The Boeing VC-25B Bridge. A reminder to that it is time to be the people that founded the country.

 

The Aerodrome: Boeing VC-25B Bridge. A shameful flying monument.: This blog was never intended to be political, but in the age of Donald Trump, which will go down as the most corrupt political era in U.S. h...

On the 250ths Anniversary of American Independence it'd do us well to recall that while the Revolution may have been lead by landed patricians, it was fought by landed yeoman.

It's a great misfortune to the country, or perhaps a timely reminder, of exactly how far we've fallen in that regard. We have, in the form of Donald J. Trump, a President, albeit an illegitimate one, who is the very symbol of what Americans rebelled against 250 years ago. This monumental palace coach should serve to remind us. 

Had Donald Trump been alive in 1776, he'd have been a Loyalist. 

At the end of the war he'd have been packed up to Canada to annoy the French, who at least would largely have not understood him.  Not, in his dementia, that we do either.

Washington on Blueskin.

George Washington owned his own mounts.  John Adams broke one of his own mounts as late as his 80s.  Taft kept a cow on the White House lawn.

Donald Trump flies back and forth to his golf resort in Florida on the American taxpayers dime.¹  And now, at the expense of some $400,000,000 taxpayer dollars, he's unveiled the new one, and gushes about its "luxury":

Boeing VC-25B Bridge. A shameful flying monument.

This blog was never intended to be political, but in the age of Donald Trump, which will go down as the most corrupt political era in U.S. history, it just can't be avoided.

The Federal Government, funded by the American taxpayers in the form of taxes, and by individuals and foreign governments in the form of loans, has taken delivery of one Boeing "VC-25B Bridge", a military conversion of a Boeing 747-8 originally built as a Boeing Business Jet.  The plane was delivered in 2012 to Qatar Amiri Flight and used by the House of Thani. In June 2023, it was delivered to Global Jet Isle of Man. The Qatari government gave it as a gift. . . if we assume governments really give gifts to other governments.  Poor little King Donny just wasn't happy with the existing Air Force One and given that he's in his last term he couldn't wait for new ones under construction to be completed.

After he leaves office, which given his advanced age and rapidly declining mental status is likely to be before his term expires, the airplane, which has cost the United States at least $400,000,000 in "upgrades" to make it work in its role as a royal coach for his majesty, will be transferred to his presidential library foundation.  Indeed, that will happen before his unfortunate illegitimate reign is over.

This is complete bullshit.

I've posted on this story, and this airplane, here before:

Air Force One.

Air Force One has been in the news a lot recently, and it  started before the Qatari proposal to give the United States, or Donald Trump (it isn't clear which) a luxury outfitted Boeing 747.

Technically "Air Force One" is a call sign, and merely denotes an airplane the Chief Executive is a passenger in.  If a President rode in an Air Force Cessna, that would be Air Force One.  But everyone knows that it refers to one of two Boeing VC-25s, militarized 747s, that are designated for the Presidents use.

RD-2

Interestingly, the first aircraft designated for Presidential use was a Navy airplane, an amphibious Douglas Dolphin RD-2 that was luxury outfitted for use by President Roosevelt.  It was used from 1933 to 1939, and obviously not for transglobal flight.  The President didn't really do extensive travel until World War Two.

Roosevelt's once used VC-54C.

In spite of concerns over commercial aviation being used to carry the President during the war, it was in fact used and it wasn 't until 1945 that a new designated Presidential aircraft was acquired, that being a  Secret Service reconfigured a Douglas C-54 Skymaster (VC-54C) which was named the Sacred Cow.  It contained a sleeping area, radiotelephone, and retractable battery-powered elevator to lift Roosevelt in his wheelchair. It's only use by Roosevelt was to fly the then dying President to Yalta.  Truman used it thereafter, but it was replaced by military DC-6 (VC-118) thereafter.

Truman's VC-118.

President Eisenhower, who of course knew planes well, to Lockheed C-121 Constellations, Columbine II and Columbine III. The Constellation was a very popular airplane at the time, and Douglas MacArthur also had one, that one spending many years after its service at the Natrona County International Airport on an abandoned runway.

Columbine II was the first Presidential aircraft to receive the designation Air Force One.

At the end of Eisenhower's Presidency Boeing 707s came in, in part because the Soviets were using a jet to transport their Premier.  707s remained through the Nixon era, giving good service in this role.

747s, as VC-25s, entered specialized manufacture for use as Air Force One during Reagan's administration, although the first one would enter service after that.  They've been used ever since.

These aren't normal 747s.  They are packed with communications and electronic warfare equipment in order to have combat survivability.  

Replacing the current two aircraft that are used as Air Force One is a topic that the Air Force started looking at quite a few years ago.  The 747 variant which the VC-25 isn't made anymore.  Production of 747s stopped in 2023 in favor of more modern aircraft.  Still, the airframe remains useful in this role, and after the Air Force started to look into options, updating a 747-8 appeared to be the best option.  Only Boeing was interested in the project anyway, and it will take a massive financial loss to do it.  

The aircraft that are being retrofitted for this role was built, originally, as a commercial airliner. The projected is a massive one, and the delivery date will be in 2027.

What the new Air Force Ones will look like.

Enter Qatar.

Qatar has offered to give the US (I guess) a luxury Boeing 747-8 for use as Air Force One until the other 747-8s are complete.  But here's the thing.  Boeing has been working on the complicated task fo converting the two existing 747-8s for this use for several years. After all, it's basically a combat aircraft.  All accepting the plane would do is give Boeing a third one to convert, which wouldn't be ready for years.

Trump is being childish about this, as he is about a lot of things.  He doesn't seem to grasp the nature of the aircraft, and likely a lot of other people don't as well.  In his case, this is inexcusable.  It's a combat airplane.

Frankly, it's a Cold War combat airplane.

Which gets to this.

The 747 was a big massive airliner in an era in which it was the queen of the sky. That era is over and airlines have moved on to more modern aircraft.  The world in which Ronald Reagan ordered 747s is gone as well.  It's still useful to have an aircraft that can be used in a global thermonuclear war, which is what it is, but that's not going to happen and it makes no sense to use it to go on weekend golfing trips to Florida.

But that's what Trump tends to use it for.

That raises an entire series of other questions, many of which have little to do with aircraft, but some of which do.  It's notable that other Presidents have used lighter aircraft for more mundane trips.  In November 1999, President Bill Clinton flew from Ankara, Turkey, to Cengiz Topel Naval Air Station outside Izmit, Turkey, aboard a marked C-20C.  In 2000, President Clinton flew to Pakistan aboard an unmarked Gulfstream III.  In 2003, President George W. Bush flew in the co-pilot seat of a Sea Control Squadron Thirty-Five (VS-35) S-3B Viking from Naval Air Station North Island, California to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with that latter obviously being an exception. Barack Obama used a Gulfstream C-37 variant on a personal trip in 2009.

Trump can use something else than a 747 for what he uses Air Force One for in almost every single instance.

Indeed, the entire topic brings up a lot of things about the risks of having an airplane like this, a luxury airliner inside, which is really a combat aircraft.  It makes it easy to forget what it really is, and it makes a President feel like an Emperor, which he is not.

So why am I doing it again?

Since May, 2025 Donald Trump has used the existing Air Force One to fly back and forth to his Florida golf home/resort, effectively using the airplane as a toy, repeatedly.  He's also used it for what are basically campaign trips.  He's launched an illegal war against Iran for which the Department of Defense now seeks $80,000,000,000 to cover, and which killed thirteen Americans and untold numbers of Iranians.  That war encouraged Israel to not only participate in it, or perhaps the other way around, but also to engage in an invasion of Lebanon.  He's spent something like $13,000,000 to Rhino Line the Washington D. C. reflecting pool, he's trying to build a massive ballroom that will ultimately cost the taxpayer one way or another, and he's trying to build a triumphal arch, making the United States the first country in the world to build an arch after getting solidly defeated in a war.

He's demented, and he acts like an emperor. This airplane is part of that delusion.

Truth be known, the entire Air Force One thing hasn't made sense for years.  Having some sort of aircraft available for Presidential use for Presidential work makes some limited sense. But most of what Trump uses the aircraft for could be achieved through commercial aviation.  Indeed, not one single trip Trump has taken could not have been accomplished that way.

And that's how this should be done.  Back when transpiration was by rail, the President didn't own a train.  When Trump goes over to the G7 to insult the Italian Prime Minister with his lunacy, that could be done by commercial air, and should be done that way.  And I mean commercial air, not chartered air.  The government could get him a ticket on a regularly scheduled flight.

And when he goes to Mar A Lago he can pay for his own ticket.

I know that the objections will be "oh my, it isn't safe".  That is, frankly, for the most part complete BS.  Trump could get a ticket on Ryan Air and be just as safe as anyone else. 

And if its a little less safe, that's a good thing.  One of the problems with the modern presidency is that the occupant of the White House is too insulated from the people he supposedly serves.  At one time the President shook the hands of all who lined up on New Years Day.  Not anymore.

If the President had to travel with the great unwashed masses maybe he'd be less of a lunatic.  Or maybe he'd just realize that its a real job.  

Anyway you look at it, Air Force One is a titanic waste of money.  The Air Force has aircraft.  If he needs to go, he can load up on a C5A with the equipment going wherever its going.  

And this waste of money is going to a Trump library just before Trump leaves office.

WTF?

If the US had to spend money on it, it should keep it.  This is appalling.  That should be addressed as soon as possible.  If there's a current way to address it, it just should be silently done.  Trump can leave office and his library, which frankly is a pointless thing in the first place, can buy a Revell model kit of a Boeing 747. This absurd flying castle can carry on in its existing role and join the two that are being built, or preferably at least one of those two contracts cancelled seeing as the US has this thing.

At that point, the signature on the under panel that Trump affixed yesterday can be fittingly modified, recalling World War Two nose art.  A realistic Trump nude torso doodle, a la Epstein, can be installed.  A fitting monument.

It's a gift form Qatar, an authoritarian, semi-constitutional hereditary emirate monarchy ruled by the House of Thani.  The Emir is the absolute authority.

Just the sort of government that King Donald can related to.  Apparently they could relate to him, or more likely, thought they could obtain some advantage by appealing to his pathetic vanity.

The plane will be transferred to his Presidential library before he leaves office.  What books would even appear in Donald Trump's library boggles the imagination.  He does not appear to be a well read man, or even really read anything.  Figures from his last administration related he had a hard time reading memos they gave him as he lost interest so rapidly.  He does not appear to be a smart man.²

And, current American worship of wealth aside, we shouldn't expect him to be.  What I've long suspected turns out to be true.  The wealthy are often stupid.

Does Being Rich Make You Stupid?

False consciousness goes upscale.

Billionaires Are Actually Less Intelligent Than Lower-Paid People New Study Shows

Does Having Too Much Money Make Us Stupid?

World’s Richest People May Actually Be Dumber Than Those Who Earn Less, Study Says

Luck and circumstance has plenty to do with it.

This actually doesn't surprise me at all.  The question is whether wealth makes you stupid, or encourages the breeding down of intelligence.  Either can be maintained.

It was Chesterton who noted that "AMONG the Very Rich you will never find a really generous man, even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away; they are egoistic, secretive, dry as old bones. To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it."  There's something to that.  But beyond that, there's plenty of evolutionary evidence of the latter point.  Wild cattle are quite a bit smarter than domestic ones.  Wolves are smarter than dogs.  Wild turkeys are very smart birds whereas domestic ones, apparently are dumb as a post.

Cave drawing of an Aurochs.  Modern cows can be dicey, but aurochs wanted to kill you.

The question would be, of course, why this is true, and selective breeding by human beings largely explains it.  We'd rather not have a mean cow that seeks to break free, raising a gang of mean cows, and lay siege to the village.  Hunters and herdsmen like smart dogs, but bred to be fairly compliant. If you've ever owned a standard poodle, one of the oldest hunting breeds, you'll see how much of the wolf wasn't bread out of them, they think for themselves, we've worked a lot on dogs since then.  

French Poodle in the early 1900s. The coat may look weird but they're a hunting dog, and a German bred one.  Even now, the Puddle Dog has opinions on everything and isn't shy about giving you them. The only other modern hunting dog that rivals them that way is the Chesapeake Bay Retriever, another old breed..

It's a dangerous thing to say, and contrary to the thesis advanced by eugenicists, but there's pretty good evidence that people on average were getting smarter and smarter all along throughout human history, in very real terms, up until just recently.  Evolution was forcing it.  Some evolutionary biologist argue that the homo sapien sapien of our current era is demonstrably smarter than homo sapiens of, say, 100,000 years ago. . . or 50,000 years ago. . . or 10,000 years ago, or 5,000.³   And it makes some sense.

In a normal, i.e., not rich, environment a lot of things go into mate selection, oh heck let's say spouse selection other than what goes into attracting people, oh heck let's say men, to Only Fans.  Love has always been an aspect of it, but its interesting to note how even when I was a teen, teenagers selected dates on character, which included intelligence, more than anything else.  It's funny to think of now, but if a guy had a "pretty" girlfriend, he was just considered lucky, and a girl with brains and other positive characteristics would have a boyfriend who featured the same, irrespective of her looks. When the girl was good looking, it was just sort of like winning a bonus prize.  Purely good looking girls, if that's all they had going for them, weren't really sought out.  

  Two young couples.  Migrant farm workers in Louisiana and their children, 1939.

This remained true, I'd note, throughout my entire single life.  Maybe it's largely true now.

But with the wealthy, it's another matter.

Future Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith and her first husband, Billy Ray Smith.  She was 17  and he was 16 when she married.  He was cook.  She changed her image enormously after they divorced and ended up married to an octogenarian after being a Playboy Centerfold and Guess Jeans model. Do we think that late union was a marriage for love on either side?  She paid the price, of course, dying young.  Her first husband is still alive, but never speaks much.  He was apparently crushed by the death of their son, pictured here, when he was in his twenties.  He never remarried.

Donald Trump, who gives no evidence of being an intelligent man, has been married three times, with each spouse having a certain sort of look save for one.  Two have been Slavic beauties of a certain sort, which means they present a certain look that certain people regard as glamorous beauty.⁴. The second, Marla Maples, actually presents as pretty smart. That marriage lasted six years.⁵

The point here?

I'm not thinking that a lot of the super rich determine their mates the way regular people do.  I don't think "is he/she a good helpmate?" or "do we have the same interests, faiths, worldview?", or to be really old school, "can this guy/gal help me around the farm?" has gone into it much.  Rather, they often seem to be chosen on looser characteristics that might more resemble how oriental potentates chose concubines for the harem, i.e., looks.

When Arab raiders stole Irish women, after all, smart as those women tend to be, they weren't marketing them on "look at this ginger. . . she's really got the brains!"

Now, a person can take this too far, but we live in a rich society.  The richest of us may in fact be stupider than the rest of us, or a lot of us.  And we collectively, just like a placid cow in the field, may be starting to get dumber overall.

We live in a materially very wealthy culture.  Even the average impoverished American is wealthier than many thought to be well off in former eras. And to add to that, the decay in morality, brought about by material wealth, which has allowed us to focus only on ourselves, has developed a self centered sexual culture that contributes to this.

Put another way, as one female observer seriously noted:

But its not making people happier.  People know something is wrong.

Gallup informs us that most Americans believe in the "American Dream", whatever that is, but that a very high percentage believe its unobtainable.

American Dream Endures as U.S. Approaches 250 Years

That's because it is unobtainable.

The American Dream has been defined in various ways.  I think it might be best defined in the film The Best Years Of Our Lives.

In that film there's a moment when discharged sergeant Fred Derry gives a loan to a discharged Navy vet who is a tenant farmer.  He wants to buy his own farm.  He knows he can do it.

That's the best description of the American Dream I've ever seen.

The real dream is to own your own.  And at the time of the American Revolution, most did. That's what had brought them to the country.

I don't know what they teach the young now, but when I was growing up it was a lot of crap about how people came over for freedom, mostly freedom of religion.

Yeah, some did, sort of. The best example might be the Puritans on the Mayflower, who were seeking freedom to worship in their own way and to tell everyone else in the world how they were supposed to do it.  If you were in a Puritan community you were worshipping with them or getting punished, severely.

Only about 1/3d of the Mayflower passengers were Puritans.  The rest were likely members of the Church of England which itself was less than 100 years separated from the Catholic Church, and even less separated from the Prayer Book Rebellion.⁶ Point is, those passengers, who were all part of the group that put in as they were out of beer, didn't come for religious freedom.

They came for land.

Land is, and was, independent.  People knew then, and they knew now, that land was independence, freedom, and a decent life worth living.  If you could obtain, as Chesterton would later put it, "three acres and a cow", or more likely 40, and a mule, you had it made.  You were not rich.  You were not poor. You were your own family.

Land is what caused Englishmen to risk their lives in 1607 to come to a new continent, or Frenchmen to come to it in 1608, or Spanish to come to it in 1565.  Here they could get it, at some cost, but a none the less obtainable one.  In Europe, they could not.  And if not all came as farmers, tradesmen who came, came because they could open their own shops, essentially operating on the same ideal.  Those who couldn't muster up the cash for transit indentured themselves to do so which, in spite of latter day white apologist, was not slavery.  It was a temporary means of getting started, in some ways like apprenticeships or joining the service operates for many today.

We cannot say that it was universally benign. That would be a lie. The land in fact already belonged to somebody else, the native inhabitants, whose claims were excused due to their rotational agricultural practices and low population density. But that doesn't change the basic fact.  It was land, not "freedom" of any type that drew the immigrant.

By moving, they freed themselves from some landowning overlord and made themselves independent farmers.  That dream lasted all the way up until the mid 20th Century in some fashion.  While it remains alive today, the truth is that the reality it of it is as dead, yielded to the bloated interests of the rich.  The largest landowner in the US today is billionaire sports and real estate mogul Stan Kroenke, who owns land in Wyoming.  Mom and pop shops have yielded to the nightmare created by Sam Walton.  

People who think the American dream is alive are largely fooling themselves.

Nonetheless, a dream is a dream, and revolutions are based on dreams.

The American Revolution was based on a landowning dream.  It wasn't, frankly necessarily wholly admirable.  The Intolerable Acts included, in a very real sense, the sense that the Crown was going to restrict the right of expanding countrymen's families to settle new lands, and they were right. The fear also was that the Crown would restrict economic activity in the Colonies for revenue purposes, and that was partially correct.  Common Sense and the like aside, a real cause of the Revolution was the native sense that the free right to settle land, and engage in small free enterprise, was the only thing that separated American Colonist form the English and European masses.

They were right, if not necessarily morally right.

A large number, maybe most, revolutions since that time, and some before it, have been based on the same cause. The French Revolution was not, and it remains a global oddball.  The Russian Revolution, failed as it was, is such an example, however, as was the Russian Revolution of 1905.  The Chinese Revolution of 1911, and the Chinese Civil War, both failed examples, also were.  The Mexican Revolution, also a failed revolution, very much was.

The Mexican Revolution provides, in fact, an excellent example.  Through every phase, from 1911 onwards, the rich landed class fought back, and when defeat arrived, they stepped aside and regrouped.  It kept the Revolution from really being successful.  Indeed, of all the revolutions we have noted, only the American Revolution was really successful.

But the success it created is dead.  Today,. we have the Donald Trumps and Elon Musks and other 1%ers that control the economy, and which some like Jonah Goldberg even feel we should celebrate (as to Musk).

Well, no.

Time for a second American revolution.

Not, we might note, one with guns.  Indeed, that would inevitably be not only immoral, but outright moronic, lead by people festooned with Second Amendment tattoos while advocating outright fascism.

No, something more radical than that, a revolution at the ballot box.

It's time to end the moronic celebration of a "free market system" that isn't free in any sense.  Corporate Capitalist are shoving pablum down the throats of the electorate while pocking the largess. Large-scale corporatism needs to end.

And so too does a weird millennialism appropriations of public lands by people like Deseret Mike Lee and pathetic fellow travelers like John Barrasso and Harriet Hageman.

A revolution can be had at the ballot box.  It won't happen all at once, but if started now the two party system can be ended, and the creation of wealth for the wealthy can be as well.  Remote land ownership, something the colonist came here to escape, can be as well.

It won't happen as long as people don't think.  But they need to think now.  At some point they will, and if we don't take on the yoke of this burden now, when the plow ox bulks, it'll be bad.

Footnotes

1.  Donald Trump is such a WASP, with the adherence to the "P", that he's converted some property in Washington D.C. to become a golf course and is putting in courses on some military bases.

Put in shooting ranges or something.  Not something that fat old white guys play.

2. The fact that Trump is a Wharton graduate is really a slam at the Ivy League. Yes, they have some great schools, but the system they operate in really has graduated some failures.  Pete Hegseth provides such an example.  

Wharton owes the country an apology, and I say that as somebody who has a relative that graduated from there. The fact that Trump graduated is appalling. The fact that Chuck Gray is their product is as well.

3.  Some theologians have speculated that there was a point with our species when God converted us from just a smart hominid into what we are in the Divine Plan, with an immortal soul. The speculation is that it was the moment language arrived, and there's some archeological and biological evidence that moment was in fact sudden and radical.  

4. Frankly, Trump spouses 1 and 3 really aren't bombshells.  Melania is more properly characterized as "handsome".

5.  We can't really speculate on the smarts of 1 and particularly 3.  Melania is hard to figure as she's never obtained a really good command of English.  None the less, people who admire her, are frankly doing so willfully.

6. Recusant Catholics are estimated to be less than 5% of the English population at the time, which means that were likely to probably have actually been 10 to 15%.  Today, more Catholics attend weekly services in the UK than the established church.  Recently one Anglican convert in the UK described her transition as "going Full Fat Catholicism"

Lex Anteinternet: National Park Service Uprooted on the National Mall

Lex Anteinternet: National Park Service Uprooted on the National Mall: When I become President, every golf course in the United States will be grazing land. Same thing with shopping malls. National Park Service ...

National Park Service Uprooted on the National Mall

When I become President, every golf course in the United States will be grazing land.

Same thing with shopping malls.

National Park Service Uprooted on the National Mall

I know how to play golf, but I don't golf.  It's boring and sanitized.  The kind of sport for people who want to go outside, but fear the outside, or are hopelessly urban.  Granted, that's not the fault of all of the hopelessly urban, and that's the place for golf.

Golf is one of those sports that's underwent an evolution in my mind when I was quite young.  I won't say that is rational or correct. 

My mother was a first rate golfer.  My father didn't golf at all.  None of the men I knew when very young golfed, and when I came to know some that did, as I aged, they were men who didn't do the things, or didn't do them to the same extent, as the men I knew.  Golfing men didn't hunt much, they didn't fish much, they were going to be found at brandings.  They all tended to be from the upper upper middle class, or the lower wealthy.  In my mind, they were effeminized as they were playing what seemed to me to be an effeminate sport.

That view of golf hasn't changed much for me and indeed its been reenforced as I've grown older.  I know that there are some really manly men that golf, but I don't know very many.  Of guy's guys that I know that golf, there's one really nice guy I know who does, and that somehow fits him.  He's a computer guy.  And there's one that's just too out of shape to do anything else, and you can be pretty out of shape and play golf if you use a cart.

I don't think, actually, that these feelings are as unique as a person might think.  At one point in time lawyers were associated with golf (not anymore) and some golfed as they felt they had to.  This was particularly the case with new lawyers.  I've known at least two new lawyers who golfed as they thought that's what lawyers did.  Interestingly, of those two lawyers, I know a third person, a woman, who insists that one is "gay" just by her observations of him, even though he's been a married man for years.  Maybe the golfing was too effeminizing.

In a weird sort of way, Donald Trump emphasized this a couple of years ago when he simply gushed over his probably totally fictional observations of the size of Arnold Palmer's penis.

Seriously?

Oddly enough, golf was definitely associated with lesbianism at one time.  This was the case for decades, and in some ways it cuts against what I'm noting here.  As a sport, it was a sport that women could participate in and do very well as professionals, and so perhaps, maybe, women who were sort of masculine in their internal inclinations participated at a higher rate that would have simply existed in the general population.

I can't say much for golf. 

Golf also seems to me to be the ultimate boring urban upper middle class excuse for a sport, at least at one time.  Manly men might shoot hoops, or go play flag football, or something, but at one time towns and real estate developers but in golf courses as it was the default sport for aging white people.

Tennis is the other urban sport, or was.  It's joined by basketball and pickle ball in that category.  The thing is, however, that to play any of those sports well, you really need to be in shape.  The same kind of guy that can really drive a tennis ball over the net can drive a baseball right down the field at lethal speed..

Supposedly golf has declined in popularity in recent decades, and its notable that at the same time the demographics of the country are changing.  Golf was heavily racist at one time and indeed it was more recently than a person might imagine, although there have been some really notable Hispanic and Black golfers.  Golf is apparently of Scottish origin, where it would have been pretty darned manly, so its an import of the British Isles.  People from other cultures don't really have any roots in it, and for that matter, lots of European Americans don't.  Shooting was the sport for Germans, and competitive shooting, like polo, was a major military sport.  Shooting was, and in fact is, a major civilian sport in many parts of the country.  Basketball is an American sport, as is baseball, and both were played by rural and lower middle class demographics at first.  Basketball is particularly interesting this way as it comes from farming country with bitter winters, so its a good indoor sport for a lot of pretty athletic people.

Football is actually of British origin, but the origin is from the British lower class and it reflects that origin to this day.  Hunting is a male human universal, which recent anthropology suggest had more female participation in antiquity than previously imagined.

Gardening, hunting, shooting, walking, running and nearly anything just seems to have more merit that golf.  But it hangs on in the minds of the elderly, a game of privilege from their youth.

So that a bloated old man with money would choose to wreck things for golf, makes sense.  People tend to hang on to the era in which they were young, and the wealthy have more of an ability to do that than other people.  The super wealthy have the ability to afflict that on everyone else.

A May 19, 2026 statement that helps explain what's fundamentally wrong with Donald Trump.

This (the moronic ballroom) is really being built for other presidents. It's not being built for me. The thing I do best in life is build.

Donald Trump.

Actually, his stuff looks like gilded crap, but that "build" ethos is bankrupt. Too much has been built, everywhere.

Time to start tearing some stuff down, and when the blight of Donald Trump is gone, a good place to do that would be this stupid ballroom. We don't live in the age of ballrooms. That sort of stupidity should have come to an end in 1798.  

No, tear whatever was built down. Tear down the West Wing as well. The White House can go back to being just a house.  And tear out the bomb shelter.  The occupant of the White House can endure the risks he creates or the country runs like the rest of us.  No more bomb shelters, or dedicated Air Force aircraft, or Marine Corps helicopters.

I want a cow on the livestock lawn, not a rich narcissist in the White House

Massie of Kentucky.

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, under constant attack from demented New  York real estate developer Donald Trump, milled his own lumber, chiseled stone, and formed iron to hand build his own house.

Massie actually is what Republicans claim to want to be, but aren't.  He's a far cry from Chuck Gray who went right to work for his daddy's radio station.

And he's sure a lot closer to Lincoln than Trump is.

Lex Anteinternet: Subsidiarity Economics 2026. The Times more or less locally, Part 4. Economics in the Dementia Ward.

Lex Anteinternet: Subsidiarity Economics 2026. The Times more or les...: May 1, 2026 We're constantly told that tariffs are good for everyone.  But then monarchs come and they're lifted. He's lost his ...

Subsidiarity Economics 2026. The Times more or less locally, Part 4. Economics in the Dementia Ward.

May 1, 2026

We're constantly told that tariffs are good for everyone.  But then monarchs come and they're lifted.

He's lost his mind.

Last edition:

Subsidiarity Economics 2026. The Times more or less locally, Part 3. The Wharton Way.

Labels: 2020s, 2025, Benjamin Netanyahu, Chuck Gray, Economics, Iran, King Donald's War, Petroleum, Stupidity, The Ivy League, Trump War Inflation, United States and Israel v. Iran, Weird, Wyoming's boom and bust economy

Trump's war on the global food supply Just the latest moral and logistical atrocity.

 

Trump's war on the global food supply

Just the latest moral and logistical atrocity.

Lex Anteinternet: The 25th Amendment Watch List. A Fourteenth and Special edition. Attacking the Catholic Church.

Lex Anteinternet: The 25th Amendment Watch List. A Fourteenth and S...: April 13, 2026. The number of Catholics in the world:  Over 1,422,000,000, with the number growing. The number of Catholics in the United St...

The 25th Amendment Watch List. A Fourteenth and Special edition. Attacking the Catholic Church.

April 13, 2026.

The number of Catholics in the world:  Over 1,422,000,000, with the number growing.

The number of Catholics in the United States: Between 50,000,000 and 70,000,000, with the number growing.

The number of Orthodox in the world 260,000,000

The number of Orthodox Christians in the United States:  2,600,000.

The number of Protestants in the world:  600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000.

The number of Protestants in the United States  140,000,000 to 150,000,000, of which 10 to 15% are mainline protestants, and of which the largest denomination is the American Baptist Conference, which includes 13,000,000 to 15,000,000 members.

The Catholic Church, all rites (the Roman Rite is the largest by far) is the largest single church in the world and the largest single church in the United States, in spite of the United States being a protestant nation.

The second largest church in the world are the Orthodox, meaning that the Apostolic Churches, those which go all the way back to the Apostles, far exceed the number of Protestants.

While all churches have their problems, the Catholic church is growing everywhere.  Protestant churches are dying.

And then we get this:

Trump posted those back to back  yesterday.  There's been all sorts of rumors circulating that the administration has been upset with the Church.

No doubt it isn't a fan of the Church. The Church has God as its King.  Maga has Donald as its.

Throughout Trump's presidency, the first legitimate one and the illegitimate second one, I've warned that support of Trump would likely kill off far right Evangelism in the US.  I've also warned that those far right Evangelicals who support Trumpwould turn on Catholicism, which they don't understand and often don't even think to be a Christian religion, when in fact it's the original Christian religion.  And I've failed to grasp how any thinking Catholic could really support Trump with any depth.

But some have.  I know plenty.

Some are just shallow political thinkers, others not, and all are conservative.  I'm conservative, but I've never supported Trump.

These people are opposed to abortion (so am I), and were horrified by transgenderism (so am I).  That frankly is just about it.  Some buy in to the other hardcore aspects of the far right as well, being opposed to immigration, for instance, which actually requires a more nuanced thought process than they are giving it.  And the Democrats made it impossible for Catholics to really support them, becoming the party of death and weirdness.

None of which meant that anyone had to support a dim, narcissistic, serial polygamist.

For those of you who supported Trump on social issues, there were and are other parties.  And how much do we know about Trump and any of the positions he supposedly supports.  He own track record on moral issues is poor at least in so far as his treatment of women is concerned.  And we're talking about adult women.  This administration outright opposition to releasing the Epstein files certainly raises questions about it being willing to support child rapists, and there's enough smoke around Trump to at least raise questions about how far in the shallow end of the pool he may have been willing to go, although nothing's been proven.  His family's financial dealings this term certainly raise questions of a moral nature.  His launching of an illegal war and threatening mass civilian deaths is criminal.

We could go on.  He's a horrible, demented, man.  Christians who are supporting him need to rethink it immediately.

Catholics supporting him have helped bring us to this.

From here on out there's no excuse for a free pass by members of the Apostolic Faiths.  None.  And that includes the two members in the administration, Marco Rubio and J. D. Vance.  Supporting Trump is supporting this mockery of the Faith and of all Christianity.

But for the voters too.  In the midterms there are already candidates who note they are "endorsed by Donald Trump".  One Catholic candidate here in the state hardcore embraces Trump and another runs, on all of her signs, "Endorsed by Donald Trump".

That needs to end right now.  

The 25th Amendment needs to be applied, now.  Catholics cozying up to Trump need to stop, now.  

Last edition:

Downfall. The 25th Amendment Watch List, Thirteenth Edition. The MAGA Cannibal.

Labels: 2020s, 2026, 25th Amendment Watch List, Donald Trump, Mental Health, The Madness of King Donald, United States and Israel v. Iran, World War Two

Lex Anteinternet: Chris Christie on the Baby Boomers. How to make an entire demographic outraged with one fairly truthful comment. And a further comment.

From our companion blog, Lex Anteinternet: 

Lex Anteinternet: Chris Christie on the Baby Boomers. How to make a...: Chris Christie said this in a C-Span interview.  Baby boomers—the most selfish generation in American history, the most self-centered genera...

Chris Christie on the Baby Boomers. How to make an entire demographic outraged with one fairly truthful comment.

Chris Christie said this in a C-Span interview. 

Baby boomers—the most selfish generation in American history, the most self-centered generation, the least sacrificing generation American history. You look at Biden and Trump in particular, and they personify that

I commented on it on Twitter, defending what he said.

There's a large element of truth to it.

People reacted overall to the statement with outrage.  Lots of Boomers died in Vietnam, it was pointed out.

Biden and Trump sure didn't serve in Vietnam.

Christie is fat, was all some people could say.  Well, yep, Christie is fat, and Biden and Trump are demented due to age.  I'll take fat over demented  (indeed, from personal experience I'll note that demented people really like to point out when somebody is fat, oddly enough, and Trump does that a lot).

There are "some" good Boomers.  Oh come on, there are lots and lots of good Boomers. Defending a generation with a reserved "some" means the person making the statement basically agrees with the underlying comment.  

"Biden isn't a boomer".  True, he was born in 1942, not 1945.  But as one person posted in reply to that, "he's close enough".  

"Christie is a boomer".  Yeah, so what?  And to add to that, he really isn't.  Both the Biden comment (1942) and this one  (Christie was born in 1962) point out that the guardrails to generations are somewhat fluid.  Moreover, the fact that late Boomers in no way whatsoever fit into the Boomer generation has caused later demographers to define them as being in Generation Jones. Their experiences, including getting the shaft from Boomers, is completely different from the real Boomers.

And indeed, Boomers just can't grasp that.  There's a lot, and I do mean a lot, of discontent, and even outright animosity, towards the Boomers, and its largely justified.

Boomers are a unique generation.  There are a lot of them, for one thing, but they also came into the country at a unique time. They were the children of the generation that was young during the Great Depression and which fought World War Two.  We're not going to use the "Greatest Generation" moniker here, as while that generation is admirable, it doesn't deserve that title.

The World War Two Generation was a broken one.  As with the Boomers, you can't take a sweeping statement like that and apply it to everyone, but there are generational characteristics.  That generation's attachment to home and family was weakened by the desperation of the Depression.  As an example, my mother was pulled out of school at age 16 in order to work, and while she was always close to her family, she left home when still a teenager as she was tired of her income being treated as just the family's, and not her.  Her mother begged her to stay, and then begged her to return.  She didn't (she lived with an uncle who gave her a job across the continent).

And an entire generation of men was trained to kill with a large number of them actually experiencing that.  Killing other people, particularly in that fashion, is not normal, and every other human vice opens up after it.  Not everyone who killed or was trained to kill engaged in that vice, but more did than Americans cared to acknowledge.  That helped bring about postwar domestic instability everywhere, with some of those Boomers born not so much into idyllic families but into ones that were struggling with parental infidelity, violence, brutality and alcoholism.  Not all, to be sure, but more than you might suspect.

They also came home to a United States in an economic boom which meant a massive transfer in economic status for people who hadn't expected it and who didn't really know how to handle it.  Those pictures of ideal American families in the 50s don't address a culture that was beginning to be taken ever by consumerism.  

By the time the first Boomers, the real ones, were entering their adulthood all that was in full bloom.  And their parents wanted them to be free of the horrors that had been inflicted upon them, so they handed them educations and businesses when they were young, not trying to really hold on to them.

The Baby Boom Generation early on figures that all the rules that preceded were stupid, and like people who succeed in business and life early on (the latter of which they really didn't), they came to believe they were really smart.  And they often held the generations, including Generation Jones, that came behind them in contempt.  Handed businesses, they wouldn't hand them over.  Handed advantage, they didn't see that they needed to help others obtain it.  Handed wealth, they felt free to use to use it for personal and societal destruction.

American society has become one, as one commentator noted, that's being run by oligarchs. Well, the Boomer focus on money, making it, and career, which really started to come into focus in the 1970s, helped get us there.  The mess they made of their family lives and indeed even the topic of sex, in which everything was all about themselves, has made a mess of domestic life that current generations are trying to fix.   

And they won't let go of things now.

And that's the main thing.

Now, let me take a step back.  I've written here as if all the Boomers are a monolith.  They are not. 

Thousands of men volunteered to fight in Vietnam, and a lot of them did not come back.  Environmentalism, which the Republicans have struggled against, was something started by their parents, but which was adopted to an enormous degree, had a huge positive impact, may have saved the planet for generations, and my save it in its entirety yet.  The same is true of conservationism, which dates back well over a century but which was very well expressed in the Boomers.  The combined legacy of environmentalism and conservationism is so deep that younger generations truly cannot grasp it.

So then, what of reality?

Well, the record is mixed.  It always was.  The World War Two generation did save the country, but in doing so they were rising to a challenge that they had to, and many sacrificed not only their bodies, but frankly their temperaments.  The Silent Generation built much of the post war world in their shadows and without their acknowledgement, even fighting a war without complaint that costs the US as many lives as the Vietnam War but which is in fact largely forgotten.  The country started yielding to the young Boomers by the 60s and in their heyday they tore everything down and when they went to build back up, they managed to forget and dump much of the humanity that had characterized prior generations, no matter how flawed they were.

So what now?

The old order changeth yielding place to new And God fulfills himself in many ways Lest one good custom should corrupt the world. Comfort thyself: what comfort is in me I have lived my life and that which I have done May he within himself make pure but thou If thou shouldst never see my face again Pray for my soul. More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.

Alfred Lord Tennyson.

Boomers can rightfully take credit for some great things, although the current ones, in the age of Trump, don't seem to want to.  They can be blamed for a lot of things that caused the rise of Trump and MAGA, which is a movement largely in younger generations, something that's often missed.  The liberal "Me Generation" aspect of the demographic was harmful in ways that we are still desperately trying to recover from, and turning, oddly, to Boomers who exhibit the trait, such as Trump, to try to fix.

They won't.

The Boomers want to remain relevant.  Post anything on this topic and you'll be accused of agism.  But the truth is, they needs to step back to the sidelines now in everything they are in.  The biggest favor they can do for Gen X and Gen Y (it's too late for Gen. Jones, our day is already over having never started) is to step back, and out of the way.  If in office, get out.  If heading a business that isn't you alone, step down.  If hoping for a Bishopric, stop.

Time to yield.

Why did we post this here?

Well, a big aspect of the last ninety years has been the shift, in the Western World, from family centered lives, including a lot of rural life, towards career and money.  Career and money are inherently self centered, if they are a person's primary focus.  And yet we teach people that those should be their primary focuses, which has been destructive to us all.

Lex Anteinternet: Do the right thing.

Lex Anteinternet: Do the right thing.:   Today is, of course, Easter. I saw a comment from a blog I've sort of followed where the poster fairly frequently remarks that he'...

Do the right thing.

 

Today is, of course, Easter.

I saw a comment from a blog I've sort of followed where the poster fairly frequently remarks that he's a fallen away Catholic, although at the same time his world outlook is obviously Catholic.  Today he chose to explain why he fell away.

What's struck me over the years is that an awful lot of people who take that path fall away as they're self centered.  The post made that really clear.  Supposedly he couldn't reconcile the message of the Church and the direction of society. That's not a reason to fall away, that's the very reason we need to be saved.  Without Christ, we're just a bunch of self centered whiners out to destroy ourselves.

Religion is not magic, which some people seem to think it is. Christians discuss the problem of evil, but part of the reason that evil is in the world as we have free will and we like it.  I saw a comment from a Monk once reflecting, and he meant it, that he asked the question "God, why do you law injustice in the world?" and actually got a reply, that being "Why do you?"

We know what's wrong and right and frequently just choose what's wrong.  The big Mega Churches will be packed today with "Christians" who are on multiple divorces and remarriages, or just living in sin, even though we all know that's wrong.  For that matter, Catholic churches will be packed today with those who only make it to Mass twice a year.

That's not to be lamented.  It's a sign of hope.  We know what's wrong.  We're often just to lazy and accommodating to do what's right.

Today is a good day to start doing what's right, including comporting our actual conduct to God and the the nature God created.

Straying from this a bit, I'd note how overarching this really is.  While I can't get into details very much, recently I've been dealing with a massive inter personal fight between two people I've known for a long time. Both are flat out wrong.

One of them is now upset with somebody that he once deeply loved as that person harshly criticized him.  Frankly, the nature of the criticism was brutal.  I've been criticized by the same person brutally myself, but I haven't lived a particularly sheltered life so I learned to just disregard it and the person eventually wondered on.  This person, however, hero worshipped the person who turned on him.

Additionally, there's an element of financial stress going on in there somewhere and while the person in question regards themselves as a very devout Christian, it's really clear that their concept of Christianity involves a deep love of the Church and its sacraments, but not so much some of its lessons, including the one that holds love of money is the root of all sin.

It's a classic failing.

The other person is an archetypical Baby Boomer.  For some reason a lot of Boomers just can't let go.  Handed everything early on, they really became the "Me" generation of the 70s.  This person really only has their work left, as his marriage fell apart and for the classic reasons, and, well, I won't go into it.  At some point if you were the center of all of your major life choices, however, all you have left, is you, and that isn't much.

Our current President, and indeed our last, both epitomized that Boomer view in some ways.  Trump has lived the Playboy lifestyle and his soul is imperiled.  He's also endangering us all, and all because to him, it's all about him.

Christ came to save humanity, but we're supposed to participate in that.  The road is fairly clear.  We're to try to take the narrow one.  Americans seemingly think that doesn't apply to them, and wonder why they're miserable.

Χριστὸς ἀνέστη!

Ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη!

Do the right thing.