*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

On March 23, 1973, U.S. Immigration ordered John Lennon to leave the U.S. within 60 days. The reason? His conviction in 1968 in England for possessing marijuana. But, “As we now know … it had more to do with President Richard Nixon administration’s general fear of Lennon, his political views and his influence.” Lennon fought the deportation and ultimately won. That included the right to stay, specifically, in New York City at the Dakota Apartments, 1 West 72nd Street. There, on the evening of December 8, 1980, he was gunned down by Mark David Chapman. The thing is, if he’d lost his deportation battle he might still be alive today. (As “Sir John.”)

That’s what you might call an unintended consequence, and that brings up why I’m not reviewing the movie Conclave as I planned for this post. It’s because the recently-decided election includes an unintended consequence from 2020. Specifically on why it might have been better if Trump had won the election back then. The main reason? Because he would have had to deal – probably ineffectively – with the war in the Ukraine, the war in and around Israel, and especially the runaway inflation that proved to be such a big factor in the election.

Thus my conclusion that it probably would have been better if he’d won back in 2020:

My main concern?  He’d still be eligible to run in 2024, and in the intervening four years – with a Democrat as president – he might just wreak more havoc to American democracy than he could as president… So wouldn’t it be better to get it over with?  To get rid of Trump once and for all, in 2024?  Then too, if he did get re-elected in 2020, he would immediately become a “lame duck.”

To clarify, it might have been better to get rid of Trump on January 20, 2025. That’s when he’d be leaving the White House for the final time, instead of coming back again. (Like some “Undead Revenant?”) On the other hand, my comment about him “wreaking more havoc” – lingering on at the sidelines since 2020 – certainly turned out to be prescient. (But not in the good way.)

And incidentally, the film Conclave had a not-too-subtle message on why the Sovereign People should not have voted as they did last Tuesday, but that’s a topic for a later post. (Hopefully.) But “the People” have decided and Trump will be back in office next January 20. Which means it’s time to review some other prognostications I made about such a second term.

First off, about that lame duck business. In one definition it means the time between Election Day and when the new president takes office, on January 20. (In this case, 76 days or roughly two and a half months.) Meaning Joe Biden using those 76 days for unfinished business and take some final steps to shaping his legacy. But in another definition it refers to the fact that “any U.S. president winning a second term ‘automatically becomes a lame duck.’” 

That’s because the Twenty-second Amendment keeps a president from serving a third term. Thus he “doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected.” In Trump’s case, that means he no longer has to “worry about throwing raw meat at his wacko base.” Then too he might start appreciating that he is “much closer to the end than to the beginning,” and that he’ll soon meet His Maker. Then too, being much closer to the end than the beginning, he might seriously start thinking about his legacy. (At 78 he is the oldest president ever elected.) Then too, while in office he might have a mini-stroke like the Apostle Paul’s, and have a Conversion Damascus Road experience. (Or a Mini Heart Attack? President Eisenhower was 65 when he had his first.)

For one example from history about a second-term president doing an about-face: “Ronald Reagan signed an arms control treaty with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev,” despite his opposition to arms control during his first term. Might Trump also change some of his attitudes and rhetoric at some time during his second term?

Unfortunately, that second lame-duck definition can be a two-edged sword. It can liberate a president like Reagan to work for the common good, or it can make that second-term president dangerous. Either way we’re in for some interesting times coming up. (Like that ancient Chinese curse that says, may your children live in interesting times?)

Either way, “that which does not kill us will make us stronger,” and Trump won’t kill American democracy, try as he might. We love to complain about whoever is in power, we hate being told what to do, and we have a habit of building a leader up, then tearing down. Besides that we’re too damn ornery. Meanwhile, thinking ahead to next January 20, 2025, it will be 1,461 days until Trump leaves the White House, “at the latest,” for the final time. Let the countdown begin…

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of John Lennon Deportation Case Image – Image Results. See also When John Lennon Was Ordered to Leave U.S. by Authorities, You May Say He’s a DREAMer: John Lennon’s Immigration Case, and The U.S. vs. John Lennon – Wikipedia (on the 2026 documentary about the case). On his death, see Murder of John Lennon – Wikipedia.

Re: Unintended consequences, see Wikipedia: “In the social sciences, unintended consequences (sometimes unanticipated consequences or unforeseen consequences, more colloquially called knock-on effects) are outcomes of a purposeful action that are not intended or foreseen.

I borrowed from two prior Trump posts, from August 2019, On “why it might be better…” (Gasp!), and On a second Trump term, from August 2023. In a future post I may review in greater length that 2021 Donald Trump – the newest “Undead Revenant?”

Re: “Lame duck.” Some sources define the term as – in this case – the time available to Joe Biden between now and January 20, 2025 when Trump takes office. See e.g. What lame duck president Joe Biden can still do, and Biden uses lame-duck presidency to shape legacy. As to the second definition see Lame Duck: Definition, President, Amendment, Session – ThoughtCo.

Re: DDE’s heart attack. See Eisenhower’s 1955 heart attack. See also President Dwight Eisenhower: Health and Medical History, saying he had four such heart attacks.

Re: Chinese curse. I heard it first as “may your children ilve in interesting times.” But Wikipedia has it as, “may you live in interesting times.” Also that no actual Chinese source has ever been produced, and that the “expression is ironic: ‘interesting’ times are usually times of trouble.”

The lower image is courtesy of Nietzsche Quotes That Which Does Not Kill Us – Image Results. The link in the caption is to Tough sledding – Idioms by The Free Dictionary, meaning a “difficult, turbulent, or troublesome period of time.” (Call it artistic license.)

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

Welcome to the “Georgia Wasp…”

This blog is modeled on the Carolina Israelite. That was an old-time newspaper – more like a personal newsletter – written and published by Harry Golden. Back in the 1950s, people called Harry a  “voice of sanity amid the braying of jackals.” (For his work on the Israelite.)

That’s now my goal as well. To be a “voice of sanity amid the braying of jackals.”

For more on the blog-name connection, see the notes below.

In the meantime:

My last post – Before the election – 2022 – hearkened back to 2010. In that election Republicans won control of both houses of Congress, which most pundits said would happen again in 2022. But after the 2010 elections – when Republicans won both houses of Congress – they proceeded to ignore the economy, threatened to default on the national debt, “and did shut down the government.” The negative reaction was such that in 2012 Democrats regained control of the Senate and President Obama was re-elected to a second term.

But first a word about the painting of Nell Gwyn. For the life of me I couldn’t figure out what lead image to use for this post. I searched images for “predicting the future,” “prophecy,” looks of “surprise” and even images for “You could have knocked me over with a feather.” (The phrase that came to mind about how I felt the morning after the election.) Finally I searched past posts, and found one from last January, on the issue of voter suppression. There’s more detail in the notes, on the topic of what I feared might impact the outcome of the election. But fortunately that didn’t seem to be an issue, at least this time. Besides, Nell does present an attractive image, which may be why she was the favorite mistress of King Charles II of England.

Getting back to Before the election, I predicted that if “2010” happened again, that might lead to a Blue Wave in 2024. (With Joe Biden getting a second term.) The problem? In 2022 Democrats retained control of the Senate, though the results aren’t yet all in. A Georgia run-off between Warnock and Walker is set for December 6. (“Oh boy! More negative political ads!”) But the 2022 results clearly disappointed Republicans. (See 2022 Election results: Some Republicans blame Donald Trump, and Graham, Cruz admit election results ‘not a Republican wave.’)

The flip side is that Republicans did get control of the House of Representatives. That means they can still: 1) ignore the economy and inflation, 2) threaten to default the national debt, and 3) shut down government. On the other hand, if they impeach Biden – as threatened – the result will likely be a no-vote whitewash, courtesy of a Democratic Senate. (Not unlike the one Trump got from the Republican Senate.) That could result in Joe Biden ending up more popular, like what happened to Bill Clinton. (Poll: Clinton’s approval rating up in wake of impeachment.)

The bottom line is that after many long months of hearing predictions of a Red Wave, I woke up the morning of November 8 with a sense of gloom. Not that I oppose principled conservatives. The problem comes when one of two necessary parties becomes a cult of personality.

I could just see Donald Trump – in the days after November 8 – basking in the glory of “his” candidates taking over Congress and paving the way for his re-election. (Which would become more of a bloodbath of retribution rather than responsible government.) Which brings up the phrase “You could have knocked me over with a feather.” According to The Free Dictionary, it’s an  expression of “great or utter surprise, bewilderment, or astonishment.”

*   *   *   *

In the meantime, I learned something new just after the election. That was prompted by members of the House Freedom Caucus saying Kevin McCarthy wouldn’t have the 218 votes needed to become Speaker of the House. (When Congress re-convenes next January. The link is to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Worst Nightmare Could Be Coming True, dated November 15, 2022, which assumed – and as happened – that Republicans would win back the House.)

Based on such threats – “McCarthy doesn’t have the votes” – I did some research. I learned that to become Speaker a candidate needs 218 votes from any and all House members. I assumed it required only a majority vote of the new party in power. So for example if a few Republicans voted “present,” that would lessen their majority and could – theoretically – lead to a Democrat elected Speaker. (And vice versa.) Go figure. 71 years old and still learning new stuff. (Thus the “old dogs” image.)

And speaking of ‘Strange Bedfellows,’ just after the election Marjorie Taylor Greene broke with conservative allies and pledged to support McCarthy. That lead Matt Gaetz – the Congressman Under Federal Investigation For Sex Trafficking – to turn on Greene Over McCarthy.

“Whatever Kevin [McCarthy] has promised Marjorie Taylor Greene, I guarantee you this at the first opportunity, he will zap her faster than you can say Jewish space laser,” he said … referring to a conspiracy theory the congresswoman has promoted and been criticized for.

The bottom line? We’re in for an interesting few months. (And beyond?) For one thing, we’ll see if Democrats have a 50-50 Senate majority, or more solid 51-49. We’ll see if House Republicans ignore the economy, default on the national debt, or shut down the government.” And we’ll see if Kevin McCarthy really zaps Marjorie Taylor Greene with a Jewish Space Laser.

Stay tuned!

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy Nell Gwynne – Image Results. I borrowed the image from the January 27, 2022 post, An update on Nell Gwynn – “Protestant Whore.” Among other things It addressed the issue of voter suppression, as that suppression might impact the 2022 elections. As it turned out, that was not necessarily an issue in this last election. The issue focused on the different number of black people in Iowa, compared to that number in Georgia where I now live.

According to Iowa Population demographics 2020, 2019, African-Americans make up two percent of Iowa’s population. (Which is 91% white, with “Hispanic or Latino” as the second-largest racial group.) Compare that with Georgia – where I’ve lived for 10 years now – which has a black population of 32.6 percent. (While “Non-Hispanic Whites” make up only 50.1 percent of the population – a bare majority – compared to Iowa’s 91 percent white population.)

The problem was that the “nice lady” who asked about voter suppression came from Iowa, meaning I had to frame the issue in a way that made sense with someone from a “lily white” state like Iowa. Eventually I dropped the topic, but did enjoy revisiting Nell Gwyn. (See also a post featuring her from March 2015, “When adultery was proof of ‘loyalty.”)

On suppression, see Republican Voter Suppression Could Win the Midterms. From October 29, 2022:

THANKS TO REPUBLICANS, it will be harder for certain people to vote this year, courtesy of an array of new voting restrictions passed in the wake of the 2020 election: 56 new voting restrictions passed by Republican-led legislatures in 20 states.

Again, that didn’t seem to happen, at least as much as feared this time around. See also Voter suppression in the United States – Wikipedia, all of which may merit a new post on the subject.

Re: “Red Wave.” See also Conservative Pollster Who Predicted ‘Red Wave’ Says GOP Can’t “Strategize.”

Re: Freedom Caucus. According to Wikipedia it’s considered “the most conservative and farthest-right bloc” within the House, and “formed in January 2015 by a group of conservatives and Tea Party movement members, with the aim of pushing the Republican leadership to the right.“

On the election of a Speaker of the House see How the House Elects Its Speaker – Congressional Institute, and Election of the Speaker Overview – US Constitution – LAWS.com.

The “Old Dog” image is courtesy of Old Dogs New Tricks – Image Results.

Re: ‘Strange Bedfellows’: Phrase Meaning & History.

The lower image is courtesy of The Building of the Jewish Space Laser | JewishBoston. Subtitle: “The Jewish space laser as a Talmudic parody.” An interesting read, but “Are you serious?” Sample quote:

On the Kosher Use of the Space Laser. The construction must be overseen by a rabbi. Each component … must be blessed individually. If any components of the space laser are found to be with blemish, the project is to be declared treif and must be started over.

For a more serious view see A ‘Jewish space laser’ sounds funny. But Marjorie Taylor Green’s Anti-Semitism is no laughing matter. More sample quotes. “Jewish Twitter had a field day — because, of course! Making jokes out of virulent anti-Semitism has been our shtick for time immemorial.” “Basically Greene is a callous bigot who hounds mass-shooting survivors, and I haven’t even made it to the part where she helped incite the deadly riots at the Capitol on Jan. 6.” And this:

The fact is, anti-Semitism is on the rise in this country, and a much of it is fueled by baseless theories like the ones espoused by Greene. It’s a jarring dissonance that a state that elected its first Black and first Jewish senators, both Democrats in a typically red state, also gave us this, a reflection of the most dangerous forces in our country.

*   *   *   *

Re:  The Israelite.  Harry Golden grew up in the Jewish ghetto of New York City, but eventually moved to Charlotte, North Carolina.  Thus the “Carolina Israelite.”  I on the other hand am a “classic 69-year-old “WASP” – White Anglo-Saxon Protestant – and live in north Georgia.  Thus the “Georgia Wasp.”    

Anyway, in North Carolina Harry wrote and published the “israelite” from the 1940s through the 1960s.  He was a “cigar-smoking, bourbon-loving raconteur.”  (He told good stories.) That also means if he was around today, the “Israelite would be done as a blog.”  But what made Harry special was his positive outlook on life.  As he got older but didn’t turn sour, like many do today.  He still got a kick out of life.  For more on the blog-name connection, see “Wasp” and/or The blog.

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

I’m working on a new post, about my recent road trip up to New York City and Carnegie Hall. (Although based in North Bergen NJ; we took daily trips into “the City” via the 154 bus to the Port Authority bus station.) But that project is turning out to be way more complicated than I expected, and my last post came a month ago, on May 25.

So here’s a quickie, a filler-upper, based on the Supreme Court’s just overturning Roe v. Wade. (Speaking of the “ongoing Culture war,” as noted in the last post.) I found a draft post from some time ago, titled “Why not 12 Supreme Court Justices?”

Which leads to what Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote. He said the U.S. president may slip without the state suffering, and Congress may slip without the Union perishing, because both can be replaced by the voters. But if ever the Supreme Court “came to be composed of rash or corrupt men, the confederation would be threatened by anarchy or civil war.”

To many Americans, that prophecy just came true. (Thus the “chaos” image atop the page.) 

But taking the long view, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization won’t be the end of the story. This judicial effort to “turn back the clock” will lead to a strong reaction – as it has already – if not a strong “blue wave” some time in the foreseeable future. Which leads to the question, “How can we offset a way-too-conservative Supreme Court?”

For starters, there are ways to avoid or sidestep an unpopular “dictate from above,” in the form of a High Court decision. Just think of Brown v. Board of Education. In 1954, the then-Supreme Court ruled that “U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional.” The court added that states had to integrate “With All Deliberate Speed.” In response, “White citizens in the South organized a ‘Massive Resistance’ campaign against integration.” Almost 70 years later, we seem to be moving backward on that project.

Here’s another example of some Americans getting around such “orders from above:” 

Making alcohol at home was very common during Prohibition. Stores sold grape concentrate with warning labels that listed the steps that should be avoided to prevent the juice from fermenting into wine… The grape concentrate was sold with a warning: “After dissolving the brick in a gallon of water, do not place the liquid in a jug away in the cupboard for twenty days, because then it would turn into wine.”

You have to love a country where that happens. (“The popular will?”) Another thought: Dobbs just means that instead of one big battle, the combatants will now face 50 smaller battles.

Which brings us back to how to further side-step the current Court majority, of young and ardent conservatives. One answer: Court-packing. See What is Court Packing … FindLaw:

Article III of the U.S. Constitution … gives Congress broad discretion for establishing the structure of the judicial branch. The first court had six justices, before President John Adams and the Congress reduced the number of justices to five. The number of judges then fluctuated until it hit nine in 1869, where it has remained… So, it wouldn’t take a constitutional amendment to change the number of justices. Congress would simply have to pass a law, and the president would need to sign it.

Given all that, at some time in the foreseeable future a Democratic Congress and President could pass a law making the Court consist of 12 justices rather than nine. And there is ample precedent, including Biblical: 12 Apostles, 12 tribes of Israel, and in Common Law – for the longest time 12 people served on a traditional jury in England and America. (Before conservatives in many U.S. states to reduce the number to six, for ease of conviction.)

Then there’s “Consent of the governed.” 

That’s the idea that a “government‘s legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.” On that note, I’d say the Dobbs majority’s thinking that most Americans will meekly accede to such an activist, conservative shake-up greatly misunderstands American history – and the American national character. We are definitely in for some interesting times…

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Chaos Images – Image Results.

The de Tocqueville quote is courtesy of the Anchor Book/Doubleday paperback version of Battle for Justice: How the Bork Nomination Shook America (1989), by Ethan Bronner, at pages 20-21.

I borrowed the “grape juice into wine” quote from Are we trying another “Noble Experiment?” In turn the quote came from  Prohibition in the U.S. – Wikipedia, which added: “Grape juice was not restricted by Prohibition, even though if it was allowed to sit for sixty days it would ferment and turn to wine with a twelve percent alcohol content. Many people took advantage of this as grape juice output quadrupled during the Prohibition era.”

The full court-packing URL is  What is Court Packing and Why Does It Matter? – FindLaw. Also, Consent of the governed – Wikipedia. See also Trump lacks the consent of the governed – NBC News: “In securing the unalienable rights of man, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’”

The lower image is courtesy of Interesting Times Image – Image Results, and by extension, Robert F. Kennedy Quote – Lib Quotes. See also May you live in interesting times – Wikipedia, May your children live in interesting times — a Chinese curse.

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

Now that the Trump Era is almost over…

Or at least now that his first run-through as president is almost over… (But see Trump’s Possible 2024 Bid Leaves Other GOP Candidates in a Bind.) So to repeat, “Now that at least the first incarnation of a Trump Era is almost over,” it’s time to start looking back. Which is what many of us do near year’s-end anyway. I Googled “why do we do year-end reviews” and found these two: How to Conduct a Year-End Review and Why You Need to Do it, and Why You Should Do a Year-End Review for Your Writing. Here’s a bit from the first one:

Ever since I began writing personal goals, December has been a month of reflection and planning. I tend to slow down, take a step back, and think about how I feel the previous year went. I take time to reflect on what I accomplished and what I want in the upcoming year.

Though HOLLY SCHERER did say “these check-ins are frustrating” some years, she added that still, such reviews are “opportunities to learn from my mistakes and find a better way.” 

Then there’s the Review for Your Writing article. (And since I’m a writer I paid special attention to that. E.g., read about my recently-published e-book in “(Some of) My Adventures in Old Age.”) Anyway, this is what the writer Joe Bunting said about such year-end reviews:

A year-end review is about experiencing gratitude … that we made the choice to write instead of watch television or procrastinate… It’s important to note that this isn’t just a feel-good exercise. You can’t move forward – with your writing, your life, or anything else – if you haven’t made peace with where you’ve been.

Which is what I’ll be doing a lot of in the remaining three-or-so weeks of this eventful “Year of Our Lord” 2020. But we were talking about “Now that the Trump Era is almost over…”

Which makes this a good time to go back and review some early posts I did on Donald Trump. And – possibly – some of the hopes I had for him. Like that he might turn out to be the “closet liberal” Ted Cruz once suspected. (See Cruz: Trump [is] a ‘rich, New York liberal,’ 2/26/16.)

One early post with an allusion to Donald Trump came in October 2016, “No city for Grouchy Old White People.” (Part I.) In it I described a summer visit to New York City, with a family-base in Staten Island. One thing I noted was that – in that summer of ’16 – the City was a “refreshing reminder that there’s more to this country than just the right-wing wackos so prevalent back home.” (Trump’s campaign was heating up.) I quoted a Facebook post from September 22:

Ever since last Saturday, September 17, we’ve been taking the Staten Island ferry into and back from Manhattan Island. So that’s eight times – twice a day for four days now – that we’ve seen the Statute of Liberty, off in the distance…  And I don’t remember ONCE seeing a sign that said, “the heck with your tired, your poor,” those “wretched refuse … yearning to breathe free.”  WE’RE GONNA BUILD A FRIKKIN WALL!“

Which was either irony or sarcasm. (I often get those two confused.) Anyway I ended Part I by noting that with all its diversity and relative tolerance, “the Big Apple is ‘No city for Grouchy Old White People.’” (Who seemed to be so prevalent, “back home” and elsewhere.)

I followed that with “No city for Grouchy Old White People” – Part II. I noted that on our many rides on the subway and Staten Island Ferry, “we did a lot of people-watching, of the ‘passing panoply.’” And especially on the crowded subways, we listened “to all kinds of languages spoken by all kinds of different people.” Which was one thing making the visit so refreshing…

And just as an aside: The day we left to go our separate ways – Thursday, September 22 – I kayaked across the Verrazano Narrows. Mostly following the Bridge of the same name, and here’s a picture “down below” to prove it. I took it half-way back to Staten Island. Note that the waters are choppy, and in fact WAY choppier than when I started. It only took 20 minutes to get from Staten Island to Brooklyn, so I toyed with the idea of cruising along the Atlantic side of Brooklyn awhile. But I headed back while still fresh, as detailed in “Part II.”

Anyway, getting back on topic: I ended Part II with a zinger about the kind of people – I feared – who would end up voting for Trump as president. I took the photo below during our visit to the Museum of Natural History, on September 19. And added, “With all the talk of politics lately, I figured this would be a good one size fits all insult, for whatever political opponent you may have in mind.” (Though I knew the kind of political opponent I had in mind.) I then wrote:

“So here’s my gift to you, a souvenir from my recent [2016] visit to New York City:

Here’s a typical [- fill in the blank – ] voter!”

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Looking Back The Past Year – Image Results. The image accompanied an article, “Inspiring Quotes to Start Off the New Year in 2019.” (How innocent we were…) 

I took the above picture on September 19. Note that I reviewed this Summer of 2016 visit in Looking back on “the summer of ’16,” last February 2020. One final note: I’ll be doing more Trump’s-end and year-end postmortems in the remaining weeks of December 2020, and possibly beyond!