Flirting With Alcoholism

My father was a bad alcoholic.  It pains me to admit that, and my brothers and sisters would probably prefer that I did not mention it, but the truth is the truth: Throughout most of my formative years, dad’s drinking was a problem.  He did reform, somewhat, in later years, but he never really did stop drinking entirely.

We children of alcoholics all have the gene that makes us susceptible to the “disease” as people like to call it although I’m not sure I agree.  One can always choose to not drink in the first place.  Trouble is, few of us make that choice.  

Now, I’ll admit that I like to drink.  I don’t drink because I like the taste of beer (or rum!).  I like the way it makes me feel.  If it wasn’t for the bad hangovers I get, I’d drink all the time!  In fact, I could see myself becoming a major alky.  

I’ve never kept alcohol in the house.  No beer in the fridge, no bottles of Jack in the cupboard.  It’s my little way of keeping myself from becoming an alcoholic.  I don’t ever want to be that guy who drinks at home by himself.  If I have guests over, I’ll go out and buy a bottle of nice wine.  Other than that, I don’t drink at home.

Here’s why:  For supper tonight, I cooked up a dish that I’ve known about and liked for a long time.  It’s a complicated recipe, including scallops, cilantro, ginger root, fresh garlic, snow peas, bell peppers, corn starch…oh, and a cup of white wine.  Ingredients of which I have exactly zero.  So out I go…not to Walmart (which never in a million years would have fresh cilantro), but to Publix, the higher-end grocery store where the rich snobs shop.  God, I hate that place.  Nevertheless, they had everything I needed, including a nice bottle of white.  $50.00 later, I'm walking out to the car thinking, "Why didn't we just go out to a nice restaurant?"

The dish came out fine – if a little bland – just as I remembered it.  Since the bottle of wine was already opened, I decided to have a glass with my meal.  And then another.  And soon the bottle was empty and I was back to my “no alcohol in the house” promise.  And right now, as I write this, I am feeing verrrrry good!  

I have gone through periods of fairly heavy drinking in my life.  Happily and thankfully, those days are over.  I’m not one of those annoying reformed-alcoholic teatotalers who claims to never drink – oh no!  If I go out with friends, I can (and will!) still merrily drink them under the table.  I just don’t do that very often anymore.  My goal is to never have another hangover as long as I live.  So far, so good…although we’ll have to see how I feel tomorrow morning.  Putting an open bottle of wine in front of me is a bad, bad thing.

On Trump and Morality

Hey, when you take a strong position on an issue, you're likely to get some feedback. Not all of it is going to be positive. Take Mark Galli, Editor-in-Chief of Christianity Today Magazine. He recently published an editorial condemning President Trump and asserting that he was "morally unfit" to be President. Not a huge problem by itself…everybody’s entitled to their opinion…except that Galli unwisely invoked the name of Reverend Billy Graham, who founded the magazine. Oopsie! Turns out that Rev. Graham was a supporter of Donald Trump and voted for him for president. 

Anyway, now 200 or so "evangelicals" have come out in angry contradiction to Galli and his editorial.  You can read that article HERE.

President Trump surely is a controversial, polarizing character in modern American history. You love him or you hate him. We can say that he is not a "moral" or "ethical" man, and there is plenty of evidence to support that statement. Trump is also not a "good Christian" by any stretch of the imagination (although who am I to judge?). Luckily, the U.S. is not a Christian nation, per se. Our country may have been created with respect to certain Christian principles and values, but the founders went out of their way to ensure that the government would never be dominated by any one particular church or religion - like England.

Every voice needs to be heard - even Galli's. This is America, after all, where we fight and die for our First Amendment rights. Nobody should be shouted down or forcibly shut up, no matter how unpopular are their words.  Mark Galli may have taken a provocative stance among conservative Christians, but I admire him for doing it. Donald Trump is, to be honest, a pretty despicable person. Impeachably despicable? Ehhh, I don't know. People...*voters*...should seriously be asking themselves if Trump is really the person we/they want leading our country for another four years? 

For Christians, that's got to be a tough question. To them, morality comes from God.  But this is America; we cannot demand that all politicians believe the same things we do…or even that they be Christians for that matter.  We cannot even tell them what is “moral” behavior and what’s not, for morality is one of those ill-defined, subjective concepts.  Like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in 1964 when asked to define pornography: ”I know it when I see it!"  But how important is morality in a supposedly religion-free government that has worked so hard to expel God from our lives?  

Well, morality is about how we act towards others within the framework of society, right? Those generally-good feelings (and actions) toward one another are innate to most – but not all – of us humans.  You don’t have to be a Christian to be a moral person - but it helps. Still, as a Christian I cannot demand that a person adhere to the same moral standards as I do.  And so Trump is a dilemma.  I may not personally be able to stand him, but does that mean he can't be a good President?

For atheists, it may even be a harder question - because we know that morals (and their close friend, ethics) are "squishy." They change over time and are not generally set in stone, as it were. Things that were once seen as immoral don’t seem like such a big deal now. And so, should we even care about how "immoral" Trump acts in the present? Perhaps one day in the future, his current behavior, like that of unmarried couples living together, or pregnancy out of wedlock, both of which were once considered highly immoral, may seem perfectly acceptable and inoffensive. 

And wouldn’t that be some shit!

My Waning Love Affair With The Keurig

I like coffee.  But I don’t love coffee like some people do…I don’t need coffee to “get the day started” when I wake up.  And I'm no coffee snob.  I like it; I drink it; end of story.

I’ve bitched before about how our local convenience stores have all gone to these automatic machines that grind and brew cups individually – so no more drinking from a pot that’s been sitting there for who-knows-how-long, or coming in to find no coffee brewed because the clerks were too busy to make more.  Now, instead of just pouring a cup and moving on, we stand in line, tapping our feet and waiting for the guy in front of us to figure out how to work the oh-so-complicated machine and get his damn coffee brewed.  Ahh, progress...

A while back, Keurig coffeemakers became popular.  Such convenience!  Just pop the little pod into the machine and (snap your fingers), instant coffee!  I resisted buying one for a couple of reasons, but finally bit the bullet and became a convert.  Walmart sells one model, the K55 for $134.99.  I found one on Facebook Marketplace - brand new and unused - for $25.00.

And now, after a year or so, the Keurig sits, no longer used, taking up space on my kitchen counter.  I’ve gone back to just making conventional instant coffee.  I can stick a saucepan of water on the stove and have it heated to boiling and poured in a cup before I can get my “Bob McMuffin” (my version of the McDonalds classic) made.  Heating a cup of water in the microwave takes even less time and effort.  Why do I need this Keurig again?

You have to keep refilling the Keurig supply reservoir after every two or three cups or so.  Then you have to wait for it to heat up the water.  Then you have the pod to dispose of.  I buy a package of 48 “Donut Shop” pods from Walmart.  At $14.88 per box, it works out to $0.31 per cup.  On the other hand, an $8.59 container of instant coffee gives me 200 cups, which works out to be $0.05 per cup.  And to me, they taste the same.

True, you can get all kinds of flavors and types of those coffee pods, so everyone in the fam can have their own special blend.  But it’s just me in this house, and like I said, I’m no coffee snob.  Give me any ol’ coffee and I’m happy.  The Keurig is a neat invention, but - for me - it really doesn't do anything better than before.

Cruel Irony

See, here’s the thing about the impeachment of President Trump.  If  Democrats are hinging their whole case on Trump’s “quid pro quo” or “bribery” or whatever in his dealings on that famous phone call with Ukraine President Zelensky, they’re on shaky ground.  All sorts of “experts” have testified, and opinions (about the only thing they can testify to) vary wildly on whether the call was appropriate or not.  Yes it was; no it wasn’t.

Throughout history, U.S. presidents have engaged in these “quid pro quo” deals all the time.  If foreign nations want something from us (usually arms or money) then it would be silly for us to just give those things with no conditions.  And in fact, there are always conditions…strings, if you will – as there should be!  So Trump’s “quid pro quo” was nothing unusual or out of the ordinary.  We’ll give you this military aid…IF…you investigate corruption surrounding Ukraine’s possible involvement the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Where it became an impeachable offense, Democrats claim, is when Trump asked President Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden.  The charge is that such an investigation would provide a thing of personal value to Trump in the upcoming 2020 election, and thereby violates the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Or…wait, hold on…by withholding the military aid, Trump was bribing Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden.

Uhhh…okay.  That’s weak, but I can see the argument.  Is it, by itself, enough to warrant impeachment?  Trump-haters say, “Yes, of course!”  

The rest of us (e.g. the non-Trump-haters) shrug and go, ”That all you got?”  Because like I said, it’s weak sauce.  Democrats are beginning to understand this, and are desperately clawing and grasping to find something that is genuinely impeachable, not just legally but also in the eyes of the American public.  According to recent news reports, even Democrats are becoming wary of all this impeachment drama.

President Trump may be the most lying, most vile, most egotistical, most duplicitous, crookedest, stupidest, most underhanded, most racist, biggest piece of shit president this country has ever seen.  Unfortunately, the best way of removing him from office is by getting someone else elected next time.  

Impeaching Trump will not get him removed from office and will not prevent him from running again in 2020.  And as “bad” a president as he may be (according to democrats), he will handily defeat whoever from the current cast of boobs the DNC chooses to run against him (unless Hillary or Michelle Obama decide to enter the race - then we could have a contest!).

Consider Nancy Pelosi.  She may be many things, but she is not politically inept.  She is one very smart politician.  When she first announced that the House would formally institute an impeachment inquiry against President Trump, you could tell by her facial expression and overall demeanor that her heart was not in it.  She knew that they were about three years too late.  She was saying the right words, but the fire and anger behind them were simply not there.  But she probably did not have a choice.  

Pelosi surely understands that the impeachment saga is losing steam.  The hoped-for uprising of public anger at and vilification of Donald Trump simply did not happen, especially among his base.  If anything, support for the president has become stronger.  And so if the Democrats push ahead with impeachment, Nancy Pelosi might just be the one held responsible for getting Trump reelected.  Talk about cruel irony!

Quid Pro Quo?

Much is made of President Trump violating the so-called “Emoluments Clause”  of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 9).  Basically, the president cannot receive any…gift, payment or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers or representatives.

The issue centers around this term, “quid pro quo” that Congress keeps bandying about.  Basically, the Democrats are saying that by asking Ukraine President Zelensky to investigate Burisma Holdings and Vice President Biden’s involvement in it, Trump was seeking to benefit personally in the 2020 election.  

It is generally acknowledged that nations like the U.S. use quid pro quos all the time to get other countries to do what we want.  Lots of nations need money and arms from the U.S.  And we seem to have plenty of both to give.

Strategically, Ukraine is important in the relationship between the U.S. and Russia (which is apparently still our sworn enemy – who knew!).  We need them to side with us and not Vladdy Putin, and so we’ve bent over backwards to help Ukraine financially when we could.  President Obama sent Joe Biden over to facilitate giving Ukraine $1 billion in aid.  President Trump has continue these financial and military contributions from the U.S.

Speaking of a “quid pro quo,” it’s interesting to note that Biden gave one to Ukraine then-President Poroshenko back in 2014: Fire the Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin or you don’t get the $1 billion.  Shokin was either looking too deeply or not enough deeply enough into corruption within the Ukraine government.  Looks to me like the U.S. was meddling in Ukraine politics.

For his part, President Trump is saying that his “quid pro quo” merely amounted to asking (not demanding!) that Ukraine’s president look into “corruption” in general…and that happens to include Joe Biden because he was involved in Ukraine at the time that Ukraine was meddling in the 2016 election.  (The mainstream media keeps the focus on “Russian interference” but apparently Ukraine was doing it as well.)

Men of good will can disagree on issues.  Personally, I think the Democrats have a weak argument, and they’ll have a hard time convincing the American public that President Trump violated his oath of office and committed an impeachable offense as the House votes to impeach him.  Don’t bother to mention the various polls showing that half of all Americans want Trump removed from office.  I think that if nothing else, the 2016 election taught us that polls cannot be trusted.

Impeachable?

If you went out on the street and asked people if President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, you might very well get a preponderance of “Yes!” responses.  Donald Trump is…let’s not pull any punches…a scumbag.  We all know that.  He does what he wants without much concern for the consequences.  (That’s partly why a lot of people like him.)

But some people – let’s call them “Trump-haters” believe that he is unfit for the office of president, never should have been elected president, and should be removed from office ASAP by any means possible.  This last qualification is a little awkward.  Trump-haters want him gone.  They feel that he’s committed enough impeachable crimes to warrant it.  But the term “impeachable” as they use it is kind of, well, squishy.

Because if you were out on the street and asked people what crimes, exactly President Trump has committed that are impeachable offenses, you’d get a lot of hemming and hawing and foot-shuffling.  The more intelligent respondents might say that he violated the so-called emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution which says you cannot accept any gift, reward or thing of value from a foreign government.  They’ll say that by asking Ukraine President Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, Trump was looking to personally benefit in the 2020 election.  

(Notice though that the Constitution says that a president may not accept any gift, reward or thing of value – it does not say that he can’t solicit such things.  You can ask; you just cannot receive.)

And so we get back to: What exactly has President Trump done to warrant impeachment?  

You cannot impeach a president and have him removed from office simply because he’s a dirtbag and you don’t like him.  You cannot impeach a president because he tweets mean things…or treats people badly, or even because he an egotist and a liar.  It doesn’t work that way.  There has to be a clear impeachable offense…somewhere.  

The American people, however, can impeach a president – sort of.  They can simply not vote for him in the next election.  We have that power!  If the people don’t like Donald Trump, they’ll vote for someone else.  And that form of impeachment might happen in about a year from right now.  But it might not! 

Democrats don’t want to take that chance.  They’ve been talking about impeaching Trump ever since he was sworn in.  Here in November of 2019, Democrats want to make damn sure that Trump is not re-elected next year.  So they’ve…you’ll pardon the pun…trumped-up these charges, claiming that asking President Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden violated the emoluments clause.  It’s weak, I know, but Democrats are running out of time!

Despite what some polls indicate, I don’t think that the American people are convinced that President Trump has done impeachable things.  Maybe I’m wrong, but the people I talk to are getting fatigued over these impeachment proceedings.  (And I’m an Uber drive; I talk to a lot of people in any given day.)  Not everybody in the country is rabidly Left or Right.  Moderate people of both parties actually do see it as a “witch hunt” or at least an act of desperation by Democrats who want to overturn the 2016 election.  They’re starting to lose interest.

I have no doubt that the House of Representatives will vote to impeach President Trump.  But remember, impeachment does not mean removal from office.  For that, the Senate has to weigh-in.  And they’ll never…never! vote to impeach/remove.  But even if they did, it would not prevent Trump from running in 2020. He might not be able to run as a Republican, which would be no big deal because he isn’t much of a Republican anyway.  And if he runs as an Independent, he very well might win again.

Who Sets U.S. Foreign Policy?

So now we know the identity of the infamous whistleblower!  (His name is not important.  It’s been revealed in plenty of other places online if you’re really curious.)  He’s a kid.  He’s 33 now, but all of this dates back to when he was in the Obama administration in 2015.  So he’s being used, in other words thrown to the wolves by the older, more experienced politicians and those of the so-called “deep state” who want to keep their hands clean…at least as clean as possible given that nobody is going to look good when this is all over.

Apparently, the kid works for the CIA, must’ve been some low-level wonk (“intelligence analyst”) probably recruited right out of college, perhaps dreaming he was going to be the next master spy like the fictional Jack Ryan of Tom Clancy novels.  Whatever.

In 2015 the CIA assigned him to the National Security Council (NSC) in the Obama administration working for Susan Rice.  He also worked for Vice President Joe Biden on Ukraine policy issues.  He was “held over” into the Trump administration and handled the “Ukraine desk” (whatever that is) at the NSC, and was eventually brought into the White House until his anti-Trump sentiments were revealed – which we can surmise made him persona non grata.  He has moved back to CIA headquarters…but not before meeting with Senator Adam Schiff (who heads the House Intelligence Committee) and agreeing to become The Whistleblower.  

Since this young man only claims to have second-hand knowledge about the phone call President Trump had with Ukraine President Zelensky, it stands to reason that the source of this second-hand information was U.S. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who actually did listen in on the phone call and who says he had serious misgivings about what President Trump was doing because it…and this is what everybody says…it would jeopardize national security!!  That’s the catch-all, right?  If you make such a claim, who would…or could…prove you wrong?  Who could even question your motives?  I think it’s safe to assume that Col. Vindman and our young whistleblower must’ve talked.

But what Lt. Col. Vindman seems to overlook or conveniently forget is that it is THE PRESIDENT who sets our foreign policy…not Congress, not the Joint Chiefs, not the media, and certainly not U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonels, no matter how well-meaning.  We don’t have to (and won’t) question Lt. Col. Vindman’s patriotism or character.  But we can definitely say that he is off-base here in his testimony.  To him I would say “Sir, just let the president handle foreign policy; after all, he is your Commander In Chief.”