The intent of this blog is to promote human equality, human progress, human peace and justice, and optimism. To accomplish this, to encourage the discussion of ideas after identifying and discovering problems, and then creating positive solutions for "we the people," in order to provide for the "general welfare" and "domestic tranquility" of America now and its "posterity" into the future. To encourage an emphasis on separation of religion and state for all, no matter if this is for those "of faith" in a Maker / Creator (Deists, God-loving people, Christians, various people of spirituality) and atheists or agnostics.

Archive for the ‘Book Reviews’ Category

Comment about book review of THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVITUDE: Donald Trump’s Washington and the Price of Submission, by Mark Leibovich

Dear Editors:

Kevin McCarthy and other followers of tRUMP exemplify one thing which is dangerous for America and its democracy.  They follow the model of Machiavelli. The idea is that do anything necessary in order to make “the ends justify the means.”  Does not matter whether its a matter of trouncing on ethics, morals, lies, hypocrisy, or corruption. Do it because the “ends justifies the means.” 

Then there are those who simply follow along in submission because they are gay and prefer to remain in the closet while being blackmailed into submission.

What a shame that we have these things happening today with the prospect of stupidity to support such people and destroy this nation and its democracy.  After all, “we the people” don’t count in such a parade of hypocrisy with dictators who promote the model of Machiavelli. In other words, Machiavellian types leading the mesmerized lemmings over the cliff. 

Douglas W. Cornwell

Books Reviewed: Slave Empire: How Slavery Built Modern Britain (Seamlan) & Empireland: How Imperialism Has Shaped Modern Britain (Sanghera) (7 Apr. 2022)

Dear Editors:

These books have a tone that commerce improved for Britain, due to slavery. This might be true. However, is this the only consideration for the advancement of commerce in Britain?

It would be interesting to compare the profits made by slavery to the reparations paid to slave owners when slavery ended and no reparations to the descendants of those who were most hurt by slavery.

It would be interesting to consider the commerce, over time, which resulted from Britain accepting Jewish people into its nation, when other nations of Europe, such as Spain, were rejecting the Jews. In light of this, one has to wonder about the end of slavery in Mexico, after Britain ended the slave trade, which led Texas to seek independence from Mexico, started the Mexican-American War, and eventually joining with the USA, due to the continuing slavery in the Southern area of the USA. Perhaps loss of life due to war is of no importance to the authors of these books? Not only in the Mexican-American War, but also in the American Civil War, Jim Crow lynchings, and other acts to lose life.  Anti-abortionists like to put forth a TV commercial about the loss of life of those aborted from the womb, but what about the loss of good lives of people who could have helped with American commerce and ingenuity, due to these wars and racial bigotry which one would want to spit on.

It would be interesting to consider the commerce, over time, due to Britain, for accepting Huguenots and others who were terrorized in Europe by the Roman Catholic Church. 

It would be interesting to compare the use of indentured servants to expand commerce in the USA by way of infrastructure improvements.  This would include the immigrants given a free ride to New York and, as indentured servants, helped open waterways with the Erie Canal which resulted in one of the biggest commercial centers in the world:  New York City.  Or with Carnegie and the building of the rail system across this nation in which Chinese and other Asians were used to build the infrastructure for the rail system.  They were not black, so were given freedom after a length of time (typically seven years).  This is mentioned due to the fact that it was soon after the British colonists in America succeeded in throwing off the British.  Yet, in 1807, Britain ended the slave trade. 

It would be interesting to consider the cost of human injustice, due to the enslavement of a group of people.  Such injustice would rip away at the commerce Britain had in Barbados and other locations for which Britain had happiness of commerce, while people suffered. 

America and other Western nations have shed the ideas of the “norm” that money comes before human justice. In actuality, these “norms” are held in esteem and pushes Americans down from being able to challenge these “norms.” In the end, slavery and commerce by means of money coming before human beings is a form of corruption, but people are too afraid to put it this way, are they not?

Simply said, these books enlighten us on how much money was made, due to slavery.  The books ignore the fact that such actions are just as corrupt as allowing the war on drugs to continue unceasingly, in order to protect the wealthy corrupt bastards of the drug lords or drug “czars,” whether in the USA, Afghanistan, Russia, or elsewhere.  Americans are too accepting of the “norms” of corruption which I address. 

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is true whether it is white folks with power over Africans, in putting them on slave boats destined for other locations. It is communists in China and other ares of the world who forcefully re-locate citizens to other locations, for the sake of a love of money and commerce, over human beings and human justice.  It is the same thing as the genocide perpetrated by Hitler, Putin, Stalin, and others.  Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Destroy democracy and these folks achieve corrupt power absolutely. It needs to stop, ending this fascination of comparing commerce due to enslavement. 

Book Review by Paul Krugman RE: Fight over How Extensive Free Markets Should Be

Paul Krugman was right on the mark with his book review of Nicholas Wapshott’s Samuelson Friedman: The Battle Over the Free Market (3 Aug. 2021).

As a historian, not an economist, I take a look at this free market idea through the lens of a historian. Paul Krugman, the economist and his ideas from the perspective of an economist agree with what I have been writing for so long.

As expected, Krugman delves into the ideas for free markets which were pushed by Friedman and opposed by Samuelson. He also identifies Reagan and Greenspan as perpetrators. I so agree with that. I would also ad the queen of “virtues of selfishness,” Ayn Rand, as well. The net result of what Reagan and his goons did in the 1980s has been monopolized business by big corporate giants who resemble Goliath in the Bible and work to destroy capitalist competition, on the notion that this is a prime example of “free markets.” In fact, destruction of competition is annoying as it destroys the ideas of regulated capitalism which is designed to help both supply AND demand. Reagan’s notions of “deregulation” have resulted, besides promoting a “trickle-down” philosophy, is “reregulation” done by the corrupt practices of privatized huge corporate conglomerates. We might think we the people have no voice, but with privatization by the supply-side big fat cats.  Business in the hands of the big fat cat supply-siders, similar to plantation-style, manorial, and feudal economics of the Medieval period is more atrocious because it can more easily shut down the voice of the people than can be done with government (especially when there is more predominance of the existence of government controlled by the big fat cats, as a result of a dim-witted U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision with a propaganda-style title of “Citizens United” and its hidden agenda).

Case in point. Privatized forms of government called homeowners’ associations which are given more teeth to do injustice to people by the Republican one-party state in Florida. The HOAs of Florida have come to be known as the “condo commandos.” However, the HOAs have spread more widely than just condos, as yours truly had to pay a HOA fee when he owned a single-family home, not a condo. The HOA played the role of the local nearby government where I also owned a home. They would inspect lawns, as the local government did, and cite us if it was not cut correctly. Both village and HOA did the same thing (there was no HOA in the village). Big, big difference. The annual HOA fees were far higher than those of the village and we had no recourse to go to a village board meeting and express disdain over the regulatory practice of inspecting lawns. Compared to a local village in upstate New York, the HOA fees were three times higher than this village and its taxes.  The village shed itself of a police unit, so it became more like a HOA, but at much less the cost of a HOA. Yet, people here complain about the tax of this village. Be careful for what you wish for.
My point being that privatized supply-side businesses are vicious, malicious, and bullying. They are the ruination of local business and local control. Case in point also about the privatized hospitals created by a man who sits in the U.S. Senate: Rick Scott. With an overall consideration, even hospitals still run by religious organizations are far better at dealing with the demand-side – the patients (consumers) – than privatized hospitals and nursing homes. I have plenty more personal experience examples I can share. Certainly, there are plenty of facts and statistics to validate my experiences.
The historical examples are about the “norms” established by the aristocratic wealth and royalty when Adam Smith drew up his ideas of capitalism which were meant to challenge the supply-side economics of feudal economies run by aristocrats. I am able to prove that the aristocrats were one step ahead of Adam Smith. They embraced the “new” idea of capitalism in the late 1700s and early 1800s, as if it was their own baby for which they gave birth. When Marx went to England to generate interest in the common folks of the demand side of the market, he blamed capitalism because the supply-side aristocrats were the ones coining the phrase of capitalism for themselves. America had plantations in the South and the North thought it was better with its “industrial revolution” consisting of crap like sweatshops and so forth. Those sweatshops may have paid workers earnings, it was dismally small and not a living wage, while the big fat cats became just as wealthy as the plantation owners of Dixie. They were better in not putting African slaves in chains, but were they really any better, just because they did NOT enslave people, as they used immigrants in the sweatshops?

In the 20th Century, Gov. Teddy Roosevelt of New York State began to intercede for workers. From child labor laws to many other laws, Gov. T. Roosevelt, worked with people. Gov. T. Roosevelt also became known as the “trust buster” as he busted the organized syndicates with Boss Tweed and other sources which, with their corrupt practices, controlled the supply-side economics as well as government.  America became great due to the trust buster, unions, pooled finances in retirement systems which were really designed to be capitalist returns on investments. Same thing with the “health savings account” we call Medicare, where there was an intent to have a return on investment.  The original intent for these resources was not to have lousy corrupt representatives propagandize false ideas that such resources were “taxes” and then steal such money for other purposes. They stole from such funds for projects “back home,” in order to keep their constituents happy and then get re-elected in the process. Using propaganda, such corrupt politicians and lawyers destroyed the ideas of long-term capitalist investments into short-term, “I want it now” instant gratification ideas. With the older ones dying off and the younger ones not worried about long-term investments, those corrupt people in a representative democracy convinced people to do the things most beneficial to the wealthy fat cats at the top. Shall I go into actual examples of what I am talking about?
Krugman expressed his ideas in terms of economics and academia. His explanation is very good. But someone needs to address this to those who do not follow the details of economics.  Meanwhile stupid people like Mark Levin and others from Fox, rely on not presenting facts, but only emotions. The best seller lists contain books by such people which are false. And yes, I challenge Mr. Levin as a dumb jerk with his emotionalism being the sole means of capturing the hearts and minds of people. I don’t challenge Mr. Krugman, but wish someone could put what he says in the words more conducive to the “lay person.” It would really help cut down on the chaos and contention of pitting American against American. Let us shed the damn emotionalism and traditionalism which pervades the land and get back to rationality and common sense.

Professor Douglas Willet Cornwell (Retired)

Newark Valley, NY

———————————“Love your neighbor as yourself.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “The problems of the world are not that some people love in a different way. The problems are that so many people don’t know how to love at all (CGA, 1970).” A Puritan is someone in fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time. “Liberty and justice for all [not priorities on individual and selfish rights].” “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union [and overall wealth of American society]…” 
Benjamin Franklin: “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are affected.” Stacey Abrams: “Compromise about actions, but not about values.”  Oscar Wilde: “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.”  Oscar Wilde: “Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.” Benjamin Franklin: “Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.”  Whoopi Goldberg: “To handle this COVID-19 pandemic effectively, we all need to get on the same page.”  Note: To be clear, I do not like being patronized. I do not express my disdain over what happens to my fellow humans just for my own sake and to pursue favors and handouts. I do it in order to gain R – E – S – P – E – C – T for me and for millions of other Americans of any race, ethnicity, religious belief, or sex and sexual identity who try to walk in integrity as they attempt to achieve, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  PERIOD.  One nation under God [our Creator] with liberty and justice for all.

BOOK REVIEW: Bright-sided by Barbara Ehrenreich (v. 2.0)

As a benchmark to what I am about to write, I am offering the review of Barbara Ehrenreich’s 2009 book, Bright-sided, as a starting point. I have not read this book, so I am going by the review. I should read it, but lack of funds and a library system which makes it hard to get a copy of a book precludes me from obtaining a copy, sad to say. This also is commentary to contest another Ehrenreich book (2010), Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World. If you take the time to read my commentary, you will find that I contest Ehrenreich’s use of a predominance of a perverted version of positive thinking which borders on perverted optimism and in denial of the truth about positive thinking. Her words help to destroy what positive thinking is intended to be. Read on.

Also, I have been attempting to contact to learn how to do several things. One is to indent a quote like this. I have spent minutes and minutes on attempting to do this on this blog and have still not been able to learn it. Thanks so much to for helping out. Thanks so much for other blog services for (not) answering my questions about how I can convert my blog to another blog service. Thanks (not) so much to the monopolized business of America, run by billionaires who don’t pay taxes, while I do pay taxes.

Here is the review of Bright-sided on

A sharp-witted knockdown of America’s love affair with positive thinking and an urgent call for a new commitment to realism

Americans are a “positive” people―cheerful, optimistic, and upbeat: this is our reputation as well as our self-image. But more than a temperament, being positive, we are told, is the key to success and prosperity.
In this utterly original take on the American frame of mind, Barbara Ehrenreich traces the strange career of our sunny outlook from its origins as a marginal nineteenth-century healing technique to its enshrinement as a dominant, almost mandatory, cultural attitude. Evangelical mega-churches preach the good news that you only have to want something to get it, because God wants to “prosper” you. The medical profession prescribes positive thinking for its presumed health benefits. Academia has made room for new departments of “positive psychology” and the “science of happiness.” Nowhere, though, has bright-siding taken firmer root than within the business community, where, as Ehrenreich shows, the refusal even to consider negative outcomes―like mortgage defaults―contributed directly to the current economic crisis.

With the mythbusting powers for which she is acclaimed, Ehrenreich exposes the downside of America’s penchant for positive thinking: On a personal level, it leads to self-blame and a morbid preoccupation with stamping out “negative” thoughts. On a national level, it’s brought us an era of irrational optimism resulting in disaster. This is Ehrenreich at her provocative best―poking holes in conventional wisdom and faux science, and ending with a call for existential clarity and courage.”

From my perspective, after reading and spending a great deal of my life learning about Rev. Dr. Norman Vincent Peale’s books about positive thinking, Ehrenreich describes a perversion of positive thinking which is just as perverted as the view about what capitalism is supposed to be about, as defined by Adam Smith (who also wrote, The Theory of Moral Sentiment). Whether education, psychology or business, people have grabbed at the ideas of positive thinking and used them to maintain their status quo about life. Typically, if I hear someone comment about positive thinking, I usually say, “you are talking about wishful thinking, not positive thinking. Go read Dr. Peale’s books.” In other words, people are writing about positive thinking (and capitalism, too) from their own individualistic eyes in order to massage their egos. Mary Trump, niece to Donald Trump does the same thing and from her perspective in psychology. She and the others are wrong in this sense and I believe I have a better knowledge of what positive thinking is about because I have read about the basics of those thoughts.

The reviewer mentions what I consider to be a misinterpretation of positive thinking. The review says, “…it leads to … a morbid preoccupation with stamping out ‘negative’ thoughts.” In fact, I have been criticized for trying to solve problems with a positive attitude by bringing up the problems and sounding negative by doing so. I am awe-struck at the predominance for “stamping out negative thoughts.” For Donald Trump himself, a number of times, I have tried to be positive about what he intends to do, but when I come up empty-handed and disappointed about his actions, I comment about this. For Trump, this criticism means a negative thought, not constructive criticism. Trump has acted like this over and over again, in line with this predominant attitude about putting down “negative thoughts,” wrongly associated with positive thinking. I do believe that both Dr. Peale and Dr. Schuler (Crystal Cathedral in California) have talked about constructive criticism, even if they have not used that particular phrase. People’s minds are messed up in this regard. I say this by way of constructive criticism, not negativity, but no one seems to understand what I say in this regard. Instead, we have “irrational optimism.” To me, it sounds like pessimism based on self-hatred.

My comment about the reviewer’s statement about Ehrenreich’s book regarding positive thinking: “…it leads to self-blame…”

Please read books: A Stranger to Self-hatred: A Glimpse of Jesus (Brennan Manning, 1982). Diana Butler Bass’s books, Christianity for the Rest of Us (2007), Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening (2012), and A People’s History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story (2010). Theologian, Adam Smith’s, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (published in the 18th Century, reprinted, 2018). Father Matthew Fox’s Original Blessings (2000); I condemn the American bishops for their recent proclaimed judgments which are blasphemy when considering God does the judging, and what these bishops are dictating – DICTATING – are that all Catholics believe in only one way (as a woman I once dated forced upon others in thought); the Roman Catholics who pushed this dictatorial way which led to the the excommunication of Father Fox, the English civil war of the 17th Century, and my ancestors who came to America to escape that BS in England. Read books by Roman Catholic layperson, Gary (or Garry) Wills, What Jesus Meant (a 2007 New York Times best seller) or What Paul Meant (2007), etc. who offers a very insightful view of Christianity.

Read a recent article in The Economist about the pervasive individualism in America today (“How Many American Children Have Cut Contact with Parents?”, 22 May 2021) which, with evidence, the writer claims the problems in America are due to the individualism which inundates and pervades society, not positive thinking.

Individualism has perverted the ideas of positive thinking so as to consider “…it leads to self-blame” and destruction of confidence with self-control and self-sacrifice for community and nation. Original sin leads to guilt of one’s existence and destroys ideas of confidence for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Instead, we end up, to the delight of Trumpicans, evangelical puritans, and Roman Catholic bishops, to a dictatorship with a vicious person at the head who can more easily control the people, rather than educate them and provide opportunities for all. The overriding impact of considering sin and guilt to be so important leads to self-blame and self-hatred, not positive thinking.

While I agree with the reviewers identification of positive thinking as the problem, my view is that Ehrenreich and others are viewing a “perverted” interpretation of positive thinking as being the blame, and they are correct, but only in that sense. I have to disagree with this assessment because, as Karl Marx did in blaming capitalism, it takes a toll and leads to an implosion which puts us on a downward slope.

This leads us to the downward slope the ancient Chinese experienced centuries ago. It had a society with opportunities for all by way of small business and academics, but a mean and vicious mentally ill emperor created ended up creating a very two-class society consisting of the wealthy and the impoverished. Fareed Zakaria gave us red flags because this possible implosion can push America into a similar implosion to what happened with a vicious emperor in Ancient China which lasted for centuries, until Mao Tse-Tung. The best example of capitalist democracy is on an island called Taiwan, but Mao Tse-tung lovers want to take that and turn it into rotten centralized planned economy with a dictator to suppress the masses. Read about the Ancient Chinese in Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Post-American World (2nd ed., 2012). His book sounds like a “negative” title, so it should be trashed, right? So why did yours truly, with a belief in positive thinking, read it? The book reviewer sums it up this way: “This is not a book about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else.” In other words, the book becomes a teachable moment, not a negative one. When Zakaria first wrote this book he included solutions as to how to overcome “what everyone else” is doing. It was ignored as being “negative.” As a result, American life has headed even more on a slippery downhill slope.

Shall I lay judgment on the Roman Catholic bishops? They have condemned the very people who are attempting to move America off that slippery downhill slope defined by Zakaria. When President Biden attempts to head us back up the slope, there is too damn much opposition to him, rather than lending him support to lead and do it. All based on a warped view of what are “negative” thoughts and ignores the truth about what it truly represents.

“Science of happiness?” Are you kidding me? There is no such thing as the “science of happiness.” It is the “art of happiness.” Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But for people to use individualism to project their happiness in a dictatorial way on all Americans is sickening and makes me nauseous and wishing to vomit. It makes the Roman Catholic bishops to force their happiness (power and control) on everyone else and I am sickened by that, too. I believe in Christ as the ONLY representative of God on earth and refuse to listen to a bunch of strong-arming heathens with power and control, heading up the American bishops. But I am not God and I cannot judge these bishops, Trumpicans, or evangelical s**t of puritans who become disgusted because someone, somewhere, is having a good time. Jesus Christ, a “stranger to self-hatred.” Yet, Roman Catholic bishops wish to FORCE self-hatred on members of its flock.

Do I make any sense or am I being negative?

Jeff Vander Meer Interview, New York Times Book Review (Sun., Apr. 18, 2021)

​Dear Editor:
Jeff Vander Meer said, “It’s more important that books be laboratories and experiments and it’s up to readers to be moral.” 

What a nice expression for which so many of us could agree.  Those of us who would support such a statement are most likely to also be moral, too.
It brings to question as to what is moral?  What is morality?  What are moral values?  At this point, this expression is taken from simplicity to a more complex one.  A man named Timothy McVeigh got his plan for a homemade bomb from a book titled, The Turner Chronicles.  This man was executed for the Oklahoma City bombing.  Was he moral when he grabbed at the contents of a book with an intent to murder which ultimately turned into genocide?  As a librarian, this has been a question I have struggled with for some time now.  I am against censorship.  I am against the book burning perpetrated by Hitler in Germany.  I am against the Southern bastards who had burnings of Beatles recordings in the good old Dixie crap.  I am against someone of another religion who asks that I burn my infant baptismal certificate.  Should I have stood firm about my position with regard to the immoral reader named Timothy McVeigh and The Turner Chronicles?  I believe this takes the Vander Meer quote a step further than just a simplistic consideration.  What is the answer?
Stacy Abrams of Georgia recently said that we should stand firm on our values, but compromise on the actions we take to support those values.  These words, values and morality, are too generic, especially in light of a society in which too many are in control who obtain their values from Parker Brothers Monopoly games, the words of an unintelligent atheistic Russian Jew named Ayn Rand with her “virtue of selfishness” (clarify:  I have known many American Jews who are wonderful people and who do NOT follow the principles of Ayn Rand), and from the false ideas of being “free” generated by a pediatrics doctor for the Baby Boom generation named Dr. Benjamin Spock.  Libertarians and other “free thinkers” today believe in “free markets” and go along with supply side economics as if it would be endorsed by Adam Smith, the one who defined capitalism.  Their “values” are that such “free markets” would be better. 

Not only do individualistic selfish snots help boost Rand’s ideas of “virtue of selfishness,” but in actuality, they go AGAINST the moral values of Adam Smith.  Adam Smith’s writings were Wealth of Nations, not “wealth of individualism.”  Another writing by Adam Smith was the Theories of Moral Sentiment.  Adam Smith, a contemporary of the American Founding Fathers (located in Scotland), was also a theologian who based his values on the moral sentiment of Jesus Christ.  Christ who was degraded as being one to seek to be a “king over Israel,” based on the example of King David and Joseph who became a leader in the land of pharaohs in Egypt.  Christ was dealing with a miserable autocratic government in line with the example of a Trump regime and its autocratic ways based on evil values with a love of money, hatred of neighbors, and pitting one American against another. 

May I remind people that Smith’s definitions of capitalism, falsely blamed by lousy and evil Karl Marx, is really supply AND demand.  Supply-side economics is a reprisal of Medieval crappy economics of an autocratic aristocratic lousy society.  Marx missed the point and has plunged the world into real stupidity about values. 

Thus, I have a problem with “it’s up to readers to be moral.”  We live in the days when there are generations which did not experience real difficulty in life, called world war, economic depression, world war once again, and then “cold war.”  Baby Boomers embracing Monopoly, Ayn Rand with “virtue” of selfishness, stupidity of notions from Dr. Spock in training young people, and supply-side economics.  Where are the values of “the reader?” 

My World War II-generation mother often spoke to me about how bad the teaching of young people was, due to Dr. Spock.  I would say, “I don’t get it, Mom.”  She said, “someday you will.”  To Mom in heaven, “I get it now” as the Dr. Spock generation is causing hell on earth and I would rather fix things to relieve this earth of a “hell on earth” and not face the only possibility of going to Heaven RIGHT NOW.  Morality is not of one mind today, as much as it was more likely with the generations which faced a great deal of hardship and had an appreciation in overcoming those hardships with the America in which I was born. 

A writer in the old pre-Gannett newspaper, The Palm Beach Post, once challenged Tom Brokaw and his thoughts that the World War II generation was the “greatest” generation.  This writer, who was part of the World War II generation, proclaimed that it was his PARENTS’ generation, or the World War I generation, which was the “greatest.”    His EVIDENCE was the historical facts that the World War I generation lived their adult lives, from out of high school until they died, with World War I, Prohibition, the Great Depression, World War II, and sometimes into the years of the “cold war.”  He proclaimed that much of the World War II generation were kids during the Great Depression and a large part of World War II, and then served in World War II.  This writer addressed the ideas about morality. 

When Stacy Abrams mentioned compromise on actions, not values, it also brings to mind a speech by Roman Catholic Bobby Kennedy, Jr., when he discussed how legislating morality about abortion does not work as well as regulating abortion.  He used examples of how regulating abortion, contrary to the likes of asses like Rick Santorum  (who is purposrtedly not even liked by his relatives in Italy) or Rick Scott or DUH-Satan (DeSantis) of Florida, in addition to asses like Abbott of Texas and Kemp of Georgia, Johnson of Wisconsin, Gaetz of Flordia, as well as Trump and the Trumpicans.  This later group of folks might proclaim they have “moral values,” but their UNCOMPROMISING actions are to make things illegal and destroy what they find go against their values. 

At the end of the day, Vander Meer’s ideas about the moral reader ignores the ideas about democracy and compromise on ACTIONS while maintaining values.  An autocratic government like that envisioned by Trump and his followers,destructive forces against democracy, negates the domestic peace of America by ignoring the justice necessary for WE THE PEOPLE of all kinds.  Peace with an autocratic leader might be peace, but it lacks justice for so many people. 

Having an ass of a Supreme Court justice, appointed by Trump, Amy Coney Barrett, does not help to improve peace and justice, but destroys justice for many.  Barrett is purportedly affiliated with LGBTQ hate groups, in addition to the hate groups which wish to legislate morality regarding abortions while falsely validating those who use guns to kill people in abortion clinics.  Might as well say she is affiliated with the “Hitler Youth.” 

Barrett’s morality might be good.  Her justification of actions which are absurd and irrational, is unacceptable.  Even with her actions, I refuse to compromise my MORAL VALUES regarding murder and hatred of folks who were BORN gay, made by our CREATOR.  She says it is not right to murder babes in the womb, but it is okay to hate those who are born gay and outside the womb.  People who might be males but have XXY chromosomes or males who are not bathed enough in testosterone while in the womb or born with two genitalia or ….  I can go on and on about how our Creator gave us life, besides the fact that we are ALL created as females, but our genes help us develop in the womb to be what we become.  Amy “Conan the Barbarian” Coney Barrett proves she is affiliated with the same Satan which Jesus Christ faced in his 40 days of life on earth, following his baptism. I don’t want someone imparting justice to America who is like this bitch, the “Barbarian.” 

As Jesus Christ said, while hanging from a cross, “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” 

Go ahead, New York Times, don’t publish what I write here, which is similar feelings to many Americans (perhaps MOST Americans, according to the polls).  Saying morality is up to the reader is a bunch of crap from bleeding heart liberals who ignore what is really happening in America today. 

REVIEW: Hooked, by Michael Moss, on Morning Joe (26 March 2021)

Interesting discussion on Morning Joe, 26 March 2021, regarding the impact of the food giants in creating the scenario of craving food and ultimately drugs, for the purpose of selling foods. The author interviewed was Michael Moss who wrote the book, Hooked.

The increased numbers of obese people and diabetics is the result of this. Without locating the exact sources, the evidence has been out there and pronounced in documentaries and other sources in the health field. Type II diabetes may be of genetic inheritance, but there are many who, with the genetics, have fallen to diabetes at an earlier age than the generation before this one, from which the genes were inherited. Fast foods were not part of the earlier generations. High fructose corn syrup, developed for the purpose of selling more Iowa corn by creating cravings for sugar, was not part of that earlier generation.

Add to this “food giant” quest from the perspective of love for money, hatred towards human beings and prioritizing money over humans, and we have what Moss described this morning on Morning Joe. Moss is not the only one who has written about this phenomenon.

Since when does hate override love in America to such a point that stupid jackasses like the Republican Congressperson from Nebraska and others, defend the 2nd Amendment by playing lip service to it with a hidden agenda of hatred of one another, especially the hatred of some white folks of those with colored skins. These people need to be locked up, along with those of the big food giants because they all, with love of money, create a hell on earth with divisiveness and pitting American against American. Then they use evangelical fundie religious s***s of people to place the fear of this earth and pushing everyone to go to a heaven, in order to get away from the hell they create on earth. They are lousy evil people. Jesus Christ made it known his distaste for the love of money. Paul repeated it in a letter to Timothy. These s***heads hide the truth, but the truth will set us all free, not send us off to heaven, based on the hidden agenda of human beings.

New York Times Book Review (March 14, 2021 by Ted Genoways): Mark Bittman Book: Animal, Vegetable, Junk

After reading a review written by Ted Genoways, Professor Cornwell is interest in locating and reading this book, Animal, Vegetable, Jun: From Sustainable to Suicidal. It contains a “sweeping history of our sources of food, tracking the shift from agriculture to agribusiness.” It will be interesting to understand the path for the future, as Bittman sees it, as we move forward with the nominee for the head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture nominee, Tom Vilsack.

What caught Cornwell’s attention was the discussion about how agribusiness has hurt farming and agriculture in smaller rural areas. The reference was to “ranches,” which can be compared to large or factory farms. It is understood that such farms in “rural areas” have been hurt. Professor Cornwell then asks, what about non-factory farms in rural areas such as Upstate New York? Cornwell has always spoken up about the destruction of small business, the backbone of America as it developed, with big corporate “boxes” created by “free market” methods with which Cornwell has no stomach. It has been written that “free markets” are good for some who pick themselves up from nothing and become huge corporations in the process, only to then destroy the “free markets.” This idea can be considered analogous to another an issue discussed in another book review in this edition of the New York Times (“Pilgrim Law,” by Frances J. Bremer in a review of Tobey Pearl’s book, Terror to the Wicked: America’s First Trial by Jury That Ended a War and Helped to Form a Nation). This would be idea that religious organizations which have seen discrimination against their own people but then they become the “discriminators.” Same thing with “free market” advocates like Libertarians and anarchists as big corporations are developed into monopoly-style businesses and then work, like Roman gladiators, to destroy the competition. Religious groups work to destroy the competition, the same as Roman gladiators did to Christians and others in the arenas of Ancient Rome. Dictatorship.

To justify this sense of being “unchecked corporatization” and “laissez-faire economics,” The discussion centers on the “delineation” between this activity in America to what Joseph Stalin did to agriculture in the former Soviet Union. Professor Cornwell has been discussing facts that there IS no delineation between centralized economics of big corporate monopolized industries of ANY kind, to what the big communes of the former Soviet Union. Both are based on supply side economics with no concern for the demand side, which is truly a major part of capitalism and capitalist competition which can be controlled by regulatory practices from a third party: the government. Otherwise, we end up with the supply side of the economic picture regulating itself, similar to a government which controls the supply side by removing corporate businesses completely. Both are dictatorial and in the case of the USA, there is too much influence by the big corporate giants and the 1% of those who own the resources, of our government by way of PACs and lobbyists. Does this type of lobbyist and PAC influence exist in Senator Bernie Sanders’s home state of Vermont? Do not big corporations exist in Vermont only in more densely populated areas of the state, thus helping to make the small businesses more like King David, the underdog, when fighting the big Goliath of the industries?

New York state and other states, too, lose out (perhaps Vermont, too?), due to the hills. Such states were once the largest producers of agricultural goods in the USA. Between Prohibition and the development of factory farms, New York is one state which has been hurt. After all, with soil in hilly areas, big factory farm equipment is unusable. Cornwell’s late father mentioned this when asked why there are no factory farms in New York. Was he correct?

In the hills of Pennsylvania, the observation which could be made is that its industry was the coal industry. Now, without the coal industry, what about factory farms on the hills of Pennsylvania? One could say that Upstate New York and Pennsylvania, with the hills, are hurt by the factory farms.

What was not mentioned in this review of a book was the impact of the fast food industry on the increased obesity and rates of type II diabetes in America. Certainly, America as the breadbasket of the world is one of honor for America. However, in documentaries discussing the low cost of fast foods, those who are low income have turned to the fast foods. In America, which parts of the population generally fall more into the “lower classes?” According to documentaries about the increase of diabetes, which groups of Americans have seen an increase in diabetes to a great extent?

Into the picture comes big pharma. We are delighted at the great role America takes with big pharma, yet we ignore the fact that lower class people are usually those who suffer from larger unemployment or work at jobs which do not provide healthcare insurance (as was done to America by lousy, lousy, lousy former Governor Rick Scott of Florida, now a lousy, lousy, lousy U.S. Senator and the goons who are attempting to destroy Obamacare, designed to help stimulate CAPITALIST COMPETITION, not SOCIALISM, as the liars who wish to destroy it make a lousy false claim. Professor Cornwell is angered by this attitude and its strong influence with money, over people of America.

Yes, there is a wonderful thing for lower cost fast foods. But how much fast food can one eat and then purchase trade name meds at ripoff prices. Fast food and this food industry today, with many of its retailers, do little or nothing to provide foods which are better for diabetics. Yes. “We have the bananas,” but the foods which are highlighted are GF or gluten free. All for those types of diets. Fact. Cornwell’s mother and maternal grandmother rarely ate fast foods. The diabetes developed later in life. Go ahead, twist it all around because of not being comfortable if there might be some truth to this and the truth hurts.

Thanks so much for big fat corporate conglomerate agribusiness and the fast food industry. The fast food industry like McDonald’s, was run by vicious people like Ray Kroc who worked diligently to locate new restaurants in places where there were nearby “mom and pop” restaurants. They grabbed at the “instant gratification” movement. Being blamed for this “reality” today is the development of fast food businesses, due to females of the 1960s who wanted to get out of the kitchen and go work in jobs. Oh, really? What a sad thing to consider. Perhaps it was the big corporate misogynists who just found a way to take advantage of this situation and then work for “anything goes” ideas resulting in sexual harassment?

The bumper sticker was, “Women belong in the House [of Representatives], not the kitchen.” With many female Democrats going to the “House,” Trump and his misogynist friends don’t like that. In fact, he gropes women and gets away with it, along with all the other crap for which he gets acquitted.

Today, McDonald’s wishes to replace employees with robots. Wonderful. And how is this move going to justify what happens to the supply siders in their thrust for dictatorship in America. Then we have people out of work and turning to drugs, then beef up law and order because “idle hands is the devil’s playground.”

Reading the book might help clear up anything, should there be a misunderstanding here. Do we await the availability in Upstate New York libraries or purchase one? Is there a library which rents all the newest books and checks them out to patrons? Hmmmm… That would be nice.

Folks can be thankful for the reviews in the New York Times. Folks can stay abreast of the latest books and that works, too.

Failure or Success? Perspective Matters

Dr. Joseph R. Fischer wrote the 1997 book titled, A Well-executed Failure:  The Sullivan Campaign Against the Iroquois, July-September 1779 (published by U. of South Carolina Press).  Irritated as I was in learning the title of this book – due to my ancestor, Ensign John Barr, who was a soldier in that campaign – I obtained the book by Interlibrary Loan and read it.  In fact, Dr. Fischer, a military historian, commended General Sullivan for a “tactical victory.”  He rated General George Washington as leader of a “strategic failure.”

Why did Dr. Fischer, at first blush, seemingly condemn General Sullivan and his troops in the sub-title of the book?  Was it a deliberate statement?  Further research might be necessary, particularly to once again obtain the 1984 History doctoral dissertation at SUNY Buffalo describing the Sullivan massacres as an answer to the British and their Native allies (Mohawks and Senecas – ?) massacre of colonist villages.  This Paul Stevens dissertation (not referenced in Dr. Fischer’s book) describes General Sullivan’s disgust at the time he resigned his commission in person before General Washington*.

Another conclusion to be drawn might be recognition of a diplomatic victory on the part of General Washington, without jeopardizing a soldier’s (Dr. Fischer) compulsion to support a military victory.  I am no expert at all on military events.  As a lay person, I would say the only means of a strategic military victory in 1779 would have meant genocide.  Perhaps General Washington recognized this and worked to a diplomatic victory when the treaty was signed?  A diplomatic victory is NOT a failure, but perhaps a military man had a need to put it this way?  I speak gingerly regarding this issue as I acknowledge speculation on my part.


Fischer, J.R.  (1997).  A Well-executed failure:  The Sullivan Campaign against the Iroquois, July-September 1779.  Columbia, SC:  U. of South Carolina Press.

Stevens, P. L. (1984).  His Majesty’s “savage'” allies:  British policy and the northern Indians during the Revolutionary War–The Carleton Years, 1774-1778.  [Ph.D. Dissertation].  Buffalo, NY:  State University of New York at Buffalo.

Tag Cloud