JackTReason

Okay folks, it’s time to clear up an issue of party identity.

The Republican and Democratic Parties have flipped over the years.
They did so in two stages, economic first, racial ideology second.

The Republican Party was formed before the Civil War as an abolitionist party. And the Democratic Party was the party of Andrew Jackson, and became the party of the Confederate South.
Today, the Democrats are removing Jackson from the $20 Bill and replacing him with a former slave; and the Republicans are defending that former slaveowner.

Jump to the 20th century.
President Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive Republican. He was the trust buster and anti-monopoly champion of the working man. He wanted to give them a Square Deal. When he decided not to run for a third term, he endorsed Taft, who won. But Taft wasn’t progressive enough, so Roosevelt formed a third party, called the Progressive Party (see a theme here?) It it often called the Bull Moose Party, after Teddy himself and an interesting story that digresses from the point of this post.
When he left the Republican Party he took most of the progressives with him. After that, the GOP was big-business conservative. But still home to many blacks and descendants of abolitionists.

The Democratic Party adopted many of the progressive platforms and picked up many of those who allied with Roosevelt. But they still had the white southern vote.
By this time Jim Crow laws had effectively nullified the southern black vote, and the Democratic Party was where you found the KKK and other white supremacist groups.

The Republicans held the Presidency from after Democrat (and racist and segregationist) Woodrow Wilson left office in 1921, until the stock market crash and onset of the Great Depression ushered in Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats. The Democratic Party won wide support throughout a country that wanted support for the working man and the poor. But southern whites were still working men, even if they were also racists. (Some, I’m sure were not.) So the white South remained loyal to the Democratic Party, while the north jumped aboard also.

This started to crack when Harry Truman began advancing a civil rights agenda. In 1948 Democratic Governor of South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, ran as President as candidate for the States Rights Democratic Party. They opposed civil rights.

Over the next couple of decades Democrats in the South, often called Dixiecrats, turned away from the party as it become more progressive on civil rights issues. During this time we had Republican Barry Goldwater win part of the core of the Deep South running against civil rights in 1964, and Alabama Governor and Democrat George Wallace form the American Independent Party to win much of the South in 1968, again, opposing civil rights.

By then the Democratic Party was fully advancing racial equality. The Republicans under Nixon campaigned for the southern votes by appealing to racial fears and prejudices.

This is where those parties are now. With The Republican Party supporting big business, Wall Street, and increasingly authoritarian government; They endorse Christian nationalism, and Euro-centric racial superiority. Though there are certainly large numbers who do not. They appeal to the idea that they are in favor of personal liberty.

And the Democratic Party is supporting racial, sexual, and gender equality, along with government focused social support programs such as health care. Though they have in recent decades also supported Wall Street, Banks, and Big Business, the trend is toward increased taxation and regulation of those entities, and more help and aid for working and poor peoples.

The Democratic Party is now progressive and multiracial, and the Republican Party is now conservative, and white. Though, of course, there are representatives of all people in both parties.

The ideological shift might best be expressed through two southern Senators. Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond, both Southern Democrats. Both early opponents of integration and civil rights.
Byrd saw the error of his ways, and by the 1970s had publicly repudiated his previous stance on race, and remained in the Democratic Party;
Whereas Thurmond continued to oppose civil rights and integration, and left to join the Republican Party.
Thurmond is well known for the longest filibuster in Senate history when he stood and spoke for more than 24 hours in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

During his press conference the other day, President Biden spoke candidly about his substantive conversations with Xi Jinping. He told us that Xi is a proponent of authoritarianism, and that he feels democracy is failing. And he said that Xi is among many other world leaders such as Putin in Russia, who favor authoritarianism. They feel that democracy is not suitable for today’s world.

Biden made it clear that he is going to show that democracy is better, and that we can out perform those countries because of our democratic foundation.
And he made note that the world is facing this challenge between these two ideologies.

We faced something like this before. While the world was struggling through the Great Depression, countries around the world were turning to dictators and generalissimos to lead them. Those autocrats lead their people into war and destruction.
We were lucky, because President Roosevelt believed he could achieve a recovery through democratic means, though to be honest, those trying times tempted him to consider autocratic authority.

In the end it was our democracy that prevailed, and we thrived because of it. We became the great country we are in that moment, and the world today, with democracy the gold standard where the people are the most content, and where people have the most opportunity.
But do not take this message as a celebration, but instead as a warning. We too face a challenge today between those same dark forces that challenged us eighty years ago. Just as we had the American Bund, a National Socialist Party here in America in the 1930s, we face the ugly face of fascism in our midst today.
And just as then we have mouthpieces that speak the same rhetoric of division, and we have the same attacks on our press. And just like then we have had in our midst our own Il Duce, our own Franco; a would be dictator insisting that he alone could solve our problems.

Our democratic ideals rose to the occasion last year and put that would-be dictator out of power, but we did not put to rest that ideology.

There are still many Americans, who, lured by promises of a return to some imagined greatness of days gone by, are still longing for that champion.
And don’t let those last words suggest that we weren’t great, or that we are not still great, we are, without a doubt. But we can see by honest examination of our history, that the greatness we had before was denied to many of our countrymen. Those that with us held the jobs, and stood on the picket lines; those who bore arms against our enemies and voted in elections. Those who played on the parks and sat in the churches were not given the same rights and opportunities as those of us whose ancestry were of European descent – those of us whose ancestors may have held title of property on the ancestors of those others. Those others too were Americans. And today we can continue our greatness, and even grow to be better. We can again be the model of greatness for the world, but this time we have to include all.

But still there are those who are mislead to think that our division is about culture, as if we don’t have room in this great nation for many cultures. And there are many who fail to see that the party they have held traditional allegiance is no longer the party that supports them. They have been seduced by promises of some mythical greatness their parents knew. They have been frightened by imagined threats against their traditions and their culture. In truth all that is happening is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the traditions and cultures of those others, those who earned that place alongside the rest of us in trenches and foxholes, factories and churches.

Make no mistake. I will not mince words. That party of old is not the party of Lincoln, or Eisenhower, or even of Reagan. That party is the party of Trump. And the goal of Trump is the same as the goal of Putin and Xi and all the other autocrats who have replaced the Mussolinis and the Francos and the Hitlers of our day. Those that oppose democracy and favor authoritarianism have lured many to their side. And they have blinded others to their true nature; those who do not see what they are, and only hear their grandiose proclamations.

Today we have two main ideologies: That which favors democracy and that which favors authoritarianism.That is the whole deal right now.

Those who cling desperately to the Republican Party are supporting turning our country into an autocracy, like Putin’s Russia or Xi’s China. I beg of you to step away. You may think it is going to get you some longed for happy day, but that is a smokescreen, a lie to trap you, like the good people of Germany were trapped by the false promises of the Nazis.

We are great because we are diverse, and because we are democratic. It is the foundation that gives confidence and support to all people.
And like our ancestors did in eight decades ago, please abandon the Republican Party. It can reform around better ideals and come back. But when it lead in the early twentieth century, it was beholden to the wealthy and robber barons, and fought against the working people and their pleas for a better life. Today they are the same as back then, and the same oligarchs rub their greedy hands together and picture you as serfs under their lash. Tax breaks for the billionaire class, and bread crumbs for the working people. And all the while telling you that other working people were coming to steal your bred crumbs. Telling you that others were going to force your children to become gay, or cancel Christmas. All lies to make you afraid, and all the while promising a few more crumbs once the job creators got rich enough.

Like staunch conservative Bill Kristol said recently, in this moment we must all be Democrats. That is, until we save democracy, we must take power away from the Republican Party. And we must not let them have it back until they are again champions of democracy and the Republic that our founders built.

For many shoe enthusiasts, these shoes have special meaning. Whether it reminds them of their father or grandfather, or if it is the invincible feeling they get when they put them on, the long wing bluchers (LWB) are icons of American menswear.

Some definitions for those who haven’t yet learned these things. First, the shoes have brogue, which is a pattern of holes in the outer layer of leather. Brogue, which actually means shoe in Scotland, may have had some practical purpose in the early days of footwear, when the holes were cut through to facilitate draining. I am not convinced of this, but we’ll let it stand, apocryphal though it may be. Today it is ornamental. And in the ranking of shoes on a formality scale, more brogue actually makes the shoes more casual. Plain toe black shoes are more formal than shoes of other color or with added brogue.

Some shoes have brogue that forms a W on the toe, and is called a Wingtip. Typically those “wings” turn down and terminate where the uppers (the pretty part of the shoe that wraps across and around your foot) meet the sole. But on some, the wings continue around the upper and join together at the back seam. These are called long wings. A fairly obvious term once you see them.

A blucher is a type of shoe construction that has an open lacing system. That means that the eyelets of the shoe are on flaps that are above the vamp (the part of the shoe that stretches across the top of your foot) of the shoe. This is similar to a Derby style, but subtly different in that the eyelets are on small tabs that are attached to the leather, rather than punched into those flaps. For all practical purposes, derby shoes and blucher shoes are the same, but they both differ from the Oxford style, which has the portion of the upper that contains the eyelets under the vamp of the shoe. That difference makes oxfords more formal than the other two styles mentioned. (So many rules in fashion!)

Whew! That is the hardest thing to explain, and since I probably explained it poorly, I recommend to all those interested to go to gentlemansgazette.com and search for oxfords, derbys, and bluchers for an excellent video describing this.

As you can see from the picture above, this shoe has the wings that go around the back, and has the tabs at the lace closures.

Another feature of the LWB is the double oak soles.

The leather is tanned in oak bark to produce the finished leather. No, it is not made of wood.

As you can see, the leather sole is two layers cemented together. And then both are sewn onto the Goodyear welt (more on that later.) In this picture, note the slight difference in texture of the edge of the leather sole. It is particularly easy to see near the toe of the shoe. There are two thicknesses of leather.

These leather soles are oak tanned and doubled for durability. All soles will wear out giving enough walking and time. And leather wears out faster that some other materials, particularly if you walk on wet concrete. The doubling of the leather adds more than double the life of the sole.

And these shoes are built using the Goodyear welt construction method. The welt, a thick strip of tough leather, (which can be seen above the sole and against the upper) is sewn onto the upper (actually to some fabric called a gemming, which is glued to the upper), and the midsole, and then sewn to the outsole (which you walk on.) The result is a shoe that can have the sole replaced without punching new holes in the upper. To understand this better, consider that before this method came about, most shoes were made by sewing the uppers directly to the outer soles. When the soles wore through, you would have to replace them, and this would mean punching new holes in the uppers. This would obviously deteriorate the leather upper and they would be ruined after one resole.

The Goodyear welt method allows for numerous resoles, and as long as you care for the uppers (which is the expensive and labor intensive part of the shoe), you can plan on keeping those shoes for many years.

Okay, Goodyear welt.

This was developed by Charles Goodyear Junior. No, not the Goodyear who first (at least in America) vulcanized rubber, but rather his son. The process revolutionized shoemaking in the industrial age, and is considered by many to be the gold standard of shoe construction.

In addition to allowing for repeated resoles, this construction method makes the shoes superior at keeping water out of the inside of the shoe.

Above you can see some wear in the leather soles of these ancient shoes. (More on that later.)

The reality of Goodyear welted construction is that it takes more time, materials, and craftsmanship to do. When you find new shoes at retail stores these days, they are most often cemented construction. They really can’t be resoled, and you wouldn’t anyway as the leather (if leather at all) is poor quality. The idea of buying a pair of dress shoes for fifty bucks seems okay to some, but they will not survive much wear, and will need to be replaced often. In addition to piling up in the landfills, these shoes will end up costing much more than you think after many replacement pairs.

This style of shoe was first constructed by Florsheim Shoes in 1959. At the time Florsheim held the spot as America’s finest mass produced shoes. They were solidly built in America by skilled workers using the best materials available.

Less than fifteen years after the end of World War II, the American man happily slid his feet into this style of shoe. Strong and well crafted, solid and heavy, they were to your feet what America was to the world: A stable and reliable base to build a future around. These were a man’s shoe, worn with suits, sport coats, and casual wear alike. Some men might have several pair in different colors. Black, Brown, Burgundy, Walnut, to fit the rotation good shoes should get. (Don’t wear shoes more than two days in a row, and be sure to store them with cedar shoes trees to draw out the moisture your feet produce.) Shine up the brown ones to take the wife out to dinner, maybe the burgundy for Sunday services.

These shoes took on a nickname that remains to this day: Gunboats.

In researching for this post I found numerous misunderstandings of the meaning of this name. Some thought it was the weight or the solid construction that gave the name. Some thought it the double oak soles, which has lead many to incorrectly refer to numerous other styles as gunboats because of it.

The truth is, like so many other nautical references, much simpler than that. They get the name purely from resemblance.

Above is a picture of the USS Maine (yes, the one which blew up and sank in Havana harbor and touched off the Spanish American War.) One can see the row of portholes running most of the length of the ship.

Likewise the long wings of the Gunboat Shoes have a similar row of holes that run parallel to the sole. The name reflects the look.

Florsheim isn’t the company they were in those days. I’m not going to explore their history here, but briefly stated, they moved operations overseas, and cut the quality of materials they used. They are not alone, of course. The trend away from classic mens styles and long-lasting quality towards inexpensive disposable products doomed many traditional American brands. And they weren’t alone in building gunboats for American men to slide their feet into.

This particular pair was made in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin by Mason Shoes, probably before 1980. That makes these LWBs over forty years old and still going strong. I found these at Goodwill, and they needed some cleaning, conditioning, polishing, and shining to bring them back to the appearance you see here. I have every reason to believe they will last me as long as I am wearing shoes, and may see life as footwear for another generation after that. Talk about sustainable practice and environmental responsibility.

Mason no longer makes shoes, or even sells shoes that meet any standard of classic wear. But when they did, they used scotch-grain leather for these uppers, and O’Sullivan rubber heels for support.

O’Sullivan is another American success story worth noting.

In Lowell, Massachusetts in 1896 an Irish Immigrant named Humphrey O’Sullivan was running a printing press. To ease the leg strain from long hours on his feet on the stone floor, he nailed two pieces of rubber matting to his heels. A few years later he patented this idea into a rubber heel company. It expanded into other things, but before Humphrey sold his interest, he had turned himself into a multi-millionaire. These are the original heels on these shoes. Mason commonly used O’Sullivan heels, and they were seen as an upgrade for many brands. And yes, though stacked leather heels were and are still popular and a sign of quality footwear, these rubber heels really are comfortable to walk in.

The only other pair of Long Wing Bluchers I own is a pair of spectator golf shoes.

These were made in Spain for a Swedish based company named Fiddler. Yes, it has come to searching the globe to find a pair of Goodyear welted golf shoes at a reasonable price.
But if the idea is to channel golf legends like Harry Vardon and Walter Hagen, these two tone spectator shoes are a must.

The term spectator likely comes from this being a style commonly seen on the feet of men who were spectators at sporting events, such as the horse races. They were, in the early days of men’s fashion, considered quite casual, and suitable for sporting events.

But mens shoe styles are in flux these days. Despite the resurgence of interest in classic menswear, the overall trend has been toward more casual options. It is more common to see men in trainers than in oxfords, and that might be best as clothing has been similarly relaxed, even to the point of sloppiness. Recently I heard an ad for T-shirts that were “dressy” enough for date night. This is the reality of the world today. Though when these Mason’s were made, a man would be far more likely to have a coat and tie on, then to go without a collared shirt on a date.
Even the venerable standard of American shoes, Allen Edmonds, who still hand makes shoes of fine quality in Wisconsin, has dropped their LWB style MacNeil, except in Cordovan leather.
They must do what they must to keep in business, and that has been to follow the casual trend towards sneakers. The latest fad is dress shoe uppers with white, wedge outsoles. These appear as a cross between sneaker and dress shoe, which seems like a trend that will pass. If a sneakers are okay, than wear sneakers. If they aren’t, than wear a dress shoe. I am not a fan of this look, but accept that other like it. In practice, I doubt anyone will ever notice that I am not wearing a trendy fashion look.

But whether it is the golf shoes or the vintage Mason’s, the appeal of these shoes come with putting them on and walking around.
These are heavy, solid shoes that make you feel invincible. They are substantial, and pack authority. Anchored as you are to whatever ground you stand, you are the captain of your personal ship, and nothing can conquer you in a pair of gunboats.

As most of you know, I support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. I believe the purpose behind this right being enumerated in the Constitution is intended to invest the People with the tangible means of enforcing the power that does belong to them. To us. We are the people, and we are also the government. Through representation as outlined in the Constitution, we are a Republic that has the people as the base of power. And it is the People owning and possessing the means to enforce that power that could, under some extreme circumstance, prevent some tyrant from usurping the People’s government.
But in placing that protection and right in the Constitution, the founders were not intending that people abuse that right and murder each other in random attacks. It is clear that the founders would expect us to take steps as needed to protect the people from each other. And I cannot imagine that they would have endorsed allowing all persons to have access to firearms.

The killings in the cities is often associated with other crime, such as gang warfare and criminal drug syndications. Those are serious issues and I believe they need to be first addressed by addressing inequity and opportunity in our nation. It is no small matter to notice that the kinds of violence seen in most of those locations is virtually non-existent in affluent and middle class neighborhoods. Fix that, and the related shootings will shrink.

But when it comes to these mass killings, we are in a different territory. Here it is persons who must be considered, by any reasonable standard, mentally unhinged. We all know this. This isn’t an 800 pound gorilla lurking around the corner, it is plain to see. Who but a deranged lunatic would do such a thing? All of us, regardless of view of the Second Amendment, or political party, or any other difference can see this.

There are some people who should not have dangerous weapons.

I am a gun owner. A responsible gun owner. They are safely stored, and properly kept away from anyone who should not have them. And I know many, many others just like me. And there are about a half-billion guns in this country owned by people just like me. These guns, including tens of millions of the semi-automatic rifles that look so very similar to the rifles carried by our military, are owned by responsible people just like me. These are not the guns that are killing people. Because these are not the people that would go out and do this. These are responsible gun owners who have reason to own them, even if the rest of us don’t know their reason or if we disagree with those reasons. The first thing to note is that they are not harming anyone.

But there are people who should not have guns like these, and yet they still get them.

This is the nut of the problem that needs to be addressed. It isn’t the type of gun that we as a reasonable and responsible people should be allowed to own. We have already demonstrated that you are not in danger from those people owning guns.

It is the people who should not have guns but who have them anyway that is the problem.

It is time to address this issue. And everyone, especially those who strongly advocate for private gun ownership to come to the table and bring solutions.

How do we keep those lunatics from getting guns? And what mechanism should we have for getting them away from those who become lunatics?
It seems to be that universal background checks, waiting periods, and red flag laws should be an obvious start. The potential benefits of these regulations would far surpass the potential negatives.
And perhaps requiring an advocate. Someone from your community who would vouch for you.

In any case, we cannot in any practical way remove the guns from the masses of people. That path leads inevitably to civil war, and rolls over impossible legal and political hurdles on the way.

But we must address the question of who has them. The People have the right to conduct themselves in the affairs of life without fear of rampaging lunatics.

It is no surprise that I am excited at the prospect of a grandchild coming into the world. The excitement I feel for myself is only exceeded by the joy I feel for those two who are your parents. Like other grandparents-to-be, my mind has raced to consider what help I can be, what changes should I make, and what my role should be.

I have commonly heard that grandparents spoil their children. That visits to and from them will provide a steady stream of coddling and attention that may sabotage some level of discipline the parents work hard to instill.
Spoiling you? I do not see this as my role to you.
And I don’t think that most grandparents see this as their chief duty, if a duty at all. Most see love and affection as their main gift, and a reliable surrogate for stressed and tired parents. A dependable body to help when needed.

And yes, watching you grow and learn and become are the reward I will receive for my presence. And I will delight in the opportunity to introduce you to the forest and watch your eyes in wondrous fascination of nature. The building of a campfire and the cacophony of wildlife at the stages of the day are experiences I hope to share.
And I will gladly teach you to throw a ball and swing a golf club and tennis racket, or at least be an adjunct in that education. And I hope to watch as you see and smell your first experiences at the ancient arenas of sport. For sport teaches more than bodily movement and strength. It teaches us to cooperate and embrace our fellows. How to compete with respect, how to honor others achievement, and the importance of loss.

And I will tell you of the things I love, of cloth and wood, of textiles and colors, of words and sentences, of kindness and virtue. We need to see what others treasure in order to determine what our treasures will be.

I have gained a fair amount of knowledge and perhaps a measured amount of wisdom in my years. This is something that only my longevity and curiosity could have gathered. This is unique to me. Experience is a great teacher to those who know they are students. And more time in life’s classrooms means more lessons to share. These are lessons that would be different from anyone else.

No, it will not be my duty to create rules and laws for you to follow. You have parents capable to that task, parents who have your interests in mind and resources available to consult if they need advice. Though it will fall on me to occasionally enforce those rules, it isn’t for me to make them.

I can teach you much, but it isn’t for me to tell you what to believe. I have a whole history of undoing beliefs foisted on me by well-intentioned people in my own past. I will share with on occasion over time beliefs that I may have, but only to show how they were built, and why my grip of them remains tenuous.
I think rather that teaching you how to think a much more worthwhile endeavor. It will not be for me to fill your mind with content, though I suppose some great measure of that will happen planned and unplanned; but rather to load you with tools for how to think for yourself. It is this as a practical matter, that seems the best use of whatever wisdom I have gained; to teach you how to reason, how to discern, how to think. But not what to think. Your own thinking mind is the best tool for gaining knowledge.

Thoughts should be born, not placed in your mind.

But in this I speak only of some practical training, some function as a life tutor. A duty that falls short of what must be my main purpose where you are concerned. And that is to be always on your side and in your corner. A reliable lap of love and safety.
I promise now that I will always be there for you with love. I will never reject you, nor withhold my tender affection. I will always be your champion and never cause you to doubt that commitment. You will have in me someone you can completely rely on through all the days of your life, or more practically, my life, to accept you and cheer you on. I am not here to make you into someone, but to accept the someone that you become.

I am Papa. And the first time I hear you say that word to me will be the most joyous moment of my life.

This is about the religious belief of an atheist friend. Well, former friend, I suppose. The termination of said friendship has prompted this missive.

If it seems like an oxymoron, please understand that religious belief does not necessarily require a god, but rather, only belief in something without good reason. It isn’t the belief itself that is a problem, but the refusal to relinquish belief when it cannot be supported by reason.

There are many examples I could use from the 40 years I’ve known this man, but I’ll pick one incident. It is from his efforts to get me to subscribe to the belief that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were false flag operations by the US Government.
Of course the entire 9/11 conspiracy movement is rubbish. It is entirely implausible at every level of examination, and belief in it requires acceptance of wild assertions and the willful avoidance and rejection of provable facts. But that doesn’t stop the true believers.
In the incident that follows I was reminded of something I couldn’t place, and it took me several years to identify the moment it was from. When the memory came it revealed to me the religious nature of conspiracy belief.

The former friend I refer to, let’s call him Alex, had described several things which, as far as he was concerned had proven 9/11 was a false flag operation. For those who aren’t familiar with the term, it describes an attack on oneself or ally that is framed as if it came from a rival or enemy. The first of these that I ever encountered was in grammar school. I went to a K-8 school in Chicago, and during that last year a student running for class president defaced his own campaign posters to elicit sympathy and tarnish his opponent. It actually worked, and when discovered, caused a removal from office and expulsion from school.

In the case of 9/11, the theory proposes that the government attacked and murdered its own citizens and blamed it on Islamic terrorists. The goal was to encroach on the freedoms of American citizens, create a more powerful government, justify invasion of Afghanistan and eventually Iraq, or a combination of all three. None of these arguments are sound, but that would take a lot of space for debunking that has been thoroughly done elsewhere.
For this we focus on a single moment.

Alex insisted that I listen to some audio he had. He described it as amongst the most compelling support for this conspiracy that he knew of, and implied that it should at least open my mind to the truth as he believed it.
It was a recording of about ten minutes in length of a presentation made by a former FBI agent named Ted Gunderson. I had never heard of him before that moment (not a surprise, really) but was to understand that he was a strong proponent of the 9/11 truth conspiracy theory.
The first five minutes or so was Gunderson relating his background. Decades in the FBI as an agent, and then as supervisor of various district offices managing hundreds of agents. He made it clear that he was a proficient administrator of bureaucracy and an expert in criminal investigation with many years of experience.
The second half of this speech concerned two things. First he said that the World Trade Center twin towers collapse could not have been caused by the planes that hit them; and that he was in touch with current (unidentified) FBI personnel who fed him secret information that supported the conspiracy claim.

Alex was blind to what I saw as obvious. Gunderson had debunked himself. His own words made it clear that there was no good reason to take him seriously. It was clear to me that he was a zealot, incapable of critical examination of his belief. I’ll explain for those who miss the point.
His prelude was to establish himself as an authority. To someone untrained in critical thinking, such a background as his, decades of service in a prestigious and trusted institution, made whatever he said compelling. But what I heard was admission by omission of lack of any relevant expertise that could give authority to his statement about the collapse of the towers. He didn’t suggest any study in structural engineering or metallurgy. He didn’t add any evidence or statements from those with such expertise, nor offer any support at all, but instead relied entirely on assertion and insistence. His opinion had no more weight because he had been a criminal investigator, than had he been a commercial fisherman or had played three years of semi-pro baseball.
It would be like me suggesting that my twenty years of maritime experience gave authority to my pronouncements about how far a regulation football could be thrown. It has no bearing on the argument.
And Gunderson should have known that. As someone with as much experience as he had, and with having sought out experts for cases he investigated, he must have known he was out of his depth. And yet he was willing to make claims on a matter where he knew he had no expertise. At that moment he became unreliable as a source of information. He demonstrated that he was willing to pass off his unqualified opinion as expert analysis. It didn’t matter what he said after that. For any reasonable member of his audience he was done. Dismissed as a crank.
The second part of what he said, about secret information should also be dismissed accordingly. First, because of what I just covered, that whatever he claimed was unreliable at face value; and second because claims of secret knowledge are an unfalsifiable argument. There is no way to prove that he doesn’t have secret information. His assertion requires acceptance without evidence, thus making his argument an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. It is a claim without evidence spoken by a man without credibility.

(I did look up Ted Gunderson and was not surprised to find that he had become obsessed with belief in Satan worshipers sacrificing babies, as well as many other conspiracy claims. He had dived down various rabbit holes of conspiracy, and even a perfunctory search would render him as a true crank.)

But Alex looked at me after playing this audio. He was nodding his head, and widening his eyes as if to say, “Now do you believe?”
Of course I didn’t, but something seemed so familiar about his posture and his expectation of my response. It took me years to recognize where I had experienced it.

It was way back in 1977. I was a seventeen year old Seaman Apprentice stationed on a Tank Landing Ship based in Little Creek, Virginia. While on board that ship I had several different Christian sailors attempt to convert me to their churches. Assembly of God, Pentecostals, and Southern Baptists to name the three that I remember. Two shipmates belonging to the latter of these invited me to their church to hear a sermon.
I had been raised Roman Catholic, complete with gothic sculptures, statues of Mary and the saints, Jesus on the crucifix, and priests resplendent in finery befitting a chain of command that led to the Vicar of Christ himself. All elements of an organization crafted to instill trust and faith. So, the setting of the church my shipmates took me was unorthodox, literally.
The minister wore a powder-blue leisure suit and stood at a podium that bore a simple cross. This was clearly all about the minister and his presentation of revealed truth. I do not recall if I ever heard the minister’s name, nor do I remember his face, but if you imagine Jerry Falwell you’d have a pretty good picture. Heck, I don’t know that it wasn’t Jerry Falwell.

The minister spent a half-hour railing about men with long hair and women who wore pants, along with a lot of other blather about who was a true Christian and heaven and hell and whatnot.
After this was over my shipmates asked me if I had been saved. “From what?” I asked.
“From going to hell,” they answered. “Don’t you want to go to heaven?”
“Was that guy in the powder-blue leisure suit going?”
They nodded yes, he was.
“Then I’ll pass,” I said. “I’m not going to spend eternity hanging around that guy.”

These two young men were dyed in the wool Christian believers. They had heard all of this before, and believed it completely. And each time they heard this minister speak they became more certain of the belief they held. Each experience at such a meeting was a heart-filling reenforcement of the belief they came in with. With no skepticism behind them and without the application of any critical thinking, they were unable to understand how someone else wouldn’t be convinced by their preacher’s message. They couldn’t see that others might view this as the ravings and rantings of a bigot and a cult leader. Utterly unconvincing and void of any reasonable arguments of support.

Let’s go back to Alex and Ted Gunderson and how these are related.
I realized it was the same thing. Alex was a true believer and part of the choir that Ted Gunderson was preaching to. He might as well have been standing behind a pulpit and talking about how much Jesus loves us. Identical in all but the words and claims. Alex listened to Gunderson with the same lack of skepticism that those young men in Virginia had so many years ago absorbed the claims of their minister. Gunderson was a priest presenting truth revealed to him through secret communication. His anonymous sources were no different that God speaking to the minister. Ridiculous to anyone not in the cult, gospel to those who are.

I met Alex in 1980 when he joined the ship I was on. (A different ship, this one based in California.) He was at the time a new recruit, fresh from Navy “A” school in Orlando, Florida where he had been evangelized. At some point later he abandoned that belief. I’m not sure what did it for him, but in retrospect I can’t believe his journey away from deism was similar to mine. Mine was a growing appreciation for logic and reason, and the requirement that my beliefs be sufficiently justified through those tools. Over time I couldn’t rationalize the stories from the Bible and make them align with any kind of reality. And gradually the very concept of the supernatural became just so much fantasy forced into a hole where knowledge ended.
I wonder if Alex had simply heard some George Carlin sketch humorously shredding the traditional beliefs in God, and just abandoned the belief on the spot. Or if it was the accumulation of people scoffing at the silliness of so much of biblical belief.
But what became clear in time, in a very long time admittedly, was that Alex had never adopted reason as a means to work out truth, or skepticism as a tool to resist assertions from those we are trained to trust. What also became clear to me was his willingness to accept as true the claims that align with pre held belief.

There is no intellectual difference between true believers, regardless of the belief.

Alex held many other conspiracy beliefs, from the laughable and harmless belief that NASA faked the moon landings, or that jet planes are spraying chemicals over the cities; to darker ones that really caused me to question and ultimately end our friendship; such as the belief in a secret cabal of Jewish bankers who controlled the world behind the scenes, and that the holocaust didn’t happen as reported. And more recently, of allowing the current viral pandemic to cull the population of the unhealthy and unfit, in lieu of vaccination, which he considers to be one of the tools of world domination the aforementioned cabal use.

I suspect that Alex had, when he surrendered belief in God, retained his belief in the Devil. Not an actual devil or Satan or whatever, but perhaps a more nebulous evil that exists as an entity. Like some invisible miasma. A force that attracts bad actors and influences them to ill exploits. Perhaps he had adopted belief in “the force” and its dark side that were introduced in the Star Wars franchise. I know many who do subscribe to that.
It is much easier in a world full of science and reason to move the supernatural away from a single creator and a band of angels and to a vague and amorphous “force.” I read once that the decline in religious belief in America was matched by an increase in belief in extraterrestrial visitation. Our need to feel we are at the center of the universe. If there isn’t any Gods paying special attention to us, than perhaps it is the aliens.

As far as Alex went, I concluded that efforts to bring him around with reason were never going to work as he would never accept he was wrong about anything. I recognized that I had to face the antisemitism he supported, and the inhumane attitude towards other people. A clear-eyed look without the filters that four decades of friendship had applied. He would be quite comfortable disposing of unappealing members of the population. It was easy to imagine him as a Pilgrim to early America, smiling at the natives while carrying armloads of blankets. Smallpox would only destroy the weak.
And he wasn’t content to hold his beliefs separate from our interactions like others I know where we politely agree to disagree. In Alex I had seen already through countless encounters that he wouldn’t keep any of these ideas to himself. Truly, he was bent on convincing me of those beliefs.
And finally I realized, that whatever time I have left in my life, it wasn’t enough time for crazy.

The Civil Rights Act was passed and signed in 1964. As I was born in 1960, the act was something I learned about years later. When my school taught me about this act, about ten years or so after it passed, the events that lead up to it seemed to be part of ancient history. A story in black and white film clips and pictures of men and women marching, of police and firehoses and savage dogs. Of soldiers walking a small black girl to school, and the National Guard forcing a Governor to stand down. Of lunch counters and buses and bridges. Of black citizens and white authority.

I grew up in Chicago, having moved there in 1968. I saw plenty of examples of racism and prejudice and while I learned that it was wrong, I didn’t connect any of it to the changing laws and practices, or to the segregation of the recent past or the integration going on around me and throughout the country. I saw the racism, and as I was a white kid it wasn’t hidden from me. On the contrary, racists took my skin color as a sign of alliance; a mark of confederacy.

And I went through my young life, from high school and into the Navy, having racists assume I would laugh at their racist jokes while almost simultaneously listening to white people tell me that racism was all but gone in the north of America. Sure, there were still racism in the South, but up north we were civilized. This was a lie folks told broadly, and only believed by those doing the telling.

But I didn’t live in the South with separate water fountains and bathrooms, and I didn’t join the Navy before the military was integrated. The America that I knew was functionally integrated yet remained heavily committed to segregation. The instances of black and white personal integration were more rare than intentional segregation. Whether it was at school or aboard ship, people segregated. And we accepted this as culturally comfortable. While the occasional black man sitting with a table full of white people wasn’t all that rare, people actually did a double-take when they saw a solitary white man freely sharing company with a group of blacks. The policies and laws had changed, and some number of the people accepted that as just and good, but so many others rejected it in their own lives and community. The laws had changed, but you can’t stop people from choosing their company.

Many years later I was told that integration had economically hurt the American blacks more than it helped them. My impulse was to reject this. Perhaps it was the source. I often heard from racist whites how things were better for the blacks before the laws had changed. This still goes on today, with the worst of them promoting the benefits slavery brought to African Americans. (Look at how bad things were in Africa before we brought them here! In The States the blacks were housed and fed and clothed. etc.)

Of course it was better to open the whole of the country up to everyone without restriction to race. I read about separate but equal, and redlining, and the Green Book. Integration must have been a positive all around. But I was mistaken, and though I was told this several more times, I didn’t fully understand it for many years. There was truth to that claim, though not for the reasons the racists I knew offered.

In 2009 I bought a small wreck of a house in Michigan, north of Muskegon and inland from Lake Michigan. The idea was to reduce my cost of living to as low as I could, and so afford choices that greater economic freedom allow.

The neighborhood I found my home in had been platted as an addition to the resort community of Lakewood back in the beginnings of the twentieth century but had never been built up. The Great Depression stopped the building of cabins, and the resort closed. The housing became permanent homes to workers who filled their rolls in the arsenal of democracy that was Muskegon during WWII. Eventually that resort was incorporated as the village of Lakewood Club, but without the platted addition across the township line. 

The rapid increase in industrialization Muskegon felt during those war years put a demand on housing. One of the solutions was houses built from kits. All the parts numbered and packed to be put together by the homeowner or contractor. We all have heard of the kit homes from Sears, but there were other companies too. My house was one of those, though it was located in Muskegon proper. Late in the fifties developers wanted the land it and many of its cousins sat on, and an entrepreneur bought up many of these small kit homes and moved them north to this platted but undeveloped neighborhood where they were then rented out. The neighborhood was settled by mostly African Americans, many of whom would eventually buy the houses outright. Many of these homes were gone by the time I arrived, and though some several remain, the neighborhood is nothing like it was in days past.

In my research of these properties and this neighborhood I found that the recently demolished roadhouse a quarter-mile west of me had once been called the Ebony Club, and following that I learned of the Chitlin’ Circuit. The Chitlin’ Circuit was a collection of clubs and theaters throughout the country that catered to black entertainers and audiences. Famous entertainers such as The Temptations played there. As I dug deeper into this I learned about the summer resort known as Idlewild. It was in Lake County, Michigan, and catered exclusively to blacks. It may have been the largest summer camping resort in the country, and was founded in the early twentieth century in response to Jim Crow laws.

The business flourished, as did many other black-owned businesses throughout the country. Across the country, businesses owned by African Americans and catering to the black race were a central part of the wealth in those communities. But when The Civil Rights Act was passed and signed, it legally opened white-owned businesses to non-white customers. It was a practice that many whites had been accepting as a matter of economic advantage. But the end of segregation, both as a practical issue and a legal one, did indeed spell the demise of many businesses that formally had a captive audience. Idlewild exists today as an unincorporated community, with a museum I plan to visit once the pandemic has passed.

Let me be clear as to what it was I realized. Integration put money on a one-way street, going from the pockets of the black community to those in the white community. This is about money.

The real failure here was from the other direction. While much of white America objected to segregation and lauded the Civil Rights Act, they didn’t embrace the practice. They failed in integrating themselves with the black community and black owned business. It was the other side of integration.

And for this discussion I will not dive into the practices of many towns and neighborhoods of establishing covenants to maintain those color restrictions that had been before codified in law. Here I only acknowledge what was never presented to me when I was taught about the end of segregation. While my people were patting themselves on the back for allowing blacks to shop at their stores and eat in their restaurants, there was no effort made to do the reverse.

What should have happened but didn’t, was the opposite movement of some money from the white pocket to black business. Integration became synonymous with allowing blacks to join whites. In truth it should have been (and still needs to be) both whites and blacks joining each other.

And yes, there are those who practice this very thing. But too few do, and too few recognize that this failure on the part of white America is partially responsible for the failure of the proportional success of black business.

I am not here at this moment to address reparations for slavery, or the myriad business practices that banks used to keep the upper hand white, nor all of those other actions taken by businesses and governments to foster economic segregation. I take this moment to offer my commitment to patronize black owned business in my community, intentionally and deliberately. And ask for other white Americans to do the same. Let us integrate some of our money as it should have been done all along.

January 2021 – post insurrection

I imagine that those reading this understand what the First Amendment of the US Constitution says about speech, and they also understand what that speech that applies to. But to summarize, it protects the public from government restrictions on speech. That is all. It doesn’t force anyone to listen, nor does it force anyone to give you a soapbox to speak from. It merely says the government can’t lock you up for what you say. But even in that statement it leaves out, by omission, certain obvious assumptions about speech. As has been decided by the Supreme Court, it is fair to assume that the founders never intended for incitement to violence or speech that could cause panic to be so protected. The classic claim about falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater as an example.
The speech so protected is limited, and applies solely to Government restriction. So, when Twitter banned off their platform the further speech of the sitting US President, Donald Trump, it was not violating his free speech. It is their business, after all. And as you don’t have to let someone come into your house and scream obscenities at your children, Twitter doesn’t have to allow Trump to use their house to say what he will. They could ban anyone they like. Their decision to do so wasn’t based on his politics, but rather on his incitement of a crowd to violence that was to them, the last straw in a series of obvious and deliberate attempts to raise anger to action amongst his followers by spreading lies and misinformation. To bolster this claim, I refer to the numerous tags they added to false information tweets he has made prior to the banning. They have, just as every other social medial platform has, standards of use that give them legal right to eject you from their sites without ramifications.
Facebook and a host of other sites have done the same.

But the larger question comes to mind, how in this world of mass communication through social media is free speech supposed to be delivered if those platforms can shut you down? Could they, one may ask, eject someone simply for political speech that the platform disagreed with? Well, yes. In fact, on the alternate site Parler, it was common for them to kick off users for disagreeing with the far-right agenda they present (despite the irony in their claims of being a free speech platform). As a note, Amazon web service dropped Parler off their servers for failure to curb speech that threatened violence and promoted sedition. Another example of a private entity choosing who they do business with.

Take a walk back in history and see people picking out public corners to speak. There, so long as you were abiding by some rules, you could say what you will, a freedom you would not enjoy on someone’s private property.
And to reach a larger audience, you could find a printer will to print you message, or later a radio station, and still later a television station to allow you to have your say. And if none of those places would let you have your say through their organ, you could build your own press, etc., etc., etc.

Are we then in danger of having a corporate oligarchy controlling our ability to spread our message? Judging from what I have been easily able to access, no. Not anymore than Thomas Paine was while needed someone to print his pamphlets.
And what newspaper is required to print the opinions and positions of the public? Most accept letters to their editors, but use their own discretion which to print.

And when it comes to extreme rhetoric, what exactly is wrong with some of that speech? And why shouldn’t it be allowed? After all, In the marketplace of ideas, the truth will bear out; is a maxim long established by jurists of great esteem over the centuries. The freedom to reasonably argue ideas and debate them in open and frank discussion is at the core of intellectual honesty. Why suppress it at all? Wouldn’t it be better to hear it, and then have it countered with alternative speech?
Well, yes. I suppose it would if, and only if there were measures taken to get that alternate speech out and have it heard. False speech cannot be countered if the reply is not heard. Platforms of social media are built to exclude alternatives to speech. You see those you follow, and are fed posts that correspond to your taste. You are funneled into an echo chamber of those that agree, and away from opinions to the contrary. Such platforms tacitly limit open discussion.
But what I’m talking about here is not the free expression of ideas and your unwillingness to hear others, I’m talking about deliberate falsehoods, propaganda made and built to be fed into that echo chamber to convince people of some travesty that in fact, never happened. Propaganda.

Propaganda can be used by almost anyone. And it is certainly used by all sides to one degree of another; especially in times of war. But the idea that it should be expressed by the President and used against the other branches of government is wrong and should be restriced. And those who believe it do not have a right to hear it on whatever platform they like. But more importantly, we as a people should reject that speech and make it clear to our leaders that we expect and demand honesty and factually based information. When a person in power speaks, they should be held accountable for speaking untruths. I do not think that the application of free speech should extend to the same degree to those who are elected as it does to the public at large. When then President Trump falsely stated that the election was fraudulent and stolen from him by corruption, this should not be protected as free speech. His authority has weight, and his making that speech inspired others to accept his claim as true and act out against lawful authority as a result.
Public officials should be held to a higher standard of speech and be expected to verify the claims they make. The claims he made were actually checked and found wanting evidence. For him to continue to make those false claims should not be protected, but rather they should be viewed as incitement to lawlessness.

We curb free speech in government regularly. During war government censors blacked out parts of letters written by those in the field if they felt they might compromise the war effort. Details of location or troop strength were censored. That speech was restricted and censored. Diplomats are selected for their ability to self-censor. They must carefully gauge what they say with the understanding that their speech could cause other governments to rise to action. And if they fail to be so guided, they are removed. In short, their speech is restricted.

We must set truth as the standard for speech by those elected to lead us. And when they abuse their official platforms to make false claims and incite the masses to action against the lawful elections they should face consequences.

One. More. Time.

400,000 Americans have died of Covid-19.
And Donald Trump could have helped but didn’t. Look at the tapes. It is all on record. He downplayed the seriousness of this virus when he knew how serious it was.
LOOK at the tapes. This was all recorded. He told us it would go away when spring came. He said their were 15 cases that would soon be zero. That is on tape at a press conference.
But at the same time he was also telling Bob Woodward that he KNEW how serious it was. On tape. LISTEN to the tapes.
He refused to wear a mask. He made fun of those who wore masks. He attacked the doctors and scientists who were telling us how serious this was.When Governors took action to save their citizens he mocked them. He called on his supporters to LIBERATE those states. As the cases and deaths climbed he told us everything was fine. As the cases and deaths RAGED he said we were turning a corner.

He lied to you and me and we knew it. And you should have known it. But you wouldn’t listen. He could have done something but didn’t. We just passed 400,000 dead. If you are still defending this DEVIL than shame on you. We told you. The scientists and doctors told you. If you didn’t listen that is on you.

J’ACCUSE!

Tomorrow we start anew. We will try to rebuild this country and heal the wounds. A new President will take over and try to help make things right. I don’t want to hear a GODDAMN thing from those who supported this MONSTER.
You had your chance. Admit you were wrong or shut the fuck up and get out of the way.

A century ago the Klan was popular in West Michigan. While it seemed to have peaked nationally at the beginning of the decade, it was strongly supported by many in the first half of the 1920s. It was less about hatred of blacks in the region than it was about hatred of immigrants and Catholics, though racism was still a part of the story. But support and membership fell dramatically in 1926 after a murder that occurred just a few hundred yards from my current home. A local Klan Knight, who was Constable of Blue Lake Township, angered by the election of a German American Catholic to the position of Township Supervisor, mailed a bomb to the Three Lakes Tavern that the supervisor owned, killing that man, his daughter, and his daughter’s fiancee. Their wedding was scheduled for the following Saturday, and they together opened what they assumed was a wedding present. The bomber expressed regret about the two children, saying that he didn’t think about the wedding. The aftermath shocked the region and caused many to drop their membership in the Klan, though we all know that hatred and group superiority never really goes away.
I know a lot more about this, but this isn’t a history lesson. I bring it up because I am hopeful for a parallel to today. I hope that like then, the masses of Americans who tacitly supported the various factions who raged against the election of Joe Biden, against Black Lives Matter, and against other immigrant and minority groups, will look at this assault against our Capitol and the principals of our nation and reject it, as they did 94 years ago.I am hopeful they will see the worst of what they have endorsed, and reject those who try to continue this action.