV

In an earlier note, I commented that there was a lot to unpack in the Greenland situation; I was referring to the various substantive geopolitical issues related to the island. In the context in which we are now speaking, there is very little to unpack: there is right, and there is wrong. My use of the checkmate analogy in this note is also arguably inapposite: chess is an intellectual, antiseptic exercise; a player readily sacrifices pawns to win the game. What we are facing here is not antiseptic. It is about sovereignty and the rule of law. It is about the potential sacrifice of innocent lives. If Mr. Trump comes to understand this week that forces are resolutely arrayed against him, may he have enough remaining sense of reason – I have no illusions that he has any sense of humanity – to stand down.

We’ll see what happens.

They Ignored Samuel

I have mentioned here several times since President Donald Trump was reelected that I assumed that Mr. Trump and his cohort recognized that on their best day, they only had the support of half of the American public, and understood that they would need to employ the Nazi model of the 1930s to quickly consolidate their control of our country if they were going to be able to reshape it to their vision. More recently, I offered that through its deployment of National Guard and active military troops to “Blue Cities” and its intimidating immigration tactics, the Trump Regime might initially have been attempting to subdue the citizens who oppose it by employing the war strategy of ancient Chinese General and Philosopher Sun Tzu, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” Yet more recently and a bit whimsically, I suggested that the then-seemingly-mixed signals from the Regime perhaps offered a dark silver-lining hope that Mr. Trump wasn’t going to use the powers of the presidency to impose a dictatorship but to merely achieve the goal of the fictional Professor Harold Hill in The Music Man of Broadway and Hollywood – i.e., enrich himself and his family at the expense of the gullible who believed in him before departing the scene, but leaving our democracy intact if battered.

The Regime’s actions since the killing of Renee Good have made clear: that Mr. Trump and his acolytes recognize that their best day is past. And that the strategy urged by Sun Tzu is not achievable.

And that he’s not the Music Man.

The Regime has intensified its brutal immigration enforcement tactics in Minneapolis, and ICE agents have felt emboldened by the Regime’s aggressive defense of the killer’s actions. The Regime’s Department of Justice has announced that it will not initiate an investigation into whether Ms. Good’s civil rights were violated. Six Minneapolis-based federal prosecutors have resigned over an expressed Justice Department intent to investigate Ms. Good’s widow and the department’s unwillingness to investigate the shooter. On January 14, there was a second ICE shooting in Minneapolis. Credible outlets are reporting that there are now 3,000 ICE agents in Minneapolis, as contrasted with 600 police officers who are generally available to provide public safety for the area. Unrest in Minneapolis has been increasing as state and city officials plead for calm; even so, credible sources also report that the Justice Department is planning to issue subpoenas to MN Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey in a criminal probe alleging that they are obstructing federal law enforcement.

You don’t need me to draw a better picture for you.

I haven’t seen any federal officials pleading for calm. They want this. They want to assert their power against those whom they consider their enemies – their fellow citizens.

At the time this is typed, the President of the United States is threatening to invoke the federal Insurrection Act, which, among other provisions, authorizes the president to deploy U.S. active military against American citizens, “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” Let it be stated plainly: Anyone suggesting that such an extensive ICE presence in Minneapolis is required to enforce our immigration laws is either a fool or a knave. If Mr. Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, he will, through the unnecessary deployment of ICE agents to Minneapolis and their Nazi Sturmabteilung-like activities, have incited the very unrest that he will cite under the Act as enabling him to deploy our military forces against American citizens. Such an invocation under the circumstances he has created will be none other than a fascist exertion of power.

Neither Adolf Hitler nor Vladimir Putin could be orchestrating this any more effectively.

[Since I think that immigration has actually become a pretext – a means for the Regime to force a confrontation with those it perceives as its enemies, rather than an end – this is admittedly an aside, but one expressed here just as aptly as in any other post, regarding the far right’s so-called “Replacement Theory”: You show me a white, male, English-speaking, sexually-straight Christian American citizen who isn’t savvy enough to realize that being a white, male, English-speaking, sexually-straight Christian American citizen is still the demographically best thing to be in America, and I’ll show you a gullible, aggrieved, excuse-ridden, white, male, English-speaking, sexually-straight Christian American citizen who wouldn’t be successful in America even if this nation consisted entirely of white, English-speaking, sexually-straight Christian American citizens. The suspicion lurks that many of the Regime’s ICE agents now roaming Minneapolis fit into this category, and that these men, given a meaning and an “other” to hate, provide the Regime with an informal paramilitary force that can be readily deployed against anyone that the Regime perceives as its enemy.

And … as long as we’re clearing the decks. After listening to Trump supporters at Trump rallies wearing MAGA hats, T-shirts bearing Mr. Trump’s picture, and American flag pants covering their behinds, loudly proclaim for a decade that Mr. Trump “Tells the Truth – Tells It Like It Is,” … let’s … for once … Tell the Truth, Tell It Like It Is: Unless you’ve already got a million bucks in the bank, Mr. Trump has done nothing for you. He’s conned you. You think that because he hates those you hate, he respects you. He doesn’t. He has nothing but contempt for you. He thinks you’re suckers. He doesn’t give a damn about you. Those of you whom he has pardoned for January 6^th crimes may think he did so out of kinship, or perhaps due a shred of guilt because you went to jail and he didn’t for an insurrection he incited, but I would submit that he did so because he wants you free to be riot fodder the next time he stages an unconstitutional coup to stay in power.]

We need not list other recent Regime violations of our democratic order. If you’re reading this note, you can name a dozen or more such activities – those more recent seemingly even more aggravated than those earlier – that I could list here. [I deliberately defer to a future post the Regime’s bellicose (a word derived from the Latin bellum, meaning “war”) statements regarding its intent to usurp Greenland. There’s a lot to unpack there.]

I admit to extreme exasperation with media commentators’ continued somber descriptions of the Regime’s autocratic actions while they simultaneously intone about how the Regime’s actions are going to result in a Democratic takeover of at least one House of Congress in 2027. I find their nonsequitous observations almost as aggravating as I find the Regime’s autocratic policies terrifying. I would submit that the Regime’s actions have made clear that when pushed to the wall, it will not allow for free and fair elections, or nor willingly relinquish power. Not in 2026; not in 2028; not ever.

Mr. Trump and his minions are no fools. Credible reporting indicates that they are well aware that his approval ratings are plummeting. Given their seemingly unalterable course, no bettor would wager that his approval ratings will substantially rise between now and November. As I’ve mentioned here before, when in a contest always assume that the other guy (in a genderless sense) is at least as bright as you are, and knows at least as much about the given circumstances as you do. In this case, add another factor: the other guy is completely unscrupulous. I mentioned in a recent post a number of the tactics that the Regime might take to ward off a Democratic takeover of a House of Congress, including purging of Democratic-leaning voter rolls and voter (particularly Latino voter) intimidation, perhaps culminating – if polling near the election projects truly dire electoral results for the Regime – in consideration of a declaration of Martial Law to suspend elections. (Indeed, earlier this week, when asked about his falling poll numbers, Mr. Trump told Reuters, “When you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election,” – a statement quickly taken back by the White House Communications Team.) But I ignorantly left one out, which was in effect also recently suggested by Mr. Trump himself in a New York Times interview: seizing voting machines after the election in swing Congressional districts (which Republicans now seem destined to lose) — presumably based upon what will be, if past is prologue, bogus claims of voter fraud.

I recently had a friend tell me that it’s an embarrassment to be an American. What does one say?

My exasperation with media commentators’ seemingly (at least, on-air) obliviousness to the authoritarian threat that Mr. Trump poses to our election and democracy is, I admit, exceeded by my frustration with the marginal Trump voters who put him in the White House despite the fact – I realize I am obsessing – that he told us what he was going to do. In a note posted here not long after Mr. Trump reassumed the presidency, I ventured, “Although we will never know … it would seem worthy of betting a dollar that each of the following will occur: the impoverished mother, who voted for Mr. Trump because of the price of eggs, who loses her SNAP payments; the elderly farmer, who voted for Mr. Trump because he hates the Woke, who has a family member die because the hospital formerly nearest to him closed for lack of Medicaid revenue; the Latino male, who wouldn’t vote for a woman, who watches undocumented family members deported, never to be seen again; and the black male, who voted for Mr. Trump because he was so manly, who is gunned down somewhere by some police officer emboldened by Trump rhetoric.” [I now realize that I could have added, but didn’t: and the Wall Street trader, so obsessed with tax cuts, further Trump deregulation and short term market performance, who didn’t see that the foundation of American financial economic credibility and stability would be damaged by Mr. Trump’s stated intent to (and/or the blatantly obvious likelihood that he would) extend the 2017 Trump tax cut (thereby unnecessarily exponentially increasing the federal debt), and impose idiotic tariffs, bully the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, and intimidate federal financial analysts into manipulating economic data (thereby accelerating inflation and undermining business and investor confidence)].

In a note posted here not long before the election, I observed: “[If Mr. Trump wins the election], [a]t some point [thereafter], some of the citizens who vote for Mr. Trump this November will say, ‘This is wrong. This is too much. I never intended this.’ By that time, it will be too late. In this context, the shame will be on them, not on him; he has made his designs perfectly plain [Emphasis in Original].”

What Trump voters wanted was a king to rule them, to fight their battles; a Messiah, to make it all better.

As many are aware, Catholic Masses are said around the world every day of the year. Each parish employs exactly the same Scriptural passages in that day’s Masses, translated into the native language of the given congregation. This is the first reading for yesterday’s Masses, from the First Book of Samuel:

“All the elders of Israel came in a body to Samuel at Ramah
and said to him, ‘Now that you are old,
and your sons do not follow your example,
appoint a king over us, as other nations have, to judge us.’

Samuel was displeased when they asked for a king to judge them.
He prayed to the LORD, however, who said in answer:

‘Grant the people’s every request.
It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king.’

Samuel delivered the message of the LORD in full
to those who were asking him for a king.

He told them:

‘The rights of the king who will rule you will be as follows:
He will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses,
and they will run before his chariot.
He will also appoint from among them his commanders of groups
of a thousand and of a hundred soldiers.
He will set them to do his plowing and his harvesting,
and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.
He will use your daughters as ointment makers, as cooks, and as bakers.
He will take the best of your fields, vineyards, and olive groves,
and give them to his officials.
He will tithe your crops and your vineyards,
and give the revenue to his eunuchs and his slaves.
He will take your male and female servants,
as well as your best oxen and your asses,
and use them to do his work.
He will tithe your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves.
When this takes place,
you will complain against the king whom you have chosen,
but on that day the LORD will not answer you.’

The people, however, refused to listen to Samuel’s warning and said,

‘Not so! There must be a king over us.
We too must be like other nations,
with a king to rule us and to lead us in warfare
and fight our battles.’

When Samuel had listened to all the people had to say,
he repeated it to the LORD, who then said to him,

‘Grant their request and appoint a king to rule them.’

1 Samuel 8:47, 10 – 22a

Of course, by this time you have realized that this post is titled misleadingly 😉. Samuel was only the Messenger. It wasn’t Samuel’s warning they ignored.

At this moment, all Americans, no matter whom they voted for, and the many millions across the globe whose lives are affected by the American election but didn’t get to choose, are — as did the Elders’ sons, daughters, and servants, not only the Elders themselves – reaping the whirlwind of a gross miscalculation by the decisive segment of tragically deluded American voters last November.

I would submit – at least as of today; events in Minneapolis, or the high likelihood of provocative clashes between Trump forces and protestors during the upcoming summer months, could quickly alter this calculus — that there is still a decent distance for those who believe in American democracy to save it. It may not be a question of how far the Trump Regime is willing to go, but for how long and how far our professional armed forces will follow it. However, if citizens who believe in American democracy don’t recognize and lay plans to contest Mr. Trump’s telegraphed intent to intrude upon our voting processes to maintain control of the government, we have significantly less hope of avoiding its execution.

Let’s hope that we can still find our way – but it is imperative that we remain peaceful.

Pondering the Packers’ Future

Given all that’s going on in our world, a short frolic note.

Granting that I turned the game off before it reached its conclusion last night – I could sense how it was going to end even while the Green Bay Packers were still leading the Chicago Bears in their playoff contest, ultimately won by the Bears – I went to bed reflecting on the relevance of a decades-old observation to the Packers’ future.

We came to Wisconsin in the mid-1970s, during the quarter-century Packer wasteland between the Vince Lombardi Packers’ last Super Bowl victory in 1968 and the rise of the Ron Wolf – Mike Holmgren – Brett Favre Packers in 1992. Having been raised in the Chicago area, I was a Bear fan when we arrived. What caused me to switch my allegiance from the Bears to the Packers over time — during the heyday of the Mike Ditka Bears and long before Mr. Favre’s arrival — was the same sympathy for the underdog that had made me a Cub fan in the early 1960s: the team tried so hard, but still lost. [As with the rise of the Cubs in the late 1960s (despite our ultimate crushing disappointment), watching the Packers become good in the mid-1990s was all the sweeter because one had rooted for the team when it had been a doormat.]

One cannot live in Wisconsin without being emersed in Packer lore. The observation that came to mind last night was one that I had heard made by an old NFL coach (now undoubtedly long dead) who had competed against Mr. Lombardi’s Packers, speaking about the period in which the two professional football leagues — the traditional “NFL” of the Packers, Bears, New York Giants, et. al., and the upstart “AFL” of such teams as the New York Jets, the Kansas City Chiefs, and the Oakland Raiders – were in the process of effecting their merger into the NFL we know today. The observation was this: By the time Mr. Lombardi’s Packers won their two Super Bowls, they were an aging team past their prime; that by that point, there were two or three traditional NFL teams, including Coach Tom Landry’s Dallas Cowboys, that “on paper,” were better, more talented teams than Green Bay; that for those Packers, reaching the Super Bowl was more of a challenge than winning it. He stated that the reason that the Lombardi Packers won their last two NFL championships – overcoming those more talented teams, which got them into the Super Bowl, was simple: they had greater pride, more will to win.

I saw enough last night to conclude that even without Linebacker Micah Parsons, Tight End Tucker Kraft, and Defensive Lineman Devonte Wyatt, the Green Bay Packers were a better football team than the Chicago Bears. The Bears won because they had the greater will to win. If I were Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst this morning, I would have to be doing some soul searching. The spirit in any team is instilled at the top. Mr. Lombardi’s Packers were his embodiment. Mr. Gutekunst hired Packers Head Coach Matt LaFleur a number of years ago, and clearly Mr. LaFleur is technically an excellent coach, but one must question whether he has sufficiently instilled in his players that pride, the will to win, that is required to win a Super Bowl.

It doesn’t look to me like he has.

Likewise, although the color commentator lauded Packers Quarterback Jordan Love at one point last night, indicating that Mr. Love had moved beyond the legacies of his two storied predecessors, Mr. Favre and Aaron Rodgers, I wasn’t so sure. Say whatever you will about Messrs. Favre and Rodgers’ behavior off the field, there have been no greater competitors, no players with a greater will to win, in the history of the NFL. Sometime in the third quarter last night, as Chicago changed its defensive schemes and was effectively thwarting Green Bay’s offensive game plan, either Mr. Favre or Mr. Rodgers would have said, “F—k this. We are done running the football. Put in the back who’s the best blocker and receiver. I am taking this G-d D-n game over, and we’re going to win.” Everybody in the Packers’ huddle would have straightened up, that football would have been flying at warp speed in every direction … and the Packers would have won. You know it. I know it. And every Bear fan who reads these notes who’s lived through the last 30 years knows it.

There seems to me to be a question whether Mr. Love, a fine young man who is without doubt a talented quarterback if even a shade less so than his predecessors, has what it takes to win a Super Bowl. It’s not physical talent; 40 years ago, Bear Quarterback Jim McMahon won a championship on an indomitable will to win despite having much less talent than Mr. Love has. It’s not his football smarts; he effectively executes the Packer offense. It’s not his low-key manner; nobody could be lower key than Joe Montana, the best quarterback I’ve ever seen, whose manner masked a fierce will to win.

It’s whether he has the will.

I would suggest that Mr. Gutekunst — who has essentially staked his legacy on Messrs. LaFleur and Love – should be asking himself this morning: Do these guys have … what it takes?

If he isn’t, the Packer Board of Directors should be asking themselves: Does Mr. Gutekunst have what it takes?

Three final thoughts:

First, all congratulations to the Bears and best wishes to those Bear fans who read these notes. Although I have trouble believing that the Bears have the talent to win a Super Bowl, the point of this note is obviously that one never counts out a team that has the will to win that the Bears have. Although I probably won’t be tuning in, I’ll be rooting for the Bears as long as they stay in the hunt.

Second, despite the disappointing outcome of last night’s contest from a Green Bay Packer fan’s point of view, it was refreshing to have even a couple of hours’ distraction from the many challenges to our way of life that we currently face. No harm in that, only good.

Third, nothing that went on last night brought either National Guardsman Sarah Beckstrom or Renee Good back to life. Our continuing peaceful work on behalf of American democracy lies before us.

On the Killing of Renee Good

As we barrel toward the first anniversary of President Donald Trump’s second term of office, we are in an accelerating downward maelstrom of lawless thuggery. Although one must pause and say that a full, competent, and impartial investigation into an ICE agent’s January 7^th shooting and killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis needs to be completed before accurate conclusions can be drawn, by this time all who care have seen video – which, crucially, as far as I am aware, no one is claiming has been doctored – strongly appearing to indicate that before the shooting, one masked ICE agent forcibly attempted to open Ms. Good’s car door while a second masked ICE agent (the shooter) first inappropriately positioned himself in front of Ms. Good’s vehicle, was then able to successfully move himself to the driver’s side of the vehicle away from any risk of being hit, and then fired at point blank range into Ms. Good through an open driver’s door window. At the time this is typed, the Trump Regime is spreading fabrications justifying the agents’ actions that are blatantly at odds with the video. (One can hardly blame them; since they have been able to convince their gullible supporters that the January 6^th insurrection at the nation’s Capitol was a patriotic lovefest, it’s clear that these vacuous citizens can be made to believe anything.) Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem, standing before cameras in her tight little jeans and a ridiculous cowboy hat, was spouting misinformation about the incident seemingly before they got Ms. Good’s body out of the car. Somebody had to wake Mr. Trump up so he could echo her lies in a social media post. I have seen reports from credible sources that Vice President J.D. Vance has vociferously defended ICE and criticized Ms. Good. (I admit that I haven’t heard Mr. Vance’s comments directly; I no longer have the internal fortitude for listening to lying lickspittles.) We have seen an example of the Trump Administration’s Nazi Sturmabteilung-like activities in full fly. ICE agents clearly feel unrestrained, empowered by the Regime’s lawless culture.

Ms. Good was a U.S. citizen. Something the networks we watch have been too politically correct to state directly: Ms. Good was blonde, white woman in the middle of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Not that it should matter, but these ICE agents had to recognize that demographically, the chances that she was an illegal alien were miniscule. It is not hard to conclude that Ms. Good panicked when she was aggressively approached by the masked ICE agents. Those reading these notes who know me are well aware that I am predominately of ethnic Irish descent and if provoked, my temper can sometimes accelerate … well … rapidly. If I had a goon trying to rip open my car door, I might well have done exactly what Ms. Good did – actively resist a masked man’s attempt to enter my vehicle. Even if prior to the confrontation she had been acting in a manner less than supportive of ICE activities, that should not have gotten her killed – not in America.

Based upon my legal training and high regard for our justice system, in less fraught times I would caution that we should await the outcome of the current investigation of the incident before forming firm conclusions. Given accounts that the Regime’s FBI has taken over the investigation and shut out local Minnesota investigators, it takes little prescience to predict that the findings rendered will be a complete whitewash of ICE. There will never be a full, competent, impartial investigation of this incident unless Democrats gain control of either House of Congress in 2026 and thereafter choose to hold hearings.

Ms. Good was an American citizen who didn’t have to die, killed by American federal officials sponsored by an American Regime that has glorified Ashli Babbitt, the insurrectionist rioter killed during the January 6, 2021, assault as she tried to break into a Congressional Chamber. That same Cabal is now in the process of canonizing the ICE agent who killed Ms. Good by what was at the very least a questionable use of lethal force — while simultaneously demonizing Ms. Good.

[An aside: it’s possible that the shooter agent, whom it has been claimed had recently suffered a physically and emotionally wrenching experience on the job (I believe nothing that the Regime says that cannot be confirmed by credible sources), also reflexively panicked as Ms. Good’s car moved toward him. If such is indeed the case, one can have personal sympathy for an individual who was perhaps placed back in the field too soon, and whose life – under normal circumstances – would now also be forfeit to the Administration’s propaganda designed, Sturmabteilung-like activities; but as severe as it sounds – we have a family member in law enforcement, and well recognize that in our sheltered lives we have no real understanding of the dangers members of law enforcement face regularly — cops (speaking generically) don’t get the luxury of panicking. It is part of their job not to panic.]

Despite the continuing reports of the Regime’s brutal immigration enforcement tactics, had you been feeling pretty safe as an upstanding, likely white, U.S citizen? Get over it, my friend. If they are willing to say black is white with regard to this shooting despite the clear videographic evidence, all camouflage of due process under law has been shed. What do you think they’re going to do if some ICE agent simply decides to shoot you in the face at point-blank range while you’re peacefully protesting in the future against ICE or other Trump activities?

I acknowledge that the occasional references to Nazi Germany in this and recent notes regarding the Trump Administration are provocative; I consider the Regime’s actions to warrant them. I would suggest – and indeed did so in these pages, at the time – that there were reflections of the mid-1930s Germany becoming ever more apparent in Mr. Trump’s and his minions’ inclinations during the last 18 months of his first term; I would submit that their actions during this go-around have turned those reflections into neon banners. Too harsh? Don’t take my word for it. Read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer – which I believe is still considered, despite the hundreds of thousands of works completed on the Nazis over the last 80 years, to be the definitive work on Nazi Germany – and decide for yourself.

This is the point in a note where I would normally indicate that you should exercise your right as an American to peacefully protest. Today I would qualify that. Anyone who does elect to protest needs to remain peaceful; otherwise, all is lost practically as well as morally. But as to whether to protest: if you have children (or others depending on you) at home as Ms. Good did, and think any protest you might be considering attending will place you in close proximity to ICE or other federal agents, STAY HOME. Your responsibilities are there. Teach your children how American Constitutional democracy was intended to work. Leave the peaceful protesting to geezers like me whom we can afford to lose.

Stay well.

A Comment about Comments … and Best Wishes!

Notwithstanding the momentous prospects of the new year, let’s start with an administrative note.

I’ve mentioned here several times over the years that I don’t think others can see the Comments I receive to posts; something I haven’t mentioned – and should have quite a while ago — is that even if one is what WordPress calls a “Subscriber” to these pages – i.e., you get post emails, or automatically receive them through your own blog – all Comments I receive back are identified as coming from “Anonymous.” I can often discern who sent an “Anonymous” comment; just as many times I can’t (not surprisingly, many who read these notes have similar sentiments about the same issues 😉). A few friends add their first names or initials. Comments are always welcome; they are always insightful and frequently witty; once in a while – to my mortification – somebody points out that I’m factually off base – truly just makin’ Noise — and I try to correct the errors through a postscript or subsequent post. Some comments stand by themselves, without need of a response; in other cases, I’d respond, but sometimes hesitate if I don’t know who I’m responding to. Accordingly, if we personally know each other, feel free to add your initials to your entry if you are comfortable doing so; that’ll be enough for me to know who you are. If we aren’t personally acquainted, you obviously need do nothing; I appreciate the opportunity that the blog provides me to hear from you. Either way, the beginning of a new year is a perfect time for me to again note to all who read these notes how tremendously honored I am that you take the time to do so, whether it be to provide you with another perspective or simply because you feel sympathy for TLOML, who has to listen to my observations (a/k/a “rants”) for a lot longer than it takes you to read even the longest ones. 😊

All the very best! Into 2026!

The Year of Decision Ahead

No, this will not be our year of decision. We had our year of decision in 2024, and it appears tenable to maintain, based upon recent credible polls setting forth our citizens’ collective assessment of President Donald Trump’s performance in what has essentially been the first full year of his second term, that a solid majority of us — including a notable segment of lukewarm Trump voters who believed that he would improve their financial circumstances and be judicious in his immigration enforcement – is currently of the persuasion that we fu… er … fouled up. Knowing what we as a people know today, if a presidential election was held tomorrow, I’m not sure that former Vice President Kamala Harris would beat Mr. Trump – I fear that the prejudices of some against a female candidate of color might, despite everything, still be too strong – but I’d wager that former President Joe Biden would win — that faced with the stark choice of selecting a president either unnervingly infirm or capriciously malevolent, a majority of Americans in the swing states would prefer a grandfather figurehead to what we’ve wrought. But let’s start with the image I consider the best depiction of what I consider Mr. Trump and his regime to have done to America’s democracy at home and standing around the world during 2025; we’ll talk about what 2026 might hold on the other side.

Batman (1989): Joker Museum Scene

So … on to 2026. I am not going to try your eyesight by repeating a litany of pontifications I have made before; let’s just look at the record. Suffice it to say that if, as I believe, it is beyond Mr. Trump’s capacity to radically change his direction in the coming year, we will see more untoward monarchial ostentatiousness and self-aggrandizement, continued blatant disregard for and failure to address the financial stresses of about 80% of Americans (including millions of Trump supporters) (as overall American economic indicators and the financial markets rise, and the fortunes of the top financially secure 20% of Americans continue to multiply), continued brutally-indiscriminate immigration enforcement, continued blatant failure to meaningfully address healthcare access and healthcare cost concerns for millions of Americans (the majority of whom are Trump supporters), continued claims that Americans’ troubles are caused by something President Barack Obama did in 2009 or Mr. Biden did in 2021, continued rigid adherence to unpopular tariff policies and pressure for lower interest rates (which will seemingly collectively increase inflationary pressures on the 80% who are most adversely affected by it), continued purging of federal expertise and resources that it took us over a century to build, continued denial of scientific realities such as vaccine therapies and climate change (leading to outbreaks of diseases seemingly vanquished decades ago and once-in-a-century environmental disasters now occurring annually 😉), increased efforts to manipulate federal statistics that reflect badly on the Administration, increased deployment of National Guard and active U.S. military to locations of increased demonstrations against Administration policies, continued concessions to Middle East nations whose leaders ensure that the Trump Family’s personal financial coffers are enriched, continued erratic foreign policy forays (offending at the same time those Americans who believe in a strategic American foreign policy, and his isolationist MAGA supporters), continued transparent attempts to abandon NATO and Ukraine to Russia (at the same time thereby emboldening acquisitive dictators, offending allies upon whom we rely to aid our defense, those of us at home who believe in a strategic American world presence, and – wait for it – even his isolationist MAGA supporters, whom polls show nonetheless overwhelmingly hate Vladimir Putin), continued pursuit of criminal prosecutions against those he considers his political enemies, continued demonization of those he perceives as his opponents and/or unacceptably unclean (i.e., anybody not white, Christian, and sexually straight) and merciless retribution on those, no matter how previously slavishly supportive of him, whom the President of the United States perceives as being becoming insufficiently loyal.

I know, I know. Did I really have to remind you? Didn’t many of us just get done singing, “Silent Night”?

By this time, I’m sure you’ve already thought of several I’ve overlooked.

At one level, you’ve got to give the Bugger credit. He’s accomplished a lot in a year, hasn’t he?

Let’s look forward.

In response to my inquiry, the now ever-present “AI Overview” indicates that since 1980, a sitting president’s party has lost an average of 20 seats in the House of Representatives in the midterm elections following his inauguration. In 2010, the first midterm after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, Democrats lost over 50; in 2018, the first midterm after Mr. Trump’s first inauguration, Republicans lost over 40. In our increasingly gerrymandered and hyper-toxic political climate – and because I believe that Mr. Trump’s popularity won’t sink much lower; it’s already about down to its unshakeable, rock-hard foundation — it is hard to believe that Republicans will lose as many House seats as they did in 2018. I have seen credible commentators indicate that House Republicans themselves currently – a huge qualifier – consider 15 to 25 of their members at serious risk of defeat. At least under the way American democracy has traditionally worked, if Democrats do grasp firm command of the House in 2027, for the last two years of the President’s term they will have the opportunity to politically neutralize him and his minions by passing populist measures that the Administration will reject; if Mr. Trump comes to be seen both as a lame duck generally and a political albatross for Congressional Republicans, they will magically transform from figurative lemmings (who in reality have more sense than they’re given credit for) to rats (who are indeed savvy survivors) fleeing a sinking ship. (Of course, this is assuming that Congressional Democrats have the political skill to effectively exploit any leverage they acquire. You can take that one.)

[An aside: in a note a while back on the most recent NO KINGS rallies, I indicated that Republican U.S. WI Rep. Brian Steil, who represents the Wisconsin First Congressional District, won his 2024 race by 2 points, and suggested that Mr. Steil was clearly politically endangered if there was indeed a “Democratic Wave” in 2026. When looking at the statistics from Mr. Steil’s race, I clearly read the wrong column; he won by 12 points in 2024. One has to assume that the Democratic Wave would have to be a tsunami for him to lose his seat. On the other hand, his Republican colleague, U.S. WI Rep. Derrick Van Orden representing the Wisconsin Third Congressional District, did, as I indicated in that same note, win his seat by about 3 points in 2024, and must be feeling a little uneasy at present.]

All that said, we’re back to the First Negotiation Strategy Commandment: Always assume that the other guy (in a genderless sense) is at least as bright as you are, and knows at least as much about the given circumstances as you do.

Mr. Trump and his people can read polls. That’s why at least the initial pivotal decisions next year will be theirs, not ours. The President’s advisors could attempt to correct course — try to get Mr. Trump to act less … Trump-like. (There is an eon of time before the midterms, as the late Marquette University Basketball Coach Al McGuire might say; President George H. W. Bush’s popularity was over 50% exactly one year before the 1992 election, and he still lost. Popularity can just as readily go up as down.) I am pretty sure that they are too smart for that. Although Mr. Trump could be saved from his ways in spite of himself – e.g., the economy could inexplicably improve for the financially stressed 80%, or he could get credit for reducing Americans healthcare concerns because enough House Republicans, to save their own political skins and despite Mr. Trump, work with House Democrats to restore Affordable Care Act subsidies — it is blatantly obvious to all with the IQ of a rock that Mr. Trump is viscerally incapable of changing his ways. So unless Mr. Trump receives unexpected political gifts that he doesn’t himself earn, one can seemingly confidently assume that the President’s advisors recognize that if they hope to stave off a Democratic House takeover in 2027, they will need to go on the offensive with division, distraction, intimidation, and lies:

Assume that there will be fears expressed in each of the districts currently represented by politically imperiled Congressional Republicans that a male highschooler transitioning to female is considering joining their girls high school basketball team. It won’t matter that the young person may have no more interest in hitting nor ability to hit a free throw than I do.

Assume that the Haitians in Springfield, OH, will be claimed to be resuming their diet of cats and dogs, joined by Somalis in Minneapolis.

Assume that mountains of federal largesse will suddenly be voted by the Republican Congress for these imperiled Republicans’ districts.

Assume that every murder in a “Blue City” will be reported endlessly in alt-right media following the event – the more heinous the act, the longer the coverage. They’ll get bonus points if the murder is committed by an immigrant or a person of color.

Assume that unprecedented amounts of campaign contributions will shower upon these 25 districts.

Assume an exponential increase of baseless claims of potential voter fraud.

Assume an aggressive effort to purge certain liberal-profile voters from critical districts’ registered rolls.

Assume unprecedented voter intimidation tactics; specifically, assume that ICE will make clear its intent to be in as close a proximity to polling places of heavily Latino swing districts as the law will allow – and that ICE will be stopping all of Latin descent to check their identifications as they attempt to enter and/or exit the polling place perimeter.

Assume lawsuits seeking to limit the times and places that voters can cast their ballots.

Assume that those who follow alt-right media will continue to live in their own alternate reality. We have Fox News Channel on our cable package. Although I can’t stomach it, TLOML will occasionally switch over when CNN is broadcasting an event or major story which tends to reflect badly on the Regime. Fox is NEVER covering it, at least while she is tuned in.

If as of the beginning of October, 2026, credible polls indicate that the above and like efforts seem unlikely to prevent a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, expect:

An October surprise. It could involve foreign policy, but more likely a bribe like a $250 “Trump 250^Th Bonus” to every American.

That the Regime will at least consider establishing a pretext to declare Martial Law and suspend elections.

Expecting a more comforting message as we begin the New Year? In what I hope is one of the few areas I share with Mr. Trump, you can’t say that I didn’t let you know what I was thinking. 😉 The religious days of the Holidays are over. The maxim, “Forewarned is forearmed,” is so common that it isn’t even attributed to anybody. (I actually checked.) While I have faith that the Almighty has provided many ways to achieve tranquility in the next life, I would submit that He (using a male pronoun for a genderless being) leaves it up to us to maintain – always peacefully — our tranquility in this one (although I do have faith that He’ll give us a little help if we ask for it 😊). Fortunately, as citizens of the United States of America, we still retain peaceful means to maintain the rights that the Founding Fathers envisioned for us a quarter of a millennium ago. I do believe that Americans who embrace the message of Thomas Jefferson – that all of us of every persuasion should have an equal opportunity to have a say in our nation’s future, and contribute to and be part of the promise of America – can make a comeback this year. So be ready for anything, and make your voice heard throughout the coming year. I do believe that such will make a difference – if in no other way, through the reinforcement of others. There is strength in numbers.

So maybe we do have decisions to make about what we do this year, after all. There is comfort in that.

Happy New Year.

A Rare Second Holiday Post

So today, I was out on a non-Holiday errand, and the person working with me asked me cheerily, “Are you ready for Christmas?” I replied the way I have a hundred times over the years to the same question we all often hear: “I’m always ready for Christmas. I’m ready for next year’s Christmas the day after Christmas. It’s because every year TLOML does all the work to make our celebration great – all the thinking, all the planning, all the cooking, all the preparing. I stay out of her way.”

Although your household may allocate Holiday preparation responsibilities more evenly than we do – although in our household’s case, our celebrations are always festive and thoughtful because TLOML does it all, and I stay out of her way – there is frequently one person, often but not always Mom or Grandma, who is primarily responsible for the warmth of a Holiday gathering. If you are that person, WE ALL THANK YOU. If you’re not that person – and we all know who we are 😉 — make sure that you let the family member or friend who has done the lion’s share of the work to make your Holiday gathering special know that you appreciate what s/he has done.

Have a wonderful time.

What Makes … a Christian?

One of the advantages of my consciously stepping back from a day-to-day focus on the machinations of the Trump Administration is that it has enabled me to read across a wider gamut of my long-term mental reading checklist. Over the last couple of months – entirely by coincidence; no Armageddon in mind 😊 – I happened to pick up a series of volumes addressing when and by whom the Christian Gospels were written – which in fact is a story of how Christianity evolved in the decades after the Lord’s death. I had been intending to work a number of those volumes’ authors’ premises into this Christmas message.

As I labored to blend what I had said in the past with what I had recently learned, the result was becoming unduly long and unwieldy (I know, I know – it’s never seemed to bother me before. 😉) Even so, it seemed best to return to a discussion of these authors’ assertions at some point in the near future, with a suitable introductory warning for those that have no interest. In the meantime, some of you who might be willing to wade through that post when it is published can consider it a Holiday gift from the Noise that you will have no need to determine whether you have the sufficient internal fortitude to take it on until after the Holidays.

A second major reason I decided to defer a major discussion is that my recent reading has arguably increased my knowledge without markedly altering my own fundamental beliefs expressed here in earlier notes. What follows are excerpts from a post that I have published here in 2023 and 2024, including the “preliminary note.” Since the edits I’ve made from the earlier Holiday posts in no way alter its substance, I am going to take the liberty of not indicating them. May you have wonderful and blessed Holidays with family and friends.

[A preliminary note: my comments below will undoubtedly reflect my Roman Catholic training, and may not relate exactly to all Christian faiths.]

As Christmas is upon us, I’ve reflected upon what I think makes … a Christian. Traditional Christian theology holds that Jesus of Nazareth was God made man, conceived in the womb of a virgin without sin, who came into the world to teach us an affirmative life of love (as a complement rather than as a contradiction to Judaic law, which I understand tends to focus on prohibitions), and willingly died as a sacrifice to God the Father as expiation for the sins of humankind. His themes as recorded in the Gospels – what Christians call, “the Good News” — are compelling but relatively few. What theologians have erected upon them over the last two millennia can be likened to an exponentially mushrooming coral reef.

I’m pretty confident that the hierarchy of my Roman Catholic Church would take significant issue with some of what follows; they might well consider me a fallen-away Catholic, perhaps even a fallen-away Christian. That’s as may be. One tenet that I am confident that religious scholars of most if not all faiths agree upon: each of us is responsible for his/her own soul. I personally would add another tenet, with which many of these worthies might not agree: That those of us who claim to believe in Him can, at best, only do what we have faith He wants. During the last 60 years – let alone the last 2000 years — there have been Popes who have had such different theological emphases that such differences have seemed to come precariously close to differences in kind. I don’t see how those of us with no claim to infallibility can expect to have any greater degree of enlightenment or unanimity.

The strictest view of Christianity is that followed by those who rigidly adhere to all of the dictates of the hierarchy of their given Christian Church. (Some – including Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson – maintain that they are following the Bible’s precepts. I respectfully disagree. The Bible can be cited for just about anything anybody wants. It’s a Church’s elders who decide which of the Bible’s passages will be emphasized, which ignored.) From the Roman Catholic perspective, strict Catholics would be those whose beliefs include, as the Church hierarchy declares: that the physical expression of homosexual love is a sin; that Mary, the Mother of Jesus – for whom I have the deepest reverence — was not only a virgin when the Lord was conceived in her womb, but was ever-virgin (i.e., never engaged in sexual relations despite the fact that she was a married woman); that women are inherently unqualified to be priests; and that it is a sin to fail to attend Mass on the Church’s designated Holy Days of Obligation.

Abiding by a set of such rules is the correct approach for some. Everyone finds spiritual solace in his or her own way. Not all can be as unquestioning of church elders’ pronouncements.

A second, less formalistic view holds that Jesus is the Son of God, but that the Lord’s fundamental message focused little on legalisms and mostly on love. Jesus did seemingly pay lesser heed to ritualistic observance of religious rules: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings.” (Matthews 23: 13); “Who among you, if your son or ox falls into a cistern, would not [despite Judaic law] immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 14: 5). This at first does appear to provide a theological safety net for those reluctant to abide by rigid dictates; that said, the core of the Lord’s teaching, while simple, is in fact exceedingly challenging in our competitive, materialistic (capitalistic? 😉 ) culture: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22: 37 – 39); “[L]ove your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6: 27-31); “[I]t is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19: 24). Finally, when one analyzes it perhaps the most perilous line in all of Scripture, recited by rote by millions of Christians every day: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us [Emphasis added].”

If you’re shifting a bit in your chair as you’re reminded of these, you’re not alone. These teachings are something to strive for – while setting an unnerving standard.

Finally: Does one have to believe that Jesus was God in order to be considered a Christian? I suspect that the hierarchy of every Christian denomination would answer resoundingly in the affirmative, many presumably quoting John 14: 6: “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ [Emphasis Added].” Put aside the fact that biblical scholars agree that John was the last Gospel written, and that John reports Jesus as affirmatively declaring his divinity in a manner that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, written closer in time to Jesus’ life, fail to record. (I think biblical scholars also agree that none of the Gospels were written by the men to whom they are respectively attributed.) Even so: Is the way to salvation only through Him, or can it be through living His message (whether or not one is even aware that it was His message)? Have the deceased human beings who have lived existences of caring and giving — among them, Jews, Muslims, those subscribing to Eastern faiths, indigenous peoples around the world, and those who follow no specific faith – been condemned because they have/had either never heard of Jesus or do/did not accept his divinity?

I reject the notion that a loving God could be so harsh to so many of the creatures He has brought forth.

At the same time, we are all in need forgiveness. Our faith lies in the confidence that the Almighty will look past our transgressions if we try hard enough.

“But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ … [T]hey went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus … said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She replied, “No one, sir.’ Then Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more.’” (John 8: 7 – 11).

Not sinning in the future is probably not a realistic expectation for most of us; trying to live a more giving life perhaps is. So to all Christians – which I would submit includes all of those of any or no faith who are trying to live in accordance with the principles the Lord set forth:

Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year.

Ketchup on Vichyssoise

May the Chair grant me a moment of personal privilege?

You know, I’d like to like exotic fish dishes and French cuisine; I really would. (Doesn’t it make you feel classy to say words like, “Vichyssoise”?) I just don’t. I like hot dogs with ketchup, steak, pizza, Wisconsin fish fries, and scrambled eggs with bacon (crispy) and hash browns (well done). I just do.

In fact, I seemingly mostly like the food that President Donald Trump is reported to like.

That said, I don’t see a need to rename New York City’s Le Bernardin, “IHOP Bernardin,” or Chicago’s Le Bouchon, “McDonald’s Bouchon.”

You know, I’d like to have a broader taste in music. I’d like to like opera. I just don’t – they’re literally not speaking my language. I’d like to like classical music – I even put it on for a while, while I exercised, thinking it would grow on me – but it didn’t and I don’t. I know millions of Americans like country music; I don’t like twang, and don’t get excited about the fact that you hankered to be a cowboy, your woman left you, your truck broke down, and your dog died. I don’t like rap music, and am pretty sure that I wouldn’t be that moved by your message even if I could make out a single word of you’re saying. I’m a Beatles Baby Boomer. I like soft rock, Muzak, and now in my later years – wait for it – Frank and Tony Bennett. I just do.

That doesn’t mean that I see a need to rename the Metropolitan Opera House, “The Metropolitan Easy Listenin’ Opera House,” or The Grand Ole Opry, “The Deuter Grand Ole Opry,” or Rapper Jay-Z’s 40/40 Club – I bet you’re impressed I have even heard of Jay-Z – “Sinatra’s 40/40.”

You know where I’m going with this. Although there are occasions for formal dress and for cargo pants, they don’t belong together. “The Donald Trump and The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts”? Putting aside the fact that there are too many “The’s” there, you’ve got to know your place, man. Even I know that you don’t dump ketchup on fine French cuisine.

Mr. Trump continues to revert. He has spent his entire adult life putting his name on buildings, seemingly thinking it will bring him immortality — that it’ll mean that we’ll have to remember him when he’s gone — that he won’t simply … disappear. This fear, this preservation instinct, is arguably becoming more acute as he manifestly physically degrades and his popularity plummets.

I’ve obviously just taken your time not with a matter of personal privilege, but rather of personal pique, clearly not even remotely related to the areas in which the President poses a true threat to our democracy and those around the world. Even so, Mr. Trump either doesn’t realize – or more likely, refuses to admit to himself – that if our American way of life survives his presidency, before the end of the next President’s first month in office, his name will be stricken from all federal buildings, as were those of the discredited Pharaohs of ancient Egypt.

I Was Actually …

Last night, I did something I almost never do now, to protect my sanity and psychological equilibrium: I actually watched President Donald Trump speak.

Notwithstanding my recent forbearance, I, as you, have seen him speak many times. Many times, I have been infuriated. Many times, I have been terrified. Many times, I have been both.

Last night was different.

As a political junkie, I have been watching Presidents speak for over 60 years. Some have been soaring orators; others, not so much. I have always rated Mr. Trump a compelling if offensive speaker. Even so, his speech last night was, without doubt, the worst Presidential Address I have ever seen. He was the quintessential crazy geezer spouting nonsense as everyone tries to edge away. (I get it; at least you didn’t have to tell me; but I’m not president. 😉) It was … awful.

His “I’m the best, Biden’s the worst, everything I’ve done is good, everything Biden and the radical left has done is bad, this is the greatest anyone has ever seen, this was the worst anyone has ever seen, nobody could believe how great I’ve done” schtick has, until now, been wildly annoying fabrication; this time, it seemed a pathetic careen between delusion and desperation.

I’m the only one either of us know who is enough of an idiot to admit that recently something I said has come back and resonated with me 😉, but it did. In a post about a month ago speculating on Mr. Trump’s ultimate intentions for his Administration, I indicated, “His 2024 campaign was about avoiding jail, making money, and retribution.” The significance of that observation, if true, didn’t strike me until later. All his 2024 campaign may have been about for him was avoiding jail, making money, and retribution. Winning was the thing – his goal would be accomplished the day he won — not governing. While winning undoubtedly is the primary thing – and worrying secondarily about what they’re going to do if they win – is probably true for all major party presidential candidates, I would suggest that for Mr. Trump, winning was the only thing. Granting that he has genuine feelings about a few policy issues – he hates immigrants of color, and loves tariffs, tax cuts, and low interest rates – inflation (now “affordability,” the new buzz word) – the key concern for the decisive segment of voters that put him over the top in 2024 — was just a talking point to him, and he neither knows nor cares what to do about it. Anyone who takes a high school economics class will tell you that tariffs and lower interest rates spur inflation, not squash it, and if our experience through Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Mr. Trump has proven anything, it’s that cutting tax rates the way they did helps the rich a lot, while the relative pennies that trickle to those of lesser means haven’t come close to counteracting the crippling economic disparity we have seen rise among our people over the last 45 years. When Mr. Trump won, those who voted for him for help on economic issues expected him to help them. For him, when he won, he was done.

An aside, regarding Mr. Trump’s announcement of a $1776 “Warrior Dividend” for, in the President’s words, “every soldier.” In the short time before I turned the TV off, I saw one liberal pundit applaud the move. On a substantive basis, I absolutely support the initiative. (An aside within an aside, from anyone who has taken a sixth grade civics class: “Doesn’t Congress have to approve this ‘Warrior Dividend?’ Answer: Yes; but will any politician from either party running for reelection vote against it? You take that one.) That said, Mr. Trump does nothing that he doesn’t think will benefit him. What I see is White House unease that given the wildly misguided, condescending session Mr. Trump and his moronic Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, recently had with our military’s top officers, and the Administration’s blowing up tiny boats in international waters that many military legal experts have called war crimes – potentially wantonly exposing soldiers who follow those and like orders to later prosecution – the military no longer trusts its the Commander-in-Chief and will not necessarily follow him down questionable paths. He’s trying to buy back its loyalty.

I expected to end last evening infuriated or terrified, perhaps both. There were instead instances at which I laughed out loud at the patent buffoonery, the rapid-fire, scatter-shot, oblivious carnival barker delivery. Not in any way discounting the fact that he remains the most powerful human on earth, or that he has and certainly will continue to try to subvert our democracy for his own gain, I was saddened for those financially stressed Americans who placed their faith in him. For him, I was actually … embarrassed.