The Slap Felt 'Round the World

In recent years the Academy Awards have lost more and more

viewers, as they have either found other bill of fare on television

or other things to do on Oscar night. But something out of the 

ordinary occurred last night which likely will be a one-off

but may stir enough renewed interest to bring back some fallen-

away viewers at next year's bash: an actor made a physical assault 

on another --- right up on stage, for all the world to see, even on

television.

The roots of the contretemps had actor/rapper Will Smith's wife,

actress Jada Pinkett Smith, last year publicly announced that she 

shaved her head because she found that she has alopecia. This is

a disease which causes baldness, and Pinkett Smith quickly lost

most of her hair so she shaved off the remainder, stating:

"Mama's going to have to take it down to the scalp so nobody

thinks she got brain surgery or something. Me and this alopecia

are going to be friends ... period!" Ever since then Pinkett Smith

has worn a wig. 

But Chris Rock, who was one of the co-hosts of the Oscars this 

year, being the prolific comedian that he is, could not resist 

making a crack about Pinkett Smith's follicle situation. While 

onstage Rock was about to announce the winner of the Oscar for

best documentary feature when he joked about her shaved head,

saying that he couldn't wait for GI Jane 2 with Pinkett Smith as

Jane. A short while later an incensed Will Smith stepped onstage

and slapped Chris Rock, an altercation never before witnessed

at the Academy Awards over its nearly century-long existence. 

While many of those present at the ceremonies thought that the

whole thing was a pre-planned gag, they were quickly disabused

by Smith's angry warning he yelled, twice, at Rock after returning 

to his seat: "Keep my wife's name out of your f****** mouth!".

Now, comedy has become a dicey and rather chancy thing of late.

Political correctness and wokeness, the latter being the former on

steroids has made it nearly impossible for standup comics to 

perform in most venues, especially college campuses and the 

Academy Awards without receiving the nastiest opprobrium. 

Many in Hollywood have opined that Will Smith, who was a 

recipient of an Oscar that night, should have his Oscar for  

Best Actor taken away and given to another actor in that category

for his behavior. Your non-star struck Peasant, however, says 

that while Smith may well have some punitive actions to face

(Chris Rock could certainly press charges of assault) but his Oscar

award is not relevant to the incident, therefore Smith should not 

be stripped of either his victory nor his prize. I say this, not as 

a fan of either combatant (although I have enjoyed some of 

their work) but as an objective observer and commentator. And no, 

I did not watch the Oscars last night, and have not done so for 

several years, having gotten sick of all the narcissistic, snooty,

moral and political preening by the Oscar winners and other

attendees. But The Peasant feels the need to comment on the

events which were part of the larger event, as there are 

ramifications for us all, and I'm unable to wait until the middle 

of the week when I usually post.

Moreover, we as a nation have almost lost our ability to laugh 

at ourselves. We take umbrage at the good-natured humor 

focused upon us, a close family member, or a close friend,

never mind one's nationality, ancestry, or gender. Or, for that

matter, any other category of human existence. While it is 

admirable that a man stands up for his wife, sometimes the

event doesn't necessitate a physical response. And when there 

is such a response in a situation like this, more harm than good

is done. Good Lord, what would have happened to Don Rickles

if he tried to work in such an environment? 

And we are further divided as a society, which leads to further 

division in our towns, our cities, our states, and our nation.

We need more unity, not more divisiveness, so let's not give in 

to anger over relatively small things and show righteous anger 

at the bigger things, i.e. Russia invading Ukraine just because

their strongman Putin wants to rebuild Russia the way it was 

in its Soviet Union days; a vast and truly evil empire. 

MEM

An Extremist Flames Out

Sarah Bloom Raskin, President Biden's choice for the post

of vice chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, recently 

withdrew her name in nomination for the job. Her action 

sent a clear message to the Fed that many U.S. senators are 

hostile to the idea that the central bank should allocate capital 

for certain politically charged endeavors --- and rightfully so.

What else could be done about Raskin, who is on record 

stating that the Fed should deny credit to companies 

that produce or consume fossil fuels (namely oil). 

Although she and her supporters, which include Sens. 

Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse and Sherrod Brown,

all far-left wing Democrats, have sworn up and down that

she would never use her powers that way in this position,

It's all a load of blarney that must have gone nicely with 

the recent Saint Patrick's Day.

The Fed's dual mandate is to ensure full employment and 

stable prices. But the progressive wing of the Democrat

Party (which is practically the only wing of that party 

these days) wants her to use her powers in this position 

to promote and advance their items on their political wish

list. This would lead to the politicizing and the corruption 

of the Fed itself.

Republicans on the Senate banking Committee, led by their 

leader ranking member Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), voiced 

their concerns over Raskin's public stances on the afore-

mentioned issues. Raskin, you see, has written that financial

regulation should be used to "allocate capital and align 

portfolios toward sustainable investments that do not depend

on carbon and fossil fuels." Also, her husband, U.S. Rep.

Jamie Raskin (D-MD) didn't report her stock holdings in

Reserve Trust as required by congressional ethics rules ---

a major no-no. she made a cool $1.5 million selling those 

investment holdings after RT's Fed account was secured.

Toomey offered a deal to Banking Committee Democrats:

Republicans would vote to advance four less radical and

therefore less controversial Biden Fed nominees, out of

committee if the Dems would block Raskin. However, 

maverick Sen. Joe Masnchin (D-WV), who isn't on the

Banking Committee but has been a constant thorn in

the side of Senate Democrats for having voted against

Biden's Infrastructure monstrosity which would have cost

trillions of dollars to enact, announced that he would not 

back Raskin's nomination if it were brought before the 

entire Senate. This torpedoed Raskin's chances, slim though

they already were, of getting the plum position she had

hoped for, and was a huge victory for the GOP senators,

much of the credit going to Sen. Toomey for engineering

the derailment of Raskin's ascent. 

Raskin's defeat should make Fed Chairman Jerome Powell 

more confident to rebuff attempts by others on the Fed's 

Board of Governors to shape financial regulation to be a

means of battling climate change. Will President Biden 

learn from this episode? One hopes, but one doubts that

he will. He blamed Raskin's defeat on "baseless attacks 

from industry and conservative interest groups." When

he nominates another candidate, and that candidate has 

the same ideas and plans, what excuse will he offer for

that candidate's defeat? 

MEM

The Peasant's St. Patrick's Day Plans

On Thursday, March 17 I'll be making the rounds

going to parties at my favorite Irish pubs in town,

visiting with friends, singing Irish songs (including

getting up onstage to sing with a band or two), and 

enjoying some Guinness, some wonderful Irish food,

and I'll be at it from morning to night. I am also 

taking the week off from posting new commentaries,

essays, and the like, as I have begun celebrating the 

feast day of Ireland's patron saint just this past Saturday

in similar fashion and am taking in a bunch of like 

activities throughout this time. And I, and all my 

friends and family, are grateful to have our St. Patrick's

Day back, with all the activities which we always enjoy

on the day but had them taken from us during the 

COVID-19 pandemic. We outlasted the virus, and we 

are back in the business of having good old-

fashioned shenanigans just as always!

We shall, of course, get back together next week 

and resume business, poring over the political and

economic news, commending the heroes and condemning

the heels. In the meantime may you all, my treasured readers, 

have a wonderful St. Patrick's Day; even those with no Irish

blood in their veins can have a grand time on this special

occasion! Enjoy!

MEM

P.J. O'Rourke, R.I.P.

One of my favorite literary people on the Right, and one

with an especially wicked, no-holds-barred wit, recently

passed from our midst. P.J. O'Rourke, 74, was not what 

you would call genteel; he once fired a machine gun off

of his left-wing counterpart Hunter S. Thompson's porch.

Both of these old friends were "gonzos" in temperament 

and behavior. He perfected his craft as a young radical

working on the staff of underground papers including

Ramparts, later when with National Lampoon. O'Rourke

later brought his polished skills to conservative publications

such as American Standard, and wrote humorous books

in which he tore a new one in the backsides of politicians

and political parties, such as A Parliament of Whores

(which your favorite Peasant had the great pleasure of 

reading some years ago) and Vacations in Hell. 

A member of the next generation of the literary stars in the

firmament of the modern American Right, he has gone to 

join its founders, among whom is William F. Buckley Jr,

founder of the National Review. Godspeed, P.J. Thank you

for all the wickedly wonderful fun. Requiescat in Pace.

MEM

Does DA Stand for Devil's Advocate?

There has been a glut of DAs in our major cities that don't 

want to prosecute criminals, even though it is a major 

function of their jobs. Milwaukee, Chicago, Philadelphia,

Minneapolis, and Los Angeles are just a few of the cities 

which have this misfortune, and here is but one story 

illustrating the consequences of this difficulty:

In New York, two NYPD officers responded to a domestic

violence call. Officers Jason Rivera and Wilbert Mora

were shot dead by a career-criminal, who was shot dead 

by a third officer. Officer Rivera's funeral packed Saint

Patrick's Cathedral. His widow, Dominique Luzuriaga

gave the eulogy, in which she ripped Manhattan's namby-

pamby on crime and criminals DA Alvin Bragg, remarking

"We are not safe anymore, not even members of the 

service ... I hope he's watching you speak through me 

right now." When questioned about her words, Bragg 

said in a statement that "my office will vigorously prosecute

cases of violence against police and work to prevent 

senseless acts like this from ever happening again."

And the New York Jets will go to the Super Bowl next

football season. 

DAs like Bragg have an ideological bent which leads them

to sympathize with criminals, regardless how violent they

are, and to disdain police for their picking on those poor

criminals by arresting and booking them, getting them ready

to head to court for their trials. They make various excuses 

for them and their anti-social, abhorrent behavior and treat 

them with kid gloves while being coldly dismissive of their

victims --- including police. If they really feel that strongly 

against making sure that they get sentenced for their crimes

they should resign their posts and become defense attorneys,

working at representing them against the DAs and the victims

rather than representing the people, especially the victims of

said criminals.

But DAs are elected by the people rather than appointed by

other government officials. If the people in the cities where 

they have these awful DAs are tired of having criminals run

amok in their communities and prey upon them, they must

enact the change they need at election time. Only then will

the beleaguered people have safer cities. 

This problem is not impossible to solve; the solution is in

the people's hands.

MEM

When Intolerance Isn't Intolerance

Beto O'Rourke, the former Texas Congressman, almost-

U.S. Senator, and for a time one of the gaggle of candidates

to be the Democrats' 2020 presidential nominee was trying

mightily to get that party's progressives (which by now is 

almost the entire party) to consider him presidential material.

Among his plays was calling for a mandatory gun buyback

and supporting an expansion of so-called abortion rights.

His last gambit was to force churches to sing from the progressive

hymnal, that is, to adopt the progressive cultural strictures 

in place of Scriptural teaching. Thank God (yes, pun intended!) 
his campaign never took off.  

How would O'Rourke have done this? Removal of the tax-exempt

status of these houses of worship. He said as much at a 

CNN town hall, stating "There can be no reward, no benefit, no 

tax break for anyone or any institution ... that denies the full human

rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us ... We are

going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of

our fellow Americans." His remarks drew thunderous applause

from the very partisan live audience. Your quizzical Peasant wants

to ask here, but what about the separation of church and state?

The left-wingers are always so terrified that the former would 

become politically powerful enough under conservative governance

that it would dictate to the latter as to how it would then govern;

O'Rourke would have the latter become strong enough that it

would dictate to the former how they would preach from the pulpit,

and no progressives (that is, far far FAR-lefties) have ever expressed 

any concerns over that. By the by, O'Rourke currently not in elected

public office, nor is he in an appointed governmental position. 

However, he does plan to run for governor in Texas at the time of

this posting. Let's hope he falls flat once again!

It seems to your faithful Peasant (again, pun intended) that ol' Beto

makes the same mistake that his comrades have long made and 

clung to, that said separation is enshrined in the Constitution by

virtue of its First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting

an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise 

thereof ...". Beto and friends always harp on the first part while 

ignoring the second. This amendment was designed to preserve our

right to freedom of expression and of worship, and forbids the 

establishment of an official church or religion of our nation by 

our government, i.e. there can never be a Church of America,

like there is a Church of England (the Anglican Church), nor

can there ever be a temple, mosque, coven, or whatever religious

house of America. By the same token, this amendment forbids

and prohibits the government from mandating that our many houses

of worship preach, if you will, a gospel of state nostrums of faith.

But the Progs and many others on the Left worship, first and foremost,

power. They want to regulate, micromanage, mandate, dictate to, 

and just plain dominate us, We the People, in each and every area

of our lives, and this is but one method that they hope to implement.

The idea of a separation of church and state came from a letter 

written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist 

Association of Danbury, Virginia on January 1, 1802. Jefferson 

wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter that lies solely

between a man and his God, that he owes no account to no other 

for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government 

reaches action only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign

reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that 

their legislature should 'make no law establishing the establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' " thus building

a wall of separation between Church and State." This is where this 

idea is found, NOT in the Constitution. And Jefferson's idea of

such a wall of separation was meant to restrain the reach of 

government --- the state --- into the highly personal area of 

worship and practicing one's faith, never to restrain how one is

to worship and practice his faith. And absolutely never to 

dictate to houses of worship as to how they should worship

and such.

Until recent years, most Democrats (including Uber-lefty President

Barack Obama) opposed same-sex marriage. But after Oberkfell v.

Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision which declared same-sex

marriage a constitutional right, the Left has become the culture cops,

with fascistic overtones: Just ask Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker 

who was raked over the coals by the Colorado Civil Rights Division

for having the temerity to politely decline to bake a wedding cake 

for a gay couple. SCOTUS rightly tossed out this case against Phillips,

telling the CCRD in so many words to get with constitutional reality.

But if elected president, Beto O'Rourke would not only have made a 

bid to reverse this ruling, he would have appointed to the high court 

left-wingers to be justices who would certainly make the reversal.
And if this were to happen, we'd all need to start praying! A point
of irony here: opinion polls have shown an INCREASE in support
for same-sex marriage in recent years; I guess that the government
thought that said increase was not growing fast enough to suit it.

Tax exemption for houses of worship are not, and were never meant to

be rewards for towing the establishment line as determined by the 

state. It is meant to spare religious institutions from the burden of 

taxation, the reasoning rooted in the belief that religious activity 

encourages virtues that benefit the nation's entire society --- 

charity, industry, responsibility, honesty, and generally morally

upright behavior. Given the way the government carries on, would

we really want it to encourage something that it has little, if any,

of? And what gives government the notion that it should regulate 

the practicing of our respective religious faiths? 

So Beto O'Rourke plans to run for Texas' governorship?

He should instead run for the border! 

MEM

The Latest Turn in the Convoy Saga

The latest from Canada: the truckers used their rigs 

on Monday to block the Ambassador Bridge which

connects Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, the busiest

international land-border crossing on the continent.

The Ambassador Bridge, which enables over $320 

million in goods each day in cross-border trade,

reopened last Tuesday, but the truckers are carrying 

on with their protest in Ottawa. Unfortunately, while 

carrying on their campaign they temporarily halted

at least some of this trade. Your supportive Peasant

has mixed emotions about that. At least their point 

was driven home to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,

and the opposition to the Covid-19 overreach has

spread over much of the world. 

However, the PM has a trick or two up one of his

fancy sleeves; he invoked an emergency law which

gives local police federal powers to confiscate

the truckers' rigs and enables Canada's federal government

to freeze the truckers' bank accounts and whatever funds

and accounts that supporters established for them so

that no one can send any money to help them buy gas,

food, and other needed supplies. 

But the truckers are undaunted and unintimidated.

As the Omicron variant of the Covid-19 starts to run

out of steam, after showing itself  to be less deadly

and less people contracting the virus, the truckers are 

letting the governments of Canada and the United

States know that the pandemic restrictions and related 

rules must stop. The Canadian left-wingers have called

the truckers and their supporters "right-wing fanatics"

and "Trumpists", along with far worse names too foul

to relate here. But even the Canadians who don't support 

the protests do favor lifting restrictions, some of which

PM Trudeau foolishly doubled down on. Negative test

requirement and mask mandates have been discontinued

in several provinces. Even some Liberal Party (Trudeau's

party) members of Canada's Parliament have criticized

Trudeau and his recent actions.

Canada's people are very polite, respectful, and obedient

of their government at all levels, and rarely make a fuss.

But they have had their fill of pandemic fearmongering 

and overbearing, domineering government, the latter like

we Americans. Prime Minister Trudeau had better heed 

the angry mood of his fellow Canadians or else risk their

wrath when they express it with their votes.

Stay tuned. There's going to be lots more action as this 

scenario, like the truckers, rolls along.

MEM