The Last Word for 2021: Dog Snuggles

Baby Bialy & Grandpa

Now that I'm retired and clearly have no life whatsoever, I have spent the best, most relaxing week puppy-sitting my grand-puppy Bialy. She was the world's cutest puppy 12 years ago, and liked nothing more than being in Great-Grandpa's arms. He, of course, always had cheese in his pocket which might  have accounted  for some of  the attraction. 

Despite her insistence she is still puppy-sized, she's really a 12-year old German Shorthaired Pointer who likes nothing better than waiting for Savta (that's me) to fall asleep so she can stealthily creep up and lay her 55-pound body flat-out on top of my back. And if I push her off, she just slides down and lays across my butt.

She's the most stimulating, exciting company imaginable and to prove it, here are some exciting scenes from My Week With Bialy.    

In truth, it's kinda nice. She's very snuggly and I miss dog snuggles....even when she decides  it's time to slide on top of me. I don't mind all that much. Nothin' says lovin' like slurping dog-tongue in one's ear at 3:20 a.m. 

The kiddos are someplace sunny and warm...but  no ocean which is just weird to me. Nope, they're in the desert which is a distinct improvement over the frigid temperatures here. I don't blame them one bit. Bialy and I will just hunker down to binge watch GET BACK on  Disney+.

On the upside, they don't do broadcast TV, so I'm streaming news on my computer. Which limits what I can watch and when. Honestly, I've been keeping up with SCOTUS and the local trial of Kim Potter, but that's about it. Amazingly enough, the jury convicted her on both manslaughter counts charged in the death of  Daunte Wright. Since the ridiculous acquittal of Officer Jeronimo Yanez in the shooting of Philando Castile, Minnesota courts have successfully prosecuted three other officers in unwarranted shooting deaths. One might want to believe this is a corner turned, that going forward, at least in Minnesota, there is accountability. Progress? Perhaps. One can do little more than hope. 

But the year is finally about to end. It's not been the best year, or even much better than 2020, and it certainly dashed more hopes than it raised. This COVID thing continues in new and unusual waves with no real end  in sight. There is an emergence of two classes of people in the world: those who are or want to be vaccinated, and those who refuse. Those who refuse will ultimately become the new untouchables in society. Those who are vaccinated will certainly feel their own hearts break as the unvaccinated are barred, rightfully so, from socializing with those who are. As I have often said, this is a matter of choice; those who choose not to be vaccinated are choosing ostracism. 

A mind made up is a mind made up. Until one is lying in hospital alone, gasping for  breath, unable to be comforted, that mind will stay made up. It is a choice one must respect. Not enable. Respect. There's  a difference. I am tired of writing about this. 

One last picture to share, one of my favorites. Shy, timid Peri avoided other dogs at all costs, but loved Baby Bialy. She put up with so much jumpy stuff from that puppy that we could not believe it was our Peri. But this picture, taken in 2010, demonstrates the power of cheese. Hold up a single slice, and the Ben Hur races around the kitchen island ceased immediately as butts slid across the floor. 

Baby Bialy and her Aunty Peri.
Cheese was involved.

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

As you bid 2021 a less-than-fond  farewell,

do not give up hope.

It doesn't cost a thing to believe the world will improve.

Stuff We Lose

Last week was a bit more of a challenge than I normally would undertake voluntarily. I lost my house keys. Yup. I managed to (I believe) drop my 800 pound solid-brass-1980-A-Chorus-Line-ticket key ring into a paper bag filled with recycling stuff that I put in the recycling bin for pickup. How did I not hear that sucker fall? It normally makes enough noise to wake the dead. But it didn't. Add to that, how I got in the car and drove off deepens the mystery of how I could start the car without the car fob. 

Turns out, I had my spare key in the bottom of my pockabook (okay...I'm from New York. That thing on my shoulder is neither purse nor handbag, thank you very much; it's a pockabook.) Normally, I don't carry my spare key around with me, which would've probably caused me to start searching for my big keys, but alas, it was in there because I had grabbed them to move my car and forgot to hang them back up. So at least I had a car key and a house key. 

I called the last place I knew I had the keys....Cub Foods on Robert Street...and the very kind security guy, Daejon, reviewed the store surveillance feed, spotted me at register 9, and reported I put the keys in my right-hand jacket pocket. He then followed me on the parking lot cam, went to where my car had been, and checked all around in the snow, to see if they were there. They were not there. I did call the recycling hauler to see if the truck was back yet...and it was. Empty. So much for that idea. 

Since I was also out my one and only mailbox key, I called the local locksmith, and prepared myself for a hefty stupid tax. He was lovely, assured me this is an every day event, and gave me a really good price for a new car fob. (much less than the dealer wanted.) 

The boys had to be notified their mother was an idiot. Junior Son got the first call because his house key was also on the ring. He was amazingly sympathetic and kind about it. As was the Senior son. And each looked on line to find a replacement. They commiserated; they made me feel that being sad was okay. Because it was. They had never known me without that keyring. 

the replacement

Ziggy gave me the key ring when I became artistic director of a theater back in 1980. Over the next 41 years, I added a Blockbuster scan card, two "emergency" subway tokens (the old kind with the hole in the middle,) various house keys, some mystery keys  and three dog tags: Asta, Shayni, and Peri. That thing was so heavy and made so much noise you couldn't possibly lose it without hearing it.

The Senior Son expressed doubts I would ever be able to remember what a new key ring looked like. A replacement would be less confusion for me. No need to teach me a new habit. So the boys found a duplicate. 

I'm still sad about losing all those little bits of my history, but in the end, it's just stuff. I mean, I used to rub the dogs' tags while holding the keys. I smiled every time I saw the blue Bellmore key. Even though the subway no longer takes tokens, the ones on my key ring had long ago morphed into good-luck tokens. But it really is just stuff.

Anyone who has ever sold a house and/or moved, knows about just stuff. There are things in the junk drawer we saved just in case, bits and pieces of broken things in top dresser drawers
because maybe we can still fix it. I've never been able to really empty Ziggy's top nightstand drawer because ...well...because it would be like throwing him away. But it's just stuff and one day someone, probably not me, will have the task of pitching most of it. At some point, the memories I held dear will be meaningless to someone else, and it will be easier to let go of stuff. 

As we head toward the end of another tumultuous year, I wish I could jettison some of the stuff I've carried around for the last 18 months. Covid lockdown the first time was hard enough, but facing it again is disheartening. I keep canceling plans for Barcelona. I'm beginning to think I will never see Antoni Gaudí's Casa Batlló in person.

Meanwhile, I'm shlepping a fair amount of anger under my hood these days. I'm just plain mad at all sorts of people who are proving themselves too stupid to live. People who refuse to get vaccinated. People who think the 2020 election was stolen. Elected people who refuse to fight for their constituency.

I'm angry at Senator Manchin for throwing the BUILD BACK BETTER legislation under the bus because he thinks people will use child care credits to buy drugs. Really? From ABC News:

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., privately questioned whether parents would misuse Child Tax Credit payments to buy drugs, according to three sources familiar with his comments....That proposal included an extension to the Child Tax Credit program -- which will likely lapse in January after the last payments on Dec. 15 -- along with paid family leave, an expansion of Obamacare coverage and funding for education and combating climate change. 

Senator Manchin

Even though his state would greatly benefit from those programs, Manchin kills the bill. And I want to ask all those people in places like West Virginia why they are sending representatives to Congress who will vote to harm them? Who is gonna take care of Mom, Dad, or Grandma when there's no family leave available to them? They can't afford nursing homes or in-home care. If they quit their jobs, who's gonna put food on the table? I'm angry because they vote against their own self-interest. Because when they finally do go on public assistance things like food stamps, who the hell do they think is paying for it? Does he actually believe he's helping his constituency...or his thirst for power? 

In seventh grade we learned about the three branches of government, I believed in checks and balances. I believed that people who served in Congress and the various state legislatures were in it for the good and welfare of We, the People. Sure, there are always bad guys....Joe McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, Anthony Weiner, Michelle Bachman to name a few... the list is shockingly long but I always held out hope the voters would get rid of the bad ones. Maybe not. But the longer I live, the more I wonder...and worry about the not-so-distant future. 

We, the People, have a lotta crap in our nightstand drawer, much of which we can no longer wait to toss out. That said, if the fine people of West Virginia wanna continue sending people who actually despise them to Congress, well, that's their choice. A time will come, however, when the rest of us are ready to move on. If we have to leave them behind, so be it. I am beginning to seriously believe these here United States need to divide. 

We can no longer afford the drogue chute of states that refuse to help themselves. We can no longer afford garbage debates in congress when we are facing serious challenges like climate change and health care. Just as people who refuse to vaccinate themselves against a preventable disease should find themselves excluded from public places, maybe the states who refuse to move into the 21st century should be set free to follow their own paths...and deal with consequences like exclusion, embargoes, and tariffs. 

States that wish to move forward should have the right to do so without sacrificing the general health and wellbeing of its citizens. We simply cannot afford it. 

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

You are not required to watch Hallmark Movies.

There are other options:

read a good book!

Rated 5-Stars on Amazon!

Vaccinations, Abortions, and Guns....Oh, My!

 Gentle Readers,

Tuesday, December 14th, is the 9th anniversary of the Sandy Hook Children's Massacre.  Just so you know.

I think we all know how I feel about the Supreme Court. That I believe they are the last bastion of sane governance in this country, and that I worry about the conservative tilt going on at the moment. It's also safe to say that I think Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett represent the very bottom of any barrel whether it contains pickles, wine, or jurists. Doesn't much matter. Both are fine examples of box o'rocks intelligence quotients.  But this week, there is a special place in intelligence hell for both of them.

On December 1st, 2021, during the hearings on the Mississippi abortion case, Justice Thomas questioned Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar:

JUSTICE THOMAS: General, would you specifically tell me -- specifically state what the right is? Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy? 

SOLICITOR GENERAL PRELOGAR: The right is grounded in the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Thomas, but I think that it promotes interest in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty, and equality. And I do think that it is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control, without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term.

 

JUSTICE THOMAS: I understand we're talking about abortion here, but what is confusing is that we -- if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we're talking about. If we're talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we're talking about because it's written. It's there. What specifically is the right here that we're talking about?

 

SOLICITOR GENERAL PRELOGAR: Well, Justice Thomas, I think that the Court in those other contexts with respect to those other amendments has had to articulate what the text means in the bounds of the constitutional guarantees, and it's done so through a variety of different tests that implement First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights. So I don't think that there is anything unprecedented or anomalous about the right that the Court articulated in Roe and Casey and the way that it implemented that right by defining the scope of the liberty interest by reference to viability and providing that that is the moment when the balance of interests tips and when the state can act to prohibit a woman from -- from getting an abortion based on its interests in protecting the fetal life at that point.

 

JUSTICE THOMAS: So the right specifically is abortion?

 

SOLICITOR GENERAL PRELOGAR: It's the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with the pregnancy, yes.

Really? She had to explain this to him? Solicitor General Prelogar says it in a single sentence: 

It's the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with the pregnancy, yes.  

This is not rocket science, folks. This is about a fundamental right of a FEMALE person to control one's own bodily function. Why is that so hard for him to understand?  Oh, wait, this only applies to women! Penis Possessors are exempt from thinking about others.

Meanwhile, Justice Bunny Barrett is busy waving her personal ignoramus flag when it comes to Israel and Jews. During oral arguments for Carson v. Makin, yet another State of Maine case, this one dealing with access to public money for students going to private religious schools where public school is not readily available, Justice Barrett frames her question:

JUSTICE BARRETT: Thank you. And my question is as follows. It kind of goes back to Justice Thomas's questions about rough equivalent of a public school. So all schools, in making choices about curriculum and the formation of children, have to come from some belief system. And in public schools, the public school -- the school boards, the districts are making that choice, those choice of classes to be taught and the kind of values that they want to inculcate in the students. Is there any kind -- I mean, how would you even know if a -- if a school taught all religions are bigoted and biased or, you know, Catholics are bigoted or, you know -- or we take a position on the Jewish-Palestinian conflict because of our position on, you know, Jews, right? How would they even know? Because it's my understanding that in choosing whether a non-sectarian school can be funded or not, you're not engaging in that kind of oversight about what the belief systems are of the school. So long as they're not sectarian, it's a thumbs-up?  

Now, I get that she's trying to put this in the perspective of what a school might say. But the language is, dontcha think, a bit bizarre? Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for sure, but Jewish-Palestinian? That she even says "our position on, you know, Jews," telegraphs a whole raft of other kinds of inferences. Do We, the People, even have a position on, you know, Jews?

If you read the hearing transcript, you will notice the ones arguing for inclusion are basing part of the argument on behalf of Orthodox Jewish schools, as if there are a great preponderance of those in Maine to begin with. This is just one comment of several:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, unless you can say that you would treat a Unitarian school the same as a Christian school or an Orthodox Jewish school or a Catholic school, then I think you've got a problem of discrimination among religious groups --

The only Jewish day school in Maine is Levey in Portland. Their mission statement reads:

Levey Day School provides a nurturing community and a challenging, personalized curriculum infused with Jewish values and Hebrew language. Students of all backgrounds become lifelong learners committed to tikkun olam (improving our world).

About COVID, they write in the statement of Guiding Principles:

                                                         .אין כל דבר עומד בפני פיקוח נפש 

Nothing takes priority over safeguarding life. (Talmud, Yoma 82a)

                                                                      .תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם

Study of Torah is the most fundamental obligation. (Talmud, Kiddushin 39b)

These teachings illustrate the profound importance that the Jewish tradition places on learning and on health. Levey Day School has always prioritized both of these principles, and we remain fully committed to providing an outstanding education in a safe learning environment. We look forward to offering in-person teaching this fall, and we are also prepared for the likelihood that some or all students and teachers will need to engage remotely at times. Here are the general principles that guide our plans for doing so, with links to the specific policies that put these principles into action.  

You might think these two cases are unrelated in the broader sense, but they are not. Both are dealing with the freedom of bodily self-determination, but one is a private, personal freedom while the other is one that impacts the general population. If I were told these cases had to be decided on the single issue of personal decision making, I would have to opt for the government has no say in what I do with my own body. 

This does not make me an anti-vaxxer by any stretch of any imagination. Instead, it recognizes that a person has the right to make a decision for oneself. That said, the purveyors of public space have the right to say, "No, you cannot come in here because you are a danger to public welfare." That means the unvaccinated can be turned away and should be. They who choose not to vaccinate do not have the right to infect others. 

There is no moral equivalency in the cases. Choices must be made by the individual in full cognizance of the ramifications. And acceptance of rules that come with that choice must be obeyed for the sake of general good and welfare of the community.

Schools, theaters, shopping malls, airports, airplanes, houses of worship, and any other place where people gather have the right to say, NO VACCINE, NO ENTRY. There comes a point where the science of infection is well established and must be acknowledged/respected. If you are a potential carrier, you cannot be with others whom you endanger.

Being pregnant is not the same thing. A woman has the legal, constitutional, and moral right to choose what to do with her own body. She can choose to carry a pregnancy to term, or she can choose to end it. The state has no standing in that conversation. If a faith-based agency wishes to refuse entry to a woman who has had an abortion, that's between that agency and the woman. The government has no standing in that conversation, either. 

But wait, there's more!

Friday, SCOTUS allowed the Texas abortion law to remain in effect for the moment. In a complicated decision, the court refused to block the law, instead, sending it back to the lower courts. As explained on NPR:

The complicated ruling, issued Friday morning by a vote of 8-1, allows the challenge brought by Whole Woman's Health to proceed in a lower court. In that sense, it is a victory for the provider.

 

But by another vote of 5-4, the justices ruled that Texas judges and court clerks — who had been named as defendants — must be removed from the lawsuit.

 

As a result, any future injunctions in the case won't block the law, attorneys said, because the only defendants who remain are officials who handle medical and pharmaceutical licenses. Any court orders against them would only affect their licensing powers, said Marc Hearron, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy group whose attorneys are leading the litigation.

Slate viewed this as an attack on Constitutionally guaranteed rights: 

Gorsuch concluded, federal courts cannot “parlay” an injunction against an attorney general “into an injunction against any and all unnamed private persons who might seek to bring their own S.B. 8 suits.”

 

This part of Gorsuch’s ruling is a victory for providers—albeit an extremely limited one, for two reasons. First, it’s not clear that an injunction against licensing officials would stop bounty hunters from filing lawsuits under S.B. 8; it would only restrict the state’s ability to punish those clinics found liable under the law. Similarly, an injunction against licensing officials may not stop citizens from suing “abettors” who facilitate an abortion. Second, Texas and other states can easily work around Friday’s decision. Wary of that outcome, Chief Justice John Roberts—along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—dissented from Gorsuch’s refusal to let providers sue state court clerks and the Texas attorney general. Roberts and Sotomayor wrote separate dissents, both focusing on Texas’ flagrant attempt to “nullify” rights protected by the federal Constitution.

Well, isn't that special. So special, in fact, Governor Gavin Newsom of California has decided to use that very model for a new law in his state...and it is brilliant:

The award for Best Use Of Ridiculous Legislation goes to Gov. Newsom. This is the perfect example of be-careful-of-what-you-wish-for kinda thinking. I have no idea if they can actually craft a law using the model, but it's just the kind of thinking We, the People, need to drive the ridiculousness of the anti-women party stance right out into the open. If they claim this violates the Second Amendment, well...goose...gander...shut up and sit down. 

The New York Times explained that thinking rather well:

As the Supreme Court has signaled that it might overturn Roe v. Wade, California political leaders have said they will work to make the state a refuge for women in parts of the country where abortion could be outlawed. Mr. Newsom’s response seemed to fulfill warnings that if the high court backed Texas’ legal strategy, liberal-leaning states might use the same tactic to limit rights dear to conservatives, such as gun rights.

 

The governor said that “if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.”

In the end, this whole episode is about the ridiculousness that has become SCOTUS. The court, once a place where laws and legislation was discussed free of political gamesmanship, has evolved into something partisan and devoid of the protections it's supposed to offer. The court as it stands now would not hear R. B. Ginsburg's case on unfair taxation that hinged on gender discrimination. The court is precariously edging toward becoming a puppet court...the kind we mocked and belittled in totalitarian countries like the Philippines and  Venezuela. 

If SCOTUS upholds more end-runs around the Constitution and settled law, what's the point of either? They are nothing more than shams and illusions to shed a rosy glow over morally and ethically bankrupt policies. 

The Wifely Person's Consideration o'the Week

And on that note.....I am giving serious consideration to taking the week off

 between that other holiday in December and New Year's Day. 

Truth is, I'll be hanging out with 50 pounds of pure snuggle 

and I'm not sure I'm gonna wanna rouse myself off the couch 

to do much besides let her out into the back yard. I'll let you know

Minor Annoyances, Major Disappointments

You can see the little unfinished nubs

An informal survey of people buying Hanukkah candles this year, revealed I was not alone in feeling like the standard grocery story twisty candles were somehow defective. Turns out I wasn't alone in needing a nut pick, a metal implement that close resembles that thing your dentist uses to scrape off tartar, to get the candle remains outta the little cups so you can put a new candle in. And even then, you had to heat the bottom of the candle just enough to get it to stand up straight in the cup. This yielded a mess every night. 

In years past, the candles burned all the way down, leaving just a bit of wick in the cup. Each night the new candle went right into the cup, no problem. Of course, once you went through the torture of having to scrape out the damn cups every night, the candles still looked lovely as they burned. They do, if only for a little while, light up the room. I understand we observe Hanukkah in the winter in this hemisphere, and I know Hanukkah is a summer holiday in the southern hemisphere, but when the sun goes down at 4:30 in the afternoon in our half of the world, the glow of the candles is a welcome break from the long night ahead. 

As some of you already know, Hanukkah isn't really a religious holiday, so much as it is a civil holiday, a rare thing on the Jewish calendar. We celebrate the miracle of the oil, but did that really happen? I have my doubts. But we do celebrate the rather zealous family of Matthias Maccabee and his five sons, Judah included. These guys were your basic guerrilla warriors. There is no work prohibition as there is on other holy days, and even the story of the oil only appears in Talmud as an explanation as to why the holiday is important. 

The really important takeaway from the Maccabean revolt is that you fight for that which you believe. If your way of life is threatened, you don't wait for disaster, you get up and do something before the disaster arrives. One would think we learned that lesson in the last century, but alas....

But here's the really hard part: people disagree about what is important. There are lots of people out there who truly believe masking and vaccines are federal government overreach. They believe with all their hearts that the Constitution gives them the right to walk around locked and loaded. They believe with their entire being that federally provided healthcare is not a fundamental right. This might all seem to fly in the face of what seems to be survival or at least self-interest. Do these people not get doctor bills? Do they not see the danger of people being able to whip out a gun and shoot before asking questions? Do they not understand the danger of any pregnancy, let alone the result of rape or incest, to a young girl's body? Where is the moral compass?

Well, they believe they are acting according to their own moral compass. Now, do not get me wrong; I am not defending this behavior; I am merely saying that it exists and it has a firm hold on a large part of this country. Short of secession, these are voters who will continue to elect voices that differ dramatically from the ones you might be used to hearing. We listen to their words, wonder why they want to infect each other with a virus that kills while refusing to vaccinate themselves and their children. Sometimes, that reminds me of the stories about child sacrifice. Why would any parent offer a child up to death? It's not like they believe it's gonna appease the flu god. Yet they choose to expose themselves and their families to a disease that has empirically proven itself to be a killer. 

But let's set that aside for a moment. How about the part where parents, like the couple in Michigan, not only armed their son, they refused to recognize the kid had a problem when the school tried to warn them? Like their son, they are in jail on murder charges. Why weren't they the grown ups in the room for this kid?

Clearly, lots of people don't see a problem with parents arming children. Take Kentucky's 4th District Congressman: Thomas Massie. This guy has the most bizarre voting record ever. He and his wife not only armed their family, but they asked Santa for ammo.

What would Jesus say about that Christmas card? I have a pretty good idea what his mother woulda said. She was, when it's all said and done, a Jewish mother. 

If this is what We, the People, of any state are electing to represent us in Congress, is it really any mystery as to why this might be a problem? People: 76,400 other people liked that picture. Any possibility there's a cryptic message in there somewhere?

Here's the thing, though: guns are not an answer. Name calling is not an answer. The hateful rhetoric is nothing more than playground taunting that does no one any good whatsoever. There will never be useful discussion,  much less hope of any sort of middle ground, if the hate continues. We are heading into the midterms, and then the Presidential Debacle. If We, ALL The People, don't get a grip on the trash talk, we will lose this country. There WILL be a civil war. 

I am not saying don't debate the issues, but the trash talk in the streets, in public venues, in our homes, and most  of all, in our legislatures must stop. Save trash talking for the basketball court or the hockey rink. Don't sully the dignity of running a nation with garbage mouths. Be better than that.

Not like I'm gonna convince anyone or change any minds. I know enough people on the other side of the political spectrum who believe any time I say stuff like this I'm being a libtard. Yeah, you read that right. And that makes me really sad because that's exactly what I'm railing against yet the label is used and persists. It's okay to call me names, but accuse any one of them of promulgating hate speech and I'm the evil name caller. This is a classic example of how the chasm never closes. 

The separation is not diminishing; instead, it feeds directly into the chasm that will eventually split the nation into separate nations. Once upon a time, I thought that was a horrid and ridiculous notion. These days, I'm not so sure. Maybe if the US separated into two or three countries, we might have a fighting chance of having at least one socially responsible nation working toward the good and welfare of its population instead of a nation on the brink of social disaster. With the continuation of a two-party system there is no chance for any sort of coalition government and frankly, we are getting nowhere fast. 

Honestly, I'd be fine if Texas got the ball rolling with secession. 

Still, I can't help but continue to wonder why people who lack basic services like available health care and standard education requirements continue to fight against those things. I'm sure they have a reason, much like parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids have reasons, to stand firmly against any program that would improve their conditions. One might think after the spiraling death count of COVID-19 and its variants, including but not limited to Omicron, they might see the wisdom in being able to access health care. Or not. 

Whether we want to admit it or not, these here United States are falling farther and farther behind in caring for our own citizens within the concept of a social contract. This will eventually be that which splits the country. I'm certain of it because health care has become politics. As long as a significant portion of the population is okay with dying from purely preventable diseases, we have to respect that choice. Separation, the removal of those who refuse to vaccinate, and the closure or borders might be the only way to slow the next pandemic.

As Ziggy woulda said, "Think of it as evolution in action." 

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

If you are unfamiliar with The Darwin Awards,

do yourself a favor and remedy that. 

You'll will have a much better scope on 

just how stupid humans can be. 

The Things We Worry About. Or Not.

I just want to take a moment to say how surprised I was by the verdict for the murder of Ahmaud Arbrey. In Georgia, no less. The conviction of Travis McMichaels, his father Gregory McMichaels, and their friend Roddie Bryan was clearly warranted by their actions, but I wondered if the jury would actually render a guilty verdict on the murder charges. I won't get into a comparison of the Rittenhouse vs McMichaels & Bryan trials, but suffice it to say that the nation watched with more scrutiny this time. 

Step Surveillance Station

Thanksgiving was a quiet event at Chez Wifely, but Shabbat Thanksgiving is a traditionally raucous night. Dinner was dairy after Turkey Day, with red snapper, the fish of choice. Little Miss and Young Sir were happy to have a new victim...I mean audience member (my friend Joanie who is visiting from SoCal) to delight with their plots, and there was lots of laughter. Especially when, using my rubber Millennium Cows and small stuffed things, they created a series of surveillance stations to capture our location at every minute. Now, for someone who refuses to use Alexa et al, this was a little creepy because I keep finding surveillance stations all over the house.

Mantel Surveillance Station

Little Miss's precision in placement was pretty good. She had the sight lines all figured out. She explained that this was a safety precaution, but I wasn't buying that one. Of course, Young Sir said, "Yeah!" to everything she said. Watching them work together to set up the surveillance stations was actually kinda remarkable. She had a willing henchman, and gee, isn't that what a younger sibling is for? I know I often played the role of henchman to my big brother, although I cannot remember ever setting up surveillance stations. We were almost as creative....we hid Fizzies in toilet tanks... but we're not talking about us. Anyway, a couple of thinks struck me after the kids and kiddos left. I found myself thinking about why a 7-year old would even know what a surveillance station was. And once I was headed down that path, I was thinking about how she instinctively knew the best places to set them up for maximum coverage. 

This was a big think if you ask me. It screamed volumes about how little kids view the world. I didn't ask too many questions about why she thought we need surveillance, but I'm guessing she learned this on The Octonauts  where they're always setting up stuff to watch the ocean floor and fight off bad ecological events. The show is really terrific, and has been described as Star Trek meets Jacques Cousteau for little kids. They are all about real animals in the sea and the help they need to survive. I get it. It's great stuff.

But I ended up thinking about the peripheral messages, the ones that little imaginations glean from visuals. In olden times, this might've been called preparedness thinking. I can remember making a make-believe bomb shelter in a friend's basement. We were in first grade and we were acting out what we saw and heard in school. Are Little Miss's surveillance stations much different from that? Probably not.

I'm not so sure, just as I'm not so sure her knowing about this stuff is so bad either. Little Miss could turn my photos on my old iPod Touch into slideshows with music long before I knew how to do that. Kids are growing up with Alexa doing their bidding; I guess they have to sorta grok the idea that Alexa and others might be de facto listening to them. Savvy kiddos are not bad things. Teaching them to be savvy about technology is definitely not a bad thing. 

The big kids work hard to keep technology age appropriate for the kiddos. There are hard limits on television and other media. The premium is on reading, not watching. These are good things. Both kiddos love books and stories. They do listen, which is sometimes remarkable all on its own. I am relieved as much as thankful for that. But I still worry.

Yeah, that's what savtas (grandmothers) do. We are natural born worriers. I kinda think the things both my grandmothers worried about for us are vastly less complicated than the things I worry about for Little Miss and Young Sir. I'm also guessing the things the big kids worry about for the kiddos are somewhat different from what Ziggy and I worried about...although we were at the forefront of monitored screen time. 

None of my grandparents were born into a world where people routinely flew across continents and oceans. None of them ever saw a PC, much less a smartphone. They worried about moving pictures and vaudeville. My folks were better at technology adoption than their folks, but they worried about smutty books, "appropriate" movies, (okay, we were coming of age in the 60s) pot, and premarital sex. Ziggy and I worried about internet porn, violent video games, drugs, and safe sex. See, things changed. Parental paranoia changed with the generations. I don't even want to imagine what Mr. and Mrs. Junior Son will worry about as Little Miss and Young Sir come of age. 

And those are just the little things. The big ones, like antisemitism, racism, and gender inequality are out there in spades waiting for my beloved kinderlach to challenge them all in the name of justice. 

I hear myself going, "Oy! Oy! Oy!" a lot. Some things, on the other hand, don't ever change. 

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

They tried to kill us, We won. Let's eat.
Chag Urim Same'ach to all!

BONUS TIP

Need a great Hanukkah present?

Give a great book!

Guns, Guns, and More Guns

November 22, 1963. 

I probably don't have to tell you what happened on that day. If I do, you weren't around yet, and you probably didn't pay much attention in civics, social studies, history, or whatever you called that class about these here United States. 

X marks the spot. 58 years ago, there was an open convertible driving across that X. 

And the rest, as they say, is history. Well documented history

A guy named Zapruder was filming it all with his Bell & Howell movie camera. You see the car, you see the shot, you see the Secret Service climbing into the car. 

One guy with a high powered rifle changed the world and we get to see him to do it over and over and over. 

Each frame of the Zapruder film has been intensely analyzed over and over. One shoot? Two shooters? Grassy knoll? Book depository? No one knows for sure. 

Despite the film, despite the modern forensics, despite what we think we know but really don't know. And there are still no answers to the endless questions We, the People had about the assassination. There is no satisfactory resolution to who and why. 

But it didn't stop there. 

The nation was in shock. Mourning pall stretched across the entire country. People didn't know how to respond to this horrific tragedy.

But in this scenario, Jack Ruby finds his way into the crowded basement of Dallas Police headquarters. He waits patiently for the cops to bring out Lee Harvey Oswald. And he shoots him at point blank range. 

At the time of Jack Ruby's assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, there was lots of talk about his gun (he bought it in a pawn shop in 1961 for $75.00) , how he got it into the basement of the police station (he carried it in from the street,) and how he managed to fire before anyone stopped him. And it was so neatly captured on camera. Still, there are enough conspiracy theories to make even Tucker Carlson squeal with delight.

In another, much different scenario, but also captured on many phone cameras, a 17-year old kid walks into a crowd with an automatic weapon seemingly set to fire. He tells people he's there to guard businesses, but no one ever asked him to, nor was he a security guard of any kind. He says he's there to volunteer as a medic; he has no EMT training. 

In the course of events, he shoots and kills two people, and injures a third. He claims it was self-defense, that he was in fear for his own safety. Even though he was carrying a cocked and loaded automatic weapon. 

Can someone explain to me why he went into a potential riot situation with a cocked and loaded AR-whatever but didn't intend to use it? Is this like a dick thing? Y'know the gun is inversely proportional to his size? That would make much more sense to me than hearing how he was there to protect, serve, and be a medic....not one of which he was trained to do. 

And how is it that no one stopped a guy with a loaded automatic rifle from entering the crowd? Were the cops on a donut break? If that guy with the AR-whatever was any other color, he woulda been face down on the pavement, probably dead. 

But never mind that. Take a closer look at the law.

The burden of proof in the way the Wisconsin law is written falls to the prosecution. From the NY Times:

Wisconsin’s rules for self-defense are well within the national mainstream. If people reasonably believe they are at risk of death or great bodily harm, they can use deadly force. Most states say that someone who provokes violence or is acting illegally waives the right to self-defense, but Wisconsin allows it if the person has “exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm.”

Sounds reasonable enough, but were Rittenhouse's actions reasonable?

You have to take into account that Judge Schroeder ruled prosecutors could not refer to men Kyle Rittenhouse shot as victims but allowed the defense to refer to them as looters. Were they looters? Does anyone know that for sure?

On the surface, this seems exceptionally prejudicial in favor of the defendant, but Schroeder’s ruling was based on his determination that using the word “victim” would telegraph that a crime was committed against that person, and that would be prejudicial when presenting a case where the shooter says he acted in self-defense. 

One of Rittenhouse's victims....I mean looters, Gaige Grosskreutz, told the jury: 

 I thought that the defendant was an active shooter.

This brings up an interesting scenario. Here's the chain of shooting events as published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Later, Rittenhouse walks alone to the business' third location four blocks away, and encounters Rosenbaum, who chases him before Rittenhouse fatally shoots him.

As Rittenhouse walks away, he falls to the ground. He fires at a man who tries to kick him, then kills Anthony Huber, who had hit him [with] a skateboard. Grosskreutz, who was approaching with a handgun, is wounded. 

Rittenhouse then walks toward several police tactical vehicles at the nearby intersection, his arms raised in an apparent surrender. The police vehicles drive past him toward the shooting victims. Rittenhouse meets back up with Black, who drives him home.

Think about this. Rittenhouse has an automatic weapon and fires at Rosenbaum, just released from the hospital, heavily armed with a plastic bag containing a toothbrush, toothpaste, socks, deodorant and some papers. From NPR:

According to Rittenhouse's lawyers, Rosenbaum approached Rittenhouse and attempted to "engage" him. Afraid, Rittenhouse took off running and Rosenbaum gave chase. Videos of the incident show that Rosenbaum eventually threw the plastic bag he was carrying at Rittenhouse, who responded by firing four shots at the man.

The defense said Rosenbaum was a felon, therefore Rittenhouse decided his life was in danger. How did he know Rosenbaum was a felon? Was he wearing a sign, "Hi, I'm a felon armed with a bag of socks, shoot me?" He was unarmed. Rosenbaum may have been chasing him, so you shoot him? That's okay, according to the state of Wisconsin.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explains the timing of the second and third shooting

Just as Rittenhouse shot Huber, Grosskreutz was walking up to Rittenhouse. He briefly stopped and raised his hands after Huber was shot, holding a handgun in his right hand. Rittenhouse, still seated on the pavement, looked up and shot Grosskreutz in the right bicep. Prosecutors charged attempted first-degree intentional homicide.

What part of hands in the air, even with a gun held upwards, would telegraph to the shooter that he was in immediate danger? Last time I looked, hands-in-the-air was a posture of surrender. Seems to me Rittenhouse was shooting to kill and Grosskreutz got lucky. If Grosskreutz fired at a man pointing an automatic rifle at him, thereby killing Rittenhouse, would that have been self-defense? One would naturally conclude that. According to Judge Schroeder's way of thinking, that would make Rittenhouse the looter, not Grosskreutz. 

Here are the pictures. It almost looks like a scene from West Side Story...but it's not. It's real.

So, if Rittenhouse thought he was "helping" and Grosskreutz thought he was "helping," was anyone really helping? Or was this a caught-in-the-crossfire kinda moment? Perhaps the biggest elephant in this particular room, however, is why he was not stopped by a cop even after shots were fired. How is it Kyle Rittenhouse got to go home after killing two people and injuring a third without once being stopped by a cop? (You think the color of his skin might have had something to do with that?) Despite how the law is written, why doesn't the choice to come locked and loaded mean something...anything...in assessing responsibility for his actions?. He came armed. He came ready to kill. Doesn't that count? He didn't just think about it...Rittenhouse took steps to insure something did happen

Which then begs the bigger question: what are the extended ramifications of this decision? Is this carte blanche to conceal, carry, and fire at will? "Oh, officer, he looked at me funny and he has a bulge in his pocket. I decided it was a gun and my life was in danger so I fired my AR-15 point blank at his chest." 

Despite yards and yards of phone and security footage showing teen-ager Kyle Rittenhouse at various points in his progression through Kenosha, he walks away with no ramification for his action. He leaves two corpses on the sidewalk and is assigned no responsibility for their deaths. He just wipes his hands clean while the families of Rosenbaum and Huber bury their dead children. 

I am anxious to see what happens to Ahmaud Arbery's case in Georgia. It scares the shit outta me because if they acquit, it will mean lots of people will think vigilante justice is just fine. 

Is it? You decide. 

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

Something to consider: at the time of the Aurora, Colorado movie massacre, Ziggy was particularly distressed by gun enthusiasts who believed that had people been permitted concealed carry in that state, someone would've taken the shooter out. 

Perhaps, but how many more people would've been caught in the crossfire of "helpful citizens" trying to stop a live shooter? Seems that this is pretty much what happened in Kenosha.