Open Letter to Jodie Foster

Last week, Oscar-winning actress and Yale graduate Jodie Foster jumped on the Hollywood lecture circuit to make the following declaration:

"Pretty much every man over 30 has to really look and start thinking about their part. And I guarantee, lots of it is unconscious. When you’ve been in a privileged position where you haven’t had to look at your part, you didn’t 100% understand you were in a bubble. It’s an interesting time for men.

"I have two sons (ages 16 and 19), and I know their perspective," she continued. "They go to a great school that has put them through the wringer about what consent is, what is humanism, what’s integrity. I just wish my generation had the benefit of that, and that everybody had the benefit of that."

 

Well.

 

Where do I begin?

 

In the law there is such a thing as broadness, for which a statute can be stricken because it is overbroad, meaning that it affects people or actions beyond the stated goal.  An example of this, ironically in this case, is President Trump's initial immigration executive order which, in truth, needed to be scaled back -- and it was, rightfully.  That doesn't mean the law as originally intended was bad, only that its reach affected too many people or actions incorrectly.

 

The same holds true here.  Foster's point -- that men should take a look at themselves when it comes to their behavior with women -- is a valid one.  Where she goes off the rails is by stating that "pretty much every man over 30" has to really look at himself and the part in sexual harassment.  Really?  Pretty much every man over thirty? 

 

I don't know how many men in this country are aged thirty or older and I'm too lazy to find the latest numbers on that.  But let's stipulate that there are a few millions out there of men that fit into that category.  How do we quantify "pretty much every man" of that group?  If we assume there are fifty million, does pretty much equal forty-nine million, forty-eight million?  And if that's the case, how are we do know that those forty-eight or forty-nine million men are truly deserving of our condemnation?  Do we know that they have either been actively engaged in sexual harassment or complicit by their silence in such behavior?  Come to think of it, how do we even know that "pretty much every man over thirty" has been engaged in such conduct?

 

This is a typical liberal ploy.  We see it most notably when there's a shooting.  Despite the fact that there are over 300 million privately-owned firearms in this country (or at least that's the figure I saw most recently), only a minute fraction thereof are used in mass shootings, yet gun-control advocates' arguments range from the total confiscation of privately-owned firearms to background checks and other rules that would make private ownership nearly impossible.  Here, there are countless men who combat sexual harassment or do not countenance it on a daily basis, yet Foster believes that we're unconscious men guided by our penises and not our minds.  To suggest that this is patently offensive is obvious, because were a man to make a statement that when distilled suggested women were guided by their vaginas there would be a hue and cry so loud...

 

...but I digress.  The next part of your statement that's severely flawed is the part about being privileged.  To what exactly are you referring when you say that men are in a privilege position?  Is that being an executive?  Or is it simply by being male we're in a privileged position?  If it's the latter, how non-white men feel about being lumped into the privileged group, especially when there's an argument about white privilege?  Should non-white men over thirty be subtracted from this equation?  If so, does that render the "pretty much" portion of your argument null? 

 

I'm not sure what living in a bubble even means.  Is that like living in Hollywood, where surreality is the new reality?  Or how about attending an Ivy League school?  Is elitism a bubble?  To just what kind of bubble are you referring?

The most egregious portion of your proclamation is the second paragraph of the quote.  Because you have two sons who are attending a "great school" (is that a bubble?), you know their perspective.  If that's true, good for you.  But logically, because you have no idea about my origins, about how I was raised and about my Mother, you have no frigging clue about me or how I treat women to make the statement that lumps me in with sexual harassers.  It's patently offensive for you to claim the moral imperative when you know nothing about me or my situation.  And the same goes for virtually every one of those men over thirty whom you've lumped into the same category with Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and Roger Ailes.  That you can't see the logical inconsistency in your own statement puts your Yale degree to shame.  Just because I didn't attend a "great school" doesn't mean I wasn't taught the necessary virtues of consent and integrity.  Because I didn't attend Yale, I eschew the notion of humanism and replace it instead with a word that is notably absent from your screed: Respect.  I was raised by a Mother who taught us to respect every person regardless of social standing.  It's something that's sorely lacking in every sector of society, but it's something with which I was imbued and have never forgetten, despite the fact I went to public schools after graduating from Catholic grade school.  This notion that only those under thirty years of age have been raised with a solid grounding is ludicrous.  It is entirely possible that men over the age of thirty were raised with the same lessons as those under the age of thirty and, for various reasons, eschewed them, just as it's possible that there are those under thirty who will do the same.  After all, look at those men who have been caught, finally: Weinstein, Lauer, Ailes.  One thing they have in common is great wealth.  Is that not a lure for some people to do wrong?

But one glaring omission from your lecture is the glass house phenomenon.  Have you lectured Hollywood?  I mean, Meryl Streep's protestations notwithstanding (is cognitive dissonance a required class at Yale...?), it is well-nigh impossible for people in your industry to have been so ignorant of the misdeeds of such powerful men.  Don't women share secrets?  Where are the newly empowered women of the world standing up and demanding justice and equality?  For what did Anita Hill risk her career if not this very mistreatment?  That took place over twenty-five years ago, yet that fellow Yalie's strength was wasted on you actors.  Whether she was right, she stood up for her beliefs.  Where was Meryl Streep when her pal Harvey was denigrating fellow actresses left and right?  What part did the women of Hollywood, many of whom have now come out of the woodwork to tell their own horror stories, not glean from Ms. Hill's bravery?  If anyone had something to fear by telling her story, it was a black woman in a predominantly white male industry.  Yet, it is incumbent on millions of American males, many of whom know not privilege or bubbles or conduct similar to that displayed by Weinstein, Lauer and Ailes, among others, to look in the mirror and ask what role, if any, they have had because a pampered, elitist actress fails to do the same thing?

It seems you and the Hollywood elite feels that the glass house analogy doesn't apply to you because your houses are made of bulletproof glass.

For as much obliged as I may count myself to have received your lecture, I'll take a pass.  I was raised by a Mother who preached respect, not just for elite people but for the lowest of the low.  I was taught to respect women and treat them as ladies.  I was raised to behave like a gentleman, not a privileged cretin entitled to act on troglodytic impulses. 

And I was taught to spot a hypocrite from miles away.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Why I No Longer Consider Myself Catholic

Yesterday news surfaced that Bernard Cardinal Law, the disgraced prelate from the Boston Diocese, died in Vatican City.  His death wasn't shocking; after all, he was eighty-six-years-old.  Still, it marked a milepost in the discussion of sexual predation by Catholic priests. 

Law had been in charge of the Boston Diocese at the time priests were abusing young male parishioners.  When confronted with accusations against his priests, Law started playing pedophile musical chairs, switching one pedophilic priest with another in a different parish.  The parishioners were none the wiser until years later the stories about the abuse came out and the names of the accused were made public.  Then Law's cynical game was up and the Church, always anxious to preserve its position, removed Law to Rome in an equally cynical move.  Officially, Law was going to Rome to help the Vatican.  In truth, his departure put him beyond the reach of American justice, which would have involved Law in extensive litigation against the priests and the Church.

It is possible, certainly, that some accusations against some priests were false or overblown.  But the overwhelming majority of accusations, sadly and tragically, were true, and for them, the Church owed the State its cooperation, no matter how hard.  Give unto Caesar what is Caeser's, after all.  But the Church decided that the best course of action, as it has done, historically, is to determine how best to protect the Church, even at the cost of the parishioners.  Or to put it a different way, the shepherd decided that it would be best to leave the field after the wolves went after the flock, because the shepherd might be hurt by staying on the field...even after the shepherd turned his back on his flock while the wolves went after it.

It's disgusting.  What moral high ground can the Church claim after taking the position that it did with respect to Law?  Sure, it paid out millions to the victims, but did that really compensate them for their injuries? What's more, what about the consequences for Law and his employees?  Sure, the employees were put in jail -- at least those who had the misfortune not to die before their crimes were discovered.  But Law suffered no consequences but those to his reputation; instead, he got an all expenses paid trip to Rome to live out his life in luxury and style. 

Many Catholics are outraged at what happened.  I know I am.  It's yet another case of the Church using sophistry to justify its actions to protect the Church against righteous accusations of misconduct against its congregation.  But this alone wasn't enough to turn me away from the Church.

I read a lot.  Some would say I read too much.  Perhaps.  But because I didn't take any history courses in college that weren't related to Spanish or philosophy -- my majors -- I missed out on a lot.  Even since taking the bar exam, I've been playing catch-up.  One of the areas in which I've concentrated is the history of the abuses brought upon the Irish people by the Brits.  Perhaps the most shocking thing I learned is that the Church -- not necessarily individual priests but the monolith the is the Holy Roman Catholic Church -- oftentimes was complicit with the British government in suppressing the Irish populace so that it could remain as an institution in a land that the British would have preferred to turn Protestant.  In effect, the Church, as happened so many times in British history, cut a deal as part of the British strategy of dividing and conquering, so that it would retain its position, however tenuous, at the expense of the individual Irishman.  Then, after the Brits were gone, the Church tried to return its hegemony over the Irish populace with draconian measures that meted out punishments almost worse than those the Brits doled out.  As with the Law mess, the Church did what it needed to do to protect the Church's position at the expense of the ordinary Catholic.

Then there's the one issue that proved to be the tipping point for me, personally.  My ex-wife was unable to have children naturally, so we went the IVF route.  It was unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but one thing I discovered is that the Church finds use of IVF to be immoral.  This makes absolutely no sense to me for the following reason:

St. Thomas Aquinas, the doctor of the Church, declared that there is such a thing as a just war.  That being the case, man can use the genius to create implements to use in war and take life, which is in direct contravention of a commandment.  I don't recall there being an exception to the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill.

But the use of IVF, which is the fruit of man's God-given genius, to bring into being life is immoral because it's against the law of nature -- something that man has judged, not something that God decreed, but not something that violates a commandment.  That's illogical, non-sensical and simply wrong.  So if I understand this correctly, it's perfectly fine for the Church to hide a person who had knowledge of and was complicit with pedophilia, and that burdened a people for over a millennium in the interests of political viability, but I'm immoral because I tried to bring life into being??????

Enough.

I'm no longer a practicing Catholic and I don't even consider myself lapsed.  I'm no longer a Catholic.  I'm a free agent Christian.  There are surely some things I adhere to from my past as a Catholic insofar as faith and the Mass is concerned (mostly involving the hymns), but I no longer defend the Church.  Have at it.  For all its hypocrisy and sophistry, I'm done.  I'm not some serf who stands in awe while the educated priest drones on in Latin and cows me with his mystery.  I'm an educated, sentient, thoughtful being whom God has created in His image, not in the Church's image.

In some ways, because I'm protesting, it almost makes me a Protestant, but I'm unwilling to go that far.  Protestant faiths have their own problems.  Check that:  Organized religions have their problems.  I prefer to worship God as He would want it and in my own fashion.  For too long I've been told how to worship by people who have (biased) training on how to worship.

I'm going to live out my life worshipping God the way I believe He wants me to. 

And good riddance Bernard Law.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles.

Et tu....?

And the drumbeat goes on...

Over the last fortnight, we've been treated to the revelations that Charlie Rose, Garrison Keillor and Matt Lauer, not to mention congressman John Conyers, were also doing horrible things to and with women.  The floodgates are now truly open to the point that when we wake up, we wonder who the next deviant to be unmasked will be.

People in the public eye are tripping over themselves to condemn the miscreants while trying to understand how their good friends and colleagues could have been such bad actors right under their noses.  At least, that's how some are portraying their angst.  Of the named wrongdoers, the only one that really surprises me is Charlie Rose.  Not just that he was involved in doing such things to women, but what he did to them, which don't need to be retold here.  I suppose Garrison Keillor might raise an eyebrow as well, but given that he tried to exculpate Al Franken -- another recent pervert outed -- it's not that surprising. 

There are a number of different takeaways from this.  First, how was it that so many women were harassed or abused and complaints made about the harassment and abuse yet no action was taken on any of these men until now?  Was there no one of authority with a moral bone in his body?  From what we know at this point, executives are scrambling to do the best impression of the Three Monkeys and thereby insulate themselves from criticism and legal action, not to mention dismissal.

How is it that some of these men -- Rose, Lauer and Keillor, principally -- were able to sit there with a straight face and criticize the President for his improper behavior when they knew that what they were reporting paled by comparison to their misdeeds?

Reports are emanating that everyone knew about the Lauer misconduct.  If so, was there no journalistic Ronan Farrow or Rose McGowan who had the testicular fortitude to reveal this?  If not, what's the point of being a journalist?  In Charlie Rose's case, his producer is a woman, and women complained to her...and she laughed, or shrugged her shoulders, and did nothing. 

There is, of course, a risk, however small, that such accusations can be used falsely by a vengeful woman who was either scorned, passed over for some job-related promotion or another reason.  So far, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Yet people are ready to storm the castle because Donald Trump made inappropriate comments twenty years ago...

...The Left's mentality is puzzling.  There's no rationale for its action and inaction.  Hypocrisy is its byword. 

Savannah Guthrie, Lauer's latest feckless sidekick, did an interview of one of Conyers' accusers the day after the Lauer story broke and she was roundly condemned for the interview's tone.  People also wondered whether she would do an interview with any of the women her former partner harassed and abused and whether she would be harder on them because of her relationship with Lauer.

The one that baffles me is Rose.  If a deviant ever hid in plain sight better than Rose, I'm unaware of him.  I suppose John Wayne Gacy did, but he was an entirely different kind of deviant and wasn't in the public eye nearly as much as Rose. 

Will there be a much-trumpeted interview with one of these guys months down the road, a la Barbara Walters?  Dr. Phil has to be hyperventilating at the opportunity to get any of these on his show.

All in all, it's a tawdry, reprehensible situation.  Those who are now crying in self-righteous indignation about these men who knew about their behavior before it came to light should be ashamed of themselves twice:  First, for not taking any action before it became popularly acceptable and second for raising a stink after the news broke.  The men, of course, should never be in the public eye again. 

One final observation:  At the rate we're going, the number of men in the public eye to be accused of sexual misbehavior may start to challenge the number of female teachers bedding underaged male students. 

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

In Defense of Whiteness

I'm a white guy.  I'm neither proud nor ashamed of the fact.  To use a worn out expression, it is what it is...or I am what I am, to quote Popeye.  To be honest, I never thought much about being white.  The only time I do is when racial discussions reach a fever pitch.  Then I examine myself to see whether I've acted in a racist manner.  Otherwise...I'm just a white guy.

There's a lot of yelling about white privilege, whiteness and the obvious negative connotations of being white.  A lot of it is folderol, a theme concocted by tired academics who need to gain the spotlight to make themselves seem relevant.  Having once been in the near upper reaches of academia -- I was a graduate student in my dissolute youth -- I'm a little familiar with how academics gnash their teeth and rend their garments about otherwise meaningless topics.  If only convection and microwave ovens heated up as quickly as academics...it would be rather entertaining if it weren't so terrifying.

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the calls that demand whites divest ourselves of our belongings because some whites in a bygone era acted badly to other races, namely blacks.  I understand the iniquity of what happened, sort of.  But I don't know how an entire race can be called upon to account for the actions of a segment of that race, especially when the race is as diverse as whites are.  I mean, if British slavers benefitted from slavery, why should Romanians be forced to cough up their wealth?  That hardly seems fair.

And just how far to we take the responsibility?  I mean, obviously crimes like slavery, murder and rape demand recompense.  But what of battery?  What of adultery?  What of torts, such as negligence?  How about copyright infringement?  What's more, how does one apportion damages? 
What if, as happened, whites (the Irish) were enslaved by other whites (Brits) and forced to breed with African slaves?  Does that entitle those of us of Irish heritage to share in the divestitures, or is it merely an offset because other Irishmen were slavers themselves?

The slippery slope is in plain view.

Yet, there's something else that's troubling to me about this debate.  Why should whites be forced to apologize for the obvious contributions they made to humanity?  I mean, even assuming that whites did horrible things to other races -- which they did -- do their accomplishments for the betterment of mankind count for naught?  What about the struggles that whites shared with blacks to make all men equal?  How are those factored into the equation?  Moreover, if we assume the premise that all men are created equal, why didn't other races achieve the things the white race did?  Blacks, Latinos and Asians all accomplished things, but whites accomplished so many things that lightened humanity's load, yet instead we're supposed to believe that but for slavery, blacks would have accomplished these things?

I have an imperfect memory when it comes to dates of things, but as a general argument, when exactly did the slavery begin that begets this grievance?  Were whites unable to progress until they started enslaving Africans?  Is that when progress took off?  Or were whites doing things irrespective of slavery that Africans and Asians simply weren't doing?  To be sure, there were things whites accomplished because slaves took on burdens that freed up whites to engage in other pursuits.  But not every advance made by a white person is rooted in slavery.  And ignoring slavery for a minute, what about the black and Asian races making similar gains on their own?

The notion that there exists such a thing as white privilege is poppycock.  There is privilege, plain and simple.  Although I come from a middle class background, there is no way I had a privileged life.  And I can point to several people of color who have it far better than I do due to privilege alone.  Where someone has outworked me, that's one thing.  But where someone was born into the lap of luxury and happens to be a minority...how is that any different than white privilege, except for the race involved?  There may be more white people of privilege, but to suggest that only whites have privilege is ludicrous.

One thing I always remember is that certain people complain about how they were kept down by the evil white man -- and they were -- there were whites who did not share that mentality that worked hard to upset that dynamic.  And it's not just lower class whites who fought on behalf of minorities.  Take the seminal Brown v. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court.  Here's a picture of the SCOTUS justices who ruled unanimously in favor of blacks:

Is there anything noticeable about this photo?  I mean, besides the fact that all nine justices are men and wearing robes?  If whites were so horrible, how is it that nine men, who had the power to maintain the status quo, voted unanimously to end it?

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act?  Was that Act passed by a Congress composed mostly of minorities?  I think not.

Make no mistake:  There are still problems that need to be corrected.  I personally know whites who are rude about minorities.  But there are plenty of whites who see no difference between the races and firmly believe in equal rights.  The problem is that there is a group of people in control who, by virtue of their privileged status, want to remain in control.  Allowing people of different backgrounds, whether it be racial, social or economic, would threaten their hold on power.  And that, not race, is the true privilege that needs extirpation.

It's easy to hit a target that's made of one large substance.  Unfortunately, society isn't and shouldn't be equal to target practice.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

DWTS and The Voice

I must say this at the outset:  Insofar as dancing is concerned, I have two left feet.  And when it comes to singing, I can hold a tune, but no one will ever confuse me with Josh Groban.  That my wife likes to dance with me and listen to me sing speaks to her absolute love for me overtaking her good taste. 

Because my wife enjoys both dancing and singing, she became a fan of the shows Dancing With the Stars and The Voice.  Because I love my wife, and because I can sit quietly and read while she watches her shows, I spend time with her in the living room absorbing the goings-on.  That doesn't mean I haven't seen a thing or two.

First, allow me to reiterate:  I may have been a good athlete in my day, but when in comes to dancing, I always suggest that we do it in the middle of a large crowd with the lights dimmed so no one is repulsed by the sight of my awkward jiggling.  Someone may get the mistaken impression that I'm having a seizure and call paramedics.  And as for singing, I enjoy it, but I don't have the skill to perform in front of people.  The closest I would ever come to doing that is karaoke fortified by adult beverages in a place to which I'll never return.  I was a member of my high school choir, but no one ever suggested I audition for a solo.  Wisely. 

Still, I am a watcher of television, and having done that capably for over fifty years, I have developed a taste for what's good and bad about television shows.  DWTS is downright horrible and The Voice is troublesome.  Allow me to explain:

DWTS billed itself, at its inception, as ballroom dancing being brought to the masses.  It has devolved into vaudeville crossed with tawdry carnality.  It's almost as if Andy Hardy and Betsy Booth got lost in a kinky jazzercise club.  Scantily clad men and women with undeniably toned bodies incorporate as few ballroom dance moves into routines that stray as far from ballroom as they can and still earn points.  Sure, they call them foxtrot, waltz and tango, but the truth is, over the course of the season, few dances are true ballroom dances and are more properly fusion dances that allow for entertainment to overwhelm the dancing.

How do I know this?  Once upon a time I took a ballroom dance course.  Admittedly, I'm no good at anything beyond a waltz, but I know what's supposed to happen.  What happens on DWTS strays from what I was taught.

As if that weren't bad enough, the schmaltz factor is neverending.  Pro dancers are turned into interviewers cum therapists as these staged discussions about the celebrities insecurities are examined for the cameras.  Nevermind that these celebrities are typically off the C list; that they try to rope the audience into feeling for them because -- look!  they're just like the rest of us! -- they have problems which, in turn, garners votes that have nothing to do with the performances, is nauseating.  It's almost as if I'm watching some sort of dancing therapy show for celebrities. 

Then combine that with the fact that there are ringers in the crowd.  This year's winner is from the Broadway plan Hamilton...in which he dances.  Other winners have included an ice dancer, Olympic gymnasts and professional athletes.  Sure, a few outliers have won, but the thing is rigged.  It's largely a popularity contest until the finale, when the one or two celebrities with any dancing chops are pitted against each other and the popular non-dancers have been eliminated, forcing people to actually vote for someone who can dance.

The judges on the show include some woman who in her effusiveness once infamously misused coño with cojones, a superannuated Brit who tries to keep the dancing on the rails and an Italian dancer whose claim to fame is having appeared as a background dancer in an Elton John video.  Their antics add to the lack of luster the show presents.  They've decided to add guest judges from time to time, including Shania Twain.  Egads. 

Little vignettes are staged as props for the dancing.  The singing, which is just covers of popular songs, leaves a lot to be desired.  The endless mugging for the camera is sickening, as is the over-the-top cutesy behavior of couples who are introduced before their dances is something I would expect from children, not professionals and celebrities.  I've seen teenagers act with more aplomb in public.  That this is encouraged is beyond belief.

Usually, when a celebrity is eliminated, there are unctuous thanks for the pro's tutoring, a profession of undying love and a promise that the celebrity will continue dancing in the future.  It's like revisiting high school where everyone professes things when they sign each other's yearbooks. 

From time to time, no doubt, there's a dance or two that is memorable or moving.  But most of the dances are just overwrought productions designed to tug on viewers' heartstrings.  Some of the professional dancers are excellent.  Derek Hough is a genius, as is Mark Ballas. The problem with Ballas' involvement in the show is that his strengths are more suited to Broadway than the ballroom. 

The Voice, on the other hand, started out trying to play it straight.  Contestants sing for four celebrity judges whose chairs are turned so they aren't swayed by the appearance of the contestant.  If a judge likes what he or she hears, a buzzer is hit to turn the chair around announcing to the contestant that that judge wants him or her on his team.  If multiple judges turn around, the contestant picks which judge will be his coach.  Once the teams are picked, there are knockout rounds within the teams.  This is the first problem that I have with the show. 

The two teammates sing a song together, alternating lyrics.  How anyone is supposed to decide which vocalist is better from this is anyone's guess.  I suppose professional singers can tell; Karen always points out when someone it pitchy, something that completely escapes me, so I'm probably wrong on this point. 

After the teams are set, a further winnowing down of the teams is made.  The vocalists are guided not only by their coaches but by celebrity coaches brought in to tutor them.  Admittedly, they do instruct the contestants.  Then the contestants sing songs either they chose or that were chosen for them by their coaches. 

Here's another problem I have with the show.  At this juncture, the singers are all marvelously gifted.  Virtually any of these people could win the competition.  Sure, there are styles that I don't particularly like, but the talent that reaches this level is astounding.  If the touchstone for this show is American Idol, at no point in that show's history did it have the abundance of quality that The Voice has at this stage in the competition every single year.  This year alone there have to be between five and ten contestants who could have their own recording contracts,  When did that ever happen at Idol?

The judges' votes at this point seem random.  I guess their positioning themselves to have the best contestants for the finale when the public actually votes for the winner.  And this hits another problem with the show:  When they're interviewed prior to singing for the first time -- and at various points as they progress -- more backstories are elicited that play on the viewers' emotions.  I understand people have lives and histories, but the editing that puts these stories out there is done for effect.  And as much as the novelty of having judges not see the vocalists when they do the blind auditions is cool, the viewers see the contestants from the get-go, so hot women and men must earn extra votes for that.

Despite its superior production values, The Voice has fallen victim to its popularity.  At times, it engages in cutesy segments that detract from the purpose of the show just to fill time.  It's not as bad as DWTS, but it's annoying nonetheless.

One final comparison between the shows is worth pointing out:  For as bad as DWTS is, Tom Bergeron is an excellent host.  In fact, he's the only reason I pay any attention.  He's as quick-witted as anyone in show business.  On The Voice, Carson Daly, for as nice a person as he is, is a wooden host, given to over-exuberant reactions at the most inappropriate times.  He's a seemingly nice guy, but he's as stolid in his role as Bergeron is easily personable.

The Voice is the superior show if for no other reason than the product it produces is better.  The talent level of the contestants is so much higher than that on DWTS.  Even if it weren't, the stupid schmaltzy vignettes, the unctuous love everyone has for each other, the attempt at creating a DWTS family -- it all just rubs the wrong way.

But again, there's a reason I don't dance or sing for a living.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Implosions

Fall is my favorite time of year.  The weather is perfect, the smells are heightened, the foods are more to my liking, college football is upon us and holiday season is back.  Add to that it was in October when I first met my bride and it's understandable why I enjoy fall so much.

This fall, however, has an added bonus.  Simultaneously, three industries are imploding.  Two of them I detest, one of them I tolerate with indifference.  Never in my wildest dreams did I think any one of them would teeter so much, let alone all three of them teeter at the same time.  But the planets aligned perfectly to cause the NFL, the Democratic Party and Hollywood to all go through massive implosions one right after the other.  And the beauty of each one is that each implosion just keeps going and going and going....

The NFL has faced a backlash of fan discontent when the players decided to emulate Colin Kapernick and kneel during the national anthem.  Reports vary as to the motivation behind the kneeling, but it hasn't resonated with the fans.  Fans in droves are staying away from the stadia to the point that the owners are concerned.  This weekend there's supposed to be a boycott of the games to show support for veterans, given that tomorrow is Veteran's Day.  Add to that the ongoing struggles addressing abuse of women and the CTE issue and the NFL is a hot mess.  It's so hot that now renegade owner Jerry Jones is threatening to sue the NFL a la Al Davis because the compensation committee is about to renew commissioner Roger Goodell's contract for $44M.  Needless to say, it hasn't been a good year for the NFL.

If the NFL has issues, the Democratic Party is beside itself.  Having lost the presidential election to a non-politician after harrumphing that there was no way on God's green earth that Donald Trump would ever be president, Cankles lost all but the coastal elites at the end of her Inevitability Tour.  She then took to the book tour where she tried to explain away her loss on everyone but herself, further casting the party into disrepute.   In the meantime Wikileaks provided evidence that the DNC rigged the primary so that Cankles would win and Bernie, despite the groundswell of grassroot support, didn't have a chance.  Recently, Donna Brazile, who took over the chair of the DNC for the disgraced Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, has written a book wherein she pointed the finger at Cankles for taking over the DNC.  As if all that weren't bad enough, an ultra-liberal activist group referring to itself as Antifa (short for Anti-Fascist) has been wreaking havoc nationwide because it feels that President Trump is racist and fascist, for some reason.  In the process, antifa has highjacked the Democratic Party, causing even such liberal stalwarts as Nancy Pelosi to criticize its tactics, which are, ironically, reminiscent of Nazi tactics.  Donna Brazile is now sniping with Cankles and Cankles is accusing Ms. Brazile of being a Russian agent.  It's so aburd that it almost sounds like the plot of a Hollywood political farce...

...Speaking of Hollywood, I've detailed the notorious indiscretions and possible crimes of movie czar Harvey Weinstein.  Given Weinstein's girth, it's not a stretch to claim that his fall broke the dam, so to speak, on other powerful men who have groped their ways to power.  Now, other moguls have been accused of being Weinsteinian, as have high-profile actors like Kevin Spacey.  The shooting inside Hollywood's tent is fascinating.  People are claiming everyone knew, while others claim not everything was known.  As this goes on, movie ticket sales plummet, a la the NFL's attendance figures.  Virtually every day another story comes out about some actor or actress who was violated in some fashion.  The interesting spin on the Hollywood implosion is that it goes from heterosexual to homosexual abuse and, sadly, even into abuse of minors. 

Why am I so tickled by all of this?  First, the NFL is a behemoth that I've said for years is too full of itself.  Football is football, but compared to the college game, the NFL is sterile, stoic, almost robotic.  The Democrats have been fooling people for years, touting itself as the more moral of the political parties (is that even possible?) and hypocritical as hell.  That they've been shown to resort to decidedly undemocratic tricks to win elections even within their own ranks is telling.  And Hollywood?  Those people who imitate other people for a living have been so busy telling the rest of us that we don't know what we're doing, that we are racists, rapist enablers and worse, and yet within their own community, they're worse than anyone.  Either they were involved in the abuse, or they knew about the abuse and condoned it with their silence, or they were willfully ignorant of the rumors.  Yet they acted as if they owned the moral imperative and had the right to criticize the rest of us.

I don't know much about the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, but I wonder if anything that was burning while he fiddled was like the NFL, the Democrats or Hollywood...

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Bowe Bergdahl Revisited

This week, Bowe Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.  The man whom Obama's White House claimed served the United States with honor and distinction now faces penalties including life in prison.  The sentencing phase of his court martial begins on Monday.

As many will recall, on May 31, 2014, in a much ballyhooed ceremony in the Rose Garden, then-President Obama, flanked by Bergdahl's parents, announced the deal that was to return Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from captivity with the Taliban in exchange for five terrorists then held in Guantanamo Bay.  Immediately after the announcement, murmurs were heard in the military community that grew to shouts that Bergdahl was a deserter.  No doubt the Obama administration was moved by Bergdahl's father's sympathetic beard and his efforts to learn Pashtun, the language of his son's captors.  This was, after all, the era of compassionate globalism.  Leave no man behind, was the mantra.

Since then, the military conducted its investigation and brought charges against Bergdahl.  Many in the military, both veterans and those who served in theater during the time of Bergdahl's misconduct, called for him to be jailed for life, if not put to death.  Troops sent out to look for him were injured and six were killed in their searches.  Those losses had an effect on the active military and veterans who called for harsh punishment of Bergdahl.

There were several rulings by the court that compelled Bergdahl to plead guilty.  Arguments can be had whether the court erred in making its rulings; I don't believe it did.  But for those not paying close attention to the case, the plea may have come as a surprise.  For those of us monitoring it, it comes as a relief.  There was little reason to see this play out in a trial; there was very little evidence to support Bergdahl's tale that he simple took off for a walk and was captured. 

What's more interesting is the public reaction from a couple of quarters.  First, what's the MSM been doing to report on this?  I mean, besides announcing his guilty plea, has the MSM been investigating the deal that brought us a deserter in exchange for five hardened terrorists who've vowed to kill Americans?  As far as I can tell, Bergdahl hasn't taken up arms in defense of this country and now he's admitted abandoning his post.  Does the MSM see a problem with releasing five terrorists for a deserter?  Does it disagree with the precedent set by the Bergdahl trade?  Is it interested in holding the former president and his human piñata accountable for their gross overstatements?

How about the parents?  Sure, they're glad to have their son back and out of harm's way, but are they proud of the child and his brand of patriotism, duty and loyalty?  Is the father glad he grew that ridiculous beard and learned to speak Pashtun (which I'm sure is useful in Idaho).  Do they feel as if their son brought shame to them and their family name? 

But most of all, has anyone asked the former president or Susan Rice about the Bergdahl plea?  Do they feel at all responsible for making the worst trade since Lou Brock was traded for Ernie Broglio?  Are they sheepish about having been played by Bergdahl?  Are they angry about his perfidy?  Do they regret making the trade?  What do they think should be his punishment?  Or will the MSM not even ask them questions about one of the worst decisions they made while in power?

Bergdahl will get what he has coming.  He'll be in jail; the only question will be for how long.  Nothing will bring back the six brave souls who lost their lives searching for him, or the lost limbs others lost on patrol trying to rescue him.  But for those who hailed or approved the deal, I wonder what they're thinking.  I also wonder if the MSM, which is trying so hard to find a Russian collusion allegation to stick despite evidence to the contrary, will tear itself away for a moment to look at a real scandal that's been under their collective noses for more than a couple of years.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles  

Weinstein -- More Fallout

If it seems like I'm obsesses with the Weinstein scandal, I'm not.  I'm just reveling in the hypocrisy of the Left who lectures those of us who voted for President Trump despite his indiscretions involving women, given the fact that many people now caught up in the aftermath of the revelations of Harvey Weinstein's conduct were lecturing us for over a year about how stupid we were for voting for President Trump, all the while it was an open secret that Weinstein ruled Hollywood with his penis.

Weinstein is now in a hermetic cocoon called therapy where he's allegedly going to be taught how not to be a cretin.  Good luck with that.  On his way to Arizona, he told the gathering throng of reporters that he was going to therapy but would be training his sights on the NRA, whatever that meant, as if he was going to curry favor with the Left.  If that's what he really thought, he's even more of a buffoon than I thought.

But the interesting fallout for me is how women are coming out of the woodwork not only to accuse Weinstein, a la the Bill Cosby accusers, but also other celebrities who have followed the Weinstein Power Trip Career Path.  Some of Hollywood's most outspoken liberals are now being dragged kicking and screaming into the limelight, something they typically embrace but from which they are now running.

Ben Affleck, he of the boorish behavior and the wandering eye, was outed by Rose McGowan for having known of Weinstein's misbehavior.  Ms. McGowan, who is quickly becoming a favorite of mine for her no-holds-barred style, tweeted of Affleck You Lie after he tweeted a milquetoast denunciation of Weinstein that was probably drafted by one of his handlers.  Affleck sheepishly admitted it and hasn't been heard from since.  Of course, Ben was beaten to the punch by his younger brother Casey, who'd been accused of sexual harassment before Harvey's indiscretions became public.

His buddy, Matt Damon, who had been reported to have intervened for Weinstein for an Italian victim, came out and invoked the Three Monkeys.  So far, he hasn't been pressed about his response to the matter. 

Jimmy Kimmel, the darling of the Left and the self-appointed spokesperson for all things Lefty, has been outed for some of his more immature behavior, nothing that approaches Weinstein territory but that is nonetheless unflattering.

George Clooney has now been accused of blackballing an actress of Mexican descent who appeared on the television show ER.  I wonder how Amal liked that.

Has Hollywood never heard of the Glass Houses rule?  Apparently, going after President Trump was easy for them because they were protected, in part, but the unwritten rules of Hollywood but also by the MSM, with whom they were in league against the President.  It's frightening at the same time it's enjoyable to watch all these mega-Leftists who accused the President now fighting accusations of their own.  It's a feeding frenzy and for once I don't feel sorry for the targets.  They've brought this on themselves not only by their conduct but by their hypocrisy.  In fact, this weekend, I learned a new term from a friend online whom I've never met (a friend of a friend...).

The Left should rename itself the Hypocrats. 

It's fitting.

I can't wait to see what tomorrow brings....

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Harvey Weinstein -- The Saga Continues

Another day, more dirty laundry.  The allegations -- stories? -- coming out are tawdry at best, disgusting and reprehensible at worst, and I'm not just referring to Weinstein's antics. 

The reports coming out suggest that Weinstein had a fetish for massages and having women watch him shower.  As someone for whom massages do nothing, I don't understand that, although I will confess that many people, including my dear wife, not only love them but need massages.  I'm not sure anyone who doesn't have an unusual fetish, like Rex Ryan, would understand the business about showering with an audience.  Unless, of course, audience participation was expected.

For as bad as this is getting, there are some interesting sidebars that are occurring.  I touched on a couple of them yesterday, but a few more have arisen today and I think they're worth mentioning.

First and foremost, She Who Would Be President, the defender of all things female, the person who referred in her book to President Trump as a creep took an exceptionally long time to condemn her benefactor's misdeeds:

I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein," Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, said in a statement. "The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior.

As condemnations go, it's a little weak.  But what should we expect from a woman who has stood by her philandering husband, vilifying women who made very similar accusations about him, and whose charity took money from countries where women's rights are still mired in pre-suffrage day?  Yet there are those who still feel cheated by the less-than-inevitable outcome of the Inevitability Tour that left Cankles walking around forests trolling for admirers?

At least she's come out publicly...finally.  Scores of other recipients of Weinstein's largesse have quietly returned the money to charities as if these returns will cleanse their political souls. 

The Obamas, meanwhile, have evoked Nero and remained silent, despite having benefited from Weinstein's celebrity connections over the years.  Wasn't Obama the President women loved?  Wasn't he just the coolest?  And now...?  Where's his statement of condemnation?  Where is his repugnance?  O', wait.  His eldest daughter interned for Weinstein.  Can't bite the hand that feeds now can they?

Meryl Streep, who was silent only a day or two less than Cankles, broke out the old Yalie textbooks and made the following public statement about Weinstein:

The disgraceful news about Harvey Weinstein has appalled those of us whose work he championed, and those whose good and worthy causes he supported. The intrepid women who raised their voices to expose this abuse are our heroes.

One thing can be clarified. Not everybody knew. Harvey supported the work fiercely, was exasperating but respectful with me in our working relationship, and with many others with whom he worked professionally. I didn’t know about these other offenses: I did not know about his financial settlements with actresses and colleagues; I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate, coercive acts. And if everybody knew, I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media would
have neglected for decades to write about it.

The behavior is inexcusable, but the abuse of power familiar. Each brave voice that is raised, heard and credited by our watchdog media will ultimately change the game.

Well. 

Ostrich, meet Meryl.  Meryl, meet Ostrich.  It's one thing to play make-believe for a living.  It's quite another to try to pass it off when serious, real-life actions with doleful consequences come to light.

How would I know that Meryl is fibbing?  Well, I don't.  But listen to others in the entertainment industry:

Jessica Chastain, the comely actress from one of my favorite movies, Zero Dark Thirty, and a noted liberal, said this today: 

I was warned from the beginning. The stories were everywhere. To deny that is to create an enviornment (sic) for it to happen again.

If Ms. Chastain, a relative ingénue compared to Dame Meryl, heard the stories, how is it Meryl was ignorant of them...unless she was in character as an ostrich for an upcoming nature film?  It would be one thing for a conservative such as Dean Cain to assert, when asked whether the news about Weinstin's behavior became public:

Not in the least. You hear rumors about this, this was the worst kept secret in Hollywood, no question about it ... Hollywood loves to wear the self-righteous finger and tell everybody what they should be doing and what is going on but this is not known as the bastion of morality, Harvey Weinstein is an extremely powerful man, an absolute bully and he clearly had an M.O. -- something that he did — you were aware of it, everybody knew. I wasn’t somebody that would be a target for him but it’s something that he had done for a long time

The stories were everywhere...the worst kept secret in Hollywood...yet Dame Meryl heard nothing.  Or did she choose to hear nothing?  This from the woman who excoriated the President publicly...it only goes to show that what I tell my wife Karen is true:  Higher education isn't proof of intelligence, only that someone passed a series of tests.  Or it taught Meryl to dissemble really well.  Come to think of it...

As if all this weren't bad enough, Weinstein's wife, Georgina Chapman, is concerned about the fallout from the scandal, but not for the reasons one might expect.  If she's troubled by how hurt the women harassed by her husband are, there's little in public to support that.  There is, however, a report that she's concerned for the effect this scandal will have on her couture line, because Weinstein gave her entrée to the celebrity world which provided her with free advertising.  Weinstein would also order actresses and models to wear the Marchesa line to red carpet events to maximize the effect for his wife's business.  So her greatest concern, at least insofar as information available publicly is concerned, is for her business.  Not their minor children, not their marriage, but for her business.

And these are the people lecturing us about politics.

Yes, I'm enjoying this.  This has all the marks of a huge crash and burn in slow motion playing out over a course of days, not minutes.  Each day brings more recriminations against Weinstein and the people that enabled him, like Russell Crowe and Matt Damon, the latter of whom was a stalwart defender of Liberalism (until it came to his life, when he was free to choose for his family the way they want to live).  More than anything, though, is the display of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance that is on display from people who hold themselves out as smarter and better than the rest of us.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Harvey Weinstein and Liberal Hypocrisy

Well, another week, another example of liberal hypocrisy.

Reports surfaced last week that Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood heavyweight mega-producer, had been sexually harassing Hollywood starlets and others for years, some of the allegations going back over twenty years.  Nasty woman Ashley Judd, a beauty of the first order and equally annoying and unhinged, brought the allegations to light last week, telling people that Weinstein made inappropriate suggestions involving massages and stages of undress.  Then the payoff to Rose McGowan came out.  After that, the stories came out faster than the rain came down in the Houston floods. 

Weinstein, the brash, piggish power-broker who could make or break careers, has lawyered up and started pointing fingers.  He even went so far as to say that he would now be tutored how to act more appropriately and would channel his energies into forcing President Trump to resign.  This, apparently, was a sop to Leftist Hollywood to garner sympathy.  If it's worked, it isn't showing.

Some women, like Judd and Ms. McGowan and, oddly, Lena Dunham, have bravely stepped forward.  Others, like Nicole Kidman, Judi Dench and Catherine Zeta-Jones, have so far remained silent.  Weinstein's reign of terror still casts its dark shadow over the industry, causing even these highly visible and powerful women to stay out of the limelight.

Weinstein has been forced out of his own company by its board of directors.  He's been subjected to some ridicule, a few stories in newspapers, but nowhere near the universal condemnation that President Trump made for his reckless and sexist comments years ago.  Apparently, in Hollywood, Weinstein's behavior was such an open secret that it was tolerated and overlooked.  But it went farther than even Hollywood.  Several Democratic politicians, whom Weinstein favored, received campaign contributions, including Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker and the Clintons.  Now, the politicians are scrambling to divest themselves of this dirty money, money they had to know came from a sexist pig.

But the difference with which it's being treated by the same industry that pilloried Donald Trump and Fox News for their similar indiscretions is telling.  The late night talk shows mention it but don't beat it to death like they did with Mr. Trump.  Over the weekend, Saturday Night Live, which has feasted on Donald Trump, had nary a sketch about Weinstein.  When asked about it, Lorne Michaels said that during dress rehearsal, the jokes fell flat so the sketches were pulled from the live telecast.  Later, he said it was a New York thing...which, given Donald Trump's New York bona fides, begs a very obvious question.

These are the same people -- celebrities in the entertainment industry -- who lecture us in the heartland about how we should vote, how we should view things, what should be important to us and, above all, how horrible Donald Trump is.  Yet, when their own industry's president does things that are in the same vein yet more reprehensible, they clam up and refuse to condemn a man who has wrought havoc on women for decades.  Moreover, two of the women who came to defend him were late of the Obama administration.  Progressive indeed. 

And that woman who championed women in her bid to be the first female president?  Cankles is even more quiet.  She's not been heard from since the story broke.  She can attack Donald Trump, but when an abusive man who can help further her career does something similar, she's silent on the matter.  This, Cankles supporters, is the disingenuous, two-faced candidate who lost the election through her own fecklessness, not Russian meddling.  Then again, Cankles is used to using men who sexually harass women to get ahead.  Frankly, Weinstein is getting off lightly.

At least he's not married to her.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Las Vegas and Liberals

Another day, another shooting, only this time it's the worst in our country's history.  Some deranged nutjob in a room on the thirty-second floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel overlooking the Strip in Las Vegas opened fire on a crowd below enjoying (if that word can be used in connection with) a Jason Aldean concert.  So far, fifty-eight innocent lives were taken and over one hundred people are still in the hospital or have been released after being wounded.  The shooter is dead. 

Americans were horrified when they heard the news Monday morning as they woke up.  For no reason other than the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, people had their lives snuffed out by a man whom many if not all had never met.  Stories of selfless heroism abounded.  Across the country, blood drives and fundraisers sprang up immediately.  Americans are nothing if not charitable in times of crisis. 

There are some Americans, however, who have a completely different reaction. 

A now-former executive with CBS said, I’m actually not even sympathetic [because] country music fans often are Republican gun toters.  Unsurprisingly, Hayley Geftman-Gold, a 2000 Columbia law school grad was fired after making these reprehensible comments. 

Two Democratic congressmen from Massachusetts refused to take part in a moment of silence on the House floor claiming that it was nothing more than an excuse for inaction.  As in the aftermath of any shooting, Leftists are calling for gun control and the abolition of the NRA.  Even Cankles herself has used the platform to advocate for gun control and the dismantling of the NRA.

Jimmy Kimmel gave an impassioned monologue and Steven Colbert used the shootings to pillory his favorite punching bag, Mr. Trump.  Many Leftists are blaming the shooting on Trumpism. 

At this point, no one knows for certain what prompted the shooter to commit this heinous deed.  No one knows exactly whether the firearms he used were legal or illegally bought.  No one knows whether he was mentally imbalanced or had a political agenda.  But that it happened suffices for the Left to follow the Rahm Emanuel dictum of never letting a tragedy go to waste to make political hay out of it no matter the truth of the assertion.

The only facts of which we are certain is the number of dead and the shooter's identity.  We know nothing more at this point; the rest is conjecture. 

Check that:  We know that the Left has but one agenda, and that's its own.  What's good for America takes second place after whatever promotes the Left's agenda. 

The American people need to wake up and take stock not only of what antifa is doing but what the stalwart protector of the American people, the Democratic party, is doing and saying in the aftermath of this tragedy.  For people to cackle about the deaths of innocent people because of the perception of who it forwards a political ideology is disgusting.

I hope the American people are paying attention.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

My First and Only Car

I'm not much of a car guy.  To me, they're a utility -- a necessary one, but nothing more.  I don't get all googly-eyed when I see vintage cars, or excited when the newest models come out.  As I often tell people, I don't know what an alternator is, what it does or even what it looks like.  I'm decidedly not one of those guys who would go to a pharmacy parking lot on a Saturday evening and look under the hoods of cars who were brought there by their proud owners to discuss cam shafts and pistons and all things automotive.

I never owned a car until I was forty-three-years-old.  I had tried to buy a car in my early thirties, but the price of insurance for a single male living in downtown Chicago was prohibitive.  The CTA took care of most of my commuting needs, Metra the rest.  Then I got married and my ex-wife had a car.  When we got a dog and there were responsibilities that had to be shared, it was time to get a car.  This was in 2004.

I looked around, wanting to buy domestic.  I first visited Ford, where the salesman boasted that Ford was "up to number twelve in the safety ratings."  Piqued by a boast of "we're number 12!" I asked him what Ford had been the year before.  "Twenty-five," he said meekly, and combined with the smallish seating in the driver's seat, that put an end to my dalliance with Ford.

I wanted to buy a Saturn, but by the time I got around to it, Saturn's reputation had suffered.  I won't buy foreign (more on that anon), so I was at a loss.

Then I ventured into the Volvo dealership in my town.  Yeah, I know, Volvo's hardly an American brand, but I wiggled through on a loophole:  Ford owned Volvo when I bought my first car, a Volvo XC 90.  I got the demo model previously driven by the dealership's owner's wife.  It's ash gold.  Given Volvo's safety reputation (far removed from number 12...or 25...), and reliability, I was sold.

I got the car with 6,000 miles, more or less, on it.  It now has 200,680, give or take.  That's over 194,680 miles in nearly thirteen years, or nearly 15,000 miles a year.  I didn't drive that many miles a year when I first bought it, but when I met Karen and we decided to move, the mileage started piling up.  In 2013, when we moved out of Illinois, I must have made at least twenty-five round-trips of over 600 total miles in that year.  In my new state, I've driven all over it, mostly in my car.  We've driven down to Kentucky a few times. 

The car's been some interesting places.  It's been to Toronto, Niagara Falls, Gettysburg, Washington D.C., Mount Vernon, the Outer Banks, Gatlinburg, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Door County, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa and various parts of Illinois.  I doubt it'll last long enough for me to take it out west to see Monument Valley; heck, it had enough to make it up the Smokies in Tennessee.  But it won't see the Rockies, or the Northwest.  It won't see the South.  I'm not even sure we'll keep it.

I'm not attached sentimentally to the car.  I appreciate it's ruggedness; it's saved Karen a time or two when cars plowed into her.  In one notable instance, a Lexus drove into the back of the car while Karen was stopped at a railroad crossing.  Karen was unhurt; the car had scratches on it, but the Lexus's engine was in the front seat.  The cop speculated that it was going between 35-40 mph at the time it hit Karen. 

We've moved furniture and firewood, boxes of books and bundles of clothes.  It's the car I took Sherman in on his final drive.  It's been scratched and dinged.  Presently it has tree sap on it that I have to remove.  It had a transmission overhaul (about the only complaint I have about Volvo is the fact that it didn't issue a recall when it installed the wrong transmission for the wrong engine) and an gas line rebuild.  The tires have been replaced several times, as have the brakes -- little wonder with over 200,000 miles on it.  It needs a cleaning -- desperately -- but all in all, it's been a solid, reliable car.  My first. 

Soon I'll have to invest in another car.  Beside the monthly car payment there will be a new car with new smells (or less of them), a new feel, new positions for dials and lights and indicators.  Perhaps it'll even be gun-metal grey.  Whether we decide to keep this car is an open issue.  It'd be useful to haul things in an preserve the value of our other cars.  But I may need it as a trade-in.

Either way, I'll always remember my first car fondly.  I'm proud it lasted over 200,000 miles.  It still runs really well, and if I do trade it in someone will get some use out of it.  It served me well and protected Karen on a couple of occasions.  But time waits for no man, or car.

No matter what happens and what my new car is, however, I still won't know what an alternator is, what it does or what it looks like.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Antifa and the Public Weal

Not since the 1960's has the country seen such domestic turmoil.  Unlike the '60's, however, the reason for the unrest isn't clear.  Back then, there was cultural change and opposition to a very unpopular war with high-profile assassinations blended in to create the combustible mix.  These days, there was the election of a president with whom many people disagreed on philosophical terms, with nothing else.

Since President Trump's election, his opponents have gone off the deep-end, from benignly predicting the end of the United States to lashing out at anything or anyone conservative to frighteningly violent clashes in cities across the country.  Conservative speakers have had to cancel speeches due to the violent protests at college campuses resulting in millions of dollars worth of damage to property, people have been assaulted needlessly simply for having supported or voted for Donald Trump and even conservative politicians have been shot by deranged Leftists. 

There are various groups engaged in these nefarious actions, but for the purposes of this blogpost the term Antifas, short for Anti-Fascists, is going to be used.  It's a highly ironic sobriquet, given that the actions taken by the antifas more closely resemble fascist tactics from the Third Reich.  Alas, to paraphrase Shakespeare, a turd by any other name still smells as bad, and the actions the antifas are taking are very reminiscent of Nazi tactics in pre-war Germany.

Breaking windows, shouting down speakers with opposing viewpoints, tearing down monuments of historical figures the antifas find objectionable, shooting opposition politicians...it has all the hallmarks of the Brownshirts, the paramilitary stormtroopers of the Nazi party.  Instead of Jews, conservatives are hunted down.  I don't think this country has seen such violent opposition to government since the Confederacy;  the hippies in the 1960's are pikers compared to these people. 

Another particular trait of the antifas is shouting something loudly and often enough that, despite its falsehood, it's believed by the general public, or at least a large enough segment of the public as to change the perception of the support the Administration truly has.  An old saw in the law reads:  If you have the facts, argue the facts.  If you have the law, argue the law.  But if you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, shout loudest.  This is what antifas are doing.  When conservative speakers try to speak, they make it impossible for the speakers to be heard.  They denounce President Trump and all who support him as white supremacists and neo-Nazis.  Some have even likened us to enablers of rape.  If they're confronted with facts, they rationalize them away and reiterate the righteousness of their cause.

The MSM indirectly supports this behavior by not reporting it or, if it does, downplaying it or casting it in a light least favorable to President Trump.  When the tables are turned, as happened to Nancy Pelosi when immigration protestors interrupted a recent speech, some outlets, such as ABC, refuse to broadcast the story.

The worst offenders insofar as support is concerned is the political bloc.  From encouraging antifas to continue to resist to failing to criticize their tactics, the direct and indirect support from Leftist politicians only worsens the situation, lending a patina of credibility to their efforts.  Mr. Obama continues to encourage the antifas to resist while, hypocritically, he rakes in huge fees for speaking engagements on Wall Street.  Somehow the antifas, blinded by their fury against Mr. Trump, can't see the monied forest through the gilded trees as their shining light urges them forward.

Protest is fine.  But the antifas are asserting their First Amendment rights in ways that are limited by time, place and manner restrictions that have long been upheld to be constitutional.  Their bald declarations of First Amendment rights fly in the face of precedent, but they don't care.  Again, when one has the facts, argue the facts.  When one has the law, argue the law.  When one has neither the facts nor the law, shout loudest. 

The antifas as presently constituted don't present a threat to the security of the country.  They are a domestic terrorist organization, however, and the Left, from the former president to the MSM to hangers-on to President Trump haters should distance themselves from the antifas.

If they don't, they may as well order brown shirts.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Phrases I Hate

Language is something I keenly watch, and I enjoy wordsmiths who can use language playfully.  There are people who write majestically using few words, and I admire them beyond compare.  At the same time, there are writers who are atrocious, either because of their circumlocution or their inability to speak evenly and with a good flow.

Still, in ordinary speech, it's difficult to find people who are gifted enough to lift the level of language at the drop of a hat.  Writers can always edit their words, or have people who help them edit their prose.  Speakers, especially when they speak extemporaneously, aren't always possessed of articulate elegance.  When they are, it's pure music.  But when they aren't, it can become hackneyed and hard to listen.

At the conversational level, we all -- myself included -- fall into certain staples that we either favor or use as common defaults.  Karen likes to tease me that there are certain phrases that I use so often as to gain admission into the Redundancy School of Redundancy.  She's right; I do.  And some of the ones I use may be off-putting to other people, because there are certain phrases or usages that others use that drive me nuts.  I'm wrong on these, I realize, but still...I cringe whenever I hear these words or phrases used in the contexts in which they're used. 

I married my best friend:  Yes, Karen is my best friend.  But to describe what I did when I married her as having married my best friend doesn't even begin to describe the magnitude of what I did.  I married the best person I'll ever know, the love of my life, the woman who makes me go weak in the knees and whose voice and touch I crave above all others.  I realize that when the adjective best is used, it necessarily separates that person from the rest of one's friends.  Still, there are other nouns that I'd use -- lover, for example -- that rarely get used.  It's as if we're trying to equate friendship with love, and although there may be elements of each in both, I think love (and lover) is superior to friendship (and friend).  But what do I know?

Fellowship:  This one is fingernails on a blackboard to me.  When used in the religious context, it drives me nuts.  It shouldn't, I know, but the only proper usage of fellowship for me involves hobbits, golden rings and authors with three initials.  Again, I'm wrong, but I can't stand this one.

Daddy:  Being a carpetbagging Northerner, this objection may be regional.  I have no problem with children using this for their fathers.  Heck, I did it...for awhile.  My objection to the usage of this word is when adults -- thirty-year-olds, forty-year-olds and older -- refer to their fathers as daddy.  Karen, who has deep roots south of the Mason-Dixon line, has argued with me that it's a normal usage in Dixie, and I'll stipulate to that.  I might even be persuaded that women can still use this to refer to their fathers well into their dotage.  But men?  Seriously?  Men who themselves are fathers?  I don't know.  I can't imagine using the term at that age.  Then again, my relationship with my own father was distant at best, so what do I know?

Journey:  It's de rigueur to describe romantic relationships as a journey.  Perhaps the first five hundred times the word was used this way it was evocative.  Now it's lame and lazy.  Besides -- where is this relationship going?  A journey usually as an end point in mind.  Does anyone know where a relationship is headed when it begins?

Chemistry:  This is another overworked word used in relationships.  And journey is too narrow, chemistry doesn't adequately describe a relationship if for no other reason that it's too broad.   What kind of chemistry?  Some kind is combustible.  Other kinds make things foam up.  Still other kinds burn.  Saying that a couple has great chemistry is fine, and at one time it was novel, but now it's like journey and it's become trite.  Not to mention broadly inaccurate.

Iconic:  This is one that gained traction and has since taken off into oblivion.  There are certainly icons in music, sports, entertainment and other fields.  But the use of this term is so watered down now that anyone who has been able to extend his fifteen minutes of fame to a full hour is now called iconic by the media.  It's overused to the point of dilution now.  I'm not sure it can ever retain its original meaning such that the likes of Michael Jordan won't be lumped into the same category as Demi Lovato.

Baby:  Ugh.  My wife is no baby.  I guarantee that.  She's my sweetheart, my love, my bride, my beloved, the center of my universe...but she's no baby.  Women can use it, I guess, as an affectionate term for their beloved, but it sounds bad to me when a man uses it for his woman.

That's a good/great question:  So someone's being interviewed and she feels it's acceptable to rate the questions being asked?  It's probably a schmooze tactic that's taught by handlers to politicians and celebrities, and it could be used to buy time to formulate a question.  In a casual interview, when someone is taken aback by the question and has to think about the answer for a second, saying that may actually be honest.  But the way some high profile people use it (and repeatedly use it during an interview) it comes off as practiced and insincere.

Thank you for asking me/I'm glad you asked that question:  This one usually comes up in interviews with politicians, athletes or celebrities who have been involved in a scandal.  They say it so seem forthright.  It's unctuous.  The problem is that ones that use it are usually ones that have done something embarrassing or heinous and don't really want to have to answer something, so they want to sound as if they do want to be there answering questions.  Again, it could simply be practiced, something that a handler told them to say to make them seem more likeable.  To me it rings false.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

My Beautiful Wife Karen

My blogpost stats page informed me that this post would be my 512th post.  Given that my favorite date of the year is May 12, and that a significant and eerily coincidental events have taken place on that date, I think it's only fitting that I use this blogpost for my favorite subject.

Advice given to would-be authors is to write about what one knows.  Taking that advice for this blogpost, I'll write about the woman I know and, moreover, the person I like the best.  My wife is the best person I'll ever know.  No saint is she, and she'd be the first to admit that she's not perfect, but she's the perfect woman for me.

There are myriad adjectives that can aptly describe her:  Intelligent, witty, gorgeous, creative, strong, loyal, passionate, snarky, playful, religious, musical, caring, fun, nurturing, patient, courteous, kind, caring, supportive, considerate...I could spend all day listing the wonderful attributes my wife has.  I suppose any husband in love with his wife would do the same, but I'm right about mine.  That I'm so fortunate in life is because my wife is all the wonderful things I describe, and then some.

We met in an...unconventional way.  That's a story for another time, perhaps.  But if one were to know the story of our courtship and engagement, one would realize what a resolute woman Karen is.  She defied society and tradition, not to mention her family, to be with me.  She put up with our dire circumstances, not to mention my shenanigans, to stay with me and eventually marry me.  She put up with my family's neuroses, never fearful that the lunatic strain would manifest itself in me.  Well, at least I don't think she's fearful of that happening.

With Karen I've seen more of this country in nine years than I'd seen in the previous forty-seven.  I've been exposed to new traditions, old communities, different lifestyles and exciting novelties.  She's a fearless liver of life who always wants to experience as much as she can.

Much like our Mother, Karen will thoughtfully remember something someone told her and present the person with what it was that person was seeking.  Oftentimes, she'll focus her attention on a thing that is viewed by society at large as less than beautiful -- bonsai trees, English bulldogs, me -- and fall head-over-heels in love with it.  She champions the unfortunate.

Despite this, she bristles at compliments.  If I tell her "You're beautiful," her immediate rejoinder is a hearty "You're beautiful," which I decidedly am not.  If I remark that I'm strong, she dismisses the judgment as being silly.  Yet, if anyone knew what she went through with her auto-immune diseases, he'd be amazed that the cheerful, pleasant woman before him was up all night with sick headaches, belly issues and sundry other symptoms.  The number of pills she has to take is overwhelming; that she hates to take pills only adds to the indignity.

It is trite to say that I'm a better person because of her, not because it's untrue but because anyone says that about his love.  But it's true.  Make no mistake:  I'm hardly a changed person; I'm better than I would have been had I never met my wife.  I'm calmer, more patient, less prone to act out -- although Karen would debate me on that last one.  I'm more interested in doing things that I'd never done before, if for no other reason that it makes Karen happy.  For one, she says that she has oodles of fun when we dance, when the fact of the matter is that as far as dancing goes, I'm barely more mobile than a statue.  I think it's the risibility of my efforts that provokes the glee in her, but she'd say otherwise.  No matter.  That she enjoys it encourages me to try, my surgically-repaired hips notwithstanding.

She is the love of my life, the center of my being.  I will love her beyond the end of time, not just forever.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

North Korea

I've read a fair amount about the Korean War.  I wouldn't say I know as much about it as I do World War II, but I'm probably beyond novice status when it comes to knowledge about the conflict.  I know less of the history of the peninsula, shamefully, so I can't claim to understand all the motivations behind the weird behavior being exhibited by Kim Jong Un these days. 

Many are wringing their hands with all the missile test launches that are going on.  Apparently, North Korea was assisted by Pakistan and Iran with its ballistic missiles.  North Korea is happy to play the role of annoying younger brother looking to gain attention which, once it does, brings it economic relief for illusory promises to behave.  In a vacuum, North Korea poses a threat, although that threat is mostly felt by people nearby, chiefly Japan.  Considering what Japan's done historically to North Korea, I'd say that the threat was well-earned.

Still, it's unnerving to have a certified lunatic who kills people with whom he has a problem with rabid dogs, anti-aircraft guns and flamethrowers to have control of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads.  Although I'm dubious of his ability to successfully strike the continental United States, he could wreak havoc on neighboring countries, mainly South Korea and Japan.  What his endgame is is anyone's guess, but it may boil down to something so simple as getting attention from world powers to elevate himself in his people's eyes.

But since I'm an attorney, and since most military men also deal with worst case scenarios, let's say that North Korea finds the wherewithal to launch successfully a nuclear ICBM at the homeland.  Pick the target; it really doesn't matter.  If that were to happen, the gloves come off.

North Korea is a terrible land.  Its mountainous landscape lends itself to defense.  If history teaches us anything, war there is a zero-sum game.  With the tripwire of the DMZ, any incursion from the North would provide us ample time to rush forces there and attack the vulnerable flanks of the peninsula.  The North has an intimidating military, but it's finite.  Unlike the Chinese behemoth, the North doesn't possess an endless stream of personnel.   Eventually, attrition would take its toll. 

Sure, people are worried about the Chinese getting involved and, given their belligerence, that's a concern.  But if the North were to launch an unprovoked strike against the West, and the West retaliated, I doubt the Chinese would intervene unless they felt threatened, as they did when Dugout Doug vowed to cross the Yalu. 

But if the North Koreans were to successfully launch an ICBM at the homeland, I wouldn't mess around.  I'd turn that country into a parking lot.  Normally, I don't suggest such flagrant responses, but in this case there are plenty of benefits.  First, there's no point in using ground troops.  It would be a slaughterhouse.  Second, we don't need another protracted war.  We're stretched too thin as it is.

No, we simply nuke the place.  Turn it into a parking lot.  I know lots of people suggest this for the Middle East, but I'd rather use North Korea as the proving ground to show the Islamofascists what's in store for them if they continue their jihad.  Besides, it'll give the Chinese pause and render North Korea uninhabitable for years.  It's not like their people are living now.

It's a harsh answer, I know.  And usually I'm not this bloodthirsty.  But enough is enough.   How long must we have our nose tweaked for no good reason before we hit back?  And not just hit back; hit them so hard that they never come back.  It sends a message to other enemies that if they persist in their attacks against our country, a horrible death awaits them.

It's an unpopular decision.

Tough. 

War isn't based on popularity.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

From Russia, Not With Love

Has our victory in the Cold War come to this?

I have never seen such useless handwringing, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and hair-pulling over such an inconsequential issue in my life.  Sure, if it were proven that the Russians aided or abetted voter fraud to throw a presidential election, it would be troubling.  Any American who participated in that would go to jail for a very long time.  But for all the noise we've heard about this, we've seen precious little evidence of any wrongdoing.

Make no mistake:  The Russians love to meddle.  Since the days of Peter the Great, Russia has longed to keep its outsiders at arms' length.  By destabilizing one of its biggest competitors, Russia stood not only to secure its existence (did I mention Russians are paranoid...?) but also to elevate itself in the eyes of the rest of the world.  Given its size, its military and its oil reserves, Russia is in a position to dominate other countries and thereby preserve its hegemony over them.  Unless, of course, the United States with our myriad assets exists to nullify the Russians' advantages and overtake them.

But is it really in Russia's best interests to weaken the US?  A growing and aggressive Chinese military threatens to shut down the Pacific to the Russians.  Its population is some eight times the Russian population, outstripping it by a factor of ten in the Far East.  With the United States as a counterbalance, the Russians can breathe a little bit easier, although they'd still have to be wary of a belligerent China. 

Still, even assuming Russia interfered in the 2016 general elections, where's the proof?  Wouldn't the intelligence agencies be releasing information to Congress or the White House showing that the results were rigged?  Why is Congress wasting its time chasing these non-starters about how Jr. met with this operative or Kushner talked with this lawyer or Ivanka shared a drink with this Russian?  For virtually every alleged sin committed by the Trump campaign and administration there's at least one story debunking the allegation.  Meanwhile, judicial positions remain unfilled, Obamacare remains unrepealed, tax reform is stalled and we look like a laughingstock to the rest of the world.

I can't say categorically that nothing happened.  But unless and until someone proves otherwise, enough is enough.  Especially when one considers the relative yawn coming from the MSM regarding the misdeeds of the Clintons when it came to selling assets of the country for personal profit.  Again, there are two sets of standards:  One for liberals and another for everyone else.

What the Russia adventure proves is the fecklessness of our MSM.  There is no one willing to look beyond this Potemkin village (sorry, had to use it) and go after the Clintons, or take the Democrats to task for obstructionism, or report on the ills of sanctuary cities.  Instead, the MSM has appointed itself President Trump's Javert and will dog his every step until it ousts him from the Oval Office.

Only partially sardonically, if the Russians in fact meddled in our election, they might have done us an invaluable service.  If they hadn't, Cankles might have won.

What would the MSM have to do were she president...?

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Hot For Teacher

Growing up, virtually any male going through puberty had fantasies of hooking up with the hot teacher in his school.  Not that there was much chance of it happening; the 60's and 70's might have been the era of free love, but it hadn't yet found its way to the classrooms of middle schools and high schools.

Times have changed...mightily.

Nowadays, hardly a month goes by without there being a report about some teacher preying on a teenaged male student or students.  Guys my age derisively and only half-jokingly ask where these women were when we were growing up, but in truth this is becoming a huge problem.  One of the most recent stories involved a married woman with children who adopted a fifteen-year-old boy solely so he would be in her home for the purposes of sex.  In perhaps the most disgusting of the reports, an older woman had sex with a mentally disabled youth.

And people say men are oversexed...

One might think that the women involved in these accounts are the type who can't find a man on their own so they resort to younger boys who are more pliable.  From the mug shots that are put online, that isn't the case.  Sure, there are some women who are probably not finding a mate of their own age, but a lot of these women are not only married, but they're attractive to varying degrees.  Here's one compilation of women who engage in sex with teenagers:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/slideshow/2017/06/29/female-teachers-charged-or-convicted-having-sex-with-students.html#/slide/loryn-Barclay

And here's yet another: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/notorious-teacher-sex-scandals/?ftag=ACQb72972c&vndid=00474a66c55d0c6edfd2589c64ab95a565

There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason as to the motivation of these women.  It's almost a given that older men prey on young girls, sick as that is.  Perhaps there's something primal in it, but civilization has not only frowned on that, it's passed laws against it.  What civilization and the law seem to have overlooked is that no matter how badly men act, women can act just as poorly.

The fact that women are now making cringe-worthy movies to imitate the likes of The Hangover proves that women can't claim moral superiority as a gender.  But it shocks the conscience, at first, when acts such as these are aired.  As a civilization, we're not used to women acting with this level of depravity; we almost expect it of men.

The element in this that shocks me isn't that women do it but that married women do it.  Perhaps there's something wrong in the marriage, something missing.  But some of these women are not only married but have young children.  These aren't dowagers with grown children; these are (in some cases good-looking) women in their twenties and thirties who are getting involved with teenagers, boys just years older than the women's oldest children.  And in some cases, the woman are getting pregnant by their post-pubescent lovers.

Yes, there are some women in their forties who are also doing this.  But the majority, shockingly, are as I described them.

Why not just have an affair with an older man, or a man around their age?  Why add statutory rape to the misdeeds of which they'll be accused.  I find it hard to believe there are on men of majority age attractive enough to turn the heads of these women. 

Or is it just the taboo aspect of it?  If that's it, the thrill of the forbidden, why not stick to older men and have an affair?

Most guys would scoff at the notion that these young boys will be scarred by the experience.  If that were me, they'd say, I'd be smiling 'til my dying day.  And perhaps some are.  But for as parental as the laws may be, there's good reason to prohibit sex between adults and minors, one of which is the traumatic effect that such experiences may have on the minors, effects, which, may not manifest themselves for years.

As with cellphones that take pictures, trains that travel nearly 200 mph and cable television that offers thousands of channels, we're in a brave new world, one that Aldous Huxley may not have foreseen.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles