Wednesday, January 09, 2019

So much winning!


Please, Mr. President, we're tired of all the winning!
Because "negotiating" means "I win, you lose!"

“The president was in this private meeting with Senate Republicans who were really—respectfully, in the words of Senator Murkowski—giving him a tough time, challenging him on the fact that the government should be re-opened by negotiations continued, and he was absolutely flat-out saying ‘no way,'” Bash said. “One senator I spoke to who asked that the identity not be discussed because it was a private meeting, said the president was determined not to budge and indicated no interest in compromising.”

Trump is not looking for a way out, that anonymous GOP senator said.

“He believes he is winning politically,” Bash said, quoting the senator. “This Senator said to me that every Republican has to stick together, that was the president’s message.”
No, literally!


So the beatings will continue until morale improves!

A few Republicans voiced concerns about the current situation, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME). But the vast majority made clear that they’re behind the President, even as some privately admit that they’re losing the argument over why the government should remain partly closed until Trump gets the $5.7 billion he’s demanded to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The shutdown is just two days away from being the longest in U.S. history.

Murkowski is one of the few senators who has publicly questioned Trump’s strategy, and she confronted him during the meeting.

She told reporters that she pointed out that “the government is shut down and there are consequences and people are starting to feel those consequences.”

His response?

“He urged us to remain unified,” Murkowski said.

A handful of moderate Republicans, many from swing states, have been floating the idea of a Senate vote to reopen certain parts of government. But most remain publicly behind Trump, even as they grow increasingly nervous about the political and real-world consequences of the ongoing shutdown.

“I didn’t say nobody raised any concerns but nobody raised any negative concerns, and everybody is committed to staying the course,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) said.

“Everybody’s going to remain in unity,” freshman Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) said.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) said it would be “futile” to vote on the individual departmental funding bills that House Democrats plan to pass, noting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said he won’t bring the bills up. Trump also said he would veto the bills.

The President also didn’t bring up the possibility of declaring a national emergency in his remarks. But when a senator said they were glad Trump hadn’t declared one in order to try to seize other national security funds to build the wall, he held out the possibility that he still might, according to two senators in the room.

“He made it clear that it’s still an option but he decided at this point it wasn’t the right time,” said Rounds.

And when TSA agents start quitting in droves? (air traffic controllers aren't getting paid, either.  Think about that as you sit on the tarmac.)  And the IRS finds it can't legally distribute tax refunds?  C'est la vie, n'est pas?  And about that "national emergency" escape valve?  Yeah, Andrew Napolitano is schooling Fox & Friends about that:

Napolitano went on to say that in parts of Texas, the wall would need to be built on what is now private property—and the federal government “would have to condemn it and pay for it. (Trump) can’t do that without congressional authorization. He can’t spend money without congressional authorization.”

Napolitano added, “The emergency declaration allows him to mobilize assets, but it doesn’t allow him to take or occupy property—and it doesn’t allow him to spend money that Congress hasn’t authorized.”

At Fox News, Trump supporter Sean Hannity has asserted that forcing the construction of a border wall via an emergency declaration is a good idea. But Napolitano has not been shy about parting company with his colleagues at Fox News when he believes they are wrong. And on “Fox and Friends,” the judge stressed that a border wall would have to be funded by Congress whether Trump likes it or not.

“If the president, frustrated by Congress, could declare a national emergency and go around Congress, we would have seen this before,” Napolitano explained. “Barack Obama would have declared a national emergency in health care and started spending money on insurance policies to keep people healthy. And obviously, he didn’t because he couldn’t.”

Trump made his case for a border wall during a speech Tuesday. Napolitano noted that while Trump speech could urge the construction of a wall, “he can’t change the law, and he can’t avoid the Constitution.”
Will that dissuade Trump from winning? Of course not!

The emergency will be when his position becomes politically untenable!  Still doesn't mean he can do it; just means he can assure a quicker end to his Presidency, an end de facto if not de jure.

In the meantime, let's just say, if you work for the Border Patrol or the TSA or the IRS, or you're waiting for Trump to build the wall by Presidential fiat:  don't hold your breath.

You'll turn blue; for one thing.

UPDATE:  Unity already not holding.



Posted by at No comments:

Return to Gone Away Dept.


I can't quit this because stuff keeps bouncing up, mostly from non-lawyers who don't understand how to read a statute.  Take this, for example:

"We can call a national emergency. I may do it. We can call a national emergency and build it very quickly," Trump stated during a briefing in the Rose Garden following a lengthy sit-down with with Democrats over border security. "Under the military version of eminent domain and under homeland security, we can do it."

"You have to use eminent domain," he added. "If we had one person that wouldn't sell us...then we wouldn't be able to build proper border security because we'd have that big opening."

Trump isn't totally wrong. While the federal government has invoked the principle of eminent domain to build public utilities like roads and highways for decades, the "military version" Trump mentioned likely refers to 10 U.S. Code § 2663, which provides for the acquisition of land for military purposes including "construction, or operation of fortifications, coast defenses, or military training camps."

But at the same time, there are two elements here which may complicate this approach to expediting the construction of a border wall.

Neither of the "elements" mentioned in that last sentence include the 5th Amendment or the actual language of 10 U.S. Code § 2663 (and yes, Trump is totally wrong, as we shall see).  What that statue actually provides is for certain military officials to start eminent domain proceedings under the 5th Amendment:

Subject to subsection (f), the Secretary of a military department may have proceedings brought in the name of the United States, in a court of proper jurisdiction, to acquire by condemnation any interest in land, including temporary use, needed for—
(A) the site, construction, or operation of fortifications, coast defenses, or military training camps;
(B) the construction and operation of plants for the production of nitrate and other compounds, and the manufacture of explosives or other munitions of war; or
(C) the development and transmission of power for the operation of plants under subparagraph (B

Not really that striking a provision, since there has to be some implementing legislation to let some government official or agency acquire property for government use; this is the one for the military.  I don't think you can even remotely call the proposed wall a "fortification," but set that aside.  The important language is in the opening sentence:  "may have proceedings brought....in a court of proper jurisdiction, to acquire by condemnation any interest in land...."  That's the 5th Amendment at work, not the 5th Amendment abrogated.  There is, in that section, a provision Trump might think refers to national security:

In time of war or when war is imminent, the United States may, immediately upon the filing of a petition for condemnation under paragraph (1), take and use the land to the extent of the interest sought to be acquired.
But are we at war with Mexico?  Is war with Mexico imminent?  If not, there's an abuse of power problem in using this statute to build the wall.  And then there's subsection d):

(d)Acquisition of Interests in Land When Need Is Urgent.—
(1) The Secretary of a military department may acquire any interest in land in any case in which the Secretary determines that—
(A) the acquisition is needed in the interest of national defense;
(B) the acquisition is required to maintain the operational integrity of a military installation; and
(C) considerations of urgency do not permit the delay necessary to include the required acquisition in an annual Military Construction Authorization Act.
(2) Not later than 10 days after the date on which the Secretary of a military department determines to acquire an interest in land under the authority of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit, in an electronic medium pursuant to section 480 of this title, to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a notice containing a description of the property and interest to be acquired and the reasons for the acquisition.
(3) Appropriations available for military construction may be used for the purposes of this subsection.
 But, you see, you need both "national defense", "operational integrity of a military installation," and "considerations of urgency" which just don't apply here; so we're back to that abuse of power issue, and besides, the House committees would explode over this.  And Congress has made sure it has to be involved:

(f)Advance Notice of Use of Condemnation.—
(1) Before commencing any legal proceeding to acquire any interest in land under subsection (a), including acquisition for temporary use, by condemnation, eminent domain, or seizure, the Secretary of the military department concerned shall—
(A) pursue, to the maximum extent practicable, all other available options for the acquisition or use of the land, such as the purchase of an easement or the execution of a land exchange; and
(B) submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing—
(i) a description of the land to be acquired;
(ii) a certification that negotiations with the owner or owners of the land occurred, and that the Secretary tendered consideration in an amount equal to the fair market value of the land, as determined by the Secretary; and
(iii) an explanation of the other approaches considered for acquiring use of the land, the reasons for the acquisition of the land, and the reasons why alternative acquisition strategies are inadequate.
(2) The Secretary concerned may have proceedings brought in the name of the United States to acquire the land after the end of the 21-day period beginning on the date on which the report is received by the committees in an electronic medium pursuant to section 480 of this title.
So, just from reading this statute, I don't see how Trump can claim he has authority to declare a national emergency and get his wall.  It wouldn't be just a political problem (though it would be a huge one), it would be a legal issue, and not just in the sense of a court issuing an injunction.  It would be a gross abuse of power which even GOP Senators would have a big problem overlooking.  Parallels to Watergate suddenly become applicable here. It would be Trump's White House tapes, his John Dean, his Saturday Night Massacre (which was preceded by the forced resignation of Vice President Agnew, by only 10 days), all at once.  It would break the hold Trump has in the Senate, and plunge his administration straight down the precipice.

There is another option:  the National Emergencies Act, which reads in pertinent part (it's pretty short anyway):

(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

(b) When a decision is made to undertake military construction projects authorized by this section, the Secretary of Defense shall notify, in an electronic medium pursuant to section 480 of this title, the appropriate committees of Congress of the decision and of the estimated cost of the construction projects, including the cost of any real estate action pertaining to those construction projects.
That's no more useful than the previous statute.  Is there a "national emergency" on the border which "requires the use of the armed forces"?  Nope.  And all the statue does is "authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects...that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces."  How does a border wall do that?

And the sharp-eyed will note this statute specifically doesn't allow for land acquisition, which puts us back on the previous statute in emergency situations.

This is what some are talking about when the speak of the military being caught between a Presidential order and the law, because you will note that statute gives authority to "Secretaries of the military departments."  A Trump Cabinet appointee (SecDef) might pass the order on; lower level Secretaries might balk at this interpretation of the law, and refuse.  Any declaration of a "national emergency" would make the Saturday Night Massacre look like tea with the Queen.

Does that mean he won't do it?  Well, if he sees those consequences; and through some low animal cunning, he may.  But can he declare a national emergency, squirt the squid ink, and get away with it to remain an incompetent boob for another two years in an office he no more understands than a house pet?  No, I don't think so.  The laws aren't that vague and general, and the legal posture of such a declaration is not the same thing as hand-waving and citing some unfounded anecdotes that are completely fictional anyway.

This would be reality, hard and cold and implacable.  No Oval Office speech would change that.
Posted by at No comments:

On the Subject: We Are All Trump


Never apologize.  Never backdown.  Never concede error.
Posted by at No comments:

The End Is Near


If you're this old (points at self), you remember the cartoon meme (before we had "memes") of the ragged street prophet carrying a sign with the message "The End is Near!"  It was so stock it became a cliche and then, as "the end" became a serious matter, it disappeared.  Anyway, Trump is still, IMHO, likely to end this situation by the squid ink approach of declaring himself King with the "absolute right" to get the wall built.  Problem is, he has to cite a specific statute giving him the authority to divert military funds, direct the military to go to work, and abrogate the 5th Amendment (no, I'm not letting go of that), and there isn't one.  The squid ink is that all that attempt would do would be to throw the matter immediately into the courts, allow Trump to declare victory and end the shutdown (win-win!), and cancel this farce.

The downside is, it doesn't make Trump any more of an administrator than he was before (it is "The Administration" for a reason), and it will probably appall any number of GOP Senators facing re-election (including John Cornyn, who as a border state Senator is notably silent, and looking at Ted Cruz's near loss knows he could be next, especially if eminent domain is the fuel for the fire).  Of course, Trump is not going to govern for the next two years anyway (no more than he did the last two), so either way, the End Is Near.


(God Bless Google!)
Posted by at No comments:

Flyover Country



NPR yesterday, after Trump's speech, went to a Republican Representative from Louisiana for comment on the need for a border wall on the Mexican border (never the Canadian border, because, you know, nothing to do with white people, right?).  I noted to The Lovely Wife that I had yet to hear from any politician from the border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California) that they favored the Trump Wall (even Cornyn and Cruz from Texas are silent).  I was not wrong:

The nine House members who represent border districts from California to Texas each voted in favor of bills to reopen the government without additional money for the wall, CBS News reported Tuesday. The funding package passed the House last week, but stalled in the GOP-led Senate. 

To be fair to NPR, they were looking for some GOP Congresscritter who could speak to Trump's intentions on the border.  They had to go to a non-border state to find one.  Mitch McConnell continues the trend of having no knowledge whatsoever of the Mexican border, which makes him an expert on it:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says President Donald Trump’s proposal to increase border security through physical barriers “suits the reality on the ground” along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Rep. Will Hurd, as NPR mentioned, represents the Congressional district with the largest portion of the Mexican border in it (one of the largest in Texas, too; people are sparse in that part of the world).  Rep. Hurd is far more aware of "the reality on the ground" in Texas than the Senator from Kentucky is.  Rep. Hurd does not support the wall.  Rep. Hurd is a Republican.

People far from the border fear the border, because they fear the boundary between self and other (it's probably a long story but still, it's ultimately a question of identity, and identity is a question of who you are, and who you are not.  People who don't live on that boundary, physically or psychically, get very nervous about transgressions of that boundary.  People on the border, especially in Texas, see the boundary as a river they cross, not as a barrier they pierce or transgress.)  The further people are from the border, they more sure they are what the people who live on the border, need.

It's an ironic case of those with power living far from the people they want to wield power over, but almost no one finds it convenient to see it that way.  Mostly because the sense of transgression is so strong, the sense of threat so great, that arguments about who should decide get subsumed.  "National security" has been the popular excuse since Truman.  "Fear of a brown planet" is probably the better explanation today.

After all, nobody worries about Canada; or international airports.
Posted by at No comments:

Enough About Me, Let's Talk About You For A Minute


Tom Hanks is burning in California? (And some conservatives are concerned that Trump might declare a "national security" emergency and usurp Congressional authority, setting a precedent no one would like to live under. Is this any different? Is this Trump doing what he dare not do on the border, and wishes he had?)

*In case you're wondering, Trump removed the original tweet and corrected the spelling of "Forest."  I'm sticking with the original text because:  reasons.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, January 08, 2019

Probably Talked To The Families He'd Comforted

Certainly not from these people:



Posted by at 1 comment:

Much as I agree with the Democrats

Yeah, that's how it went.
Posted by at No comments:

"...but that was in a foreign country...."


I expect to see more articles like this, and I just pause to note they won't address the elephant in the room.  Law is tricky and complicated, but one aspect of law is fundamental:  "Change the facts, change the outcome."  What kind of emergency powers Trump asserts, if ever he does, will change the legal analysis entirely.  Facts on the ground, as the pundits love to say, change the analysis, too.  One major factor of this discussion of the border is the reason why where isn't already 2000 miles of border wall/fence/obstruction, and that's because of a) the geography of the border, and b)  much of the border in Texas, the longest state border with Mexico, is in private hands.  That means you have to invoke the 5th Amendment (aside from the fact they aren't going to build a wall that obstructs flood plains, or that runs through Big Bend National (or State) park).

Read the Slate article carefully (and note it refers to the Goiten article and relies on it, an article I've already noted has no application in this possible scenario), and you will fail to find any reference to the 5th Amendment whatsoever.  Trump may, in some far-flung theory, be able to declare an emergency to re-direct military funds for construction.  Under no scenario or historical precedent, can he suspend the 5th Amendment and just start taking private property.  (Not, actually, that this has slowed the federal government down all that much; but invoking "extraordinary powers" won't speed things up, either.  Indeed, it will just bog the whole mess down in more litigation, which might prove helpful as small landowners can't afford the court fights large landowners can.  Always a silver lining, if you look for it.  And yes, it's funny nobody considered that taking a "crisis," even though it went on under W.'s aegis, ancient history now, I guess.  Besides, it was on the border, and in Texas, so who cares, amirite?).

The fact is, most pundits pontificating on the Mexican border have no idea what the geography of that border is.

Here endeth the lesson.*

*Not to mention Trump would probably lose even the Senate if he tried that stunt.  Although some GOP Senators apparently agree it's a way out of the impasse without actually doing anything about the wall.

Yeah, the situation is that bad.  Rather than pressure McConnell to do the right thing (again), they'd rather have the decision taken away altogether by the courts.

Profiles in cowardice.
Posted by at No comments:

"Why worry about clothes?"



I picked up a copy of The Atlantic in an airport, based solely on the cover.  I used to subscribe to The Atlantic, and it's really not what it once was (what magazine is?  Even Harper's is a shade of what it was under Lapham, and Lapham's Quarterly is equal parts tendentious and insightful), but the cover article intrigued me.  Time in airports being what it is, I didn't get around to reading it, however; and then I found this:

“I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” Minton told Mazzei. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
Vox is surprised by that quote; but I'm not.  I've been a lawyer, a pastor, worked for lawyers before law school, and now end my days (presumably, unless something else changes in the decades to come) a part-time English teacher.  I've seen to much of life and experienced too many people to be surprised by innate evil, or what I still think of as the original sin of selfishness (try as I might I just can't quite get rid of that bit of Christian doctrine).  Why are we so angry?  Because we can't hurt the people we need to be hurting.  Were we always like this?  What do you think the slaughter of the Native Americans and the cruelty of slavery were based on?  Christian ideals of brotherhood and sisterhood?

Get real.

On the other hand, is this everybody in America?  No, of course not.  Trump is supported by those who don't identify with Republicans so much as they identify against Democrats.  He speaks to his base when he says federal government employees are mostly Democrats (so screw them).  But, to quote James Kirk in the best of the Star Trek films, like a poor marksman he keeps missing the target.  And there's supposed to be a target, and he's supposed to be a marksman, and somebody is supposed to be hurt.  That's the only purpose of having power; at least as far as those people are concerned.

It's a rawer distillation of the notion of power than we might like, but that's just like saying 2 year old whiskey is rawer than 4 year old whiskey (I tasted the difference in Denver; trust me on the analogy, it fits).  It's still whiskey, however smoothly it goes down.  We like our power smoother.  Re-watching "Avengers:  Infinity War" (I'm on vacation for another week, I give myself a day of complete leisure), I notice how much Thanos feels burdened with power, and the need to wield it.  He convinces himself he's pursing a worthy cause, even as a spokesperson tells his victims they should rejoice that they are going to die to better the universe at large.  It's a ridiculous kind of selflessness, because it's selfishness wrapped up in a guise of altruism.  As Sally Brown (Charlie Brown's little sister) wisely noted decades ago, everybody talks (then, anyway) about overpopulation, but no one wants to leave.  Thanos gains our sympathies because, like us, he identifies a fundamental problem, but he doesn't want to be part of the solution.  He wants to stand outside the problem, and fix it without himself being truly affected (he smiles, at the end, with what he has done, even as he tells his daughter it cost him everything.  Well, not everything, because it didn't cost him the only thing that mattered to him:  his own life).  It's the same villainy as in "Watchmen" (Netflix just put it back in rotation), only in that setting the end of the world comes through nuclear holocaust (we stopped worrying about that sometime after Vietnam, and started worrying about evil corporations running the future; now we worry about climate change.  We don't do anything about any of these evils, but we are champion worriers.).  The villain of the piece contrives a Pax Romana by slaughtering millions, not quite as Thanos does, but like Thanos he makes sure he's around to enjoy the outcome.  These villains don't necessarily hurt the people who need to be hurting, but they do hurt a lot of people and paper over the pain of the survivors (when Thanos' adopted daughter points out he slaughtered half the people on her planet, he avers that they were starving and now are nourished, because resources can support the population.  He ignores her pain as inconsequential to that material fact.).

So where are we with this, if not back to the theology of scarcity?  In the world imagined by "Watchmen" (a world not that old, considering the story is set in an "alternative" 1985), nuclear war was imminent and implacable.  Much is made in the film of the clock set to nearly midnight by scientists concerned with the end of humanity.  I remember that clock from my childhood, when the threat of nuclear war was as real and implacable as Thanos.  It was pretty much as useless a metaphor as it is declared to be by a character in the movie.  We seriously feared we would destroy ourselves by atomic war; some were sure it was inevitable, that having a weapon we couldn't not use it.  So far we haven't, and the fear of such destruction has faded (except in the "Terminator" movies, where the machines turn them on us.  We've outsourced even our self-destructive impulses.). Overpopulation didn't destroy us (yet); nuclear war didn't do it (yet); now global warming will; or so it seems.

Each of these scenarios has a common thread:  we can't live with it, and we can't live without it.  The cause, I mean.  And each shares the other common thread, of scarcity.  The arms race is obviously based on scarcity.  Trump brings it up every time he brags about how much better the military is under him, with more money (he lies that it was decimated by Obama, the better to underline the theme of scarcity).  Overpopulation was built on scarcity, too; and climate change is built on the scarcity of alternatives to fossil fuels, without which our modern industrial world collapses.  Damned if we do, damned if we don't.  Everybody wants to fix the problem, nobody wants to be part of the solution.

There isn't enough to go around; you must sacrifice.  This hurts me more than it does you, but it's for your own good.  That's practically what Thanos told his daughter, just before he threw her down to her doom so he could gain ultimate power over life (it's always about destruction; nobody ever gains the power to create; that's a theological issue, too).  We are each our own Thanos, in our way; or maybe that's just me.  Original sin is a tricky concept when you try to generalize it to others; you end up trying to leave yourself out of it.

The theology of scarcity teaches us that there isn't enough, and that we must try to do something about that.  It's the fundamental basis of villainy in movies.  As the villains gain greater power the better to entertain us with the spectacle, we never imagine heroes or villains having the power to create ab initio, which is to say, the power of life.  Dr. Manhattan in "Watchmen" touched on that when he tells his ex-girlfriend that her existence is a miracle, that the causal chain that led to her existence, her particular existence, is miraculous, because he has earlier pointed out there is not a particle of difference (in the exact sense) between a living body and a corpse.  But there is, of course, and while that difference is as everyday as sunrise, it is still unexplained an inexplicable and while we may give fictional heroes the power to reverse time, we never imagine the power to create ex nihilo.  Villains can destroy, heroes can repair, or even reverse, destruction; but they cannot create life.  Even Dr. Manhattan can only manipulate matter, nothing more.  He is as destructive as the villain of the piece.  But he is not creative; not even in the generative sense.

So it's understandable we think in terms of scarcity; but what if we try to go beyond that?  If scarcity is all there is, then we are the most miserable of creatures, because no other living being seems aware of the terror of want on a scale that will affect even us (we don't fear want for others who face it every day).  But even if the only options open to us are manipulation of matter or destruction of life (reproduction is just continuing life, and even that we think we have polluted, if only because we cannot imagine our "good life" continuing for our children), does that mean we are doomed to scarcity?

Or is there another way to see it all?

Take a look at the birds of the sky; they don't plant or harvest, or gather into barns.  Yet your heavenly Father feeds them.  You're worth more than they are, aren't you?....Notice how the wild lilies grow; they don't slave and they never spin.  Yet let me tell you, even Solomon at the height of his glory was never decked out like one of them.  If God dresses up the grass in the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into an oven, won't {God care for} you even more, you who don't take anything for granted?

Matthew 6:26-30, SV

(That Atlantic article?  Yeah, I'll get back to that.  It ties in with this, so it will come up again.)
Posted by at No comments:

Meanwhile, back in reality....

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, January 07, 2019

Living in America

There is no Constitutional authority for the President to suspend Art. I of the Constitution, and the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

There is no statutory authority for it, either.

Elizabeth Goitein is a bit worried Trump can take over the government with a flick of his pen (or crayon, to be more realistic):

Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.

Interestingly, she mentions the historical precedents of the suspension of habeas corpus (5th Amendment) under Lincoln during the Civil War and  the internment of the Japanese during WWII by FDR.  Truman tried to seize the steel mills, but the Supreme Court shut him down.  We have no crisis similar to those times (all 3 Presidents had wars to deal with), and none of those actions involved suspending Congress' power to raise and spend monies, or the right of citizens to demand compensation for government taking of real property (usually known as "eminent domain"). Little observed fact:  the majority of the property on the border in Texas (the state with the longest border with Mexico in the Union) is private property.  Building a wall, or any structure, on that property would invoke the "takings clause" of the 5th Amendment.  There is no Constitutional nor statutory provision that allows the President to suspend the entire Constitution, or the 5th Amendment specifically.  (The Constitution does allow for habeas corpus to be suspended, which is what Lincoln did.  The Art. 1, Sec. 9, clause 2, allows suspension in time of rebellion, which certainly qualified then.  Amendment 5 doesn't allow for eminent domain proceedings to be suspended, which is what Trump would need to do).  Gotein's argument really has no application here, since she's worried about troops imposing martial law and the internet being shut down, neither of which Trump is threatening at the moment.  Still, the argument muddies the waters over what "emergency powers" Trump can assert, especially since you can always find a law professor to say Trump might be able to carry out his threat.

Depending, of course, on what his threat actually is.  There is also no provision in law or the Constitution that allows Trump to usurp the power of Congress to allocate funds.  There is a sliver of an argument that he could use DOD funds.  But that assumes they have an idea what to do with the money. They don't.   The argument also assumes Trump really wants the money; he doesn't.  He just wants a way to declare victory.  (Consider how many times he's tweeted that the wall was being built already.  He's shut down the government because those lies are no longer operative, and he needs a new one.).  There is, to repeat, no legal basis for suspending the "takings clause" of the 5th Amendment, and certainly no facts on which to find sufficient "crisis" to do so anyway.

Trump is an idiot, and his staff, as Jennifer Rubin labeled them, is the "D-team" (case in point).  She is right, though; any attempt to assert a "national emergency" to start border wall construction would be an impeachable offense. It would certainly be the action described by Josh Marshall. Does that mean anything?

And yes, he could declare an "emergency" just to declare victory:

Whatever happens, this is government by farce.

Addendum:


What Smith said was an "emergency" was declared to construct some bases in Afghanistan and Iraq; he compared that to building the wall on the border.  It's an inapt comparison.  When the military is in harm's way and needs protection, that can be considered an "emergency" which allows for non-allocated funds to be diverted to meet a very human need.  Wall construction on the border will take years, and there is no similar military emergency.  It is not needed to protect lives right now, and without such exigent circumstances, its construction as a "national emergency" can't possibly be justified.  I think Eric Columbus is right; Trump will make the declaration, it will go straight to court, Trump will declare victory and announce the war is under construction, and he'll go back to playing golf.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Ephiphany 2018 (a reprise)


So part of the modern argument about religious belief is that it's simply a function of the brain; that we can study people in prayer or meditation and find certain portions of the brain are active, and this activity indicates religious belief is simply a brain function some people are capable of.

Of course, no similar studies are ever cited to show that reasoning, say working in higher mathematics or considering a scientific principle, is also simply a function of the brain, so reasoning is no more a mirror of nature or reality than prayer is proof of the existence (or even presence) of God.  But that is beside the point:  the point is, this method of analysis is new,  is revolutionary, has never been done before, and it proves something that could not otherwise have ever been shown about religion.  It stands outside religion and reveals truths that could not otherwise have been revealed.

Enter the Magi.

Matthew calls them astrologers, actually.  The word he uses is μάγοι, which Bauer tells me refers to a "wise man and priest, who was expert in astrology, interpretation of dreams and various other secret arts."  They read the stars, took lessons from them, discerned meanings, and from their knowledge, learned the truth of the significance of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.  Does this mean it happened that way?  No.  The story clearly serves Matthew's purposes, as it can't be reconciled with Luke's nativity in any way, and besides involves a miracle (the star "led them forward until it came to a standstill above where the child lay") which we can in no way verify from the historical record.

But it is Matthew telling us that other means than the Hebrew prophets were used to learn the nature of the child born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph.  It is Matthew telling us that the knowledge of the world (astrology then; neurology now) was employed to discern a great truth.

Is it true the Magi read the stars and found the Christchild through a miracle?  Is it true prayer is only brain activity and nothing more, just like reasoning?  Is it possible that reasoning is more than simply firing neurons?  Is it possible prayer is more than simply active portions of certain cells?  Is it possible to know truths from knowledge that is not itself religious, or from a field of human knowledge other than a specific religion and religious tradition?

The Epiphany story tells us it is.  The Epiphany story tells us that it has happened.  It doesn't prove that is has happened; but it accepts, even incorporates into religion, the possibility.  It stands in the future, looking backwards, waiting for us to catch up.

Which is a revelation in itself.
Posted by at No comments:

And yes, the federal government of the "hyper power" of the world is shut down over bragging rights


Bueller?  Ferris Bueller?

(no, Trump doesn't really want to build the wall; he just wants to say he's going to, and "winning" this fight is all that matters to him.  Whether Congress ever actually allows the money to be spent is irrelevant; whether it is ever actually spent is irrelevant.  Nothing matters except the talking point victory. This is government by tub thumping, nothing more.)
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, January 06, 2019

Twelfth Night

It is very difficult to find a picture related to Twelfth Night that is not related to Shakespeare.

The irony is that we are the descendants of Malvolio (when we lost the Civil War, we lost that, too.  The South was once much more British than today.), or we'd probably recognize the play's title indicates a comedy.

The joke, as ever with Shakespeare, is on us.

(and on me; late, as usual. Twelfth Night was last night, according to the C of E.  Although today is fine, too. So party on, dudes!)

Posted by at No comments:

Ariel Poems: Epiphany 2018


The beginning of an Eliot binge.  Today is Epiphany, so this is "traditional":


'A cold coming we had of it,
Just the worst time of the year
For a journey, and such a long journey:
The ways deep and the weather sharp,
The very dead of winter.'
And the camels galled, sorefooted, refractory,
Lying down in the melting snow.
There were times we regretted
The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,
And the silken girls bringing sherbet.
Then the camel men cursing and grumbling
and running away, and wanting their liquor and women,
And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,
And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly
And the villages dirty and charging high prices:
A hard time we had of it.
At the end we preferred to travel all night,
Sleeping in snatches,
With the voices singing in our ears, saying
That this was all folly.

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.
Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,
Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,
And feet kiking the empty wine-skins.
But there was no information, and so we continued
And arriving at evening, not a moment too soon
Finding the place; it was (you might say) satisfactory.

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.


Posted by at 1 comment:

Epiphany of the Lord 2018



If you can find their "Twelfth Day Carol" and stream it, that's even more appropriate to the day.  This one, however, carries all the joy.
Posted by at No comments:

Epiphany of the Lord 2018


Isaiah 60:1-660:1 Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you.

60:2 For darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the LORD will arise upon you, and his glory will appear over you.

60:3 Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.

60:4 Lift up your eyes and look around; they all gather together, they come to you; your sons shall come from far away, and your daughters shall be carried on their nurses' arms.

60:5 Then you shall see and be radiant; your heart shall thrill and rejoice, because the abundance of the sea shall be brought to you, the wealth of the nations shall come to you.

60:6 A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the LORD.

Psalm 72:1-7, 10-1472:1 Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son.

72:2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.

72:3 May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness.

72:4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.

72:5 May he live while the sun endures, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations.

72:6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth.

72:7 In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more.

72:10 May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts.

72:11 May all kings fall down before him, all nations give him service.

72:12 For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper.

72:13 He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy.

72:14 From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.

Ephesians 3:1-123:1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--

3:2 for surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given me for you,

3:3 and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,

3:4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ.

3:5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:

3:6 that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

3:7 Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God's grace that was given me by the working of his power.

3:8 Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ,

3:9 and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;

3:10 so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

3:11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,

3:12 in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him.

Matthew 2:1-122:1 In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,

2:2 asking, "Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage."

2:3 When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him;

2:4 and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.

2:5 They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet:

2:6 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.'"

2:7 Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared.

2:8 Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage."

2:9 When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was.

2:10 When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.

2:11 On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

2:12 And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road.

There's the place where this story bumps back down to earth again. There's the place where we know the status quo has been disrupted, and the child has yet to say his first word:

And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road.
The church is supposed to be all about the status quo, and God is supposed to uphold the stability of the world as we know it. That's why we say God is on "our side," that "Gott Mitt Uns" is imprinted on our assurance that whatever we do, as people, as communities, as nations, as churches, as like-minded individuals, is approved of by God. Because if it isn't, then we are not the wise men, we are Herod. And we've heard the story; nobody wants to be Herod.



You can see it in that picture. Herod is the guy with the sword. The other figures may be kings, because they wear crowns; but Herod is a king, too. He also wears a crown. But in his throne room, in his kingdom, Herod is the guy with the sword. The guy with the sword is the guy you bow to. The guy with the sword is the one who gets to decide who lives, and who dies. The guy with the sword rules the kingdom. Jesus is never depicted with a sword; and yet Jesus sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and will judge the quick and the dead. Maybe later, but right now Jesus is just a baby, an infant in his mother's arms.



And yet already he's causing trouble; already he's upsetting the status quo. Already he's causing magi to take long journeys to find him, and when they do, they kneel before him, him and his peasant mother; and kings in Jerusalem turn uneasily in their beds, and clutch their swords tighter, seeking comfort in what they can control.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us!" The wisest words Walt Kelly ever penned; and they go to the heart of the Christian mystery, or Christian doctrine. The revelation of the Lord incarnate prompts worship, awe, and fear, because in the child we recognize ourselves, and we recognize the Creator, and we recognize our enemy. Our enemy, of course, is supposed to be the stranger, the foreigner, the one not from our tribe, our town, our land. Matthew opens his gospel with a sign that all people are God's concern, and anyone can know the revelation of God. So even our art should reflect the metaphor of this story, that the light has come for all nations. Tradition tells us at least one of them was African, but who can say? And who can know from how far away they came?

Today begins the season of Epiphany: celebrated by some; ignored by others. The "original Christmas," some say. Maybe; maybe not. It is a season separate from Christmas, but related to it; and in France and Cajun Louisiana, it is celebrated itself with King's Cakes and Gateau du Roi and parties, right up to Fat Tuesday, Mardi Gras, when the shriven season takes over and Lent begins. It's the English who called it Shrove Tuesday, and taught that name even to my all but non-liturgical Presbyterian church of childhood, the day to "shreve" the cupboard of fats and oils in preparation for the fastings of Lent. The French Roman Catholics had the better idea: to celebrate the 5 or 6 Sundays of Epiphany, and carry it out right up to the last possible minute, the first stroke of midnight on Ash Wednesday morning. Jesus, tradition says, was born at midnight on Christmas Day. We don't know, so why not sanctify the whole day? So, also, Ash Wednesday begins at midnight, but until then: celebration!

Christmas, of course, is supposed to be about happiness; but it is too often presented as sold and commodified and purchased happiness, and if our reality doesn't meet out expectations, then we have fallen short of the status quo, and it is worse than if we were indifferent to the whole idea of happiness at all. Happiness itself, however, is not about the status quo. That's why it fails so often, if it does, at Christmas: because we have made happiness the status quo of that season of the year, and it is not the status quo that brings happiness, but the disruption of it. How often to we think we must be surprised by joy? That a surprise party is so much richer and more meaningful than a well-planned birthday fete? How often do we prefer the surprise of a present to the mere recieving of money or a shopping trip? The surprise is not the status quo, or it isn't a surprise. It's the disruption of the status quo that pleases, not the perfection of it. Our status quo today is about the not yet, not the now, about what you haven't yet purchased, done, accomplished, gained, gambled, dreamed of; not of what you are enjoying in the moment. I can't sell you what you have in the moment, I need you to buy from me what you don't-have-yet. That isn't happiness, it is emptiness; it is want; it is the craving you can never fulfill. And that, in modernity, is the status quo.

Happiness disrupts the status quo. Happiness is celebration of now, of the accumulation of the harvest which will rot and decay if it isn't enjoyed and then replenished in the spring. Happiness is the celebration of life today, not life as it will be during the Super Bowl, or upon the purchase of the new car, the new electronic gadget, the next pop song download, the next movie on NetFlix. Happiness disrupts the status quo and brings a welcome change that is a meaningful change. Happiness is the unexpected suddenly recognized.

The season of Epiphany is about that happiness, that creative irruption into the status quo of the Creator of the Universe; and now you see Him, and now you don't. The season of Epiphany is about the disruption that brings so much joy and interest travelers cross oceans of land just to see if it is true, just to see the one they hadn't expected, but are delighted to admire. The season of Epiphany is not about the disruption which upsets Herod; that is given to Christmas, to the reality of the Incarnation. The season of Epiphany is about the recognition, the apocalypse, the revelation. It is the break with the ordinary and the regular that puts everything out of control because it brings such joy. Chaos can be creative as well as destructive; but when it is destructive, it is because the enemy is us; because we fear what we might do. We have met the enemy, and he is us; and the one we see at the Epiphany will tell us, just as wisely, to love our enemy. It is an invitation to chaos, but it is an invitation to the chaos of happiness, of joy, to the chaos of creativity when the enemy we see looks back at us from the mirror, and smiles, and joins in the dance. The chaos of happiness never lasts long enough; if it did, it would be the status quo, and we would need a new disruption from it. But it can go on for a few weeks, at least.

Take joy. Happiness, after all, reveals that underneath the status quo, lies the chaos of creation, the chaos of joy. And this, too, shall be a sign unto you.

Amen.

Posted by at No comments:

Epiphany of the Lord 2018




January 6th; the "twelfth" day of Christmas.  (Don't worry; sermon to follow)

"Epiphany" comes from the Greek word "epiphaneia," which my Bauer (Greek lexicon) translates as "appearance", with the intransitive verb form "to show." Interestingly, the English word was so associated with the church that as recently as some 20 years ago the OED entry for the word still gave a first definition as the festival on January 6th, commemorating the visit of the Magi, and the second definition "A manifestation or appearance of some divine or superhuman being."

So it has almost always been a "religious" word in English.

Interestingly, too, the Greek word ("epiphaneia") only appears in the letters of the New Testament, and once in the Gospels: in Luke 1:79.

"To shine on those sitting in darkness, in the shadow of death, to guide our feet to the way of peace."

The last "verse" of the song of Zechariah, the "Benedictus."

One can make a lot of idle speculation of all of this. Epiphany is actually at the heart of Christianity, and causes the constant friction Christianity has had with Greek rationalism ab initio. Greek epistemology, via Aristotle, was based on the idea that knowledge was "discovered" from the natural world (so for centuries those we now call "scientists" were referred to as "natural philosophers"). Plato's epistemology is often considered to be different, but the difference is really only in type, not in kind. For Socrates knowledge came, not from the "illusory" world, but from the "real" soul, and the memories recovered there via the instruments of the illusory world. Either way, though, the most important knowledge is "discovered" by the activity of the subject.

Hebraic epistemology, on the other hand, and such as it was, centered on revelation, on the revealing of knowledge from the source of all things: the Creator.

This is not a mere academic concern. Much has been made of late about Paul's writings, and how they are less valid than the Gospels because Paul never knew Jesus (neither did the Gospel writers, most likely), and mentions little about the life of Jesus, and nothing about his teachings, but claims authority based on his "revelation."

"for surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given me for you, and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words..." --Ephesians 3:2-3.

Revelation, for many in Paul's audience, was grounds enough for a claim to authority, one that would then be tested against the "proven" revelation of the Scriptures. To his Gentile audience, Paul would then appeal to a different kind of knowledge; but this brings us to Matthew, and the story of the Magi.

The story itself is really quite simple. A lot of traditions have grown up around it, to the point we are convinced Matthew mentions three wise men (he only mentions three gifts), and that the star "led" them to the stall (that's Luke, by the way) in Bethlehem, all the way from "the East." In fact, it's the traditions around Matthew that have led to speculations about whether the star was a nova (Johannes Kepler's theory), a comet (Halley's?); or even a planetary conjuuction. Which shows, in part, the pervasiveness of Greek epistemology. Or maybe it's just a "human tendency." But, as Yeats asked, how can you know the dancer from the dance?

Back to Matthew: First, the star doesn't move until the end of the story. What the Magi report to Herod is that they have seen the new king's star "at its rising," and have come to pay him homage. A bit of Greek epistemology, I think, intruding into Matthew's Jewish world. Nature reveals a truth Herod's scholars have missed, until it is pointed out to them. But the Magi don't know everything, and have to rely on the Holy Scriptures for final directions. It is only then that the star "moves" and guides them until it stands still over the spot where the child lay. Which may simply mean, again, it brought them at night (a powerfully metaphorical scene, that; the light shining in darkness.) Why do I insist on the distinction? Because Matthew tells us Herod ordered the death of all males 2 years old and younger, based on what the Magi had told him. So "lay" doesn't mean an infant unable to sit up.

So what is the Epiphany? Traditionally, it is the revealing of Jesus to the Gentiles. Perhaps there is even a bit of unintended bias involved in it, as most of the early church "fathers" were primarily Greek in their epistemology, and sympathetic to a story that gave them an opportunity to "see" the Christchild in signs available to those without knowledge of the Scriptures, but also signs that required them to come to the Scriptures for full understanding. Certainly Augustine and Aquinas would find that a comforting tale.

But it is also the crucial story for Christians, a much more important story than simply the chance to wear coloured robes and lead a camel through the church. It is the story of how we know what we know, and where our knowledge truly comes from. It is not a story with an answer, however. As T.S. Eliot intuited, it is a story that only points in a direction.

A story worthy of more meditation and consideration than we are wont to give it.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, January 05, 2019

Makes Me Wish I'd Watched This Show

Posted by at No comments:

Snappy Answers To Stupid Positions

Maybe you can get Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh to complain about them.
That's funny, he made a lot of headway 2 weeks ago....
Posted by at No comments:

And still it is Christmas

Always a cause to rejoice.
Posted by at No comments:

What A Way To Start The Morning

A) No.

B) Doesn't this mean the current system is working?

C) Human trafficking is a major problem in American cities.  Which side of the wall will they be on?
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, January 04, 2019

Meanwhile, back on the farm....

If I read this correctly, unemployment rose by 0.2% in December 2018. Blacks and adult men (BLS terms) lost ground, all other groups held steady. What's"GREAT" about that?

Posted by at 1 comment:

Perspective

The argument for impeachment being referred to (without the "salty language") is here.
Posted by at No comments:

We've Had This Discussion Before

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, January 03, 2019

"Presidential Harassment" Is Not Going To Happen

"Trump"?
Tariff Man doesn't understand how tariffs work. Meanwhile, soybean farmers and chickpea farmers, to name two groups, are paying the price for those negotiations. Tariff Man is an idiot.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, January 02, 2019

...and the barn has burned down.

Posted by at No comments:

Christmas 2018



Christmas rolls on.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Tuesday, January 01, 2019

HOGMANAY!



Hogmanay of the sack

Hogmanay of the sack,
Hogmanay of the sack,
Strike the hide,
Strike the hide.

Hogmanay of the sack,
Hogmanay of the sack,
Beat the skin,
Beat the skin.

Hogmanay of the sack,
Hogmanay of the sack,
Down with it! up with it!
Strike the hide.

Hogmanay of the sack,
Hogmanay of the sack,
Down with it! up with it!
Beat the skin.

Hogmanay of the sack,
Hogmanay of the sack.

Hogmanay Carol

I am now come to your country,
To renew to you the Hogmanay,
I need not tell you of it,
It was in the time of our forefathers.

I ascend by the door lintel,
I descend by the doorstep,
I will sing my song becomingly,
Mannerly, slowly, mindfully.

The Hogmanay skin is in my pocket,
Great will be the smoke from it presently.
The house-man will get it in his hand,
He will place its nose in the fire;
He will go sunwards round the babes,
And for seven verities round the housewife.

The housewife it is she who deserves it,
The hand to dispense to us the Hogmanay,
A small gift of the bloom of summer,
Much I wish it with the bread.

Give it to us if it be possible,
If you may not, do not detain us;
I am the servant of God's Son at the door,
Arise thyself and open to me.

The song of Hogmanay

Now since we came to the country
To renew to you the Hogmanay,
Time will not allow us to explain,
It has been since the age of our fathers.

Ascending the wall of the house,
Descending at the door,
My carol to say modestly,
As becomes me at the Hogmanay.

The Hogmanay skin is in my pocket,
Great the fume that will come from that;
No one who shall inhale its odour,
But shall be for ever from it healthy.

The house-man will get it in his grasp,
He will put its point in the fIre;
He will go sunwise round the children,
And very specially round the goodwife.

The wife will get it, she it is who deserves it,
The hand to distribute the Hogmanay,
The hand to bestow upon us cheese and butter,
The hand without niggardliness, without meanness.

Since drought has come upon the land,
And that we do not expect rarity,
A little of the substance of the summer,
Would we desire with the bread.

If that we are not to have it,
If thou mayest, do not detain us;
I am the servant of God's Son on Hogmanay,
Arise thyself and open the door.
Hogmanay here! Hogmanay here!

Hogmanay
We are come to the door,
To see if we be the better of our visit,
To tell the generous women of the townland
That tomorrow is Calendae Day.

After being entertained the guisers go sunwise round the fire singing:

May God bless the dwelling,
Each stone, and beam, and stave,
All food, and drink, and clothing.
May health of men be always there.

Should the guisers be inhospitably treated, they file round the fire withershins walk out, and raise a cairn in or near the door, called carnan mollachd (cairn I malison), carnan cronachd (scathe, or evil, cairn).
They tramp loudly, shaking the dust of the place off their feet, and intoning' a deep voice the following and other maledictions:
The malison of God and of Hogmanay be on you,
And the scathe of the plaintive buzzard,
Of the hen-harrier, of the raven, of the eagle,
And the scathe of the sneaking fox.
The scathe of the dog and of the cat be on you,
Of the boar, of the badger, and of the brugha,
Of the hipped bear and of the wild wolf,
And the scathe of the foul foumart.

(All selections from Carmina Gadelica, ed. Alexander Carmichael)


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, December 31, 2018

The President Ends The Year





A) He can't go to Mar-A-Lago, but don't let that ruin your fun. Don't think of his misery at all.

B) The POTUS has no idea how taxes or finance (or money, for that matter) work.

C) Good fences still make good neighbors. The irony of Frost's line is lost on him, of course. And he especially forgets the first line:

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."

Indeed, the whole poem is a reflection on the impermanence of walls.  Maybe that's a worthwhile year-end meditation.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)