JackTReason

Recently a draft opinion from the Supreme Court was leaked to the press. It was written by Justice Alito, and appeared to suggest that the court has voted to overturn the earlier Supreme Court decision from 1972 known as Roe v. Wade.

That decision, which stated that the right to abortion was protected by privacy, which is implied in various amendments to the Constitution. It has been considered decided law for these last fifty years, and a great step forward in women’s rights to equality.

The political left is outraged that they would do this, though most expected it at some point; and the right is outraged that someone leaked this draft decision, though they have been advocating for this since Roe was decided. Who actually is responsible for this leak remains unknown, but it is easily argued that the leak came from the right.

The public seems quite clear that they did not want Roe v Wade to be overturned, and by a fair amount. And by a larger amount they want abortion to be legal, or legal within certain conditions.

Even though I am a man, my interest is in all citizens having equal protection under the law. As I see it, banning abortions places an undue burden on women, because they cannot conduct their lives without restrictions based on their gender and fertility. Men are free to engage in sex with any consenting adult, but do not have to be burdened with carrying to term a fetus should pregnancy result. Though they commonly can be held civilly liable for the care of the child, they have no equal criminal restriction on their actions during the pregnancy. The woman who is pregnant becomes compelled by law to conduct her life in such a way as to deliver the pregnancy to term, and in such a way as to not cause it to end prematurely. This includes lifestyle and diet changes she may not wish, and perhaps compulsory prenatal medical appointments. The male who co-caused the pregnancy is not so compelled to actions of any measure of equality, and therefore the burden of unwanted pregnancy falls more heavily on women than men.

Having sexual intercourse does not automatically guarantee pregnancy, and it since it is often done for pleasure, it cannot be said to be reserved solely for producing children. Sex for pleasure is an act engaged in by men and women throughout human history and prehistory.

Prior to the development of effective birth control, women could not exercise this right to engage in sex without accepting the risk of pregnancy. And while this risk is greatly lower with modern birth control, it isn’t guaranteed in all cases, and often birth control is not used by many women who do not intend to have sexual intercourse. Thus in pursuing a pleasurable lawful act, they are burdened with considerable risk and consequences should an unintended pregnancy occur. Whether it is rape, or failure of birth control, or any other reason, no one should be compelled to become or remain pregnant against their will.

The pending decision expected in June is an affront to the liberty of women. I have written of this before, but it has its genesis in religious belief. There is no reasonable understanding that an embryo in a woman’s womb is a separate life entitled to the protection of law when that conflicts with the protections afforded to the woman. The assertion that life begins at conception fails to make a reasonable argument to assign person-hood to a biological process that can only take place inside the womb, and may not in natural course result in an infant. And in deciding this the court makes every woman who wishes to have sex, whether she is married or not, subject to the risk of not only pregnancy, but the completion to term of that pregnancy and the care of that child once born, until such time that nature inhibits this ability. It places every woman, and women alone, forced to consider a full term pregnancy and childbirth as a risk when engaging in sexual intercourse unless she has permanently ended her ability to have them, or her partner has had a vasectomy. And here additional burdens are born by the possibility of rape, however small they may be.

Ultimately, this is a law to regulate behavior. And I expect that the next thing to come will be allowing states to decide if birth control may be permitted, and perhaps prohibitions of sex outside of marriage. *Alas, as I come back to work on this piece after some days away, already we see legislatures in various states proposing laws that would impose those exact restrictions.

Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King jr. said “…the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” This has been the case for most of the history of the world, but not without interruptions and setbacks. Sometimes these interruptions have been retardation. And sometimes they have lasted generations. There have always been those who would impose their religious beliefs onto others against their will. And while the focus of MLK’s work was on racial justice, the same justice is needed for all members of society.

Should this leaked draft opinion become the law of the land it will make a setback in that arc of justice. It will retard the application of equal treatment under the law to all Americans and cause great harm and injustice to many. And while I would like to hope that it will be rejected by a majority when the final vote is given, it is incumbent on The People to cast votes over the course of the coming years and decades to reshape the political landscape in order to change the members of the court.

It’s late April 2022 on planet Earth, and in the United States of America there is plenty of talk about manhood. Way too much talk about manhood. And typically it is about the supposed decline of manhood, and the macho steps necessary for men to win back that manhood we are so lacking. Ugh. This toxic crap makes me wince. The most annoying whiner on Television, Tucker (Brown people are coming to replace you) Carlson is putting out a guide to teach you what you’re missing. And if you laughingly guessed it is full of shirtless men chopping wood and wrestling, and naked men taking ice baths and tanning their testicles, you’ll stop laughing when you find out that you were spot on. Life is stranger (and funnier) than fiction.

Of course I have only seen a promotional clip that is being passed around on Twitter, but it includes exactly those things I mentioned.

The milky white skinned, Karen-voiced Tucker is on a quest to return American men to the manly state he imagines we once were. The inclusion of so many shirtless men jibes easily with his fawning over the Russian President (-cum-Dictator) Vlad Putin, who made shirtless videos on horseback and such. Tucker’s ideal man has no shirt and spends a lot of time outdoors. A place Tucker must surely avoid based on his skin-tone.

And his stance on this issue seems to be driven by the growing acceptance of equality between genders, and notably between races.

Carlson has always seemed obsessed with the idea of an established hierarchy of sex and race, and though he is sort of careful not to admit the overt racism and sexism he displays, nor his clear preference for authoritarian power. (Chiefly, a shirtless white man with authoritarian power. I suspect he imagines Trump without a shirt. Ick.) But it is plainly visible to anyone watching that his efforts are attempts to assuage his own weakness and sense of inferiority. The alarm he responds with at the apparent lack of masculinity and machismo in American society is little more than a display of his own fear of change.

There are men; and then there are “real men.”

The latter are those that Tucker mistakes for the first. They are overtly and intentionally masculine in a way that has come to be called toxic. They assert the right to be in charge of others, and they claim superiority by birthright. And they take steps to force others to cower in their presence, like some great silverback gorilla. The actual comparison to silverbacks is seen in a positive light by them.

And they mistake physical prowess for manhood.

I was raised without a father, and joined the Navy at seventeen. It was there that I selected men (without their knowledge or mine), to be role models to replace the father figure I was missing. And while I picked from authority figures mostly, (I was in the military after all,)  I also picked from those who weren’t. And I didn’t pick those who ruled with fear or threat (though I did see how that could be effective), but chose instead those who inspired through confident kindness. Men who ignored shallow insults and asides. Men who earnestly were trying to help us become better men. And though some of these men could fight, and I did learn to fight from them, mostly that was unimportant. Real men, I saw in practice, didn’t need physical strength and violence to inspire others to follow them.

And through my life aboard ship and away from the sea, I saw that the best men paid only modest attention to physical prowess. Keeping fit wasn’t a bad thing and it made participating in sport more fun, but they didn’t spend any time trying to show everyone else how strong they were. They were the fathers and brothers who cared for their friends and families, treated people fairly, and kept their commitments to others.

History is full of these men. Pioneers, farmers, builders of homes and businesses. Men who organized clubs and associations, took their civic duties to heart, and made time to volunteer to help others. Some are legends, some today are nameless.

So who are all these men obsessed with macho attainments? Men who seem to think that rippling muscles and dominating others is necessary for real manhood? This machismo has been called toxic masculinity by some, me included, and is seen as a huge negative influence on humanity.

If it mattered enough to me I could look up some books on psychiatry and psychology to find the likely causes of this behavior. I suspect it would be traced (like so many other things) to the relationship with their fathers. Perhaps they too held warped ideas of what men should be. Perhaps these insecure men-children had cowered in fear of their fathers, and got little defense from their mothers – who were also cowering with good reason.

Maybe their fathers had been absent. Perhaps they were taken under the wing of some toxic creature bent on building a cult of masculinity. I don’t know. Like I said, I’d have to be more interested to undertake that study.

But I know the best men don’t behave like this. Men of genuine confidence don’t announce their prowess with flexing and snarls. These are nature’s signs of fear. A snake rattle and cat hiss aren’t attempts to dominate, they’re warning signs. They’re afraid and threatening to keep you away. Actual manhood welcomes people. It has strength to lift up and carry others, not push them down.

And it is fair to delineate between masculinity and the toxic version. Few would say that Muhammad Ali was not masculine. The greatest boxer in history, who also displayed his courage in the face of racism. But his life was not spent intimidating others, or displaying his physique at every turn. I love the pictures of him downtown New York in morning dress and bowler hat. A refined and gentlemanly look you would never see on the grunting he-men pushing people out of their way on the sidewalk.

The traditional ideal of manhood in America had always been (and I think remains) one of quiet confidence. In movie westerns they’d say he was “tall in the saddle.” Men like Gary Cooper and Randolph Scott were idolized for their manly dignity. I think it was Doris Day who commented that Clark Gable was the most masculine man she had ever seen, and that combined with his boyish charm made him irresistible.

And yes, you would see those men stand up for the weak and powerless. Clark Gable, for example, almost walked off the set and quit his role as Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind unless the production was integrated, after finding out that black actors were forced to use different facilities. He was no coward. But neither was he flexing in tight T-shirts. His attire was elegant and classic.

But the machismo and uber-manliness that Tucker Carlson advocates isn’t strength and power. It is weakness and violence. We don’t avoid that type of men because they are strong, we avoid them because they are dangerous. Dangerous because they live in fear of others. A fear that drives them to project willingness to harm. And I guess that Tucker admires them because they are feared, and he wished he were. He has no chance of being respected, because he does not offer respect to others. And without knowing what that would be, he mistakes the threatening beast for power. He is openly calling for more men like this. He hopes to see legions of men using physical force to get their way.

Well Tucker, you’ll certainly get some. And you might even get them dressed up in brown shirts and jackboots, but they won’t be masculine, and they won’t represent manhood.

There is a gulf between those who wish to examine and test ideas against the physics of our natural world, and those who are content to believe something not so examined, but instead proclaimed by someone or thing they accept as authority. I have heard faith defined as the excuse people give for believing in something for which they have no evidence. I think this is at times accurate, but uncharitable to some others.

But we do have plenty of examples where our assumptions about the unknown were shown to be incorrect when the tools and methods for examining them were developed and applied. When it comes to the unknown, we may make hypotheses about it, and if able we can test these. Often over the millennia we have found answers – always natural and never supernatural. And where we have not yet found answers we find this divide between those who must put an answer to the question, and those who are content to leave it as unknown.

Of these the first group is the largest. More people in the world are more comfortable assigning speculative cause to the unknown than those who do not. I think this is largely because of the finite nature of human life; It is hard to grasp infinity, and hard to accept lack of knowledge. We ourselves may not have an answer, but the idea that there is no answer at all is unacceptable to many.

But the latter group, of which I am a part, is not content to accept a claim that has no evidence. When any claim begins with an unfalsifiable assumption, such as gods, afterlife, reincarnation, or anything supernatural, it is a non-starter. We (I) recognize that there are those who do share this approach. We can’t make people think critically.

We also can’t accept any explanation where the initial claim has to be believed without evidence. Or believed by default of tradition. Or accepted for lack of a provable contrary answer. In logic we say this last is an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy that never defeats a reasoned argument. This is something I have seen in many fields, and not merely that of religion. The temptation of some is to pick a possible conclusion, and work backwards to see if a path to that conclusion is evident. Doing so, these people will believe they are following the scientific method, and then accept the answer as proven. When they speak to a skeptic, they become frustrated that we won’t accept their conclusion. They don’t understand their error, both in methodology, and the fallacies in the arguments they make.

The wish for purpose is understandable. We spend our mortal lives driven by purpose. To feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves are purposes for sustaining life. It is normal to come to question why we are doing this if we just die. And why the whole effort of combined life that we have found, and the vastness of the cosmos? Ultimately the biggest question on these lines is: Why is there something rather than nothing? And here again is the rub. If you are so inclined to accept that we don’t know but are still willing to ask and wonder, then you are like me; while if you cannot accept not knowing as an answer, then you may well assign cause and accept that belief on faith.

Here I might offer a definition of faith as, believing in something without reasonable evidence because you are unwilling or unable to accept the possibility of a permanent unknown.

While it is reasonable inquiry to wonder why we are here, or why anything is here; it seems to me to be hubris to assign the cause to a deity which holds humanity as special and select, and to believe that such a deity created the cosmos on our behalf. It rises to the level of absurdity to then offer that the entirety of existence is little more than a field for testing our faith in that deity; a deity for which we must accept based on the claims of ancient books or current interpreters. A field where we must prove our devotion, loyalty, and trepidation to and of that deity, so that we may inherit the invisible paradise which lies behind the curtain (which is also invisible.)

And further, that our failure to accept these anonymous claims that such a deity exists and demands such fidelity of us, we shall not earn that paradise but instead be assigned a permanent and eternal torture of a netherworld. One which, as you may have already guessed, is similarly invisible and undetectable to us.

All the while we exist (whether evolved or created) with the ability to reason and examine all around us to discern truth from fiction. A human characteristic which directly opposes the commands we are to believe we have been given. (By the invisible and undetectable deity we have been told exists.)

Alone and without further examination it is clear that belief in such a deity is foolish and superstitious. And that adjusting our lives to accommodate this claim robs us of time to do that which benefits ourselves and others. A duty which, for lack of proof for or against, seems to be the best use of our limited lives.

But if we do examine the claims of deities, and more so those who make these claims, it becomes clear that all of the behaviors we are called upon to do in order to curry favor with this deity benefit chiefly those who make the claims in the first place. For it is the claimants of these deities who gain most from our adherence to the claims. Simply by asserting the existence of deity and claiming the right to speak for and on behalf of this deity, these agents gain fortune. And by spreading the word to others, we are doing little more than recruiting more victims of this confidence game, and more revenue for the charlatans who operate it.

It is profitable, whether in money or power, to perpetuate faith over reason.

We may use reason to build a better world, and make the lives of ourselves and our fellows better. We may even find a way to prolong the existence of humanity, or even the evolution of the mind by the application of critical thinking and reason.

Adherence to faith, on the other hand, can do none of these things, but will instead support those who perpetuate the denial of reason and critical thought. Faith is an antagonist of reason, and harmful to progress. And those that promote it operate from the worst of motivators. They are motivated to benefit themselves only, and over the needs of the masses. (Even though many believe the masses would be better holding such beliefs.) Where reason naturally leads to promoting the broadest possible effect of our actions – that which promotes the interest of all will bring more future minds to that same task, whereas faith leads to restricting benefits to those who accept the tenets demanded.

In the year 312 (CE) The Roman Emperor Constantine converted his empire to Christianity, though he himself did not convert until on his deathbed 25 years later. (And here we have only his priests to attest to this claim.) And you needn’t be an expert of that man to recognize that anyone who achieves such power as he had, is skilled at political manipulation. It seems more probable than not that Constantine saw this national conversion as beneficial to his aims. Perhaps there was sincerity behind it. I don’t know.
The earlier Roman Senator Lucius Annaeus Seneca once said: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” A reasonable and skeptical mind might well conclude that such thinking was evident to Constantine as well. It is probable that he had read Seneca’s words himself. (Or similar words and ideas.)

A glance throughout history, from ancient Egypt to times present in many places, we can see the role religions play in holding power. And we can see that once held, that power isn’t used to benefit the whole of humanity or the whole of even their own people; but instead is used chiefly to retain power for that group which holds it. And it then promotes antagonism towards those of other countries and religions to the harm of their own people.

It takes little reason to see that working together as a whole people for the betterment of the planet and prolonging our place on it is a good thing, and by pressing our resources towards weapons of war and conflict with our fellows we waste those resources, both material and intellectual. The conflicts we create through the acceptance of faith in religion, or faith in leaders who claim divine right to act, or by nationalistic prejudice against others; are all robbing us of precious potential for good. And it is all done for the preservation of power to the few.

Starting from scratch, with no claims or indoctrination from elders or parents, we are left with no clear answer to many basic questions about existence. We simply cannot know for certain how the existence we perceive to have come about; or for that matter, if it had a beginning at all. The idea that something must have always been for existence to start, is answered by accepting that existence always has been. It needn’t be an intelligent creator at all. Why introduce an eternal agent to create existence, when existence could be eternal?

But since that question cannot be answered to any reasonable level of certainty in our day and age, and with the availability of tools at our disposal; it stands to reason that it could not have been answered by our ancestors any better.

Today there is little doubt that belief in a creator is largely driven by claims made throughout history, and it is childhood indoctrination and familial history that supports the belief. I say this because we can not demonstrate to any real degree the existence of such a being, without first accepting that existence by default.

And we have many people who apply reason and examination of claims, who are then well convinced there is no good reason to think such a being exists, even though they were raised with beliefs in such beings. If those raised without any belief cannot (correctly) reason themselves into belief in deity, and those who were raised with those beliefs can (correctly) reason themselves into abandoning those beliefs; then it supports the idea that the origins of god claims were not the product of sound reasoning, but of absence or abandonment of reason in favor of imagined answers to unknowable concepts.

This leaves us to consider that ancient humans came to their belief in deity by one of two means: Either they arrived at belief the way one might today, as an assertion to fit a hole of knowledge, or that such a deity presented itself to them, and they began the tradition of relating this truth to future generations.

It is not a preposterous idea that people who are unable to explain the nature of existence would imagine some divine power to fit that hole in their knowledge.

But how unlikely does it seem that an all powerful and timeless creator could present itself to early human civilizations in a clear and convincing way, but yet cannot do this today? And if this being did present itself to people early on, why did it present itself in so many different and varied manifestations? Why did and do some cultures have numerous deities while others have one? And still others have none?

If one or more deities were able to expose themselves to people in an undeniable way, it would surely stand that they could do so now.

And we have written history of peoples who assigned to these deities the effects of nature that we now know for certain are not caused by supernatural interference. There was no god in the mountain shaking the earth, or god in the heavens throwing lightning bolts. The annual eclipses are not, and were not, the anger of the gods.

It is clear to see that such beliefs were founded on ignorance, and that they all but vanished as we came to understand the workings of nature. Though predominant in the past, gods like Zeus and Ra, Thor and Vulcan are no longer held as real on this planet.

No, it seems much more likely that belief came from a wish to fill a hole of ignorance with an explanation, and absent a real one and assertion was used.

We are finite creatures. All creatures are finite. We can see a life begin with the birth of a child, and we can see life end with a death. And we all understand that this corporeal existence is limited for each of us without exception. And we can see that everything that lives was once not a thing and will one day be nothing again. This is strong evidence for everything having a beginning.

And yet, every living thing has a seed, and that seed was already a thing before the planting. Whether a tree or a human.

And while the seeds that made us had beginnings, the seeds that made them came before.

So each thing we see and know has a beginning and an end. So we must think that life itself had a beginning. Why? The Big Bang, the scientific theory that describes the initial expansion of the universe from a singularity, does not prohibit the existence of something else before that. The universe did not “pop” into existence out of nothing, anymore than an oak tree popped into existence. But everything that is an oak began as an acorn. The lone acorn holds all the necessary elements for a giant oak. We may marvel at this, and some will attribute this to their imagined deity, but our examination and study tells us the natural process that it follows to go from one to the other.

The acorn didn’t pop into existence either.

Those who study these things have demonstrated how all of the plants and animals have (or could have) evolved from variants that existed before. And the driving force of this is random mutations that affect the ability for that organism to thrive and survive in changing conditions. The process is long and slow, and not at all linear, though it is easier to imagine it so. But we can say for certain that such a process exists, and can theorize that some model of that is responsible for the variation of life as we know it today. And the Big Bang Theory is the best explanation we have for how the universe expanded from a singularity to what it is now. To oversimplify the complex field, you might imagine the explanation for how the germination of an acorn is the beginning of the expansion into an oak tree.

But how the acorn got here can be explained, whereas the singularity from which the Big Bang expanded is not so known.

What then are we to do?

We have two choices, as always: We can accept that we don’t yet know and may not ever know; or we can assign that cause to an imaginary timeless being, for which we have no explanation or evidence.

The first choice is humble and open to new knowledge. The second choice is arrogant and closes the door to learning.

Colloquially speaking, “faith” is sometimes used when “confidence” is the better word. The Earth rotates on its axis once each day, revealing a morning sun to our east. Allowing for slight changes over the seasons and random cloudiness, we can have “faith” that we shall see a sun in the east the following morning.

Our confidence is not a belief without evidence, but rather earned by repeated observations and understanding of planetary motion. Similarly, an employee may have “faith” that his paycheck will be deposited in his bank account every second Friday. But this is using faith to replace confidence, or trust based on past actions.

But faith, in the sense of supernatural belief. Faith, as in belief in some unevidenced claim, has no such history of reliability.

This latter use of the word is what I speak of here. And what I feel is of no positive value to us in the immediate moment, or to the individual, or in a longer or broader reach. In fact, I see it as harmful in the extreme. It ends inquiry. It subjugates the mind to the imagined notions of others. It creates rifts between us and our fellows. It weakens our ability to come to agreement with each other on how best to answer the hard questions that face us.

I read years ago the concept of wanting to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible. Not believing everything or nothing.

To achieve this one needs to have some method of determining truth from falsehood. What is clear to me is that faith is a poor tool to use in this matter. One might use faith to believe a falsehood as readily as a truth.

Skepticism is withholding belief until sufficient evidence is provided to warrant accepting the claim.

Reason is the best method for examining that evidence to see if it comports to reality.

In this I have faith.

(I’ll Save The Oxford Comma For Another Day)

There is a hierarchy of shoes in the menswear world, though in the 21st Century fewer men follow the rules of style than a few decades before. But for some environments and situations these time honored dress codes survive and continue to support the sobriety and respect for the setting.

What does it say to show up at a funeral in boogie shorts and flip flops? Or how long do you think an interview for a banking junior executive would last if the candidate presented himself in faded blue jeans and a tie-dye T-shirt?

This morning I watched the US Secretary of State and the FBI Director appear at a press conference. Both in suits and neckties, and though I didn’t see their feet, I am confident they wore dress shoes. Almost surely black ones.

When we are talking about shoe hierarchy, we should first cover special occasion footwear. Here I’m talking about white-tie attire. This is more formal than black tie (tuxedo) and typically has a jacket with tails. For the occasions that demand this dress code, there are special shoes that go along. Patent leather pumps or oxfords. And apart from military dress, patent leather is too formal for most any other outfit. Not to mention the risk of damage to this type of leather in regular wear. (It is very hard to remove scratches from patent leather.)

For the other dress occasions, it is the black, cap toe oxford that reigns.

The black cap-toe oxford is considered the most formal of dress shoes, once we leave the formality of evening shoes. You would expect to see patent leather shoes worn with black tie as well, but some prefer to mirror shine a plain toe oxford shoe. But here a man has this one other option: he may bring his black, cap-toe oxfords up to a mirror shine. Sometimes called the poor man’s evening shoe, it is passable, but technically not formal enough for black tie, and never formal enough for white tie.

And while there are various pumps (shoes without laces) that are very formal, such as venetian slippers and opera pumps, in normal daywear it is the cap-toe oxford shoe that tops the category.

Black shoes are most formal. The lighter the less formal.

Brogue designs are less formal, and the more you add the more casual they become.

Remember that line from the first Kingsman movie? It was the password to get into the club. “Oxfords, no brogue.”

(And as a note, too many people misunderstood the actor Colin Firth’s English accent and thought he said, “oxfords, not brogues,” which created a great deal of confusion in the world of men’s styles. Brogue is the holes punched into the leather on the toe and sides as a decoration. It can be on a derby, a blucher, or an oxford.)

What the character Harry Hart was telling him, was that an oxford dress shoe without any brogue is the standard of dress for those in the club.

So what is an oxford and where did they come from?

An oxford shoe is a leather dress shoe with laces that has a low heel and an exposed ankle. It got its name from the town of that name in the United Kingdom, and the University of that name in particular. For it was there that students began dispensing with the wearing of boots for the convenience of the lace up shoe.

They date back to the first half of the 19th century. Prior to that, the typical footwear for gentlemen were long boots.

A man new to the world of dress shoe terminology would notice right away that such a definition as above could also describe shoes that are called derby and blucher. What is the difference?

It is simple enough really, and is all to do with the construction, and where the lace holes are attached.

A shoe is divided into many parts. The part that touches the ground is the outsole. Above that there is a midsole, and an insole that your foot rests upon. The part of the shoe that covers over your foot is called the upper. The upper is further divided into basically three parts: the toe, the vamp, and the quarters. The toe is self-explanatory and the quarters are the part that goes from the back of the shoe above the heel, and wrap around the sides to join with the vamp. The lacing holes are in the quarters. The vamp stretches across the forepart of your foot.

So the difference is how they are joined. If the vamp is on top of the quarters, then it is an oxford; and if the quarters are on top of the vamp, then it is a derby or a blucher. What this does in practice is determine whether the lacing system is closed or open.

As you can picture, if the quarters are on top of the vamp when they join, the lacing holes, which are in the quarters, will be able to flap open. This makes the derby and blucher easier to take off and on, and can be more easily adjusted for different foot shapes. It also makes those styles more casual by appearance and subsequently by convention.

With the vamp overtop of the quarters, the lacing system is closed, and it cannot as easily be adjusted. Therefore the shoe must be better sized for the wearer. Where the lace holes emerge from under the quarters they are next to each other, and they widen out as they go up, depending on the fit of the shoe to that man’s instep.

There is a difference between a blucher and a derby, which I have mentioned before, and will cover in depth in a future post. But for this discussion understand that those two styles are equal in formality.

Here are some pictures of the three pairs of oxford shoes I own.

The first is the most formal. The black cap toe.

This has a separate piece of leather stretched over the toe to create a cap.

This shoe is what you would wear for formal business meetings, funerals, weddings where formality is expected, and other occasions where the one wished to express himself with the most respect for the occasion.

This pair is (as are most of my dress shoes) made by Allen Edmonds. They were manufactured at their plant in Port Washington, Wisconsin by hand, using the Goodyear Welt construction method. I’ve covered this before, but it is worth looking up to understand. It is the gold standard of shoe construction, and has the outsole attached to the upper by way of a thick strip of leather called a welt.

These shoes are called Hopkinson, and are from Allen Edmond’s Independence Line. A now discontinued line of premium dress shoes all named after signers of the Declaration Of Independence. They feature premium quality calfskin uppers, lambskin lining, and premium leather soles and stacked leather heels.

You can see in the pictures that the vamp stretches across the quarters and holds down the lace holes so they cannot flap open like you would see on a blucher or derby.

In the second picture you can also see the channel along the sole where the stitching holds the outsole to the welt.

I like these shoes shined to the point of gleaming. I can see the outline of my head in the shine, but not as distinctly as when they are mirror-shined.

These are at home with any full suit (for clarity, a suit is a pants and jacket made of the same exact material.) They are a must for black or navy suits, and with other colors during formal office hours, or at evening events.

The next pair are a step down in formality, both because of the color and the brogue decorations.

As you can see, these are much lighter in color (called walnut, though one might say tan, or light-brown,) and have brogue decorations on the toe cap and around the joints of the pieces of leather that make up the upper. This is often referred to as a “half-brogue.”

The vamp is still over top of the quarters, which is the mark of an oxford style shoe.

These are also from the Independence Collection from Allen Edmonds, and are called Bartlett. I keep them shined similarly to the black version, but under no circumstance would I mirror shine them. (Not that it is wrong, merely that it is unnecessarily ostentatious.)

This lighter color and brogue pattern reduce the formality of the shoe considerably. Though they are still a good choice for wearing with a suit (other than black or navy blue) and wouldn’t be appropriate at a formal business office, except on casual friday,) they are a better choice for wear with a blazer or sports coat. They can be worn to dress up chinos, or even bluejeans, so long as a button down shirt is worn. For outfits more casual than this, one should lower the formality of the shoe as well.

The last pair is even less formal.

As you can see from the lacing, these are still an oxford shoe. But now, instead of the brogue being on the toe cap, it now wraps down the sides of the shoe, and the part on the toe forms a “W”, which has given rise to the moniker Wingtip.

These shoes have leather soles, but have added V-tread toe taps, and rubber top lifts. The heels are still stacked leather, but with a top lift of rubber for traction.

Though these shoes are darker, they are still less formal than the Bartlett, as they are now a full-brogue, which is less formal. Here I would still give them a higher mark of formality, because color trumps design, but the material makes the difference. They are not made of calfskin, which decreases their formality as well. These are made of kudu leather, which is the skin of an antelope native to South Africa. The leather is very soft yet still strong. It will not appear smooth, and because of the finishing cannot be brightly shined. The picture shows the normal, fully shined appearance.

So, we have no brogue, half-brogue, and a full-brogue – or wingtip. To answer the question that may be forming, yes there is a quarter-brogue, though I don’t own any (yet). Picture the Bartlett, but without the medallion on the toe. So the only brogue would be along the edges where the pieces join.

There is also something called an austerity brogue. This is where the lines indicating where brogue would be is in the leather, but no actual holes are cut. I haven’t a desire for this style.

Derby and blucher shoes can also vary in formality, with the same guidance of color and brogue, and in truth a black or dark brown derby or blucher without brogue is more formal than a light oxford with brogue. In this there is overlap.

If you’re struggling to figure which to pick, you’re generally better off overdressed rather than underdressed. But if a gentleman wants to eliminate a difficult decision, it is best to have a variety of shoes.

I think the three oxford shoes I have are sufficient to cover whatever dress occasions I encounter. I also have a variety of other choices no matter the formality. These include dress boots in leather, nubuck, suede, and kudu; dark brown calfskin loafers, long-wing bluchers (see post dedicated to this style), dress sneakers, boat shoes, and espadrilles.

If you see me in trainers it is at the gym or out running. Trainers have no place outside of exercise.

The oxford shoe is a must in every well-dressed man’s wardrobe.

“Governments are instituted among Men, and derive their just power from the consent of the governed.”

The idea did not originate in that document, but has been found in writings going back over eight hundred years and was repeated by thinkers and political philosophers who inspired the founders of our Republic.

If the phrase isn’t clear to you, looking it up is worth the time. But for clarity in this post, the idea is that just government is the collective will of the people, as administered by those appointed or elected to fill the roles of leadership; but they may only hold these positions so long as they maintain the consent of those who elected them.

In the US Republic, we use majority vote in elections to select those to speak and make law on our behalf.

We started this country on that principle, even going to make the first three words of our Constitution “We The People.” Of course “The People” was and is everyone, but at the founding they allowed only white men who owned property and had reached the age of majority (21 then) to select the leadership and representatives for that government. But with additional vision, those same founders added the Bill Of Rights to the Constitution. Not only did these state some specific rights and to whom rights belonged, but being amendments to the Constitution they established the method for changing the voices who chose the government leaders. Since that time, black men, and then all women, and then any citizen 18 or older, were added to the collection of voices who choose the government that makes laws for them.

What we have happening in the early 21st century United States is a movement from the political right to remove many of those voices from the conversation, and limit it to whomever agrees with their view of the country.

For them, We The People, holds a different meaning. To them, “The People” are those who share their Christian, patriarchal, nationalistic, and xenophobic view. The “Real Americans” is a term often heard in their comments. Real Americans need to take back the country, is a phrase (or paraphrase) spoken and written everywhere from Twitter to yard signs. It is repeated on Fox news along with other words and phrases, themselves just more metaphors that divide the country between real Americans and the “other.”

It is antithetical to the American ideal as well as the American Constitution.

Each Amendment becomes an equal part of the whole. So the 14th or 16th or 20th are just as valid as the 1-10. When I hear the term “originalist” in reference to the Constitution, it doesn’t take much digging to realize they are excluding many amendments from their thinking, as if their later addition invalidates them. “They weren’t part of the Original Constitution.” Never noticing that the same arguments invalidate the first ten as well.

And these same people will speak to the intent of the founders, as if by citing a paper here or there helps glean their desire to have a white, Christian ruled country, where the federal government held almost no authority over the powers of the states. And that the federal government was supposed to be, and is specified by the Constitution, to be of very limited authority.

Of course this is a myth perpetrated on the people by those who wish to have power for themselves. Those powerful individuals seek to subjugate the body of the population under their control. And they do this by convincing half the people that their problems are caused by the other half of the people who are stealing their natural birthright from them.

“The People” is all of us, and always has been. When the founders declared that, they knew that the people included women and slaves too. The difference is who gets to choose the government. Who gets to choose the government that represents us all. A government that we are all a part of. We The People, are those who are trying to form a more perfect union. It is all of us, and over time we have collectively added voices to that. Today you must be a citizen who has reached the age of majority (now 18) who has complied with the laws of the state to share in that decision making process. We surely don’t propose that those under eighteen years of age aren’t included in “The People”? Of course they are. But we don’t allow them to aid in the choice of government. As in the past we didn’t allow women or blacks to do so. We have changed the Constitution to fix original errors. But it is clear that The People, were always all of us.

A singular thing that happened in the founding of our country, and was clearly the intent of those who took the risks to make it happen, was that power was spread out to the masses. And that every effort must be made to limit the concentration of power to an individual, or a small group of pre-selected elites.

A Congress might be a small group according to the size of the country, but it is a group who holds their post because the masses have selected them for the purpose, and at periodic intervals they may reject them in favor of someone else. And the same holds for the Presidency.

On the political right the efforts are and have been to limit the effect of the voices who hold a different view of the country’s future. This they do by restricting the locations and methods for voting, by purging voter rolls in areas of population where people tend to vote against their preferred party, and most recently, by authorizing themselves to set aside the results of elections they don’t like. The last of these is most dangerous. It is literally concentrating the power into the hands of a few and taking it away from the masses. Strictly anti-Constitutional in intent and operation.

This must be fought against. And the best way to do that is to vote for the political left, even if you don’t support every position they espouse. Even if you like a balanced government. Because the days of two major parties debating reasonably and compromising to pass laws has all but vanished. There are two parties in the USA right now. Those who are for democracy and those who are for authoritarianism.

A person might see themselves as part of a group that is favored by the right. A white man, a Christian, etc., but their favored position only lasts until full control is achieved. Then other differences will be seen and discriminated against.

The Quote below is from Martin Niemöller, a German Lutherin minister.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

It has been repeated often, and always to remind us that an attack against any one group, is really an attack against us all.

We are all The People. And the ideal set forth by the founders was that The People should hold the power. In this way they could never become subjugated by a master, be it a king, an oligarchy, or a theocracy.

And when you put the power into the hands of all of the people it must be accepted by all of the people that all of the voices are valid and need to be represented.

The idea that white, christian men should dominate the population’s voice because the first leaders were generally that, is not what the Constitution said nor meant.

We must collectively and in the majority hold consent to those who govern us. And in so doing, maintain power in whose hands it was meant to be:

We The People.

Patent Elastic Ankle Boot

In the 1830s an English shoemaker named J. Sparkes-Hall was trying to develop a slip-on boot that didn’t require lacing or buckles, and was short enough that a person could easily put them on and take them off without assistance.

He tried several different methods to mixed or poor results, but it was after the development of vulcanized rubber that he found the answer.

Vulcanization is the process of heating up natural rubber and adding chemicals, chiefly sulfur, to make the rubber harder and more elastic over a greater range of temperatures. The process was discovered and invented by Charles Goodyear in the late 1830s. The name comes from Vulcan, the Roman God of fire and forges.

J. Sparkes-Hall used this new rubber to make gussets that he inserted between the vamp and quarters of ankle boots, so they could be slipped on and off easily, but still fit snugly on the foot. He presented a pair to Queen Victoria, who was apparently pleased with them.

In 1851 he received a patent for his boots, and called them Patent Elastic Ankle Boots.

His advertisements of the day included a reference to the Queen, who was said to wear them for daily walks to much satisfaction. Sales took off, as anything good enough for Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were good enough for an adoring public. Then, as now, people followed the fashion trends of celebrities.

The boot style was popular right up to World War I, when they fell out of favor. With an increasing percentage of people living in urban areas, and the installation of paved roads and sidewalks, the need for boots diminished, and for those who continued to wear them, lace-up boots were more favored.

A boot using the elastic gussets was worn by stable hands and those who were often around horses, as the ease of removing and then cleaning ankle boots that had no laces was desired. They became known as paddock boots, from their use around such enclosures.

We then move down the road, or into town, actually. To London, and the borough of Chelsea, which was for many years the haunt of artists, poets, and writers who lived there at the end of the 19th century. This flavor attracted the bohemian and artist culture of post-WWII London, and famous and fashionable people moved in. The crowd became known in the press as the “Chelsea Set,” and when it was noticed that the elastic gusset ankle boot was favored by that crowd, it was renamed the Chelsea Boot.

Rock musicians liked the boots and took to wearing them. In fact, while touring in Hamburg, Germany, The Beatles saw Chelsea Boots being worn by a London band, and back in London they commissioned footwear company Anello and Davide to make them with the addition of the “cuban heel.” This was a higher heel long  part of flamenco dance shoes. With the addition of a seam up the center of the uppers, this became known as the Beatle Boot, which became the standard choice of footwear throughout the rock and roll world, along with traditional Chelsea boots.

The Chelsea Boots could be seen in fashion, film, on television, and in print. During the 1960s on the English TV show, The Avengers, the always fashionable and gentlemanly agent John Steed, created and played by Patrick Macnee, was always wearing Chelsea boots. He had them in a range of colors to fit his suits, and wore them with any level of formality.

Since that time they have never really lost favor. Today they are a staple of footwear in the closets of both men and women (they were always a uni-sex product) throughout the world, particularly where British and American fashions prevail.

I own three pairs of Chelsea Boots. All three were made by the American men’s footwear company Allen Edmonds, in Port Washington, Wisconsin.
The first I got were from the Nomad collection, and feature uppers in brown nubuck, with hard rubber soles, and built using the Goodyear welt construction method.

(The Goodyear in question was actually Charles Goodyear Junior, the son of the great vulcanizer. Junior invented a machine that could sew a leather welt to the sole and upper, making what is considered the gold standard of shoe construction. More about that elsewhere or later.)

Nubuck is top grain leather that has been sanded to produce a slight nap on the surface, similar to suede, but not as pronounced, and since it is top grain versus the “split” that suede is made from, it is much stronger and longer wearing than suede.

This style has a slightly rounded toe and a fuller foot. It is a more casual boot, but I have worn them with a medium blue suit.

The second two pairs are both called Liverpool, a name obviously intended to associate them with The Beatles, though they do not carry the distinctive characteristics of the Beatle Boots. The Liverpool is very much a classic Chelsea Boot with a snug fit and a slightly chiseled toe. Of these, the first was a pair in black calfskin, which is the classic look you’d expect to see on the feet of rock stars and celebrities. While I find black the most overrated and least versatile color in men’s footwear and should be confined to the more formal outfits, in classic Chelsea Boots they are a must and can be combined with looks from black tie to blue jeans.

The third pair is Liverpool in Walnut calfskin. This is by far the prettiest of the three. Walnut is a medium light tan with a rich woody feel. Like a polished golden oak, they are standout boots with any outfit where dark shoes are not required. I think they’re too light for a navy suit, though it is paired often enough in America, they are fine with a medium or royal blue, and of course gray, charcoal, brown, or other colors. And of course with chinos and jeans they rock. Both pairs of Liverpool are 360 degree Goodyear welt construction but with vegetable tanned leather soles with rubber v-treads at the forefoot and toe for better traction.

I have more than twenty pairs of dress shoes and boots in a variety of styles, both casual and formal. And while I love putting on a nice pair of wingtips or moccasin toe loafers, I could almost see myself switching to an all Chelsea Boot lineup.

I don’t think I will, but as versatile, comfortable, and cool as heck as they are, a fashionable man could easily do it. Just ask John Steed.

We are seeing the manifestation of the problem of anti-democratic government. The idea that Russia is a democracy is laughable. It exists in a notional concept only, with anyone mounting even the slightest threat to Putin’s monopoly on power being arrested, banned from running, or killed outright.

What followed Stalin’s consolidation of power, and Hitler’s, and Mussolini’s, and whomever else you want to name; is the establishment of a government of rubber stamps to whatever the dictator wishes. Those who make up the operation of the government do so at the whim of the dictator, almost never daring to challenge even the worst ideas. And any disagreement with those ideas is exploited by other members who will attack that voice to curry favor and demonstrate loyalty.

Sycophancy will take over the ranks below the dictator, and the goal will turn from bettering the nation to appeasing and applauding the boss.

The boss himself, having gained power by corrupt and treacherous means, will make keeping power his priority, and will assume all those below him are just as corrupt and willing to do him harm to gain power for themselves. This only reinforces the threat of anyone who disagrees.

Soon, all below him are more concerned with the appearance of loyalty than the functioning of their departments.

Here we have Putin blinded to the reality of his appeal both beyond and within his borders. His rigging of all elections and destruction of opposition candidates has wrongly convinced him of his own popularity. While he certainly has supporters, he has a large part of his population – perhaps even a majority – who merely tolerate him as inevitable. He is like a king, and to remove him is more costly than to live under his rule.

But this now may change.

And he is blinded to the reality of his military competence. His armies are mostly conscripts with little desire to attack their neighbors. Especially those so much like themselves. And they are soldiers who have far less training than needed, and far poorer planners than a modern army ought to have. These too are part of the corruption that follows a corrupt leader. The military is also led by those currying favor of Putin. They tell him constantly how great everything is, and how well trained their units are, because this is easier than telling him the truth, which is that they are not as good as western militaries. They make propaganda films about their macho soldiers and then believe their own hype. Meanwhile they siphon off great amounts of the budget and stick it in their own bank accounts. Why are they corrupt too? Because they weren’t promoted because of competence, but because of loyalty and willingness to appease the boss.

And blinded to the attention and willingness of foreign powers to respond to his aggression, he presumes he can proceed as he has in the past.

Putin has pushed and played the global powers for years. Too often his threats have had an effect. Too often his moves against others managed only condemnation and minor sanctions from the world. The small countries that border Russia are too afraid to poke the bear and suffer the consequences.

And through all this, Putin convinced himself of his own greatness and appeal in the world. He came to believe Ukrainians would welcome him and his armies. He spread lies about their leadership and the state of their country, but the only one he gaslighted was himself. And the resistance they have mounted has inspired the opposition within Russia to come to the streets in protest – even while those protests have been made illegal and they risk prison for demonstrating.

Putin deluded himself. He was convinced that he had effectively neutered America through propaganda that encouraged civil unrest, and stoke divisions along racial and cultural lines. He convinced himself that such actions had also weakened NATO sufficiently to stifle that organization.

He now faces a real possibility, or even probability, of losing power. Even oligarchs who grew rich by supporting his corrupt regime are speaking out against him. Even members of his government are joining together to voice objection to this war and laying the blame at Putin’s feet.

The big question that remains to the world is whether his narcissism and anger will cause him to burn it all down around him.

To quote Ahab from Melville’s Moby Dick, ” …from hell’s heart I stab at thee; …for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”

Here’s hoping humanity prevails.

It is February 2022 and throughout the United States of America there is a renewal of the old conservative trend of banning books. We even had a preacher hold a book burning rite.

Along with this we have several states proposing or even making laws that restrict what public school teachers may talk about with students, particularly if the lessons reflect badly on the ancestors of some of those students. Typically the white ones.

From the absurd banning of teaching Critical Race Theory in K-12 schools (which isn’t done anyway, and would be as ridiculous as teaching Gravitational Wave Theory to the third grade,) to banning any teaching that might make white children uncomfortable about history; these are all racist, and white supremacist reactions.

As I say this I am aware that many of the folks behind this do not consider themselves racist or white supremacist. But it stands just the same.

The idea that one should feel they hold superiority to others because you were born in a certain skin color, or ethnic identity, or in a certain country is pervasive. I have seen it throughout the world, though not in all countries. And the obvious response from those other groups is to take pride in their own color, ethnicity, and birthplace. It is February in America, which has for many years been recognized as Black History Month. It is a time to highlight the overlooked black figures in history, both to aid in promoting equality, and for black Americans to take pride in the great accomplishments of people of their own race.

A nice self-test would be to honestly answer how you feel when you hear that it is Black History Month. If you bristle at the mention and ask when White History Month is, you are probably a racist.

But few want to think themselves racist. But still there is that pride of color, ethnicity, and place that are in our psyches. Many do believe that their color makes them better, and they look around at how much better their race profits from the wealth and comforts of the country, and wish to think of it as a natural outcome. White people do better because we are superior, goes the thinking. It isn’t racist to just be better if it is a natural result of color. But for this to hold true, whites would not have had to enslave, oppress, abuse, and deny rights to blacks.

But in fact we did all of those things. We enslaved blacks, we oppressed blacks, we abused blacks, and we did, and in too many places we continue, to deny them their rights whenever and however it can be done.

In order to square these opposing positions, many white people are trying to minimize the history of the black experience in America. And teaching white children that their ancestors owned black people in the same sense as owning livestock doesn’t make their ancestors look good. That they beat, starved, worked, raped, murdered them, and tore them away from their families as a matter of profit, for hundreds of years; denying them the basic dignity of becoming educated, or choosing their own mates. And then after we fought a national war to end that practice, the nearer generations of the white children’s ancestors continued the oppression and discrimination against blacks with numerous laws that prevented them from advancing themselves. And that the discrimination racism continued even after the Civil Rights Act, and even to this day, stands in start contrast to any claim of natural superiority.

Again: Why do these things if race makes you naturally better?

Many people in this great country, of all races and colors, want to see a national reckoning of this past, with the hope that it will lead to racial harmony and true justice. To do that we must confront the truth about our national racism. We must learn about it and we must teach about it.

But for those who resist that test. For those who wish to maintain their belief that color has some bearing on the inherent quality of a person, they cannot allow that national discussion. They cannot stand for their children to hear the facts of our collective past. So, they gather together and take over school boards, and gerrymander districts, and pass laws, restrict teaching, and ban books that tell these truths.

For all the excuses offered, the reality is that these efforts to stop the teaching of history are meant to sustain the notion of racial superiority.

Why do these things if you are naturally better?

Tensions are mounting along the border between Russia and Ukraine. It is quite possible that Russia will invade Ukraine. Their goal is to create a Ukrainian state that is aligned with and a puppet of Russia.

It is not a secret that Putin wants to recreate the borders of the former Soviet Union. He has said this, in so many words, numerous times.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so no alliance exists that would compel us to defend it with military force. But, we have committed ourselves to defending their territorial integrity, and enforcing the international agreements to allow each country to make its own decision about their leadership, as well as political and economic alliances. The US has unequivocally stated the intent of NATO to use extraordinary economic sanctions against Russia if they do invade Ukraine. Sanctions that would cripple the Russian economy.

In truth this would be happening for certain had Trump been reelected to the Presidency. His nationalistic stance and favorable attitude toward Russia and their President Putin, would have been a green light for Putin, and it is likely that Trump would have tried to pull out of NATO had they insisted on responding to any invasion.

Over in the Pacific region, it is President Xi of China who plots to invade (if necessary) Taiwan in order to bring them back under the rule of the mainland. This too would be certain had Trump been reelected.

The question for those autocrats is do they go in anyway? Or wait to see if the power in the US switches in November’s election.

China will likely wait.

Russia may not. And this becomes more concerning to the US if he does. Putin has long worked to sabotage democracy in the US through fifth columnists and online agitation. He supported and encouraged Trump in his run for the White House because he understood the divisive nature of the man, and knew that win or lose it would sow distrust in our elections and in national leadership.

Today there are huge numbers of Americans who trust Putin in Russia more than Democratic and moderate Republican leadership in the US. Many more are unwittingly aiding this effort by their entrance into the cult of personality surrounding Donald Trump. An unknown number have arms and intend to operate as an insurgency to further the goal of a right wing dictatorship built around white, evangelical Christian values.

It is entirely possible that Putin intends to stoke that base, either through proxies, Trump, or a combination of both, to launch a civil conflict in the US that would be enough of a distraction that we would not be able to support military adventures in defense of Ukraine, or even NATO allies that should end up involved.

Trump, for his part, is up to his neck in legal troubles, both civil and criminal, and will very likely be charged this year. It is my estimation that his efforts for the last three years have been to avoid accountability for his wrongdoing, and has been using the threat of violence by his acolytes as his main tool to save his skin. He has made a habit of not backing down when cornered, and could well use the aforementioned threats of civil unrest to try and regain power. If this fails he will likely flee the country.

Should Russia move forward with an invasion of Ukraine, it is my opinion that he is expecting such unrest in the US to follow as cover.

In the 1930s, the rise of fascism around the world and in the US made the climb out of the Great Depression difficult. President Roosevelt was able to reinvigorate democracy by taking the fight to the fascists. The situation today is similar, but not the same. I am not certain that a war against Russia and/or China would result in the country coming together, or whether conspiracies about false-flags would embolden the far right. We might see a comparison in Tsarist Russia a century ago. There the Tsar was making reforms towards modernity and representation for the people, but the radical communists were more vocal. Russian involvement in WWI was not popular, and did not unite the people. It actually aided the revolutionaries in their efforts to overthrow the royal family and bring about a communist government in Russia.

Some wise historians and political science experts have said that we may be on the verge of a modern day Sarajevo moment. It was there in 1914 when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. The act which sparked the start of The Great War.

We could well be knocking on that door today, and I do not know if the outcome will be more like the Russian revolution, or more like the flourishing of democracy that followed WWII.

It depends on if we have a Pearl Harbor like attack, and if the people believe it.

And China will invade Taiwan.

The leaders of these two countries have territorial ambitions that are plain to see. Xi, in China intends to be the most significant leader of that country in the modern age, not merely this generation. He has made himself President for life in a country where only the party that he controls has any vote in who leads them. And he has made it clear that Hong Kong and Taiwan will comply with the rules set by the PRC.

To make sure this isn’t missed, upon the rise of Mao and the creation of the People’s Republic of China, the nationalists fled to Taiwan where they continued the Republic of China. Both places see China as one country, but with two different political systems. The ROC Taiwan, for all its faults, is democratic. The PROC, on the mainland is not.

Xi is cracking down on democratic institutions in the formally independent Hong Kong, as well as anywhere else in China that it pokes its nose out. And it will not be deterred to putting that same thumb of control on the exiled people in Taiwan. Nothing short of Xi’s death will stop him from taking that step.

Over to his west, Putin, the ex KGB man, now has a similar set up. Ostensibly a democratic country, Putin has so clamped down on opposition in Russia that he is effectively a permanent ruler in that country. He wished to expand Russia to the former borders of the Soviet Union, and nothing short of his death will stop him from trying.

In both cases the autocrats have gained their power by allowing oligarchs to flourish so long as they do not oppose the leaders. And by creating a lock on elections by either eliminated or marginalizing opposition political parties.

This is precisely the model that the current advocates of modern fascism are following in the United States.

As I write this, we are following the Congressional investigation into January 6, 2021, when rioters broke into the US Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden as the winner of the Presidential election the previous November. There is much to be written about this, but the short of it is that this appears to have been a coordinated effort to overthrow the will of the people and reinstall Donald Trump for another term. It is becoming clear that this plot was supported by President Trump, and included many other prominent figures.

The oligarch part is still there.

The billionaires who control vast empires of manufacturing, media, pharmaceutical, and other industries, are still hedging there bets in case the coup (that continues behind the scenes) works. They can see from watching China and Russia that they will only keep their power if they comply with the dictator. They know what happens to oligarchs that oppose.

And they also can see that America is moving in the direction of Europe politically. We are gradually becoming a social democracy. And the majority of the people want them and their companies to pay a greater share of the burden of supporting the country and its infrastructure, both physical and personal. The whole of us, otherwise known as The People, increasingly want larger social and economic safety nets. Universal medical care, secure pensions, standardized wages, liberal vacations and family leave, and other benefits that would require the billionaires and corporations to pay a significantly larger portion of the cost. And, as it may not be a surprise to the reader, those folks don’t want to pay.

These are the economic (if not actual) scions of those robber barons of a previous time, not gone, not controlled, but revitalized in the country by the political influence of the far right.

If you wonder why so few of the billionaires are vocal in opposition to the party that is trying to sweep away democracy, it is because they don’t want to alienate that party should they be successful. It would be a win for them.

But as with those other countries where this has already happened, the path will follow previous iterations of fascism. It will come to war. First civil and then foreign. Destruction and ruin are in the future should we fail to stop it. It is time for the would be oligarchs to get in line, and go all in defending democracy.