Wednesday, October 10, 2018

I oppose renaming the journalism building, but to describe Ida Wells as 'reporter' misses the mark

    There is a proposal to rename the journalism building at Ole Miss after Ida Well, a native of Holly Springs. I am opposed and  find the proposal ironic, since Ed Meek, for whom the building is currently named, was the victim of a modern-day lynching insofar as his reputation is concerned. Wells was one of the first, most prominent, and most outspoken opponents of lynching in the South.

    With that said, the AP story which told of the effort to rename the building described Wells as a "reporter." That's like describing Ronald Reagan as a radio announcer. Wells was an amazing woman, one of the most important to come out of Mississippi in the 19th Century. I don't remember being taught about Wells in school even though she was from Holly Springs; I hope that is still not the case. Even though I don't support the renaming of the building, she certainly has a record of accomplishment that is worthy of admiration.

    Ida Wells, who was born and reared in Holly Springs, was born into slavery in 1862. Her father was owned by Spires Bolling, an architect whose homes were known for featuring octagonal columns. He also built the Walter Place, with its unusual octagonal wings on each end. The Wells family lived at the Bolling Place, which was later the Gatewood home, and is now the site of the Ida B. Wells-Barnett Museum, which features the signature octagonal columns.
    Wells, who lost both parents to the Yellow Fever epidemic of 1878, struggled to support and keep her younger siblings together by working as a schoolteacher. Her frustration over receiving $30 per month while white teachers were paid $80 per month led her to become active in a movement to seek equal pay for black teachers, which led to her firing, after which she moved to Memphis.
    In May 1884, Wells refused to give up her seat on a Tennessee train and move to another rail car; when the conductor tried to forcibly move her she bit his hand. She was thrown off the train and successfully sued the train company, obtaining a $500 judgment in circuit court. The Tennessee Supreme Court overturned this judgment in 1887 and assessed Wells $200 in costs. This case was later cited as support by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), which found that segregation laws were not unconstitutional under the "separate but equal" doctrine which remained controlling law until Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
    (An interesting note is that Plessy v. Ferguson was a "friendly" lawsuit carefully coordinated between Plessy and the railroad company, both of whom believed that the Supreme Court would find Louisiana's forced segregation laws unconstitutional. The railroad company wanted Plessy to prevail, as it did not want the expense of having to maintain two sets of passenger cars. Plessy was one-eighth African and seven-eighths European).
    In 1889, Wells, who was working in Memphis as a schoolteacher, became owner of the Free Speech and Headlight, a newspaper published out of the Beale Street Baptist Church. Her opposition to segregation and articles decrying the poor condition of black schools led to her firing in 1891.
    Also in 1889, three of Wells' friends were lynched, which led her to become active in the national anti-lynching movement, in which she often collaborated with W.E.B. Du Bois and Frederick Douglas. In 1892, she published a famous anti-lynching pamphlet, "Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases."
    On May 27, 1892, a white mob destroyed the offices of Wells' newspaper. Because of threats on her life she soon moved to Chicago, where she wrote articles for the New York Observer and began to work for the Chicago Conservator, that city's oldest black newspaper.
    During the 1890s Wells traveled extensively to promote civil rights, including trips to Europe. In 1909 Wells was one of seven black and 53 white founders of the NAACP. In later life she retreated from the national spotlight somewhat as she devoted herself to family life, although she remained active in support of civil rights throughout her life until her death in 1931.

Monday, October 8, 2018

Violent and angry Democrats are unhinged, violent, and a danger to our republic

    We’ve now had almost two years of unremitting violence against Republicans perpetrated by Democrats and various Democratic political action groups, along with the Democratic paramilitary wing, Antifa. Amazingly, Democrats seem to be very proud of all the beatings they’ve been administering to Republicans.
    We’ve just been through a judicial confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh that was an absolute circus. Democrats paid protesters to scream and shout down senators and congressmen as they tried to do their jobs. Many were threatened, and armed guards became the order of the day. During all the commotion one congressman ended up with a bruised wrist from women barging into his office. A Democratic staffer published home phone numbers and addresses of several Republican senators on the Internet.
    When Democrats found they were not going to be able to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation they released a bogus rape claim that they had been keeping secret for almost two months. The Democrats knew the claim wasn’t true; that’s why they kept it secret instead of allowing it to be properly investigated. By sitting on it they could spring it at the last minute to delay the confirmation; of course, then they wailed that Republicans weren’t allowing enough time for it to be properly investigated, the purpose being to delay, not find the truth.
Angry Dems attack Supreme Court
    The result was what we all saw on television or on Internet news feeds, with hired shills running up and down the halls of Congress haranguing key Senators and threatening their families. Following Kavanaugh’s confirmation a mob of angry Democrats actually tried to break down the doors and storm the Supreme Court, something I don’t believe has ever happened in the history of our republic.
    From the moment Donald Trump was elected various celebrities and members of the press started spewing vitriolic rhetoric that stopped just a millimeter away from urging violence against Republicans or Trump supporters. Sometimes they crossed the line, and from time to time assassination of various politicians was suggested, after which we would hear a “just kidding!”
    The Democratic base apprehended the message. Across the nation Trump supporters have been savagely attacked and beaten by Democrats on a regular basis. Sometimes they haven’t been beaten, just shoved and had their MAGA hats stolen. That’s still an assault and still a crime. The Democratic paramilitary wing, Antifa, now completely controls portions of  Portland and beats or harasses Republicans on sight, but Antifa can be found throughout the West Coast and occasionally elsewhere, and wherever they are they are extremely violent. The level of violence and civil unrest being perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans is simply unprecedented.
Scalise following shooting
by Democratic activist
    The suggestion that Republicans should be assassinated led one Democrat to try. Democratic activist James Hodgkinson of Belleville, Ill., tried to take out 24 Congressmen who were practicing for the annual Congressional baseball game on June 14, 2017. In all likelihood he would have killed most or all of the 24 who were there had it not been for the fact that Steve Scalice had a top leadership position and was thus accompanied by capitol police who were able to take down the shooter. Scalice was seriously wounded but survived. The Virginia attorney general said the shooter was “fueled by rage against Republican legislators,” and while he didn’t blame Democrats and the press, it’s pretty obvious where the blame lays.
    A host of Republicans have been driven out of restaurants, theaters, and other public places, from public officials to everyday people wearing political hats or t-shirts; the Red Hen ejection of Sarah Sanders is just a very tiny tip of a very large iceberg. Elected Democrats such as Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Cory Booker have urged Democrats to harass Republicans when they see them in public. Such harassment can easily spill over into violence, and in fact it frequently does. Perhaps some Democrat somewhere, sometime has been mistreated, but never, ever on this scale or magnitude.
    The sad fact is that the Democrats in this country have become completely unhinged. Many are, if not violent, on the edge of violence, running around screaming in people’s faces; they are dangerous. And they have left mainstream America with a level of weirdness that is mind-boggling. When Democratic women started marching around with pink hats designed to look like vaginas on their heads, I thought they were freaks. This year they got rid of the vagina hats on the grounds that the hats weren’t inclusive enough,because “some women have penises.” I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. They quit wearing the vagina hats because they didn't want to hurt the feelings of women who had penises. To me, these women have just gone from being freaks to well  beyond the orbit of Planet Freak.
    Some people still vote for Democrats just because their father, mother, or grandfather voted for Democrats, but this ain’t Roosevelt’s party anymore; it's not even Obama's party anymore. It's not just a matter of Republicans being beaten up on a regular basis, although that is certainly a problem. America is under attack by a bunch of extremely violent Democrats and women with penises. If they should prevail, our republic will perish.
    To those very few normal people who still vote for Democrats, are these really the types of people you want to associate with?

Many people have pointed out that Donald Trump urged his supporters to take action against protesters at his rallies. An undercover investigation found that the Clinton campaign hired people, often the homeless and mentally ill, to go to Trump rallies and start fights. In any event, it is a crime to disrupt a private political rally and those who do so are guilty of trespassing. Anyone disrupting a rally may be stopped with reasonable, violent force. Their coats should also be kept. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to advocate violence against criminal trespassers to the extent necessary to prevent them from disrupting the rally.

Saturday, September 22, 2018

If you have stopped taking a statin drug because of side effects, try again with low-dose Crestor

The lowest dose of Crestor does most of the work. Increasing from 5 to 40 mg, an eight-fold increase, only results in about a 40 percent increase in cholesterol reduction.
    A lot of people are prescribed cholesterol-lowering statin drugs by their doctors and stop taking them because of unwanted side-effects, such as muscle pain. There is a lot better solution than simply not taking the drugs: just take them less often or at a much lower dose.
    My cholesterol has been hovering between 200 and 240 for my entire adult life, and my doctor has suggested several times that I take Crestor. A few years ago he gave me enough samples of 20mg Crestor to last six months, but I didn’t take them. Crestor was still on-patent at the time; I probably could have made money peddling my pills around nursing homes.
    After my last cholesterol screening my doctor's nurse called to tell me that he was prescribing me 10 mg Crestor to be taken every day. When I mentioned that I would rather just take it a couple of times a week she told me that he would have to increase the dosage to 20 mg., so I settled for the 10 mg every-day Crestor. Arguing with a doctor's nurse if futile.
    You can lead a man to pills but you can’t make him take them; I ended up taking the 10 mg Crestor about once a week, maybe a little more. There is a reason for my reticence in not wanted to take 10 mg of Crestor every day. Some years back I listened to a radio program which described Crestor as being the very strongest and most effective statin on the market; the downside to that is that it tended to have more side effects at higher doses. The point was made on the show that patients are usually best served by taking a very low dose of a powerful statin -- and Crestor is the strongest -- than a higher dose of a less-powerful one.
    One study found that 5mg of Crestor daily reduced LDL-C by 39% and non-HDL-C by 35%;  10 mg reduced LDL-C by 44% and non-HDL-C by 40%; 20 mg reduced LDL-C by 50% and non-HDL-C by 45%; 40 mg reduced LDL-C by 55% and non-HDL-C by 50%. Note that while high doses of Crestor do cause a greater reduction in cholesterol, the reduction is by no means linear. Increasing the 5 mg dose by 300 percent only results in a 30 percent increase in cholesterol reduction; a 700 percent dosage increase only increases efficacy by 40 percent. On the other hand drug toxicity, as measured by the occurrence and severity of side effects, rises with the dosage in a more-or-less linear fashion.
    Now for the takeaway. I’ve been taking 10mg of Crestor once every five to seven days for several months. I just had my total cholesterol checked for free at Wal-Mart and the result was 136, down from 206 in March. I still need to get a full cholesterol check, but that number confirms that a very low dose of Crestor can have a tremendous effect on lowering cholesterol. In Japan Crestor is marketed with a 2.5 mg dosage; sadly, we don’t have that option, but it is possible to use a pill splitter, and that’s what I’m likely to start doing after my next doctor’s visit.
    I’m not sure I will burden my doctor with the fact that I plan to split a 5 mg Crestor; I’ll just do it and check my cholesterol after a couple of months. In all likelihood it will be lower than 136, which should be plenty low.
    To anyone who has quit taking their statin drug because of unwanted side effects, I would suggest starting them again with a lower dose, either by taking them every other or every third day or with the use of a pill splitter, or both. Ask for low-dose Crestor if your doctor will cooperate; make your own low-dose Crestor regimen if he won't.

Friday, August 10, 2018

Mississippi invention Comeback Sauce is easy to make; try my version and you may thank me

I snatched this photo off the web just to make people hungry! My sauce was a little thicker and darker.

    There wasn’t anything much to eat in the house last night so I boiled a bag of frozen shrimp that we had in the freezer. While the shrimp were thawing I searched the Internet for a recipe for Comeback Sauce. Comeback Sauce originated Mississippi, being introduced and then copied in several Jackson restaurants. The Mayflower Cafe is often cited as having an outstanding Comeback Sauce, although it apparently didn't originate there.
    All recipes for Comeback Sauce contain chili sauce as one of the ingredients. I had never even heard of Heinz chili sauce before researching this recipe. I wonder how many other grocery items are lurking out there, being seen but not seen as I walk down the aisles?
    I’ve made Comeback Sauce once or twice before, but I’ve never been able to remember which recipe I used. Last night I found one on the Grillax website which I thought was pretty good (the website also has more of the Mississippi history of the Comeback Sauce). It’s quick and easy to make. I changed the recipe a little and have noted my changes below the recipe:

Comeback Sauce

1 clove chopped garlic
1 cup mayonaise
1/4 cup chili sauce
1 tsp. dry mustard
½ cup corn oil
½ t. Wocestershire sauce
1 t. black pepper
1t. paprika
½ t. onion powder
2 Tbl. lemon juice
1 t. water
Dash of hot sauce

Put all ingredients in a small bowl and mix well. Store in airtight container in refrigerator. Make the day before or a few hours in advance if possible.

My changes
    I followed the recipe above but used extra garlic out of a tube (probably two cloves worth) a generous teaspoon of dry mustard, a scant ½ cup of oil, a teaspoon or more of Worcestershire sauce, extra hot sauce (I used Tobasco), and I omitted the water. I also added a teaspoon of white pepper. So here are the ingredients in list form with my changes.

Comeback Sauce (Col. Reb version)

1.5 to 2 cloves chopped garlic
1 cup mayonaise
1/4 cup Heinz chili sauce
1 ½ tsp. dry mustard
A scant ½ cup corn oil
1 t. Wocestershire sauce (slightly more to taste)
1 t. black pepper
1 t. white pepper
1t. paprika
½ t. onion powder
2 Tbl. lemon juice
Several dashes of Tobasco

    This recipe makes a pretty generous amount, so it would be pretty easy to make this according to the “official” recipe, split in half, and then add a dab of mustard, Worcestershire, Tobasco, garlic, and a half-teaspoon of white pepper. A taste test could then determine which recipe was the “best.” I was very happy with my version.
    The beauty of this sauce is that it is quick and easy to make, and everyone can modify it slightly to suit their own tastes. I know that since I’ve started eating shrimp with Comeback Sauce the jar of cocktail sauce has remained unused.

Friday, July 6, 2018

America: A family, a business partnership, a Chamber of Commerce, and a labor union all in one

    The Fourth of July has passed, but I think it might be helpful to think about how we view ourselves as a nation. America is a nation of people bound together by a common past, common struggles, and hopefully a common hope for her success in the world.
    • We should view America like an extended family. As the old saying goes, “You can choose your friends but you can’t choose your family.” Maybe you don’t like or approve of every relative you have, but you still love them and try to help them when you can.
    • We should view America like a business partnership, in which every partner is expected to produce income for the firm. New partners – immigrants – are brought in only when it is believed highly likely that they will generate more income for existing partners they take out in benefits.
    • We should view America as both a Chamber of Commerce and a giant labor union; as a nation we should promote business and industry, but at the same time we should protect the quality of life of our workers and keep out scab labor, otherwise known as low-skilled immigrants.
    There is nothing wrong with helping another family in need, of course, but that can be done without allowing them to take up residence in one’s own home! Some people feel a religious obligation to help foreigners in need, but it is just as easy and actually more effective to help these people in their own country than in our own. There truly is no need to destroy America by allowing in a bunch of criminals and welfare cases.
    America has plenty of room to add highly productive immigrants to our family, our partnership, and our labor pool. And we have plenty of room for improvement in helping our own family members -- our own current citizens -- to become good and useful members of society.
    Our future as a nation depends on immigration control and a willingness to work together to improve the lives of our current citizens.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

It wasn't the Red Hen's refusal of service, but the breach of Hospitium that is the true evil

Lot offered his daughters to the mob rather than breach Hospitium
    In a cluck heard around the nation if not the world the owner of the Lexington, Va., Red Hen restaurant kicked Sarah Huckabee Sanders out of her small, gourmet establishment because of her work for President Trump last weekend.
    Owner Stephanie Wilkinson claims the staff called her at home to tell her of Sanders' arrival (the reservation was in her husband's name), and she told them to go ahead and seat the party until she could arrive to make sure it was really her. When she arrived the Sanders party had already been served drinks and placed their order, and was eating a first course of bread and cheese.
    The owner told Sanders to leave and her party did with everyone but Sanders and her husband going to a neighboring restaurant. The Red Hen owner reportedly gathered a small crowd to follow the group and heckle them outside their new restaurant. A Red Hen waiter gloatingly posted on Facebook about the whole affair.
Wilkinson with family
    The owner is quite up front about what she did; there is only one point that I doubt about her narrative. She said she told the employees to wait for her to arrive to “be sure” is was Sanders. I think her purpose of having Sanders seated was so she could arrive and have the pleasure of giving Sanders a piece of her mind while ejecting her.
    From the beginning it was this mid-meal ejection that bothered me more than would a simple turning away at the door. The reason for my visceral loathing of the Red Hen owner has dawned on me: she breached one of society's most ancient obligations, that of Hospitium, or the divine obligation of hosts to not only not attack, but to protect those under their roofs whom they have extended hospitality. Sanders had already been offered food and drink by the Red Hen; for her host to attack her was an unpardonable sin.
    I can already hear the leftists poo-pooing this notion, but it is an obligation as old as civilization. After the Muslim victory at the Battle of Hattin, the victorious Saladin brought the Christian King of Jerusalem into his tent and offered him water. The king then attempted to share the water with a nobleman who had murdered many Muslims and Saladin struck the goblet from his hand, stating that he was not offering him drink or protection under his roof. The king's life was spared while the noble was executed.
    Genesis 19 tells the story of Lot being visited by two Angels in the wicked city of Sodom. Word of this visit soon spreads and a mob arrived demanding that the visitors be turned out so that the crowd of men might rape them. So strong is the obligation of Hospitium that Lot's response was to offer the mob his two virgin daughters instead, an offer the crowd refused, at which point the Angles struck them blind.
    In recent popular culture, Hospitium is referred to as Guest Right throughout the Game of Thrones series, and it comes into being any time one is offered and consumes food and drink under another's roof, which is very much the traditional form of Hospitium. Guest Right is shockingly ignored by Walder Frey when he orders the slaughter of Robb Stark, his family, and his army at a wedding feast. The act was considered unspeakably evil, even by those who benefited from it. Following this act the Frey family was cursed.
    I believe the concept of Guest Right is genetically encoded, and that for most of us its violation is morally unfathomable. But there have always been and will be mutants among us who are genetically deficient in some way or another, or who have perhaps been programmed to overcome their genetically encoded morals.
    The owner of the Red Hen and those who support her are, very simply, Freys. Their very existence is a blight upon humanity. The Game of Thrones milieu is filled with imperfect and sometimes bad people, but none are more evil than the Freys. The House of Frey was cursed and those who would be modern-day Freys will find themselves to be equally reviled.

Saturday, June 23, 2018

Policy debates should be about helping Americans, not declaring others un-Christian

    “It’s the Christian thing to do.”
    This was the pronouncement of a top Democrat who insisted that Hillary Clinton return refund $1.65 million that the Democratic National Committee paid for Clinton’s email list just over a year ago. Such arrangements are not uncommon, as politicians carefully guard their mailing lists as one of their most valuable assets. Barrack Obama eventually donated his email list to the DNC, but not until 2015.
    Since purchasing the mailing list the DNC has used it to raise more than $30 million for the party. So the purchase was a great deal. But the Republican party has been far outraising Democrats. While individual Democrats have been very successful in fund-raising, the RNC has far outpaced them in both fund-raising and hoarding cash. The RNC currently has about $43 million in cash on hand with no debt; the DNC has about $10 million in cash coupled with $6 million in debt.
    And so the Democrats want their money back, and one spokesman has said their demand is ordained by Jesus Christ, and should Hillary not comply with it she is a apparently a bad Christian.
    Nowhere in the Bible is there a command to give money to either the Republican or Democrat party. Choosing to abide by the terms of a mutually beneficial contract doesn’t make one a bad Christian. But the far-left has taken to declaring anything they don’t like un-Christian, so it’s not surprising that one would hear such a ridiculous statement concerning Hillary’s email list.
    The Left adopted a policy some years back of infiltrating Christian churches in an effort to hijack the Christian faith. They have been remarkably successful in tying left-wing social policy to Christianity. Thus we are told that tax cuts are un-Christian; cuts in social spending are un-Christian; failure to support an open-borders policy which will destroy our nation is un-Christian; and so forth, ad nauseam, to the point that now failure to give millions to the DNC is un-Christian.
    If tax cuts are un-Christian then leftists should be able to tell us exactly what level of taxation is Christian. If cuts in social spending are un-Christian then exactly what level of social spending is Christian? If support for immigration control is un-Christian, they why do God and Jesus suggest otherwise in the Bible? Why would Jesus advocate policies which are certain to destroy America when the Bible insists that good rulers protect their subjects?
    As a nation the people of the United States have generally shared civic values that have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible. It’s possible to support good or bad public policy without being a good or bad Christian.
    Our federal system of government is one of dual sovereignty: our first duty is to our federal government to the extent such duties are spelled out in our Constitution; our second duty is to our states (actually our first duty is to our states, but since they have ceded authority to the federal government we are bound to honor this concession). We likewise have a duty of dual moral fealty; first to God, for those things specifically spelled out in the Bible, and then to our civic polity for everything else. Most things we as Americans support or oppose have nothing to do with Christianity; they are instead arguments about civic values and how to best implement them.
    Three years ago Southern Baptists voted to condemn the Confederate flag, with no allowance made for the fact that the flag might mean different things to different people. At the same meeting the denomination elected Steve Gaines as its president. As pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church Gaines allowed an associate pastor credibly accused of pressuring his teenage son to engage in sexual activity with him for more than a year to continue in his job for more than six months after learning of the abuse. Even more appalling, the associate pastor’s job was to counsel victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
    To suggest that the display of the Confederate flag is un-Christian is heresy. Whether or not such display is right or wrong is determined by one’s personal motivation for such display. If to honor one’s ancestral parents, then such display is ordained by the Ten Commandments; if displayed out of a sense of hate for others then it is a sin.
    The decision to elect Steve Gaines as SBC president is another matter. For most his tolerance for incestuous child abuse violates both our sense of civic morality and our sense of Christian morality, not to mention the law. How can an organization that would elect such a man deem itself worthy to lecture the rest of us on what Christians should or should not do?
    Civic polity requires us to support laws and policies that operate to the benefit of our fellow citizens. Such a view is in concordance with the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. However, absent bad or evil intentions, no public policy decision is either Christian nor un-Christian.
    There is no such thing as corporate Christianity. Taxation of the wealthy to support the poor may very well be good public policy; but support for such taxation is neither Christian nor un-Christian. Only personal action taken with one’s own effort or assets allow one to meet Christ’s mandate to help the poor. Those who donate their time, energy, and money to help the poor are engaged in Christian behavior. Mere support for government spending to help the poor is not Christian at all.
    Our motivations for supporting various public policies can be Christian or un-Christian, but the policies themselves simply can’t be. To simply label a policy decision as un-Christian is to bear false witness against another, a violation of the Ten Commandments which is, in fact, un-Christian.
    As a general rule a Christian argument can be made for or against almost any public policy, which is why I think such debates should focus not on religion, but what is best for the American people and nation.