Stick to Your Knitting

    A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.                

                The expression “Stick to your knitting” means stay with what you’re familiar with and know how to do rather than giving your opinion or trying your hand at something outside your area of business or expertise. Its origin is unclear but it’s heard often in business school classrooms, particularly in case study analyses of how or why companies went wrong by getting involved in something beyond their level of competence or that risks insulting their stakeholders.

                The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is the name of a non-profit organization whose members are said to volunteer and raise funds for the LGBTQ+ community. They dress like Catholic nuns and describe themselves as an order of queer and trans nuns that started in 1979. Their website describes its mission as a “community service ministry and outreach to those on the edges, and to promoting human rights, respect for diversity and spiritual enlightenment”. They imitate Roman Catholic nuns in what I think most reasonable persons who know anything about Catholic nuns would consider to be a sick and twisted way. Their motto is “Go forth and sin some more.”

                The sisters were, incredibly, invited by the Los Angeles Dodgers to participate in Pride Night at Dodger Stadium on June 16 but that provoked a backlash from Dodger fans and others who disapproved of the group mocking the Catholic religion and especially the nuns who devote their lives to doing God’s work and take an oath of poverty. If you’ve watched any of their act, you may have already concluded that it is smut posing as comedy. You must have wondered, “What were the Dodgers thinking of in inviting a group that mocks a religion?” This backlash caused the Dodgers to flip-flop and dis-invite them which naturally provoked a backlash from the LGBTQ+ community, so they flip-flopped again and re-invited them, which led to a large demonstration before the event and widespread condemnation of the Dodgers from many sources. This isn’t a good way to win or retain fans or sponsors or to sell your product which is supposed to be wholesome family entertainment, albeit it overpriced and largely unaffordable for most families.

Full disclosure: I am a proud Roman Catholic, the practicing kind, and I am not amused or entertained by the twisted sisters of smut and, yes, I do have a sense of humor but not when someone mocks my or anyone else’s religion. I am also a (gasp!) Dodger fan and have been for over 80 years since growing up in Connecticut a few hours from Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, their home until moving to Los Angeles in 1958. When the team moved to LA, the Navy moved me to nearby Long Beach. My in-laws lived in Vero Beach, Florida, near Dodgertown, their spring training complex for many decades, and I’ve spent happy days there meeting many of my heroes, including Tommy Lasorda. I have lots of Dodger merchandise which may soon be dumped in the trash if Dodger management doesn’t soon apologize for insulting my religion.

I attended St. Peter’s Grammar School in New Haven, Connecticut, and was taught by the Sisters of St. Joseph, who stressed reading, writing, arithmetic and discipline. They taught me to respect my parents and those in authority and to be proud of my country and my religion. They were dedicated to teaching children and they did so for practically nothing. I learned more from these caring, gentle sisters than I did in the public high school I later attended and they prepared me for the four colleges I graduated from in the process of earning three degrees.

The Brooklyn Dodgers were once known informally as “dem bums”. The mascot of sorts was a hobo or tramp which had no minority connotation. One theory has it that the name “Dodgers” came from the reputed skill of Brooklyn residents in dodging street traffic. Another is that it refers to pickpocket Jack Dawkins, the Artful Dodger in Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist”. The club underwent a cultural transformation over the years. It broke the color barrier, fielding the late, great Jackie Robinson in 1947 and became a class organization. Up to now, that is.

Here’s my advice to the Los Angeles Dodgers, to organized baseball and, for that matter. to all business enterprises: stick to your knitting. Stick to something you’re at least sometimes good at. If you think that mocking a religion with filthy smut is good family entertainment, then that’s something you’re not very good at.  Why would you want to insult a large percentage of your fan base? Fire whoever thought that was a good idea. Stop having special nights that have nothing to do with baseball. You’re supposed to be promoting your product. That’s baseball, in case you’ve forgotten. Stay out of the culture wars. The prices you charge are obscene enough.

America needs apolitical organizations and activities like sports teams to bring people of all races, political and religious affiliations together in spite of their differences. If they engage in mocking a religion, they cease to be unifiers.

June 22, 2023

Toward a Less Perfect Union

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The Constitution reminds us that we are a union of states, not of homogenous people. Wary of monarchies and all-powerful central governments, the founders stipulated that all powers not specifically assigned to the central government remained the responsibility of the individual states. The president, as the nation’s chief executive officer, was to be responsible for enforcing the laws enacted by the legislative branch, not authorized to rule by fiat or executive order except under certain circumstances. Such a system creates the risk of separatism, or extreme loyalty to one’s state or region as opposed to the central government, when policies conflict.

Increasingly, it seems, when families and friends gather to socialize, talk now often turns to the cost of living, especially for housing and, in the process, we sometimes learn that friends or relatives are thinking about moving out of state. The reasons are still predominately financial or job-related but lately the search for similar political or cultural values seems to be playing a role in such decisions. Surveys show, not surprisingly, that Republicans who move to other states tend to move to red states and Democrats who move tend to move to blue states. Blue states like California, New York and Illinois are losing residents, presumably mostly Republicans, and thus losing Congressional representation. Red states like Florida, Texas and other sunbelt states are gaining residents, presumably mostly Republicans, and some of them are gaining representation in Congress. Thus, the red states may be becoming even more solidly conservative and the blue states more solidly liberal while still losing electoral votes because of the exodus of conservatives.

The growing list of candidates for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination so far includes six current or past governors: Ron DeSantis (Florida), Nikki Haley (South Carolina), Mike Pence (Indiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Asa Hutchinson (Arkansas) and Doug Burgum (North Dakota). Others have run before or could decide to join the current list including Glenn Youngkin (Virginia), Greg Abbott (Texas), Brian Kemp (Georgia), Kristi Noem (South Dakota), Doug Ducey (Arizona and Kim Reynolds (Iowa). As the current candidates make their respective arguments for why they are a better choice than Donald Trump, they are stressing their success and popularity and most importantly their state as a model for how the nation should be governed.

Mr. DeSantis, who was re-elected by over a million votes in Florida, has been particularly aggressive in comparing his state with California, even singling out Gavin Newsome, California’s progressive governor, for criticism, most recently over his complaining about Florida transporting illegal migrants to Sacramento and other self-declared sanctuaries. De Santis responded by comparing California’s budget deficit with Florida’s surplus. Newsome was quoted as calling DeSantis a “small, pathetic man”. Does that personal attack remind you of the current favorite to win the GOP nomination? When you refer to a potential political rival’s physical size as “small and pathetic “ while comparing your respective states that’s a pretty good sign you have run out of intelligent things to say about your state .

While a vote for a presidential candidate who is or was a successful governor may signify a desire to see his or her values and methods applied on a national level, it is not yet among the leading reasons why people move to another state. Financial factors, including the cost of living, taxes, job changes or opportunities and family reunification continue to be the main reasons but that may be changing. A 2022 Axios Poll showed that about 30% of respondents said they thought about moving in the past six months. Abortion restrictions were most likely to influence Democrats to move. For Republicans it was taxes.

If political and cultural values continue to play a growing role in influencing decisions to move to another state, red states will get redder and blue states bluer but the former will likely gain representation in Congress while the later will lose seats and electoral votes. If this happens, our political polarization will increase and campaigning may tend to be restricted even more to a handful of swing states. If survey results are an accurate indicator, 71% of Republicans would consider moving to red or swing states while only 52% of Democrats would consider moving to blue or swing states.

Are we approaching the end of the two-party system? If our election choices continue to be limited to the extremes from each of the two major parties, voters will soon grow weary of choosing the lesser of two evils. Political polarization and the inability or refusal to compromise and negotiate is a threat to our democracy by encouraging the executive branch to increasingly rule by executive order, usurping the role of the legislative branch.

Where are the moderate leaders and unifiers who will speak for those of us who are closer to the moderate center?

June 18, 2023

Toward a Less Perfect Union

            A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The Constitution reminds us that we are a union of states, not of homogenous people. Wary of monarchies and all-powerful central governments, the founders stipulated that all powers not specifically assigned to the central government remained the responsibility of the individual states. The president, as the nation’s chief executive officer, was to be responsible for enforcing the laws enacted by the legislative branch, not authorized to rule by fiat or executive order except under certain circumstances. Such a system creates the risk of separatism, or extreme loyalty to one’s state or region as opposed to the central government, when policies conflict.

Increasingly, it seems, when families and friends gather to socialize, talk now often turns to the cost of living, especially for housing and, in the process, we sometimes learn that friends or relatives are thinking about moving out of state. The reasons are still predominately financial or job-related but lately the search for similar political or cultural values seems to be playing a role in such decisions. Surveys show, not surprisingly, that Republicans who move to other states tend to move to red states and Democrats who move tend to move to blue states. Blue states like California, New York and Illinois are losing residents, presumably mostly Republicans, and thus losing Congressional representation. Red states like Florida, Texas and other sunbelt states are gaining residents, presumably mostly Republicans, and some of them are gaining representation in Congress. Thus, the red states may be becoming even more solidly conservative and the blue states more solidly liberal while still losing electoral votes because of the exodus of conservatives.

The growing list of candidates for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination so far includes six current or past governors: Ron DeSantis (Florida), Nikki Haley (South Carolina), Mike Pence (Indiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Asa Hutchinson (Arkansas) and Doug Burgum (North Dakota). Others have run before or could decide to join the current list including Glenn Youngkin (Virginia), Greg Abbott (Texas), Brian Kemp (Georgia), Kristi Noem (South Dakota), Doug Ducey (Arizona and Kim Reynolds (Iowa). As the current candidates make their respective arguments for why they are a better choice than Donald Trump, they are stressing their success and popularity and most importantly their state as a model for how the nation should be governed.

Mr. DeSantis, who was re-elected by over a million votes in Florida, has been particularly aggressive in comparing his state with California, even singling out Gavin Newsome, California’s progressive governor, for criticism, most recently over his complaining about Florida transporting illegal migrants to Sacramento and other self-declared sanctuaries. De Santis responded by comparing California’s budget deficit with Florida’s surplus. Newsome was quoted as calling DeSantis a “small, pathetic man”. Does that personal attack remind you of the current favorite to win the GOP nomination? When you refer to a potential political rival’s physical size as “small and pathetic “ while comparing your respective states that’s a pretty good sign you have run out of intelligent things to say about your state .

While a vote for a presidential candidate who is or was a successful governor may signify a desire to see his or her values and methods applied on a national level, it is not yet among the leading reasons why people move to another state. Financial factors, including the cost of living, taxes, job changes or opportunities and family reunification continue to be the main reasons but that may be changing. A 2022 Axios Poll showed that about 30% of respondents said they thought about moving in the past six months. Abortion restrictions were most likely to influence Democrats to move. For Republicans it was taxes.

If political and cultural values continue to play a growing role in influencing decisions to move to another state, red states will get redder and blue states bluer but the former will likely gain representation in Congress while the later will lose seats and electoral votes. If this happens, our political polarization will increase and campaigning may tend to be restricted even more to a handful of swing states. If survey results are an accurate indicator, 71% of Republicans would consider moving to red or swing states while only 52% of Democrats would consider moving to blue or swing states.

Are we approaching the end of the two-party system? If our election choices continue to be limited to the extremes from each of the two major parties, voters will soon grow weary of choosing the lesser of two evils. Political polarization and the inability or refusal to compromise and negotiate is a threat to our democracy by encouraging the executive branch to increasingly rule by executive order, usurping the role of the legislative branch.

Where are the moderate leaders and unifiers who will speak for those of us who are closer to the moderate center?

June 18, 2023

The Future of Russia

                A commentary

                By J.F. Kelly, Jr.

As the world now knows, Vladimir Putin’s badly miscalculated and poorly executed invasion of Ukraine was an attempt to return Ukraine to Moscow’s orbit of control and thus restore some of the power and influence it enjoyed as part of the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics (USSR). Russia and Ukraine were prime members of that Union and shared much in common. Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe and, along with Russia, provided much of the world’s grain exports.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s fortunes and prestige waned as did its ability to influence world affairs. Mr. Putin seeks to reverse that trend and to restore Russian influence in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. It has formed new alliances with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Middle East nations and has claimed territory In Georgia and Ukraine containing large numbers of Russian speakers and sympathizers living in areas adjacent to its western borders such as the Donbas region and Crimea where the Soviet fleet Black Sea Fleet is homeported. Crimea, formerly part of Russia, was ceded by Russia to Ukraine in 1954.

Putin obviously believed that his invading troops would be welcomed as brothers. He was misadvised. Instead, his attempt to quickly occupy the capitol city, Kyiv, was soundly defeated and his poorly led troops proved incompetent. Russia and Ukraine are now engaged in a brutal war of attrition with no end in sight. Many Ukrainian cities lie in ruins and the military and civilian toll on each side is almost beyond calculation. Russian troops and mercenaries have been accused of heinous war crimes in targeting civilians.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his brave countrymen have won the admiration and support of the free world in fighting to drive the Russian invaders from Ukrainian soil. Western leaders, notably President Joe Biden, have pledged to continue to provide financial and weapons support “for the long haul”. But with no end yet in sight and with restrictions on the use of certain Western-supplied weapons for fear of escalation of the conflict, it’s time to get more specific about how long that long haul may be. Here’s a clue. One veteran of the fighting in Mariupol was quoted by the Wall Street Journal’s Walter Russell Mead as saying, “My grandfather fought the Russians and I think that my children and grandchildren may have to fight them, too”. Here’s another clue. I predict that by the time those grandchildren are old enough to fight them. the western nations will long since have grown weary of supporting this war of attrition.  American support for wars of attrition have a limited shelf life, especially if, at the same time, we are trying to deter or win a major war in the Indo-Pacific.   

This is not about “the right thing to do”. It’s about what we will be able to do. What we are clearly unable to do Is to rebuild our atrophied defense industry infrastructure in time to provide enough of the weapons and platforms of war to deter or win such a conflict.

Sooner or later, all wars end at the negotiation table. Some end poorly as in Vietnam or Afghanistan but the carnage usually ends, at least for a while. Wouldn’t it be great if we could just advance to the negotiation stage now and avoid some carnage? Both sides will have to concede something. There will be no winner. Russia will need, as a minimum, access to its Black Sea Fleet homeport in Crimea which was part of Russia before they ceded it to Ukraine. They want it back. Russia must leave all other occupied regions in Ukraine. Ukraine will not apply for NATO membership unless it is attacked again.

Will the Russian Federation still be a part of Europe after the war ends? How can it not be? It is the largest country by area in both Europe and Asia and the largest in both size and population in Europe. It is one of the largest energy producers in the world and has abundant mineral wealth. It has a rich cultural heritage. It has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It must contribute to the rebuilding of the damage it has caused in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Europe needs to learn how to take care of its own territorial disputes. Perhaps the United Nations could help. Wasn’t it created to help resolve such disputes? Isn’t it obvious that we are going to have our hands full just keeping China from owning the Indo-Pacific?

June 11, 2023

The Durham Report

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The long-awaited 300+ page Durham Report presented the results of a probe by special counsel John Durham into the FBI’s investigation of the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign in conjunction with the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. Recall that one of the reasons for the Mueller probe was to determine if Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with Russian agents to influence the election in his favor. Mueller determined that while Russia did, in fact, interfere, it did not influence its outcome and there was no collusion on the part of Mr. Trump or his campaign.

                On the other hand, the Durham Report found that disinformation was provided by the Hillary Clinton campaign in an attempt to pin compromising sexual behavior on Mr. Trump while he was in Russia to influence the election in her favor. Although a hoax, the mainstream media fell for it and so did many Americans who believe everything they read or hear in the mainstream media. Mrs. Clinton was favored to win until then-FBI Director James Comey decided on the eve of the election to re-open her case involving mishandling of classified material and using a private server to conduct official State Department business. This was almost certainly the cause of Trump’s upset victory.

                Special Counsel investigations are expensive, time-consuming and usually disappointing to those who demand them. Democrats hoped that the Mueller and Durham investigation would find evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Republicans hoped they would find bias on the part of the FBI, launching an investigation without credible evidence that a crime had been committed. The Durham investigation did all that and more but nothing is likely to change until administrations do. The mainstream media mainly yawned and noted that Durham lost the only two cases he brought to trial.

                But the Durham Report deserves more respect because it clearly shows for historians that the Trump-Russia collusion yarn was a hoax concocted by the Hillary Clinton Campaign and that it was her campaign, not Trump’s, that colluded with the Russians. The Trump-Russia collusion lie was repeated enough by the likes of Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and their fans in the media until many otherwise sensible Americans came to believe it. The lies on the part of many in the FBI, also largely ignored by the mainstream press, severely damaged the reputation of both.

                The Trump-Russia collusion hoax became a huge millstone around the neck of the Trump Administration. Anti-Trumpers in the Democrat Party opposed nearly every Trump initiative simply because it was a Trump initiative. Progressives never accepted the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. It was, in their way of thinking, just never supposed to have happened and so they were preoccupied with impeaching him based, as it turns out, on disinformation. The modus operandi of the Biden Administration has been to reverse nearly everything Trump did manage to accomplish leading to, inter alia, a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and chaos on our southern border.

                We have gone from the world’s leading producer and exporter of oil and natural gas to just another producer because of an irrational war on fossil fuel and insane rush to renewable energy before we can make it economically feasible or reliable. We are largely financing a war in Europe against a nuclear power with no foreseeable end in sight while remaining totally unprepared to deter a potential conflict with a powerful and belligerent China determined to displace us as the world’s largest economy and strongest superpower. We have lost confidence in several of our formerly-cherished institutions and are bitterly divided as a people.

                I am not a fan of Donald Trump but isn’t it obvious that the attacks against him based on disinformation and outright lies have only increased the chances of returning to power the man that Democrats love to hate. What supreme irony.

                Meanwhile, the mainstream media snoozes along with the president while the vice-president urgently tries to look more presidential.

May31, 2023