Bourbon and Sense

...because with Bourbon comes good Sense

November Bourbon and this week's Talking Sense.


Elijah Craig Small Batch 1789 Bourbon Whiskey

Elijah Craig Small Batch 1789 Bourbon

Aroma: At 47% alcohol by volume, all I smell is the alcohol. It’s not overwhelming but disappointing

Taste: I took many tastes as you can see from the bottle. Only the burn down the throat stands out. After consecutive sips, the candy starts to show itself.

Appearance: Liquid gold.

Finish: Elijah Craig finishes with caramel or butterscotch. I can’t attest to a particular smoothness like other bourbons I have tried.

Story of: Calling themselves the Father of Bourbon, Elijah Craig Small Batch is distilled by Heaven Hill Distillers in Bardstown KY. The product is aged in charred oak barrels and then finished in different “toasted” barrels.

Talking Sense


Steve Bannon Held in Contempt

The House Select Committee for the investigation into the January 6 attack on the capitol voted unanimously to hold Steve Bannon in contempt for refusing their subpoena to appear before them. According to the website Truthout, the next step is for the US Attorney’s office in Washington D.C. to act on the matter. I think the office can drop the matter, arrest Mr. Bannon, or somehow exert further pressure for him to attend the closed-door invitation. Bannon is claiming executive privilege although neither him nor his former boss are now in White House so the claim is specious. But what that claim does say is that Mr. Trump was involved somehow. President Biden has rejected any claim to executive privilege for the previous administration. If these people, Trump and Bannon, are certain of their claims for a stolen election and a “tea-party” attack by American Patriots, then come before the committee and make your best case.


More Talking Sense


Five Anti-Vax Radio Hosts Die from Covid

I read in the Sunday paper’s Doonesbury comic that five radio hosts had died from Covid. Trudeau named them: Bob Enyart (the most recent), Marc Bernier, Phil Valentine, Jimmy DeYoung and Dick Farrel. I had a difficult time believing that so many anti-vax radio personalities could succumb to the virus so close in time together, that I searched Bing with their names. Sure enough, a September 14th article in the Newsmax website confirmed the story. Moreover, the deaths had occurred in the span of six weeks according to the article’s author, Brian Freeman. The latest person to die, Enyart, was a well-known personality and pastor who appeared on over 6000 radio and television shows in 80 cities (at least that’s what his website says). He successfully sued in October to stop a mask mandate for religious services in Colorado. His reasoning for not receiving the vaccination was that the serum was made from fetal cells. If that were true, I might understand his position as a Pro-Lifer; but, it’s not true. Rest in Peace.

Point


Wuhan Lab Leaks

The website RealClearPolitics.com has the video interview of Dr. Fauci with George Stephanopoulos along with a pretty good transcription of the event. I respect Dr. Fauci and so believe his statements that NIH funding of Covid -2 research by the Wuhan lab was not intended for, nor resulted in, development of the Covid-19 virus – something I think they are calling gain of function. But am I being naïve?


The comments added to the site make one stop and think. One person likened the progression of statements over time by Dr. Fauci to those made by Bill Clinton during his obfuscation about Ms. Lewinsky, and the person made sense. Could the US government be hiding the truth from us and I just choose to believe one person over another? I cannot judge whether it is molecularly impossible to go from one virus to the other: can you say CRISPR? What in fact was the purpose of Chinese research that we were helping to fund? That’s never explained satisfactorily in the interview or other Fauci television consultations.

Some kind of GOP investigation has concluded that Dr. Fauci lied to a GOP group investigating the causes of the Covid 19 and Dr. Rand Paul (a medical doctor and Senator) has been particularly vociferous in his accusations and demands for Fauci’s removal. A letter released by the NIH that concluded a sub-contractor of the lab had not released results in a timely manner precipitated the latest kerfuffle. The truth of this situation will be known many years from now. In the meantime, get vaccinated.

Counterpoint


Let's Pretend

Let’s pretend the opposite (and unthinkable) occurred: Trump won a second term. Can we imagine an alternate future where democrats shun the vaccine as suggested by some during the campaign? Would the same people continue to refuse to be vaccinated because it is against their right to choose, or the vaccine was fabricated in the swamp, or anything from the government is bad (except money and help after hurricanes, tornadoes and floods). The anti-vax reasons are probably many despite the scenario of having their man in office. I think Democrats would continue to want the vaccine, reasoning correctly that vaccines are mandatory for school children, suggested for the flu, shingles, pneumonia, and a bunch of other diseases: why not Covid?


Opinion


Infrastructure Spending Bill

I started wondering: Why won’t Republicans vote in favor of spending on bridges, roads, and the internet. So, I researched the question and landed on the National Review website in an article titled, “House Republicans Reject Infrastructure Deal.” The first piece of information that caught my attention was that ten Republicans may vote for the bill, which if targeted at improving the nation’s economic ability, who wouldn’t vote affirmative. But the article went on to recommend that Republicans don’t bail out the Democrats by voting yes when some of their own are against it. According to the article, the reasons are several: 1. We can’t afford the extra expenditures; 2. About 500 billion of the 1.2 trillion is for climate initiatives; and 3. The infrastructure bill is tied to the larger Reconciliation bill, also known as the Social Agenda bill for 1.75 trillion and it includes too much around “extending the social-welfare state” although details on what that is are not provided. I thought this infrastructure bill was crafted earlier in the year by a team of Democrats and Republicans. So it is still confusing why this isn’t more of a bi-partisan effort. I do understand the concern with linking it to the Social Agenda bill – maybe the same team could work that one?

More Opinion


Social Spending Bill

Same question for the larger social spending bill: Why won’t Republicans support it? This one should be easier because they are against anything with the word social in it; just like the Democrats have never seen a social program they didn’t like. Searching the internet landed me on the New York Post website. The article reported on a Republican from Indiana Jim Banks’s letter to fellow conservatives listing 42 bullet point against the bill, any one of which would be enough to vote no (according to him). The article lists three and highlights one: the bill continues to foster the labor shortage with too much financial support to people; in Banks’s words, “…welfare benefits without work requirements for able-bodied Americans without dependents.” The other three mentioned are, 1. Commissioning a civilian climate corps who will act as climate police. 2. “…Language requiring pre-K staff to have a college degree would hurt small and in-home daycares, saying it pushes “faith-based childcare providers out” of the sector.” 3. “…incentives for illegal immigration including an enhanced child tax credit, student aid, and free college entitlement (probably the now removed free Community College). There wasn’t much else on the internet explaining Republican resistance to the bill. I wish they would work together to craft something that would help Americans.