Tuesday, June 9, 2026
2016 US President Barack Obama officially endorsed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Presidential nominee, earning Joe Biden's lasting enmity
2020 US Senate unanimously confirmed General Charles Q. Brown (58) as Air Force Chief of Staff, 1st African American to lead a US armed forces branch. He was later named as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs by Biden, but was abruptly removed by Trump
2022 First public hearing of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack was held. After the American electorate restored Trump to power, he said the committee members should be investigated and prosecuted.
In bed at 9:30. up at 5:15; 0530 117/70/31 118 201.2; 62/68/61, off and on rain today.
Morning meds at 6:45 a.m., and half-dose of Bisoprolol at 6:20 a.m.
Lest we forget: In 2016, Trump received 62,984,828 votes, 46.1% of the popular vote. In 2020, Trump received 74,223,975 votes, 46.8% of the popular vote. In 2024, Trump received 77,302,580 votes, 49.8% of the popular vote. What does the trend line suggest about where our country is and where our country is headed?
Richard Haas, chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, on Morning Joe this morning:
What we are seeing now is a two-part stategy. One is before people cast their votes, one is after. The before is things like redistricting, which is going to be a real issue, voter repression, having ICE or other troops around and so forth, making it really hard to reach polling stations in largely Democratic districts. That's the pre-vote process. Then you have after the vote, how do you ensure the integrety of the process. Don't be surprised in November if we see voting machines and ballot boxes seized and so forth, in order to "prevent fraud." But what we're going to find is local officials may find themselves no longer in control of mail-in ballots and then, . ., this could end up in the House or whatever. So what we're seeing is a multi-pronged, multi-phased strategy. Here we are: this is the 250th year of this country. We are meant to be honoring, celebrating the Declaration [of Independence] and we probably right now are facing, in some ways, the most concerted assault, potentially, hopefully it won't happen, but these rumblings, this is really worrisome stuff. This is preparing the ground, as you say, for a serious pushback against, a free and fair this November. So people ought to take this seriously.
FB comment to JJA's post this morning:
JJAis at Lake Chatuge. Hiawassee, GA
One of my favorite things ever is lying in our RV bed listening to the rain. I just LOVE the sound of rain on a tent or camper roof - it's one of my favorite ways to drift off to sleep. ☺️🌧️ (sound up 📣)
CDC: I agree! There is something comforting about listening to the steady thrum of raindrops on whatever it is that is keeping us warm and dry underneath it. And forgive me for bringing up YouKnowWho, but I noted that he blamed his meltdown during his interview by Kristen Welker on Meet The Press on the fact that it was raining during the interview, making for a steady background hum from the roof of the Wisconsin barn they were in. I was reminded of the fact that, in November 2018, he refused to visit the cemetery at Belleau Wood in France, where 1,800 American Marines are buried, because of rain, which might have mussed up his precious hair. That was where he made his infamous "suckers" and "losers" comments to his chief of staff John Kelly, former Marine and Gold Star father of his Marine son, who was a KIA in Afghanistan. I thought too of the sound of rain on the strongback tent I lived in during monsoon season in Vietnam. and on the roof of the corrugated steel Quonset hut I moved into later, when I had acquired some seniority "in-country." When the rains were heavy, as they so often were, it was like living inside a snare drum, yet somehow we all managed to carry on and do our duty without having meltdowns like YouKnowWho had last Sunday.
JJA: Trump’s meltdown of course had nothing to do with the rain and everything to do with having someone disagree with him and push back on his baseless lies. No one around him ever argues with him or dares to disagree. He was never able to handle those situations well but now, while suffering from whatever ailment they aren’t admitting he has, he utterly incapable of dealing with it - and especially from a woman!
I read another tale from Sholem Aleichem's Jewish Children early this morning, this one called "Passover in a Village: an Idyll." It is about the friendship between a young Jewish boy and his young goyishe freind, neither of whom paid attention to their differences, but only to their friendship, their commonalities, and playing amidst the wonders of Earth and Nature on the one hand, and their adult families and neighbors who focused on their differences, thier separateness. It' also about the "blood libel" common in Eastern Europe, especially around the Feast of Passover, and the willingness of the goyim in and around the Jews' shtetl to bellieve the libel.
Some Oh, William!thoughts in medias res. We human beings are mighty complicated beings, nowhere near as simple, or definable as we are incllined to think. For one thing, as Solzhinitzhen stated in The Gulag Archipelago,
Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains… an unuprooted small corner of evil. "
But we're even more complicated than that. It's not a question of separating good and evil (which is not to suggest that that process is all that easy), but rather a question of our mental and emotional complexity, our variability from one moment to another, from one day to another, from one set of circumstances to another. There's nothing static about us, our thoughts, our judgments, or especially our feelings. What I'm finding so absorbing or captivating about Elizabeth Strout''s fiction is the way she describes this fact about human nature, or the human condition. I was introduced to her view of our human condition in The Things We Never Say, but I've become much more familiar with in in reading her Lucy Barton novels, and probably most aware of it half-way through the one I'm reading now, Oh, William! The book is about Lucy, of course, but in large measure, as seen through her relationships with her husbands, first William Gerhardt and then David Abramson. Mostly it's about the relationship with William, as the title surely suggests, but all of her relationships are discussed in the narrative, and none of them is very simple. She loves William but at times she hates him. She has a complex and sometimes controdictory relationship with her daughters, and with her parents, and with William's mother. But it is mostly the marital relationship, the domestic partnership, that she mainly focuses on in Oh, William! and she reminds me of a book I read in bits and snatches as "throne room" reading earlier this year, Necessary Losses, by Judith Viorst. Viorst wrote:
Psychologist Israel Charny, in a provocative study of marriage, challenges "the myth that marital difficulties are largely the lot of 'sick' people or those who are not really 'mature.'" He argues that "empiracally it cannot be denied . . . that the largest majority of marriages are riddled with profound destructive tensions, overtly or covertly." And he proposees to redefine our average, everyday normal marriage as an inherently tense and conflict-ridden relationship whose success requires "a wise balalncing of love and hate."
Viorst develops this idea in her chapter "Love and Hate in the Married State." Strout develops it in her novels. They each remind us that marriage is hard, indeed much harder than most of us are willing to admit. Popular culture tends to treat marriage as somehow salvific or redemptive, saving us from a life of loneliness or isolation. Getting married "to the right guy" is "every girl's dream," or perhaps it only used to be. Young women went to college to get their "MRS" degree to another college graduate. The Catholic Church tells us that marriage is sacramental, ordained by God, decreed indisoluble by Jesus, and a vector of divine grace. Having children is supposed to bring meaning and purpose to life. And, of course there is some truth in all those traditional notions of marriage, but in reality, life is hard and living in mature partnership with another human being is mighty challenging. It's often a struggle, not so much with our partner, but with ourselves, our own weaknesses, pettiness, selfishness, pride, sense of self-immportance, primacy, etc. It's not for the faint of heart, or for emotionally fragile. Strout and her Lucy Barton demonstrate this with quiet, but powerful clarity.
Strout raises the free will vs. determinism isue again in this novel, in a very direct way. When she berates herself for "choosing to walk out" on william and her daughters, William corrects her by asking her how much of what we do is really the result of choice. "When does a person actually choose something? You tell me. Once every so often - at the very most - I think someone actually chooses something. Otherwise we're following something - we don't even know what it is but we follow it, Lucy. So, no, I don't think you chose to leave." This of course is consistent with Strout's personal view that we have a lot less free will than we think, and with Robert Sapolsky's view that we have none.
We drove back up to Home Depot this morning and picked up another carload of mulch got home and we both took a nap. Life in one's 80s.









