Skip to content

Gluten free Jesus

First lets stipulate that there are in fact some people who are sensitive to gluten. Their numbers roughly equal the percent of the population singled out by the Occupy folks. You’d never know it by the way in which “Gluten Free!” is plastered on all manner of food items. For example, today I had some truly horrible bottled Snapple tea. It was not horrible because it was gluten free, but the fact that it did not contain this wheat byproduct was on the bottle, despite the fact that no one in their right mind would suspect a tea would be gluten full.

We go to a farmer’s market in Stonington on occasion. One of the booths features baked goods “with a conscience”. Apparently, there is also a moral component to gluten free foods. Who knew? It puts one in mind of the carbohydrate free craze of the 90s, now blessedly in the rear view mirror.

Since I am entering my geezer years, I am free to be curmudgeonly, and one of my pet mudgeons is the omnipresence of gluten free foods. So, I was more than happy to find out that one of my other pet mudgeons, the Catholic Church, has done the right thing and mandated that Jesus is absolutely, positively, not to be served in gluten free form:

Gluten has become verboten in some circles, but there is no way around it for Catholics receiving Holy Communion; a recent church directive emphatically states that the wafer known as the host must contain gluten.

The reminder comes at “the request of Pope Francis” in the form of a letter to bishops worldwide.

At one time, it was religious communities that were charged with making the wafer for celebrating the Eucharist, also known as Holy Communion, said Cardinal Robert Sarah in the letter. But today the bread can come from less-certain origins, especially online.

A Google search reveals several “gluten-free” wafers for purchase. But according to the church’s guidelines, “Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist.” The bread must be “purely of wheat.”

via NPR

Look, by the time you eat it, it isn’t wheat anymore anyway, it’s the body of Christ, unless it has gluten in it, in which case the priest’s magic trick doesn’t take hold. Take my word for it. As I’ve said before, I have a degree in theology from Our Lady of Sorrows grammar school. Everyone knows that meat is gluten free, so there’s positively no reason for the deluded gluten freers to be worried. Eat up, and don’t worry; and remember, the wine/blood is totally gluten free.

Book report

I just finished The Statesman and the Storyteller, by Mark Zwonitzer. It’s a dual biography covering the last years of Mark Twain and John Hay. Everyone knows who Mark Twain was, but Hay is not so well known, though he’s not forgotten either. For those who can’t place him: he was one of Lincoln’s secretaries, and, in the fullness of time, Secretary of State under McKinley and Roosevelt, until he died shortly after Roosevelt was elected president in his own right. Hay and Twain were lifelong friends, though they often went years without seeing each other, and they maintained their mutual respect despite their divergent political views.

This post is more of a riff on the book than a review. I’m probably not capable of a good book review.

The book is really a history of turn of the century (19th to 20th, that is) America, told through the lives of these two remarkable individuals. It’s a period in our history that I think is largely ignored, at least in the educations that most of us get in grammar or high school. But you can’t read this book without coming away with the impression that it was during this period when the U.S. took the turn that led it ineluctably to the imperial and anti-democratic state that it is today. Of course, we had a head start as the deeply engrained racism throughout the nation made it easy for us to justify ignoring our supposed principles when non-whites or non-Christians were concerned.

I won’t say that it was the high water mark of political hypocrisy in this country, but the politicians of the day could hold their own against the slaveowners of the pre-civil war South and the Republicans of today. We were led into the Spanish American war through two lies; the first that it was fought to free the Cubans; the second that the Spanish had sunk the Maine. We were just coming off the annexation of Hawaii , featuring the destruction of a republic in which the native Hawaiians had a predominant voice, said republic being replaced by a system that stripped those natives of practically all civil rights, including the right to vote.

As I said, it was a time of great hypocrisy, but it’s instructive that there were some subjects they felt no need to be hypocritical about. Roosevelt, McKinley, Hay, Henry Cabot Lodge.. the whole pack of them, frankly proclaimed their belief that no one who lacked a white skin had any rights that the United States was bound to recognize. The Supreme Court agreed. One byproduct of that racism was a brutal war of extermination waged by the United States against a Filipino anti-Spanish resistance movement. When the war started, we encouraged the Filipinos to believe that they were our allies, and that we would hand the country over to them once the war was won. But once the war was won we stabbed them in the back and proceeded to exterminate them. Those few prisoners we didn’t kill outright were systematically tortured. The major media of the day was fine with all of it, since we were, by definition, doing God’s work.

And here’s where there’s a bit of irony. I can recall some years back that Huckleberry Finn was banned in some places, and attacked in many others, for being racist. The attackers had apparently never read the book with any understanding; their claim was pretty much based on the fact that a certain word beginning with “n” appears frequently in the book. The dialogue is, in other words, totally faithful to the way the characters portrayed would have spoken at the time, and in the places, depicted in the book. But, too much of this. Huck Finn needs no defense from me.

Anyway, while Hay and Roosevelt were justifying their imperialism with overtly racist arguments, Twain was condemning that imperialism and spoke out on behalf of the Filipinos, Hawaiians and other non-white people in decidedly anti-racist terms. He often withdrew from the fray, not because he had changed his mind, but because he wanted to avoid the vituperation aimed at him when he did speak his mind. It’s fair to say that he recorded his views in writings not intended for publication in his lifetime (or for the life of his copyrights), such as The War Prayer .

Like today, it was a time when the .01% pretty much ran the show. I was struck by this summary of the allegedly radical 1896 platform of William Jennings Bryan.

The Democrat’s nominee was proposing that the federal government take over the management of currency and the money supply, insure bank deposits, tax income, permit laborers to form unions, and dry the world economic powers by coining silver at a ratio of sixteen to one as against gold… He wanted to promote free trade, which meant further reducing (if not outright killing) the protective tariffs that stood, as the banking and manufacturing crowd told it, as their bulwark against certain economic ruin. He wanted to find a way to put a floor under falling crop prices and get farmers out fro under 20 percent mortgages. Bryan volubly–and at least twice a day–repudiated the Republican Party’s insistence that if the government protected and propped up the well-to-do, their prosperity would, as a matter of natural law, leak through to the lower classes. “The Democratic idea,” Bryan liked to say, “has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon it.”

Okay, the man was a religious troglodyte, but he had it right on economics. Most of what he advocated, FDR achieved, and what is left, legislation “to make the masses prosperous” is still blocked by the Republican Party, though the fact that it would benefit everyone is now the settled opinion of all sane economists.

One other thing struck me, not of a political nature. We all know that in the 18th century, the surest way to die of any disease or medical condition was to call in a doctor. It certainly appears as if that was only slightly less true at the dawn of the 20th. Hay spent most of his time sick, Twain slightly less so, but his family members were often ill. Not only did the doctors not know what they were doing, but they somehow formed the idea that it was good for a patient to be deprived of contact with family members. Twain was unable to be in the same room as his wife for months at a time, pursuant to doctor’s orders. The only thing you can say for the doctors is that they’d given up bleeding patients. It’s practically a certainty, I’d say, that 75 years from now many of the medical procedures and medication that are common today will be considered ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst.

So, that’s my report. The book is a bit slow at the start, but I got into it as it went along. It’s a neglected part of our history that is well worth brushing up on, particularly given the present state of our government.

Connecticut Delegation disgraces itself

I think this is the worst thing that Joe Courtney has done since he voted to condemn Moveon years ago.:

Last week, House Republicans pushed through an invidious bill they’ve cynically dubbed “Kate’s Law” that would impose draconian mandatory minimum sentences on those who attempt to re-enter the country illegally—and which would have done nothing to prevent the tragic death of the woman the legislation is named after, Kathryn Steinle.

More than 400 civil rights organizations came out in opposition to the law, as did nearly the entire House Democratic caucus—but not everyone. Two dozen Democrats joined 233 Republicans in voting for the bill.

via Daily Kos

One eighth of those Democrats were from Connecticut. Besides Joe, Larson and Esty voted with the Republicans. That’s the way to inspire the resisters to back you in ’18 guys! One thing you can be sure of in these times. If every Republican votes for a bill, and almost every Democrat votes against it, the bill is evil.

More news from the Department of Redundancy Department

Who would have thought it? A new study has turned up some startling findings that only those who were otherwise paying attention the past 49 years could have predicted. It turns out most of those Trump voters were not suffering from economic angst. They’re just bigots. Or, how can I say it? Oh! Deplorables!

On Monday researchers released the most comprehensive survey data yet aimed at understanding what actually went down in Election 2016. The group includes academics but also right-leaning outlets such The Heritage Foundation and left-leaners like the Center for American Progress.

What’s different about the Voter Study Group is that it tracks the attitudes and votes of the same 8,000 adults since before the 2012 election, and then throughout the 2016 election. So it’s like the nation’s largest, longest political focus group.

The story we’ve told ourselves — that working-class whites flocked to Trump due to job worries or free trade or economic populism — is basically wrong, the research papers released this week suggest.

They did flock to Trump. But the reason they did so in enough numbers for Trump to win wasn’t anxiety about the economy. It was anxiety about Mexicans, Muslims and blacks.

via Hullabaloo quoting the Seattle Times

No one could ever have predicted those results (we are told), except for the guy featured in the article who did. Whyever would it be the case that a party that has more or less openly appealed to racists for the past 49 years would win an election because it ramped up the racism? The fact is that this is an ugly truth that our media has resisted facing for the past 49 years and that it will likely continue to resist facing. They are far more comfortable with the economic angst meme, and they’ll keep pushing it regardless of the evidence.

Postscript: I realize that the word “redundancy” may not convey precisely what I have in mind here, that the study merely confirms what anyone with a brain already knew. But it’s close enough, and I couldn’t resist the Firesign Theater reference.

Distraction working, so far

Over at the Palmer Report (still taking it in the main with a grain of salt), Bill Palmer makes a point that I think has validity: Trump is using his twitter account to distract from the mounting evidence that his campaign did, in fact, collude with Russia. It is unclear, to me, at least, whether Trump’s action are strategic or instinctive, but the fact is, they are working, at least in the public realm. Whether they will divert the Mueller investigation is another thing altogether.

But is it asking too much for the media to point this out when it covers these diversionary tweets? When they tell us about the latest attack on CNN or Mika, how about adding a sentence or two about whatever story from which he is trying to divert attention. Surely by now the members of the non-Fox media must realize they are being manipulated. Why not cover the manipulation, and make it clear to their readers and viewers precisely how Trump is attempting to manipulate them? Not only would that be covering the actual news, but it would render the manipulation ineffective.

Just a thought.

Normalization continues

There is something very ominous going on not quite under the radar. There’s no question that many people have objected to the normalization of Donald Trump’s behavior, but the fact is that it proceeds apace, enabled by the very people that should be resisting it.

As the entire world knows, Trump sunk to a new low (for the period subsequent to his inauguration) in a recent tweet about Mika Brzezinksi. Unfortunately, when Trump sinks to a new low, it simply seems to make his previous depths the new normal. Consider this from the Boston Globe, a by no means unique reaction:

The overwhelmingly negative response to the president’s language was striking, even at a time when politicians and perhaps the rest of the nation long ago became accustomed to the unconventional ways that Trump communicates. And the reaction bodes poorly for a president who is already struggling to rally his own party around his agenda, which includes a health care overhaul has stalled in the Senate, a tax reform proposal that has made little to no progress, and an infrastructure bill that still seems merely aspirational. (Emphasis added)

via The Boston Globe

Have you become “accustomed” to the “unconventional” ways that Trump communicates? I haven’t. I work hard at remaining appalled, and I’d argue that it is the job of the media to remain appalled with me. This process of normalization was predicted, but that doesn’t mean it has to be. The media can resist, just as the rest of us must. After all, the continued existence of a free media is very much at risk, and I’m assuming they care.

The Brezinzski tweet did break new post-inauguration ground, though there are certainly echoes of remarks he made about Meghan Kelly during the campaign. Given the position Trump currently holds, it would only be expected that he would refrain from this sort of behavior, assuming he was a mentally stable person. But he’s not, and it’s really time that, in articles such as that linked to above, his obvious mental illness be acknowledged and confronted. For the most part, it’s an unacknowledged looming presence. Everyone in the media knows he’s seriously mentally ill. At Fox, they don’t care. For the rest, there appears to be an unwritten rule that you don’t go there. We can hint at it, but we mustn’t say it out loud. We can only hope that someone at the Pentagon has put out the word that his orders are not to be obeyed until a grown up signs off on them.

The Times speaks with two tongues

The New York Times speaks with two tongues. Today it’s running an article about an EPA scientist who was pressured to downplay the fact that the EPA removed actual scientists from its review panel so it could replace them with lobbyists. The Times reporter observes:

Dr. Swackhamer’s testimony came two weeks after the dismissals, which were met with fierce pushback from a scientific community that saw it as evidence that the Trump administration is seeking to weaken the role of academic science in environmental policy.

That criticism has sharpened in recent weeks, after the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, and the energy secretary, Rick Perry, openly questioned the established science of human-caused climate change, and as the E.P.A. has taken down websites about climate change. Scientists have also expressed concern that Mr. Pruitt has staffed his senior offices with several former senior staff members of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a prominent denier of human-caused climate change. Mr. Jackson also came from Mr. Inhofe’s staff. (Emphasis added)

via The New York Times

It’s good that the Times clearly stated that it’s “established science”. But here’s the question: If human caused climate change is established science, and it is, why did the Times hire a climate denier to spill disinformation on its editorial page. Perhaps they should add a flat-earther.

A plug

My wife and I went to a play at the Goodspeed Opera House today, and as we had some time to kill before the show started, we consulted Yelp, and settled on *2 Wrasslin’ Cats’. I can’t vouch for the food, but my wife says the coffee was good, and the ice cream I had was great. But I wholeheartedly recommend it, and these pictures tell why:

 

I didn’t see any real live cats, but the inside is all over cats:

We lefties have to stick together. If you’re in the area, it’s a great place to stop for a coffee or a snack. I should add that when the owner overheard my wife saying that it was my birthday, he refused to take payment for my ice cream. We made that good in the tip jar, but it was a nice gesture considering he’d never seen me before.

Friday night rant

For a variety of reasons, I haven’t blogged for quite a while, and I realize that the world is a poorer place as a result. So, back in the game for a few minutes at least.

This week the Democrats lost two special elections, and the losses perfectly illustrate the problems we’re going to have in the future. To paraphrase Cassius: the fault, dear Democrats, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

I gave money early and often to Jon Ossoff. If you did also, you know what a friend he became, as I got an email from him at least 4 times a day for weeks. When it became apparent that he might win, the DCCC moved in to “help”, and the result was sadly predictable. It’s instructive that the Democrat in the South Carolina race, who everyone pretty much ignored, actually did better than Ossoff.

I can’t add much to what’s written here about the Ossoff race and the Democratic establishment in general. Watch the commercial embedded at that link, and ask yourself why the Democrats thought serving up that mush would win them any votes. Donald Trump is Pres**ent. He’s the issue, not deficits or excessive spending, and when was the last time you heard a Republican blame “both parties” for anything? And isn’t it time that we, as Democrats, stop talking about deficits in the same uneducated fashion as the Republicans? We could have used a bigger deficit over the course of the last few years. Every rational economist agrees. If we can’t come up with a good way of snappily explaining the use of deficits, than we should at least shut our mouths about them. But the larger point is that Democrats have no narrative. They stand for nothing, not even the things people like that the Democrats have done. They constantly seek the ever more rightward defined “middle”, where no one actually lives.

The Democrats will enter the 2018 election cycle convinced they can win because they are not the party of Donald Trump. They will have nothing to sell to the voters besides that. They will gladly risk alienating all the resisters in order to secure those Wall Street dollars. They will once again be victimized by the consultant class that produced Ossoff’s commercial. We saw that here in Connecticut in the last election. So many of our candidates used that state money to buy the services of political consultants whose first priority was lining their own pockets, by, for instance, paying themselves to print and mail pointless and often counter productive leaflets. The Democrats have not seemed to notice that the Republicans have won by being pretty much in your face about what they stand for. Well, actually they’ve been in our face about what they pretend to stand for, but the point is that they aren’t constantly trying to appeal to a non-existent middle. I would suggest Democrats go back and look at what Democrats stood for (domestically) in 1968. They might be surprised to find that most of them were indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders.

What these elections show is that there is a role for those of us in blue districts. We have to start pressuring our Congresspeople to take back the DCCC, DNC, and the DSCC, and, for that matter, the ossified Democratic leadership in the House. Pelosi’s personal politics are fine, but she always seems to find a way to hand those institutions to the most right wing Democrats she can find. Everyone is talking as if it’s a done deal in 2018; that the Democrats will take the House. If they do, and I doubt that they will, it will be in spite of themselves, and they will proceed to do their best to make sure their stay in power is brief. After all, the Democrats always take great pains to lose in years divisible by 10 (Cast your memory back; it’s true). Redistricting is such exhausting stuff; better to let the Republicans do it. If they don’t take the House, you can bet your bottom dollar there will never be another remotely fair and free election in this country. Don’t pay any attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in that North Carolina case; once they get their hands on a properly packaged voter suppression bill they’ll give it a pass, and every red state in the country will pass something similar to whatever they green light.

End of rant.

On another note altogether, if you’ve had trouble cataloging Trump’s lies, here’s a handy guide. It’s the abbreviated version, since it starts with Inauguration Day. Anyway, it would be handy to have on hand if you need to educate a Trumper.

Nothing new under the sun

This Russia stuff got me thinking, and it occurred to me that backdoor election related dealing between Republicans and our ostensible rivals may not be an invention of the Trumpers.

There is a rather strong argument to be made that the Reagan campaign engaged in some slippery dealings with Iran during the 1980 election campaign. The circumstantial evidence is rather strong. The Reaganites accused Jimmy Carter of plotting an October surprise. That surprise would have been a deal of some sort with Iran to free American hostages, who had been held for about a year at that point. The deal never happened, at least not in time for the election. Coincidentally, the hostages were freed on the day Reagan was inaugurated, so he never had to deal personally with the issue. I remember thinking at the time that the timing seemed awfully odd. Then, years later, we learned that Reagan was selling arms to our supposed enemy. The stench was overwhelming, and there is a lot of other evidence supporting the proposition that the Reagan people had direct contact with Iran during the campaign and promised them it would be worth their while to keep the hostages until after the election. Here’s a bit, but if you search the net, you’ll no doubt find more reputable arguments that support the theory. Congress made a half hearted attempt to investigate, as the article at the link notes, but was never in possession of some of the evidence referenced in the linked article.

So, while not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is certainly more probable than not that the Reagan campaign conspired with Iran to influence the American election. Spreading fake news was not an option at the time, there being no social media. It is a fact that Republicans have had no scruples about the methods they employ to win elections. In addition to treason, they are prone to selectively disenfranchising people, which, when you stop to think about it (and so few people do) somewhat undermines the democratic experiment.

The only difference between the Reaganites and the Trumpies is the level of competence. The Reaganites were pros, setting Reagan aside, since he was more or less a spokesperson. (The thinking being, I guess, that if you can sell Borax, you can sell inequality. ) There isn’t much competence in the Trump White House and unlike with the Reaganites, Trump doesn’t behave and won’t step aside to let the big boys do their jobs.

There may be another difference this time around. When Reagan was caught selling arms to Iran, a clearly impeachable offense, the media and political establishment were skillfully distracted by Ed Meese’s confession that the money from the sales were illegally diverted to the Nicaraguan contras, but that Reagan knew nothing about that. It turned the debate away from Reagan’s admitted treason to a relative side issue, but it worked. Again, the Trumpies are not as skillful as the Reaganauts. Try as they might, they don’t seem to be able to get anyone off the scent, except the folks at Fox and Friends.