Andrew C. McCarthy on the Manafort breach

The New Neo Posted on by

As so often happens, former prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy sheds light on some legal-political news that no one else seems to have quite understood (and that includes me). The subject matter is Mueller’s charge that Manafort’s lies have abrogated their previous plea agreement.

Here’s McCarthy:

When it comes to claimed breaches of a plea agreement, the prosecutor holds the dominant position. Defendants who plead guilty and agree to cooperate, as Manafort did on the day before his Washington trial was to begin, do so with the understanding that the value of the cooperation is the prosecutor’s call. If the prosecutor decides the information provided is not useful — or, worse, that the defendant has lied — the defendant does not get to withdraw his guilty plea. Further, if the prosecutor decides the defendant has breached the agreement, the government is under no obligation to support reductions in sentence that the defendant hoped to achieve by entering the agreement.

On that score, Mueller’s prosecutors are laying the groundwork to argue that Manafort should not even get any credit for pleading guilty and sparing the public the need for a second trial (after he was convicted at his first trial in the Eastern District of Virginia). In the submission, the special counsel points out that Manafort did not decide to plead guilty until the last minute, so prosecutors and the court had to gear up for the trial. Moreover, Weissmann emphasizes that the alleged breach relieves the government of any duty to support Manafort’s claim that he has demonstrated “acceptance of responsibility” — a standard sentencing reduction for defendants who plead guilty.

For their part, Manafort and his lawyers are clearly preparing to argue that Manafort was honest but that Mueller’s rabidly anti-Trump prosecutors did not like what he had to say — i.e., he would not implicate the president in misconduct. This would echo a theme posited by Judge T. S. Ellis in Manafort’s Virginia trial: Mueller aggressively pursued Manafort on charges that had nothing to do with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election in order to squeeze Manafort into singing, or even “composing,” as a witness against the president.

There’s much more at the link about the power plays going on here, and what might be behind them.

I will add, though, that the timing, context, and course of the Manafort prosecution has made it quite clear that the real prey Mueller has been stalking was and is President Trump. I don’t think there’s much question about that.

Think we have a higher rate of mass shootings than western Europe does?

The New Neo Posted on by

Think again.

John Lott writes:

People have been acting for a long time like the United States is the world’s hotbed of mass public shootings.

He gives many examples of statements from public officials—such as, for example, Barack Obama in 2015, after a mass shooting—making that point. It seems pretty clear that it’s a given, an obvious truth, that America leads the way in mass murders by gun. Right?

Wrong:

This belief is constantly used to push for more gun control. If we can only get rid of guns in the United States, we will get rid of these mass public shootings and be more like the rest of the world, gun-control supporters preach…

But America doesn’t lead the world in mass public shootings. We’re not even close.

We’re not even close? How many people would have checked that box in the multiple choice exam on the subject?

The Crime Prevention Research Center, of which [Lott is] president, recently finished updating a list of mass public shootings worldwide. These shootings must claim four or more lives in a public place. Following the FBI definition, the shootings we list are carried out simply with the intention of killing. We exclude gang fights because they tend to be motivated by battles for drug turf. Murders that arise from other crimes are also excluded.

Then there are politically motivated attacks, either by or against governments. Some shootings occur in the course of guerrilla wars for sovereignty. These attacks do not meet our definition. This meant excluding a lot of very deadly shootings such as those in the Russian-Chechen conflict…

Over the course of 18 years, from 1998 to 2015, our list contains 2,354 attacks and at least 4,880 shooters outside the United States and 53 attacks and 57 shooters within this country. By our count, the U.S. makes up 1.49 percent of the murders worldwide, 2.20 percent of the attacks, and less than 1.15 percent of the mass public shooters. All these are much less than America’s 4.6 percent share of the world population.

Of the 97 countries where we identified mass public shootings, the U.S. ranks 64th per capita in its rate of attacks and 65th in fatalities.

That’s pretty astounding. But when I read those numbers, I figured that the first 63 nations were chaotic third- or second-world countries, and that the US came close to leading the pack among the developed countries, especially those of western Europe. Right?

Wrong:

Major European countries, such as Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia, all have at least 25 percent higher per capita murder rates from mass public shootings.

If those figures are correct—and I have no reason to doubt them at this point—they are truly shocking. Shocking in a good way, because although even one mass shooting would be one too many, it’s still good news to hear that there’s nothing especially violent about the USA in that regard.

The left uses every single mass shooting in this country to scream that anyone who doesn’t support stricter gun control doesn’t care about the victims of mass shootings. But the countries of Western Europe mentioned in that list are stricter about gun control than we are (see this for the somewhat special case of Switzerland). And yet they exceed us in mass shootings per capita.

The Obama administration used tear gas at the border: an inconvenient truth

The New Neo Posted on by

Apparently, the use of tear gas at the southern border had become a rather commonplace occurrence during the Obama years, especially in his second term. And yet few if any people seemed to care at the time.

When this fact was pointed out recently by Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, the response was predictable:

Host Erin Burnett scoffed at Mr. Judd’s facts, saying the agents were using tear gas against women and children this weekend.

“The tear gas was not deployed at the children,” Mr. Judd countered, saying migrants were attempting to use them as human shields.

That’s what I pointed out yesterday in this post. Children make the very best human shields of all, and the MSM is only too happy to encourage that practice by pretending not to even notice that the tactic exists. Thus, the risk to children increases over time rather than decreases.

Twitter bans another conservative

The New Neo Posted on by

Jesse Kelly has been banned from Twitter with no explanation whatsoever, which—among other things—is in violation of Twitter’s own stated policy for informing people of the reasons for a ban.

I’d never heard of Jesse Kelly before this incident. And I have detested Twitter from the start, a sort of mirror image of my love-at-first-sight attraction to blogs. Twitter plays to some of the worst human impulses: snarky simplistic put-downs, a race to the bottom, and the mobbing of those the group has deemed to have strayed from the increasingly narrow definition of acceptable thought and behavior.

So even without knowing much about Jesse Kelly, I’m on his side.

Twitter is incredibly powerful in the decisions it makes, and this is why:

Actually, there is an alternative to Twitter, but it comes at a big cost—traffic and attention. For years, Twitter (and to a lesser extent Facebook) has been the way to go to garner attention and readers. I’ve realized that, but Twitter’s just not my medium.

However, for those who choose to use it and whose voices are blocked by Twitter for seemingly no good reason (except their conservative politics), this is an ominous development. Actually, it’s an ominous development for all of us, whether we use Twitter or not.

At the border: dealing with the invasion that isn’t an invasion

The New Neo Posted on by

Things have been heating up at the Tijuana border.

The good news: the Mexican government seems to be on board with deporting 500 “migrants” who stormed the border over the weekend and were repelled by tear gas from the US side.

The bad news (although it’s not news in the sense that it’s certainly not new): the US left (which now has come to include most Democrats, it seems) finds this outrageous. The tear gas, that is.

For example, Rep. Brian Schatz wondered whether it might be a type of chemical weapon attack, although he later deleted that tweet and added this instead:

The mob that stormed the border was not a Children’s Crusade; it consisted predominantly of young men. There were some children and women in it as well, however, a leaf out of the Palestinian book of putting children in harm’s way in order to get some good photo ops and play on the sympathies of the left in the country trying to protect its border. Tear gas is a miserable experience, but its time-honored use is to disperse crowds without the use of more permanently harmful means of crowd control.

If you don’t want your children to get tear-gassed (or worse), then don’t embed them into a lawless mob bent on storming a border fence; follow the rules instead and do whatever it takes to get into the country legally. An actual “coalition of the moral and the sane” would know that (a) countries—any and all countries—have a right to defend their borders; and (b) tear gas is a relatively safe way to do that; and (c) there is zero analogy to Jews in WWII, who were law-abiding members of the same type of societies they were trying to enter, and who faced near-certain death otherwise with no alternative way out.

As I noted, the Palestinians wrote this book (although they were not the first to do so) and the “caravan” members are merely copying it because it is so successful, while the left in the US and Europe further honed what arguments to make during its experience defending the Palestinians and the great success of those arguments and those visuals as propaganda. Here is a post I wrote some years ago on the subject; Palestinians play an even more deadly game, as did the leftist North Vietnamese before them.

The entire approach is a sort of left-handed (and leftist-generated) compliment to the people of the country it is used against. The more brutal the country really is, the less likely the opposing force is likely to use it, because truly brutal countries have no qualms whatsoever about using the deadliest of forces against anyone—including children—who would invade it, storm it, or otherwise harm it.

But let’s return to Schatz. When he writes, “we can argue about other stuff when we’ve got our country back”—I assume he means when the only valid party in America, the Democratic Party, takes power again, which he expects to happen rather shortly, certainly by 2020. Of course, other people might interpret the idea of “getting our country back” as referring to being allowed to defend borders and insist on legal immigrants, people this country has long welcomed and who are likely to become law-abiding US citizens. But that’s not what Schatz and today’s Democratic Party would say.

[NOTE: Please read Part II of Bill Reader’s series on the groups behind the caravan (I linked to Part I a while back). It makes for sobering reading.

And of course, when during the Obama administration border agents used pepper spray in a similar situation, the response was relatively muted. Because Obama.]

Trump, Chief Justice Roberts, and the flap over the political partisanship of judges

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, one thing we know about Chief Justice Roberts: he’s not a “Trump judge.”

You’ve probably heard about the back-and-forth between Trump and Roberts on the issue of the partisanship of the judiciary. To recap:

Mr Trump on Tuesday called a jurist who ruled against his asylum policy an “Obama judge”.

The president’s gibe provoked a stern statement from the head of America’s highest court…

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Chief Justice Roberts told the Associated Press.

“What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Speaking on the eve of America’s Thanksgiving holiday, he said an “independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for”.

Mr Trump responded on Twitter on Wednesday, saying the top justice was wrong and that “Obama judges… have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country”.

Trump isn’t the only one who responded. As you might imagine, each man had his defenders and detractors. Chuck Schumer’s response was especially noteworthy, containing its own internal contradiction. He essentially makes an ass of himself, at least for those who pay attention to such trifles as logic:

You can’t make this stuff up, although the Onion—and Chuck Schumer—can.

My own reaction (which I hope won’t contain any internal contradictions) is the following.

Firstly, it strikes me that the dispute between Roberts and Trump is a typical DonQuixote/SanchoPanza dispute. Roberts is stating an ideal that does not exist in the real world, and what’s more just about everybody knows that Trump is stating something that seems very very real. But although that’s the case—and the bitterness of so many confirmation fights in recent decades have made it crystal clear—presidents aren’t supposed to actually say that sort of thing, and SCOTUS chief justices certainly aren’t supposed to say it. So Roberts is defending what he sees as the integrity of the judicial system, and his own integrity as a justice who no doubt prizes his own idea of his own lack of partisanship and his devotion to objectivity.

But that’s just “firstly.” Secondly, maybe what passes for political partisanship—and acts as partisanship—on the part of judges is merely a reflection of a deeper divide between left and right, a divide based on judicial philosophy. To put it in a very simplistic (perhaps too simplistic) way, judges appointed by Democratic administrations usually operate under the idea that the Constitution is a document that must adapt to modern times, and can be stretched and reshaped to find penumbras and intents to fit whatever the left happens to think is a worthy cause. Judges appointed by Republican administrations usually (although certainly not always, since there is variation as well as “changers” among them) operate under a more restricted idea of what judges must do: to interpret cases in accord with the intent of the Founders and the words of the Constitution, plus case law to a greater or lesser extent.

These two philosophies lead to very different results, and those results are relatively consistent and predictable.

Thirdly (yes, there’s a thirdly), I believe that Roberts is also reacting to the pernicious influence of something called “critical legal studies,” although I doubt that motive is perceived by most people. Maybe I’m even wrong about this underlying element in Roberts’ statement, but I think it’s a distinct possibility that I’m correct.

I keep meaning to write a long post on critical legal studies, but I haven’t done it yet. Critical legal studies got going in law schools during the 70s, during the time Justice Roberts would have been in law school. Here’s a brief idea of what the movement was about in those days:

The critical legal studies movement emerged in the mid-1970s as a network of leftist law professors in the United States who developed the realist indeterminacy thesis in the service of leftist ideals…

Duncan Kennedy, a Harvard law professor who along with Unger was one of the key figures in the movement, has said that, in the early days of critical legal studies, “just about everyone in the network was a white male with some interest in 60s style radical politics or radical sentiment of one kind or another. Some came from Marxist backgrounds–some came from democratic reform.” Kennedy has emphasized the twofold nature of critical legal studies, as both a network of leftist scholar/activists and a scholarly literature…

The approach is too complex to go into here, and it has many components. Its practitioners have become extremely influential in legal education. One of its main philosophies is that the idea of the judiciary as an objective impartial interpreter of law is invalid and incorrect. And not only invalid and incorrect, but not even desirable or possible as a goal. Instead:

…there is the idea that all “law is politics”. This means that legal decisions are a form of political decision, but not that it is impossible to tell judicial and legislative acts apart. Rather, CLS have argued that while the form may differ, both are based around the construction and maintenance of a form of social space. The argument takes aim at the positivist idea that law and politics can be entirely separated from one another.

Chief Justice Roberts may have thought he was upholding the idea of the judiciary as something different from “politics by another name,” and the notion that objectivity is a good thing and something to strive for even if not always achieved. If so, he’s a day late and a dollar short.

[NOTE: You may remember that, when Sotomayor was nominated, we heard about a previous speech of hers in which she’d said:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

I wrote this post in response:

Sotomayor has abandoned the idea that the possession of judicial wisdom is something that is—or should be—color and gender blind, that it ought to have a certain reality that transcends a judge’s own personal history. In other words, she does not believe that those who dispense justice can be impartially and equally wise, and that wisdom is something separate from one’s gender and ethnic identity.

Impartiality may be difficult or even impossible to achieve, and reasonable men (and women!) can differ about when it is being displayed, but one of the most sacred and important foundations of our legal system is that it is nevertheless something for which we must strive…

…[I]t’s no accident Obama chose Sotomayor as the first of what will probably be several picks for Supreme Court Justice. They are both on the same page about justice: it is what they, in their infinite wisdom and valuable life experience as members of minorities defined as underprivileged and worthy of special and favored treatment, declare it to be. Not what a bunch of less-wise white men who “haven’t lived that life” might think it is. But paradoxically, the idea that there is some superiority inherent in a person’s racial or gender makeup is an example of a pernicious type of thinking that our rule of law has evolved to combat.

Was countering that sort of thing also in Chief Justice Roberts’ mind when he responded to what Trump had said? I don’t know, but I think maybe.]

Allan Bloom quotes to ponder

The New Neo Posted on by

In light of the brouhaha that arose in response to President Trump’s recent comments lauding nationalism, I think it’s illuminating to revisit two quotes from Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind.

Here’s the first:

Contrary to much contemporary wisdom, the United States has one of the longest uninterrupted political traditions of any nation in the world. What is more, that tradition is unambiguous; its meaning is articulated in simple, rational speech that is immediately comprehensible and powerfully persuasive to all normal human beings. America tells one story: the unbroken, ineluctable progress of freedom and equality. From its first settlers and its political foundings on, there has been no dispute that freedom and equality are the essence of justice for us. No one serious or notable has stood outside this consensus…All significant political disputes have been about the meaning of freedom and equality, not about their rightness. Nowhere else is there a tradition or a culture whose message is so distinct and unequivocal—certainly not in France, Italy, Germany, or even England…Belonging to one of these peoples may be expained as a sentiment, an attachment to one’s own, akin to the attachment to father and mother, but Frenchness, Englishness, Germaness remain, nonetheless, ineffable. Everybody can, however, articulate what Americanness is…

But the unity, grandeur and attendant folklore of the founding heritage was attacked from so many directions in the last half-century that it gradually disappeared from daily life and from textbooks. It all began to seem like Washington and the cherry tree—not the sort of thing to teach children seriously. What is influential in the higher intellectual circles always ends up in the schools. The leading ideas of the Declaration began to be understood as eighteenth-century myths or ideologies. Historicism, in Carl Becker’s version (The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, 1922) both cast doubt on the truth of the natural rights teaching and optimistically promised that it would provide a substitute. Similarly Dewey’s pragmatism—the method of science as the method of democracy, individual growth without limits, especially natural limits—saw the past as radically imperfect and regarded our history as irrelevant or as a hindrance to rational analysis of our present. Then there was Marxist debunking of the Charles Beard variety, trying to demonstrate that there was no public spirit, only private concern for property, in the Founding Fathers, thus weakening our convictions of the truth or superiority of American principles and our heroes (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, 1913). Then the Southern historians and writers avenged the victory of the antislavery Union by providing low motives for the North (incorporating European critiques of commerce and technology) and idealizing the South’s way of life. Finally, in curious harmony with the Southerners, the radicals in the civil rights movement succeeded in promoting a popular conviction that the Founding was, and the American principles are, racist…

Students now arrive at the university ignorant and cynical about our political heritage, lacking the wherewithal to be either inspired by it or seriously critical of it.

And here’s the second:

Every educational system has a moral goal that it tries to attain and that informs its curriculum. It wants to produce a certain kind of human being…In some nations the goal was the pious person, in others the warlike, in others the industrious…Aristocracies want gentlemen, oligarchies men who respect and pursue money, and democracies lovers of equality. Democratic education, whether it admits it or not, wants and needs to produce men and women who have the tastes, knowledge, and character supportive of a democratic regime. Over the history of our republic, there have obviously been changes of opinion as to what kind of man is best for our regime. We began with the model of the rational and industrious man, who was honest, respected the laws, and was dedicated to the family (his own family—what has in its decay been dubbed the nuclear family). Above all he was to know the rights doctrine; the Constitution, which embodied it; and American history, which presented and celebrated the founding of a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”…

But openness…eventually won out over natural rights, partly through a theoretical critique, partly because of a political rebellion against nature’s last constraints. Civic education turned away from concentrating on the Founding to concentrating on openness based on history and social science. There was even a general tendency to debunk the Founding, to prove the beginnings were flawed in order to license a greater openness to the new…

Some say the world will end in fire…

The New Neo Posted on by

…some say in ice:

Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018. The information she unveiled should shake/wake you up.

Zharkova was one of the few that correctly predicted solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.

Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020 and running for 350-400 years.

The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase.

This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.

The rest of the Frost poem is here:

From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

More about the poem’s origins:

It was published in December 1920 in Harper’s Magazine and in 1923 in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book New Hampshire….

According to one of Frost’s biographers, “Fire and Ice” was inspired by a passage in Canto 32 of Dante’s Inferno, in which the worst offenders of hell, the traitors, are submerged, while in a fiery hell, up to their necks in ice: “a lake so bound with ice, / It did not look like water, but like a glass … right clear / I saw, where sinners are preserved in ice.”

In an anecdote he recounted in 1960 in a “Science and the Arts” presentation, prominent astronomer Harlow Shapley claims to have inspired “Fire and Ice”. Shapley describes an encounter he had with Robert Frost a year before the poem was published in which Frost, noting that Shapley was the astronomer of his day, asked him how the world will end. Shapley responded that either the sun will explode and incinerate the Earth, or the Earth will somehow escape this fate only to end up slowly freezing in deep space. Shapley was surprised at seeing “Fire and Ice” in print a year later, and referred to it as an example of how science can influence the creation of art, or clarify its meaning.

Please see this post of mine from 2014 for a look at more of Frost’s take on science, and the breadth and depth of his intellect. There’s another poem there which, although far inferior to “Fire and Ice,” is relevant to this discussion and may surprise you.

Black Friday: don’t forget Amazon and don’t forget neo

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s the day after Thanksgiving, otherwise known as Black Friday. The day to wait patiently in store lines for bargains—between bites of turkey salad sandwich, doses of Tums, and the ritual of making turkey carcass soup.

But neo readers needn’t wait in those lines if you (act of shameless self-promotion coming up) just use this blog as the portal for your Amazon holiday gift purchases. Click on the Amazon widget in the right sidebar (or go here if for some reason the widget isn’t showing), and everything you buy during that visit will send a tiny bit of money my way, and it won’t cost you one extra cent. Or here’s a link to Black Friday specials.

So now it’s time to relax and enjoy eating those leftovers to your heart’s content.

amazon.jpg

The Great Fires and the forgetting

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the earliest posts I ever wrote on this blog (in January 2005) was called “The tsunami and the forgetting“. It was about the phenomenon of people forgetting—and certainly forgetting the details of—huge and terrible disasters, even recent ones.

Here’s an excerpt:

We hardly hear about the tsunami anymore, although for a while it dominated the news. The tsunami was videotaped in a staggering variety of manifestations: from the tall towering waves of Japanese art, to rolling swells that almost resembled a normal tide coming in–except for the fact that this particular tide just kept coming and coming and coming. We viewed forlorn beaches where villages had once stood, and saw keening mourners whose anguish was almost unbearable to watch even on the small screen.

Over and over, newspeople, relief workers, politicians, and officials declared this to be an unprecedented catastrophe. But in the annals of history there have been far greater catastrophes (at least in terms of number of deaths), and many of them have been almost utterly forgotten–although some of these have actually occurred relatively recently…

Only those of a certain age might remember the massive 1970 floods in Bangladesh which killed 300,000 people…An earthquake in the city of Tianjin in China in 1976, in the bad old days when almost no news emerged from that country, was reported to have killed at least 255,000, and more likely 655,000. How many of us have even heard of the city, much less the earthquake? Those with longer memories than I might even recall the flooding of the Yangtze in 1931 that caused at least three million deaths–and this was in a time when the world’s population was far smaller than it is today.

Stranger still is the lack of common knowledge about the 1918-9 influenza epidemic that disrupted most of the world (with the exception of Africa and South America) at the same time WWI was ravaging Western Europe. It was an event medieval or even Biblical in its apocalyptic scope. How many people died worldwide? Estimates vary, but the most conservative state that the death toll was 25 million. Oher estimates go much higher, up to 70 million or even 100 million. And, as this transcript [dead link] from a fascinating PBS documentary on the pandemic relates, “As soon as the dying stopped, the forgetting began.”

I thought of that post again in the wake of the Camp Fire that tragically and horrifyingly has taken so many lives, although the number is of course dwarfed by those previous tolls.

And then I was surprised to read a headline saying that the Camp Fire was the worst since 1918, when the Cloquet Fire in Minnesota caused 453 known deaths (there may have been many more), destroyed 38 communities, and displaced or injured over fifty thousand people.

And until yesterday I’d never even heard of the Cloquet Fire. Had you? Maybe if you live in Minnesota you have, but has anyone else?

I discovered that there were some similarities between the Cloquet Fire and the Camp Fire. Although we don’t usually think of Minnesota as a dry state (at least, I certainly don’t), it had been experiencing a drought and high winds, and it happened in the fall.

And then, reading about that fire led me to links about another destructive and out-of-control forest fire in Minnesota (with the same conditions of drought and high winds), the Hinckley fire of 1894. I’d never before heard a thing about that one, either. But I came across an article from a 1977 issue of American Heritage that was one of the most riveting, intense, bloodcurdling tales of horror and heroism I’ve ever read.

Please read the whole thing. Our ancestors were tough, tough people.

But that one was not the deadliest fire of its kind in US history. That dubious honor goes to the Peshtigo fire that took place in Wisconsin in 1871, also involving a drought and high winds, and also occurring in the fall. The number of dead was never determined, but estimates are between 1,500 and 2,500 people:

Occurring on the same day as the more famous Great Chicago Fire, the Peshtigo fire has been largely forgotten.

The day after

The New Neo Posted on by

Lighter blogging today. Just having fun with family, friends, and food.

And turkey soup. Must make turkey soup! I like chicken soup, but turkey soup has a darker, richer, more robust flavor that’s perfect this time of year. You can put just about anything edible in it and it tastes fine. My sister-in-law sometimes adds a little leftover cranberry sauce to it, and even that is good.

But the cranberry sauce is best with the obligatory turkey sandwiches.

I usually am not that keen on turkey stuffing (otherwise known as dressing) baked outside the bird. But yesterday I ate a fabulous one. I don’t have the exact recipe yet, but I intend to get it. I do know it had the following ingredients: rye bread, challah, onions, celery, parsley, sage, rosemary, thyme (with those last four ingredients, do I hear music playing?), salt, butter, and chicken broth.