Please pardon a personal reflection; this past week, my mother-in-law passed away at the age of 101.
She was a Grand Dame in every sense of the word. She had a flair – an arresting presence at evening gatherings, fine gown, hair always appointed — but was equally at home canning, cleaning house, and in jeans tending her peony garden. Throughout their 36 years of marriage, she remained a mistress as well as wife to my father-in-law. I know that she considered their greatest legacy to be the five outstanding individuals they raised.
She was tough. She never complained. She overcame the shock of my father-in-law’s passing (he left us way too soon), as well as a later bout with a disease that frequently kills. It is my belief that she lasted as long as she did because in addition to fairly favorable genes, she always looked forward, never back. She focused on the positive. Concentrating on the next thing, no matter what challenge might be confronting her, sustained her. Even as she passed 100, she told TLOML, “I have more to do.”
She was savvy, and could be straightforward in her judgements. Although ethnically German, she frequently reminded me of her sprinkle of Irish blood. Since I’m Irish, I found her manner delightful … except when she directed her spleen at me. 😉
In recent years, she could neither see nor hear well, and had become somewhat less steady on her feet, but she eschewed a walker (it wasn’t her). When she was merely in her mid-90s and TLOML and I had already retired, we came to her apartment so that the ladies could go to one of her medical appointments. I mentioned that I was a little tired, and might rest on her couch while they were gone. Her reply: “Oh, dear — use my bed. And if you’re hungry, have whatever you want – you know where everything is.” If only for a moment, I felt the many-decades-past reassurance of having a parent take over.
On a subsequent occasion, a number of family members came by to visit her, and it happened that I was the last through her door. She looked up, and asked me with a smile, “How long have I known you?” I knew that at that moment, she wasn’t seeing me as I now appear – Medicare-aged, grayed, seamed — but as I looked when I first appeared at her front door at 18, only months removed from high school graduation, with the temerity to have asked her daughter out on a date. I did a quick calculation. “Over 51 years, Ma,” I answered. “That’s a long time,” she said with a wider smile.
At a particularly raucous out-of-town gathering of her clan about 20 years ago, a hotel employee appeared and indicated that there had been complaints about the noise, and stated that if we didn’t quiet down, we risked being asked to leave the establishment. When told what the employee had said, she grinned, “We’ve been thrown out of better places than this.”
Never again. She’s now resting in the best of all places – and that place is all the more charmed by her presence.
The following text appeared in the “AI Generated” response to the Google search of the so-called, “Beer Hall Putsch” that I conducted on the morning of January 6, 2025:
“The Beer Hall Putsch, also known as the Munich Putsch, was a failed coup d’état attempt by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party on November 8–9, 1923:
Goals
The Nazis planned to overthrow the Weimar Republic, seize control of the state government, and march on Berlin. They also wanted to establish a new government based on race and create a unified Greater German Reich. …
Aftermath
Hitler was charged with treason and sentenced to five years in prison, but was released after nine months.”
There is a link to Wikipedia description of the event below. The piece is fairly long, but those who haven’t studied the history of the Nazi rise to power may find it of interest. I do note three brief parts of the Wikipedia entry, as it existed on the morning of January 6, 2025:
“The Beer Hall Putsch, also known as the Munich Putsch, was a failed coup d’é·tat by Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler, Generalquartiermeister Erich Ludendorff and other Kampfbund leaders in Munich, Bavaria, on 8–9 November 1923, during the Weimar Republic. Approximately two thousand Nazis marched on the Feldherrnhalle, in the city centre, but were confronted by a police cordon, which resulted in the deaths of 15 Nazis, four police officers, and one bystander.”
Second, elsewhere in the entry, Hitler is quoted as declaring to rally his supporters on the night of the putsch, “One last thing I can tell you. Either the German revolution begins tonight or we will all be dead by dawn!”
Finally, the section entitled, “Legacy,” provides in part:
“The 15 fallen insurgents, as well as the bystander Karl Kuhn, were regarded as the first “blood martyrs” of the Nazi Party …”
“Shortly after [Hitler] came to power, a memorial was placed at the south side of the Feldherrnhalle crowned with a swastika. The back of the memorial read Und ihr habt doch gesiegt! (‘And you triumphed nevertheless!’).”
“The people stood by and watched; the rulers, meanwhile, sneered at him and said, ‘He saved others, let him save himself if he is the chosen one, the Messiah of God.’”
Luke 23:35
The MAGA Messiah will be inaugurated today. He saved himself; let us see how many he saves of those who have chosen him.
[Hopefully, any fans of Agatha Christie’s novels will excuse my adoption of her title to a 1927 mystery referring to four leaders of a global criminal ring. 🙂 ]
All are aware that any incoming president must make literally thousands of appointments to staff the posts discharging the government functions for which s/he is responsible. At the time this is typed, four of President-Elect Donald Trump’s nominees (hereafter herein, the “Big Four”) appear to be garnering the most scrutiny: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as Health and Human Services Department (HHS) Secretary; former Fox News Commentator Pete Hegseth as Department of Defense Secretary (DoD); former U.S. HI Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI); and Trump Jack-of-All-Trades Kash Patel as FBI Director. Although one might be tempted to suggest that attempting to discern the relative threats each presents to our republic is akin to deciding whether one would rather be executed by lethal injection, electric chair, beheading, or firing squad (I’m a firing squad guy, myself; at least you’d take it standing up 😉 ), let’s take a look.
In a 2019 post about presidential cabinet appointments, I indicated, “… I follow an admittedly simple two-factor analysis in deciding whether I think the nominee should be confirmed: Is the nominee objectively qualified for the position? If so, is there any other objective factor that should nonetheless disqualify him/her from the positon for which s/he has been nominated (e.g., prior criminal conviction, demonstrated drug abuse problem, etc.)? Since the Constitution provides our President the power to nominate whom[ever] s/he considers appropriate, I don’t believe that a nominee’s subjective leanings or policy positions (if within the bounds of law) should be part of the equation.”
If I’m going to be consistent with past Noise, this is what I see looking at Mr. Trump’s Big Four:
Mr. Kennedy: I find Mr. Kennedy more nutty than nefarious, but he’s still dangerous. The New York Times recently reported that in May, 2021, Mr. Kennedy filed a petition with the Federal Food and Drug Administration seeking to have its authorization for the then-recently-released COVID vaccinations rescinded — when estimates were beginning to indicate that the vaccines were saving thousands of lives. It’s obvious that he’s not qualified to lead HHS. He should be rejected on this ground. We don’t need to consider any allegedly questionable personal elements of Mr. Kennedy’s background. That said, there is a silver lining for those who are concerned about the disruption he might cause if confirmed: Mr. Kennedy has had no experience running a huge bureaucracy such as HHS; he is going to have to maneuver through thousands of HHS scientists who are more qualified and knowledgeable about their bureaucracy than he is; and although I am confident that Mr. Trump relishes the consternation that he has caused by Mr. Kennedy’s nomination, I doubt he is going to want to spend a lot of political capital fighting the battles Mr. Kennedy’s inclinations might generate (note how Mr. Trump already assured the public that we are not going to end the polio vaccine).
Mr. Hegseth: It is obvious that Mr. Hegseth, like Mr. Kennedy, is completely unqualified to discharge the post for which he has been nominated. Although — in the words of the pro-Trump, Murdoch Family-controlled Wall Street Journal Editorial Board — Mr. Hegseth “has never run an organization of any size,” he is seeking to lead the organization with either the most or the second most employees in the world (I’ve seen one indication that India’s Ministry of Defence might be larger). During his hearing, he appeared to have limited knowledge of the world or of the strategic issues DoD faces. He should be rejected. There is no need to get as far as his views of women or his multitude of attendant personal failings. [Even so, when your own mom calls you out – even though Mr. Hegseth’s mother has now retracted her reported past comments about her son (without denying she made them) – that’s bad, Man. 😉 ] That said, there is a silver lining for those who are concerned about the disruption he might cause if confirmed: the Pentagon is arguably America’s most entrenched bureaucracy. Although Messrs. Trump and Hegseth can certainly fire a number of generals they find to be “woke,” Mr. Hegseth might find it easier to physically push the Empire State Building than to move our military colossus where it doesn’t want to go. In what I hope will not prove to be the most Pollyannaish comment ever made here, I have trouble believing that many senior officers – who are made of sterner stuff than career politicians — are going to be willing at Messrs. Trump’s and Hegseth’s instance to use American military force against American citizens who may hereafter be demonstrating peacefully against Trump Administration policies.
Ms. Gabbard: It is ironic that one of the two of the Big Four about whom I have the deepest misgivings perhaps fares the best within the framework I have outlined. If I am to be consistent with what I have said before – that a nominee’s subjective leanings or policy positions (if within the bounds of law) should not be part of the determination regarding the nominee’s confirmation – Mr. Gabbard’s clear affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin and sympathy for Russian claims should not be a bar to her confirmation. Mr. Trump’s own affinity for Putin is well established no matter whom he names to be DNI. Whether Ms. Gabbard has the background to be DNI – to deftly sift through the oceans of intelligence gathered by our resources, and effectively inform the President — is seemingly a subjective rather than an objective determination. Her 2020 presidential candidacy, her service in the U.S. House of Representatives, and her interactions in the foreign realm (no matter how misguided they seem to me) arguably lend weight to her resume; on the other hand, I’ve seen a Wall Street Journal report indicating that she recently unsettled some Republican Senators by being unable to describe what the DNI does. Mr. Trump must think she has the necessary qualifications, and he won the election. I am not aware of any reports of extraneous personal issues that would constitute a bar to Ms. Gabbard’s nomination. That said, a conceptual framework only takes one so far. If I got a vote on Ms. Gabbard’s nomination, I would vote NO.
Mr. Patel: I will mostly set forth quotes I’ve gleaned elsewhere:
The ACLU: “Patel has described his desire to target perceived enemies, including the press and civil servants. In September, Patel stated, ‘We [must] collectively join forces to take on the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen, and no it’s not Washington, DC, it’s the mainstream media and these people out there in the fake news. That is our mission!’”
The Washington Post: “Kash Patel, Donald Trump’s pick to lead the FBI, has suggested that multiple individuals previously critical of the president-elect should be criminally investigated, according to a review by The Washington Post of dozens of hours of appearances on conservative podcasts and TV interviews over the past two years.… Patel floated criminal probes of lawmakers and witnesses who gave evidence to the Jan. 6 committee…. Those include former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson and police officers who testified about defending the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack.… If confirmed by the Senate, Patel would have the authority to launch FBI investigations .… In June 2023, Patel told Donald Trump Jr. on his podcast that ‘the legacy media has been proven to be the criminal conspirators of the government gangsters,’ referring to roughly five dozen members of the ‘deep state’ listed in his 2023 book, ‘Government Gangsters.’ And in December 2023, Patel told former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon on his podcast that journalistsshould be investigated,repeating false claims that Trump had won the 2020 election. ‘We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,’ Patel said. ‘We’re going to come after you. Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.’”
The Roll Call (a publication rated “Center” by All Sides): “Kash Patel is set to face questions during a bid to be the next FBI director about his history of fierce criticism of current and former federal officials, including a list of 60 people he has deemed members of the ‘Executive Branch Deep State’ that critics have dubbed an enemies list. The list appears in an appendix of Patel’s book, ‘Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy.’ It includes people such as FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and President Joe Biden. There are high-profile Democrats, Trump administration officials who have rejected his false 2020 election fraud claims and other administration officials who have since spoken out critically about his behind-the-scenes conduct. Patel used the book to fume against what he called the ‘deep state,’ a pejorative term for current and former federal officials, which he said was the ‘most dangerous threat to our democracy.’ … [S]ome critics have raised concerns that he will wield the sprawling investigative authority of the FBI to investigate and prosecute Trump’s enemies, if he’s confirmed. The president-elect, who flirted with authoritarian themes during his campaign, has called for the prosecution of perceived foes…. Patel’s list includes Biden administration officials as well as first-term Trump officials who have been critical of Trump, such as former Attorney General William Barr; former national security adviser John Bolton; Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper…. In his memoir, Barr wrote that he told White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that Patel would get a role at the FBI ‘over my dead body.’ ‘Patel had virtually no experience that would qualify him to serve at the highest level of the world’s preeminent law enforcement agency,’ Barr wrote. NBC News reported that Bolton, who after leaving office lambasted Trump’s fitness for the presidency, said Trump had picked Patel to be his Lavrentiy Beria, an infamous Stalin police chief, and said that the ‘Senate should reject [Patel’s] nomination 100-0.’ … Patel, in the book, said the list was not exhaustive and did not include ‘other corrupt actors of the first order,’ such as Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who will be a senator and able to vote on a Patel nomination.”
A link to the full list included in Mr. Patel’s book is provided below. Unlike the bureaucratic and institutional constraints confronted by incoming Cabinet Secretaries, an FBI Director has fewer restraints. An exhaustive investigation of a private citizen such as Ms. Hutchinson, no matter how unwarranted, has the power to emotionally and financially destroy the subject’s life. Although he has reportedly recently assured a couple of Senators, including Democratic U.S. PA Sen. John Fetterman, that if confirmed he will not seek to prosecute Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies, you make up your own mind. (I do seem to recall Mr. Trump’s first-term Supreme Court nominees assuring the Senate that Roe v. Wade was settled precedent.) Mr. Patel’s statements make it appear that he is blissfully unaware of a little-known provision called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and I’m pretty sure that his declarations are evidence of notions that would be unconstitutional if implemented by an FBI Director. I’m with Messrs. Barr and Bolton on this one.
As anyone following reports of current Congressional machinations is aware, the majority of the Big Four appears highly likely to be confirmed, and perhaps all of them will be – I guess demonstrating that in the last analysis, it really doesn’t matter whether you’re injected, electrocuted, beheaded, or shot.
I’ve been a bit amused by some commentators’ sometimes-painful attempts since the election to provide a more benevolent gloss to the prospective actions of the incoming Administration. (I know, I know; a dark Irish sense of humor 😉 .) Although such is the American way – we have generally tended to rally around a new President, at least initially – Mr. Trump is not a new president. I give the President-Elect unqualified credit for consistency. What you see is what you get. The time for emotion has passed. His nominations of the Big Four, together with his bizarre suggested annexation of Canada and even the implied willingness to use force in Panama and Greenland, constitute compelling evidence that we are entering another staging of the divisive, vindictive, chaotic theater of the absurd we had during the first Trump Administration. I only hope that the Americans who voted for Mr. Trump understood what they’re going to get. You know the wag’s definition of insanity; I would prefer not to think that these citizens are completely insane.
Think this is only so much Noise? I sincerely hope you’re right. To use a phrase that Mr. Trump and I both appreciate: We’ll see what happens.
Perhaps our most beloved Wisconsinite, the same man on- and off-air. Although the Brewers retired Number 50 in 2005 in honor of his then-50 years in baseball, he went on to actually broadcast Brewer games for over 50 years, through this past season – reporting in all but the first year that the team has been in existence. One of the few primarily “local” broadcasters – the Dodgers’ Vin Scully is only other who comes immediately to mind – known and loved nationwide. He has arguably been more important to the soul of the franchise than any single player. If the Brewers had a Mount Rushmore, his would be one of the images. For years to come and for generations of Brewer fans, listening to a Brewer broadcast won’t seem quite “right.”
You were always front row. You yourself never missed a tag. Rest in Peace.
At the end of 2022, I observed in these pages that “at this [halfway] point in his term,” I considered President Joe Biden to be most consequential president America had had since Franklin Roosevelt.
I will spare you an extended litany of pros and cons of the Biden presidency; you have lived the last four years. Although the President’s defenders are now touting his many substantive achievements, four aspects stand out to me: the effective manner in which his Administration dispensed the COVID vaccines becoming available as he took office, reviving a country literally and figuratively crippled by the pandemic; the manner in which he led an economy – which at the time he took office economists were debating only whether it was headed for a “hard” or soft” landing — through four years of uninterrupted growth; the manner in which he protected America and other global democracies by fostering cohesion among NATO allies when Russia invaded Ukraine at a point that the alliance was in its greatest disarray since its founding; and – perhaps most importantly – the decent, stable, open manner in which he conducted the presidency.
That said, they don’t render a final assessment of a starter’s performance when he’s halfway through the ballgame. Mr. Biden’s second half wasn’t as strong as his first half; he didn’t aggressively address the chaos existing at our southern border until too late, and — crucially, even aside from the ultimate political ramifications – he should have recognized in late 2022 that he substantively simply didn’t have the strength to perform his office effectively for another six years, no matter whom the Republicans nominated.
Ever since starting these pages, I have had the idea of doing a post setting forth my ranking of the worst to the best American presidents of my lifetime (which, despite the hoary nature of these entries, only extends as far back President Harry Truman 🙂 ). If I ever do write such a note, I now expect that Mr. Biden will be placed not at the top, but somewhere in the middle, alongside Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Mr. Johnson’s extraordinary domestic policy achievements were ultimately overshadowed by Vietnam. Mr. Nixon’s extraordinary foreign policy achievements were ultimately overshadowed by Watergate.
While I place exceptional weight on the fact that Mr. Biden is a genuinely good man who means well, in 2020 he didn’t run for president and we didn’t elect him for his managerial, economic, or even foreign policy acumen. He ran and we hired him to perform one mission: rid us of Donald Trump.
I wasn’t going to post on this, since the point to be made here has been made in a number of other quarters, and has undoubtedly already occurred to you; but a metaphor that seemed most apt struck me, and I can’t resist. This week, we had a Candy Land Certification of Donald Trump’s November electoral victory.
Virtually all are aware of the board game, Candy Land. We played Candy Land quite a bit with our grandchildren over the Holidays, as we had with our children at the same ages. A player’s victory or loss depends entirely upon what s/he draws from a shuffled deck of colored cards that coordinate with colored squares on the path to the Candy Castle. Wikipedia describes the game as “… suitable for young children. No strategy is involved … .”
That said, precisely what makes the game suitable for young children – its simplicity and random nature – makes it difficult for an oldster to “fix” the game so that a young player wins, even if the oldster is so inclined. (Some are, some aren’t; we’ll leave the benefit of each approach to parenting and grandparenting specialists 🙂 ). Over the Holidays, we found that our young family members would be happy when they won – peace would reign – or very upset when they lost – tantrums might erupt. They are all wonderful kids; we are inordinately proud of each of them; their behavior was the same as I remember our kids’ being 35 years ago, and I am confident that they will all learn to maturely deal with defeat as their parents have. (I recall that my own ability to handle defeat in my early grade school years left a lot to be desired; one might well infer from these notes that my demeanor hasn’t improved much 😉 ).
You know where I’m going with this. Despite all the bromides now being cast out about “the peaceful transfer of power,” peace is only prevailing in our land because Mr. Trump won. If the vote totals between Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris had been exactly reversed in the key swing states – Ms. Harris lost the three “Blue Wall” states that would have been enough for her to claim an Electoral College majority by an average of slightly over 1% — our land would have been torn apart over the last two months by lies, threats, spurious lawsuits, violence, MAGA state legislators’ attempts to override their states’ vote tabulations, and Congressional MAGAs’ baseless procedural challenges to Ms. Harris’ certification.
But this week, we had no tantrums. The kids are happy because they’re getting to enter the Candy Castle.
As all are aware, former President Jimmy Carter, 100, died this past weekend. I’m acutely aware that a number of those reading this note can’t remember when Mr. Carter was president. As is appropriate when marking the passing of such a fine man, commentators – I noted that for the brief time we tuned in, even on Fox News – have emphasized Mr. Carter’s fundamental decency. The grotesque dichotomy between Mr. Carter’s character and that of the next occupant of the Oval Office need not be remarked upon here; it speaks for itself. (I do admit that I relish the notion that older Evangelical leaders’ contemplations of Mr. Carter may be causing them to rue, however briefly, how far their movement has strayed over the last 50 years for what it considers expediency.)
As someone who does remember Mr. Carter’s presidency, a number of lessons have occurred to me:
First, he ran a revolutionary campaign in 1976. As hard as it might be for younger Americans to now appreciate, the Deep South was nowhere, politically, in 1976. To be successful, any presidential candidate’s timing has to be right, and has been repeatedly remarked, Mr. Carter’s sincere morality provided the perfect contrast to the sordid revelations of then-former President Richard Nixon’s Watergate; but it was more than that. Mr. Carter and his advisors [Chief Campaign Strategist (and later White House Chief of Staff) Hamilton Jordan and his closest confidante (aside from Mrs. Carter) (and later White House Press Secretary) Jody Powell (both of whom were about 20 years younger than Mr. Carter, and both of whom passed away in the 2000s)] devised a strategy in which he would make an early first impression – and hopefully win – the Iowa Caucuses and then contrast himself from his multiple liberal adversaries for the Democratic nomination by taking positions that were more conservative (except on civil rights, where Mr. Carter’s record was impeccable; African American support was his base) than those held by the rest of the field. Nobody outside of Iowa had ever heard of the Iowa Caucuses before 1976. The Carter Campaign realized that Mr. Carter’s background – an Evangelical, a farmer, a military background – was perfectly tailored for Iowa, and that the national media loved the new, the different. They made Iowa matter, he won, and rode the momentum to a victory in the New Hampshire primary. He was on his way – and won a bunch of subsequent primaries by taking about 30% of the vote while the liberal field split the remaining 70%. (President-Elect Donald Trump employed a version of the strategy — undoubtedly without recognizing the parallel to Mr. Carter’s – to win the 2016 Republican presidential nomination).
Mr. Carter’s narrow victory over then-President Gerald Ford is further evidence of a point I have made here several times in connection with my father, a rock-ribbed Republican who nonetheless passionately supported John F. Kennedy, an Irish Catholic, in 1960: Mr. Carter needed and swept the Electoral College votes of the Deep South, although I would venture that the majority of those states’ voters were closer to Mr. Ford on substantive issues than they were to Mr. Carter. It didn’t matter; Mr. Carter’s election psychologically empowered them in the same manner that Mr. Kennedy’s did for Catholics and former President Barack Obama’s did for African Americans a generation later. (When campaigning in the South, Mr. Carter would grin, “Wouldn’t it be great to have a president who doesn’t speak with an accent?” The South, which had been trending Republican before Mr. Carter’s 1976 run, returned resoundingly to Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980.) (The one group that has not been decisively motivated by common identity is women, demonstrating both why we should have a woman president, and why we don’t.)
I will venture that as president, Mr. Carter knew how to manage but didn’t know how to lead. (A criticism he himself acknowledged but didn’t agree with.) Legendary Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives “Tip” O’Neill once remarked – my words, but his meaning – that Mr. Carter knew more about policy and less about Congressional dynamics than any president he ever worked with. Last fall, we took a trip to the United Kingdom, and while there I was particularly struck by the simultaneous lunacy and brilliance of the British system. The vast majority of the UK citizens we talked to had respect for and loyalty to King Charles (although clearly not the reverence they held for his late Mum 😉 ) while mostly disparaging their elected representatives (the current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, had just assumed his post; I couldn’t remember his name, and most of them couldn’t, either). The allegiance the Brits have for Charles — whose crown in the official photo seems (aptly, to me) slightly askew – who sits in opulence, separated only by an accident of birth from the guy on a pub stool down the street from the Palace — seemed absurd to my American eyes; at the same time, no matter how contentiously Brits may disagree on the policies of the ruling government, they all have the King to rally around. Although Prime Ministers have rallied the UK – Winston Churchill being the most renowned example – for the most part, it is the Monarch who is the communal foundation. I envy the touchstone of unity that the monarchy provides UK citizens. We Americans expect our Presidents to be both King – to lead majestically – and Prime Minister – to get the minutia right. Very, very few men (not only have all of our presidents been men; I fear that all willbe men for the remainder of my lifetime) are good at both. Required to choose, we Americans seem to prefer presidents who lead with broad flourishes: in the last century, Messrs. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Obama, Trump. We seemingly have less patience for presidents, no matter how arguably successful on paper, who govern in a more ministerial fashion: Messrs. Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Biden. Mr. Carter made a fine Prime Minister but a poor King. He checked a number of substantive boxes, but failed to hold the American imagination. His challenge as president was perhaps best captured in the Iranian hostage crisis: he did, in the end, through patience and persistence, bring the hostages home – an achievement for which their families and all rejoiced on a human level – but at a cost of leaving Americans feeling impotent, humiliated by Iran, then a third-rate nation with nothing but oil going for it. What Mr. Carter achieved – saving the hostages while avoiding a Mideast war – was commendable. It is not nearly so clear that his approach was the wisest strategically.
Mr. Carter taught me a lesson about myself – one that I suspect he would not appreciate — that indeed was part of the genesis of the title of this site. Never over the last 50 years have I been as passionately for a candidate as I was for Mr. Carter in 1976. (I have since been at least as passionately against a candidate, but you know that 😉 .) In 1976, I had nothing against Mr. Ford; I had simply become a true believer in Mr. Carter. I was absolutely confident that Mr. Carter would really make a difference, truly lead us in a new direction. For me, his presidency was a terrible disappointment. [I guess that at bottom, I am among those Americans that prefer majesty (while hoping the president has an able staff in the background 🙂 ) to ministry.] In 1980, my vote for Ronald Reagan was not a vote for Mr. Reagan but a vote against Mr. Carter. If you now dismiss my initial expectations as youthful exuberance, I will not disagree; but the fact remains that between 1977 and 1981 I realized, and have always thereafter recognized, that if I could be that wrong about a candidate, any notion I had about any candidate or issue, no matter how firmly held, could simply be … only so much noise.
That said, I leave the most important lesson for last: Mr. Carter’s example after leaving the White House. I would venture that there can hardly be a more bitter blow to one’s psyche than to win the U.S. presidency – to ascend to the highest secular height that the modern world offers – to work as hard at the job as Mr. Carter did, and then … to be so humiliatingly cast aside (Mr. Reagan won 44 states). In Mr. Carter’s post presidency – I think that even the notion of a “post presidency,” and the term, “Post-President” were generated because of Mr. Carter – he taught us that even following the most emotionally devastating defeat, there is much good one can do if one has the gumption to get up and do it. So even at this time when some of us are terribly disillusioned, his example provides encouragement that there is much good to be done – not only in the realm of policy and politics, but also to better the everyday situations of those less fortunate around us.
We just need to see what can be done, and get up and do it.
Although I have watched the vast majority of the Green Bay Packers’ games this season, my interest has been less avid than in past years given my preoccupation with our descent into political cataclysm. Since the Green and Gold clinched an NFL NFC wildcard playoff berth last week and the playoffs don’t actually begin for another couple of weeks, one might question why I have suggested above that its championship run begins today.
A sports organization’s expectations are based upon its tradition and experience. I suspect that the New York Yankees and their fans are dissatisfied with the team’s 2024 performance; given the team’s dozens of World Championships, its recent World Series loss probably rendered the season a failure in their eyes. On the other hand, had the Milwaukee Brewers rather than the World Champion Los Angeles Dodgers won the National League pennant, Brewer fans would now be ecstatic with the team’s performance even if New York had swept the Brew Crew in the Fall Classic.
For the Packers, inasmuch as the franchise owns more pro football titles than any other, and given the consistent success the team has had since Brett Favre became the team’s quarterback in 1992, anything less than a championship leaves the Packer Faithful somewhat disappointed (notwithstanding the fact that the team has actually only made it to the Super Bowl three times, winning but twice, over that span). Even last year – which at the outset was considered by Packer fans a rebuilding year, with many, including me, wondering whether Quarterback Jordan Love had the right stuff – ended with Mr. Love and his young colleagues jelling at the right time and coming tantalizingly close to the making the NFC Championship game.
Despite the respectful commentary that Green Bay is currently receiving from national sports pundits, if one looks at the team’s season in its entirety, it hasn’t been as good as its record indicates. To date, it has only beaten two teams with good records, and its four losses have been administered by three of the teams that have higher playoff rankings than it does. At the same time, one of the Packers’ two “quality wins” came against the Seattle Seahawks in Seattle two weeks ago, and the squad convincingly polished off a bad New Orleans Saints team at home this past week – the kind of thrashing a good team should administer to a wanting one.
So I will venture that today, Packer fans will find out whether this year’s team has championship potential. If Green Bay beats Minnesota in Minnesota, we may have something. If it doesn’t, we probably don’t. I’m hoping for the best; a long January playoff run will provide a pleasant distraction. 🙂
[What follows is a post – which included the bracketed italicized “preliminary note” immediately below – published in these pages on December 22, 2023. (There are two italicized clarifications: the first relating to the timing of a statement by Pope Francis; the second relating to Holy Days of Obligation falling on Mondays.) As I evolve in my own faith (whether it ultimately inures to my eternal benefit or ill 😉 ), I found that when I looked back on what I entered last year that last year’s note captured my current sentiments as well as anything I might observe this year; thus, I’m taking the liberty of resetting it here. Have joyous Holidays!]
[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 (Pope Francis’ authorization [in 2023] for priests to bless same-sex couples is certainly a softening but seemingly not a reversal of the Church’s traditional position); 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 (unless the Holy Day falls on a Monday; apparently, Mondays are less Holy than other days). [Note: Catholics were required to attend Mass on Monday, December 9, 2024, for the Immaculate Conception, the first such Monday obligation I can recall in some years. Perhaps members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are reading the Noise; but if so, I am in dire theological straits 😉 .]
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:
McCoy's Noise 