Must be listened to:
(1694) Control the Words, Control the Culture - YouTube
(1694) Control the Words, Control the Culture - YouTube
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden has been very effective in doing stupid things and instituting political suicide. Bless his heart.
Anything Biden touches that involves pricing goes up and anything involving principles that Biden touches goes down.
Oil Prices and Bad Policy
A Biden ban on oil exports would make the supply shortage worse.
By The Editorial Board
Oil prices are rising, and the White House is worried about higher gasoline prices for consumers. Let’s hope the Biden Administration doesn’t compound the damage from its assault on fossil fuels by banning U.S. oil exports.
Average gasoline prices nationwide have risen 40 cents a gallon in the last six months and $1 since December. The White House blames OPEC for not increasing supply more as demand has rebounded amid the pandemic recovery, but that’s a too-easy scapegoat.
Crude oil prices have doubled since November to $83 per barrel, and petro-states want to maintain higher prices to fund their governments. But U.S. producers have also been slower to revive output as the Administration is threatening the oil and gas industry with a panoply of taxes and regulation. Producers aren’t going to drill more wells today, even at today’s higher prices, if they don’t think they will produce future profits.
The Federal Reserve is also a culprit as it has led central banks in stirring inflation that has lifted asset prices, especially nearly all commodities. Price increases this broad-based signal more than supply shortages. Oil is traded in dollars and its price rises amid a general inflation. Oil prices surged in the mid-2000s, and the classic case was the energy crisis that followed the U.S. abandoning Bretton Woods and the dollar’s fixed peg to gold.
The Administration is looking for any policy lever in a storm, but those it has mooted would do little or be counterproductive. News reports say Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is considering tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and hasn’t ruled out banning U.S. exports. The Energy Department later walked back her comments, but anything is possible as President Biden’s poll numbers fall.
Congress established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1975 after the oil price shock to mitigate supply disruptions in emergencies. A 2015 budget agreement required small periodic releases over the following decade to generate revenue.
But the reserve exists for actual emergencies—say, a hurricane that shuts down production in Gulf Coast states for months. Oil prices often exceeded $80 a barrel in the last decade and aren’t an emergency. Tapping reserves might temporarily suppress crude prices but would also discourage U.S. production.
The same goes for banning oil exports. Congress lifted the 1975 export ban on crude oil in 2015 as part of a bipartisan budget agreement that also extended renewable-energy tax subsidies. Oil exports have since increased six-fold to roughly three million barrels a day.
A Government Accountability Office report last fall found that lifting the ban increased the incentive for production by letting domestic drillers charge higher prices. But gasoline prices didn’t rise because domestic refiners compete globally. Many U.S. refiners process historically cheaper heavier crudes and would have to invest in upgrades to process light oil from the Bakken or Permian shales.
Banning exports might lower domestic oil prices somewhat but wouldn’t reduce how much Americans pay at the pump. Refiners would merely make larger profits. Some share of the crude that the U.S. is now exporting would stop being produced while some would be transported domestically to refiners at increased cost.
Pipeline capacity in some areas of the U.S. is limited, so domestically produced crude has to be transported by rail or tanker. But under the Jones Act, only American-built, -crewed, -flagged and -owned tankers can transport products between U.S. ports. Such ships are in short supply and high demand and charge more.
The GAO report noted that the repeal of the export ban resulted in “decreasing demand for U.S. tankers to move domestic oil.” So re-imposing the ban could increase demand for these ships and create headaches for other businesses trying to transport goods.
But a ban would advance the Administration’s goal of discouraging oil and gas development. Presidents from both parties over four decades have moved to allow increased oil-product and gas exports. Joe Biden would be the first President since the 1970s to move in the opposite direction. Irony alert: China is the biggest importer of U.S. crude.
The way to reduce gas prices is by increasing oil supply. That means not sending policy signals that the Administration’s goal is to put the industry out of business.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whatever life expectancy gap that existed between white and black citizens has narrowed considerably:
Why Black Lives Got Longer
The racial difference in longevity fell by half in the generation before Covid.
By The Editorial Board
The central divide in America’s racial politics is over whether the country has made any progress at all. Liberals and conservatives used to agree that the social position of black Americans has greatly improved since the civil-rights movement. But an ascendant left is challenging that consensus with a new narrative in which racism became “systemic,” Jim Crow segregation gave way to a “new Jim Crow” of disguised white supremacy, and the color-blind ideal is itself suspect.
Allegedly supporting that radical view are statistics showing stubborn gaps in black and white life outcomes, including on crime, education and wealth. But a recent examination of life-expectancy data from the National Bureau of Economic Research reminds us that on that crucial metric, progress has been significant.
“Between 1990 and 2018,” the paper reports, “the U.S. White-Black life expectancy gap decreased from 7.0 to 3.6 years.” A black person born in the U.S. in 1990 could be expected to live to about age 69, compared to 76 for a white person. In the intervening generation, black life expectancy rose about twice as fast as white life expectancy. A black person born in 2018 could be expected to live just over age 75, compared to just under 79 for a white person.
The drivers, the authors say, are primarily “greater reductions in Black relative to White death rates due to cancer, homicide, HIV, and causes originating in the fetal or infant period.” The most pronounced reductions in black mortality are among children and adults under age 65, rather than the elderly.
“Deaths of despair” (deaths from suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related disease) increased among black and white Americans, especially in the last decade, but took a larger toll on white life expectancy. That accounted for 16.2% of the narrowing of the racial gap. The linear extension of life expectancies for both races stopped after 2012, meaning that it’s hard to see much effect from ObamaCare’s health insurance expansion in the data.
“If mortality had continued to evolve at the same rate after 2012 as it did from 1990 to 2012,” the paper finds, “the gap in life expectancy between Black and White persons would have closed by 2036.” That now appears unlikely, especially because of the last year of coronavirus, lockdowns and resurgent crime, which cut down life expectancy for whites in 2020 by 1.2 years and 2.9 years for blacks, according to Census data.
Coronavirus deaths among all races should decline in the coming years. But the impact of lockdowns (like lost cancer screenings) may be long-lasting. Reductions in homicide narrowed the racial mortality gap by 12.5% in the last generation, but murders surged in 2020. The political attack on policing has contributed to the homicide surge and does disproportionate harm to blacks.
The larger point from the data is that the U.S. became more racially egalitarian in at least this key measure of well-being before the coronavirus. Black lives got longer before Black Lives Matter existed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I seriously doubt we will:
Will America Come to Taiwan’s Defense?
Beijing’s growing belligerence coincides with declining U.S. military power.
By William A. Galston
The West won the Cold War without firing a shot, but the intensifying struggle with China may not end so well. The record number of Chinese military aircraft flying near Taiwan last week raised alarm bells—and questions.
For decades China’s leaders bided their time, knowing that a military confrontation with the U.S. would end badly. But during the past quarter-century, China steadily ramped up its investment in the People’s Liberation Army. Between 2010 and 2020, spending rose by 76%, and the PLA’s war-fighting ability has vastly improved. In recent years, the Pentagon has staged multiple war games testing U.S. ability to defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The American team has lost nearly all of them.
This increase in China’s capabilities has coincided with shifts in outlook. Statements from President Xi Jinping and other Chinese leaders characterize the U.S. as a declining power mired in division and dysfunction. They doubt America’s will to use force overseas, a mindset not discouraged by our disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. Beijing believes that China is within reach of replacing the U.S. as the world’s dominant power.
In this context, a once-unthinkable event—a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan—has become possible, perhaps even likely. Senior U.S. naval officials have been especially blunt about this. “To us, it’s only a matter of time, not a matter of if,” Rear Adm. Michael Studeman, director of intelligence for the Indo-Pacific command, said earlier this year.
Not surprisingly, a multi-front debate has broken out about the future of U.S.-China relations. Optimists believe China has more to lose than to gain from a military conquest of Taiwan—and that Beijing’s leaders understand this. International trade, still their economic lifeblood, would be hurt, and countries who have stayed on the sidelines would take America’s side.
Pessimists retort that Mr. Xi has infused a new sense of urgency into reunifying his country and that it won’t be easy to walk back the nationalism he has spread.
For decades the U.S. has preserved “strategic ambiguity” about its response to a prospective Chinese attack on Taiwan. A public announcement that the U.S. would come to Taiwan’s defense would blow up the terms of the Shanghai Communiqué that began the process of normalizing the U.S.-China relationship in 1972 and of the Joint Communiqué re-establishing full diplomatic relations in 1979.
On the other hand, stating that America views this issue as an internal matter would encourage China’s leaders to treat Taiwan as a “breakaway province” and to reunify their country through any means necessary.
Many experts argue that the policy of strategic ambiguity has outlived its useful life and should be replaced with a hard guarantee to defend Taiwan from attack. Others reply that ending the policy would inflame nationalist sentiments on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and encourage Beijing to escalate.
This is a tough call that rests on an assessment of Mr. Xi’s intentions. If he is considering military action in the belief that the U.S. would not come to Taiwan’s aid, an explicit statement of our commitment to Taiwan’s security could act as a deterrent. On the other hand, if Mr. Xi is bluffing by whipping up nationalist sentiment for domestic purposes, an explicit security guarantee could make him lose control of the sentiments he has roused.
The disquieting outcome of the Pentagon’s war games has sparked another debate: If the U.S. lacks the military wherewithal to deter China from invading Taiwan, what should we do about it? If current trends continue, China’s navy will be more modern and significantly larger than America’s by 2030.
The Hudson Institute’s Seth Cropsey has characterized the U.S. Navy’s current “divest to invest” strategy as misguided: Reducing the fleet of older, larger vessels to build smaller, more numerous ones will leave us dangerously exposed in the middle of this decade, the moment when many analysts believe the danger to Taiwan will be at its peak.
Instead, Mr. Cropsey argues, we should retain most of the current surface fleet and supplement it with items we can build—or buy from allies—fast enough to make a difference, a strategy that would require an annual increase of about 30% in the Navy’s shipbuilding budget. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its allies can improve Taiwan’s defense capabilities, and Taiwan can do more to defend itself.
No sane person wants war between China and the U.S., but a combination of clashing ambitions, strategic miscalculations and mutual misperceptions could land us in one, particularly if America doesn’t take the necessary steps to persuade Mr. Xi that we are not what he believes us to be—a declining power lacking the means and the will to defend our friends.
+++
But then Xi also must walk a tight rope:
Finally:
Xi Jinping’s Two-Track Foreign Policy
His aim isn’t to start a war but to divert domestic attention from multiple crises.
By Walter Russell Mead
Xi Jinping stunned the world over the weekend. The Chinese leader’s Oct. 9 speech left no doubt about his commitment to the ultimate incorporation of Taiwan into the People’s Republic of China. But it was what President Xi didn’t say, and the context in which he didn’t say it, that mattered most.
Tension over Taiwan has been mounting for months. In a major speech commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, delivered in Tiananmen Square in July, Mr. Xi promised to “utterly defeat” any attempt toward Taiwanese independence. In a letter congratulating Eric Chu on his election as leader of Taiwan’s main opposition party, Mr. Xi called the situation on the island “complex and grim.” Over the weekend of China’s Oct. 1 National Day, a record 149 Beijing military aircraft crossed into the island’s air-defense identification zone.
The reasons for Beijing’s ire aren’t hard to find. Weeks after Australia helped form the Aukus partnership, former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott paid a visit to Taiwan. A French senator visiting the island called Taiwan a country. Japan’s incoming prime minister announced that longtime pro-Taiwan politician Nobuo Kishi will keep the defense portfolio in the new government. This month, a large Taiwanese delegation is scheduled to visit Eastern and Central Europe, where Lithuania has drawn Beijing’s ire by allowing Taiwan to open a diplomatic office. A recent six-nation joint naval exercise in the Philippine Sea was intended to signal growing allied resolve.
More striking still, last week this newspaper broke the news that U.S. Marines and special forces have been rotating through training missions on the island for more than a year. Beijing hawks, speaking through the Global Times newspaper, have called the presence of U.S. troops on Taiwan “a red-line that cannot be crossed” and warned that in the event of war in the Taiwan Straits, “those U.S. military personnel will be the first to be eliminated.”
Given all this, the relative restraint in Mr. Xi’s latest speech was remarkable. It was a speech Deng Xiaoping could have given, referring to peaceful reunification on the “one country, two systems” basis with no explicit military threats. And after White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan’s latest talks with Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi, Presidents Biden and Xi are still on for a virtual summit sometime this fall.
So why the mixed signals? Why escalate the intrusions into airspace near Taiwan while dialing the rhetoric down?
The answer has everything to do with politics at home. China is facing disruptive conditions. As the giant property developer Evergrande stumbles toward collapse, crackdowns on tech and other businesses have wiped out more than $1 trillion in asset values and made businesses jittery about the Communist Party’s next moves. At the same time a massive energy crisis has imposed widespread blackouts across much of China, while the more transmissible Delta variant presents the Chinese method of pandemic control with its harshest test yet.
The Chinese Communist Party is supposed to be bringing China to a new age of ease and plenty. That is not how things look to a middle-class family who invested their savings in Evergrande investment products, and who must walk up the stairs to their overpriced 10th-floor apartment because the power is out.
To keep the economy running, China must stroke its neighbors rather than slap them. It is all very well to threaten and insult Australia, but when your power stations across the Chinese Rust Belt have run out of fuel, you need Australian coal to keep the lights on. From Beijing’s point of view, this would be a terrible time for a major Taiwan crisis.
But the party also needs to keep nationalist opinion stoked at home. Communist China is supposed to be a rising superpower that others fear and respect. Beijing can’t afford to look as if it’s tamely accepting foreign encroachments on Taiwan.
And so Mr. Xi seems to have decided, for now, on a two-track foreign policy. The showy intrusions into Taiwan’s air-defense identification zone and the tough talk in Mr. Xi’s July speech painted a picture of a strong leader standing against the world. But the goal is to rattle sabers without starting a fight, while Beijing waits for better times.
This is a pause, not a change of direction. There are no signs that Beijing is reconsidering the basic assumptions of the Xi Jinping era that China is rising while America sinks. Before any serious rethinking of Beijing’s current policies of repression at home and aggressive competition abroad, China’s leaders would need to see evidence that the U.S. is more resilient than thought and that the Chinese domestic economic model is less robust than believed.
Finally:
| The China Challenge: Beijing Is Pursuing The Wrong Strategy In Its Bid To Win Allies |
| by Zachary Shore via Discourse Magazine Trying to bully countries into submission is turning them into adversaries |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If I am not on Garland's list already should he do so I would be honored:
Merrick Garland Has a List, and You’re Probably on It
His ‘society offenders’ now include parents who object to critical race theory and Covid-19 restrictions.
By Gerard Baker
Merrick Garland’s got a little list.
The attorney general is compiling a steadily lengthening register of “society offenders who might well be underground and who never would be missed,” as Ko-Ko, the hypervigilant lord high executioner, sings in Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado.”
Mr. Garland’s list of society offenders is compendious. At the top are right-wing extremists who’ve been officially designated the greatest domestic threat to U.S. security, but whose ranks seem, in the eyes of the nation’s top lawyer, to include some less obviously malevolent characters, including perhaps anyone who protested the results of the 2020 election. Then there are police departments not compliant with Biden administration law-enforcement dicta, Republican-run states seeking to regularize their voting laws after last year’s pandemic-palooza of an electoral process, and state legislatures that pass strict pro-life legislation.
They’d none of them be missed.
Oddly, the list doesn’t seem to extend to the hundreds of thousands of people who have crossed the southern border so far this year and are now presumably at large somewhere in the U.S. without a legal right to be in the country. Nor to those benevolent folk who have reduced several of the nation’s urban centers to crime-infested wastelands.
But, let’s be fair. With limited resources, Justice has to prioritize. Mr. Garland and his federal henchmen must ensure that only the gravest threats to the republic are neutralized.
Which is presumably why the latest names on his roll are those parents who have had the temerity to challenge local school boards about the mandates they are imposing on their pandemic-ready classes and what the children are learning.
That wasn’t how the attorney general presented it when he announced the news. Citing a “disturbing trend” in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school-board members, teachers and other school employees, he declared that he was directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to work with local and state law enforcement to develop “strategies” for dealing with the problem.
The announcement looked as though it had been carefully coordinated with the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which had asked the Biden administration to do exactly this.
Decent people everywhere acknowledge that violence is intolerable—whether perpetrated by Black Lives Matter agitators torching buildings, Trump supporters smashing federal property, or parents who throw projectiles at school board members.
But the letter from the NSBA contained barely any evidence of actual violence. It cited mostly antisocial behavior and threats, and some of the offenses referenced—such as a parent making a mock Nazi salute to a school board—are, however offensive, constitutionally protected speech.
And, as has been widely noted, when acts of violence occur, they can and have been dealt with by local or state law enforcement. There is no federal interest in any of these infractions.
All this merely underscores what the real objective of the attorney general’s action was—and we don’t need to engage in speculation because it was recently spelled out to us by another leading member of President Biden’s party, Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia.
In a rare moment of honesty from a politician, Mr. McAuliffe made clear, in a television debate with Republican Glenn Youngkin, the Democrats’ conception of the role that parents should have in their children’s education: none whatever.
“I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”
Aside from the jaw-dropping disdain for families, Mr. McAuliffe’s prescription is at odds with Article 26.3 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the sort of grand multilateral pronouncement the Democrats usually fetishize, which states: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
This flagrant attempt to intimidate parents into handing their children over to the mercies of the state is as sinister as anything the modern progressives who now control the Democratic Party have done.
The message is clear, and it has been the character of education in totalitarianism systems through history: These are not your children; they are wards of the state, and the state (in this case through the teachers unions that fund the Democratic Party) will determine what they learn and how.
Democrats like Mr. McAuliffe insist that pernicious racial doctrines teaching the ubiquity of white supremacism and the inherent racism of American society and encourage racial segregation aren’t actually taught in schools. But this is laughable. The same Democrats have spent the last year insisting on racial “equity” as the defining objective of their social program. Why would they leave it out of the schools they mostly control?
Mr. Garland’s brazen attempt to intimidate will likely backfire as more parents—including many who aren’t especially conservative—become alarmed by what they see and hear in their children’s schools. By placing them on his little list, he may have done us all a favor.
And:
Perhaps the revolution by a second Tea Party Crowd has begun. I hope so.
Virginia Dad Takes On the School Board
Harry Jackson learns that educators don’t care what parents have to say.
By William McGurn
Harry Jackson left the Fairfax County School Board meeting Thursday night feeling frustrated. The father of a Thomas Jefferson High School sophomore, he had signed up to address the board about sexually explicit material in the school library, including work he and other parents say normalizes pedophilia. But the list of speakers ended right before his two minutes at the mic.
A student who did speak that evening defended the contested material, saying “there is nothing that is inappropriate unless you go looking for it.” Mr. Jackson takes it as a backhanded admission. “I am glad to see we agree there’s pornographic material in the library,” he says.
Thomas Jefferson isn’t just any public school—U.S. News & World Report ranks it No. 1 in the nation—and Mr. Jackson isn’t just any parent. Earlier this year, he was elected president of the school’s Parent Teacher Student Association, or PTSA. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a retired naval intelligence officer, he’s one of thousands of American parents taking on their school boards across the country.
Like many of those rallying outside Thursday night’s meeting, Mr. Jackson wore a T-shirt saying “Parents are not ‘domestic terrorists.’ ” It’s a reference to a Sept. 29 National School Boards Association letter asking President Biden to investigate threats or disruptions at school board meetings as a possible form of “domestic terrorism.” In response, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. attorneys to look into the threats.
All this has transformed once-dull school board meetings into increasingly raucous encounters between parents and officials. On so many of the hot-button issues of the day—from mask mandates and lockdowns to critical race theory, transgender policy and racial preferences for admissions—the public schools have become the vanguard for today’s progressive agenda. But parents such as Mr. Jackson aren’t taking it any more, and they show no sign of relenting.
“Did the NSBA really think through what it was saying?” Mr. Jackson asks. “Because you don’t negotiate with terrorists. You hit them with a drone strike, or ship them off to Guantanamo.”
Already we’re starting to see clarifications trickle in. Last week, the Virginia School Boards Association distanced itself from its parent organization, saying it was “not consulted” on the NSBA’s letter and that this is “not the first disagreement that VSBA has had with its national association.”
As for Mr. Jackson, until two years ago he considered himself an ordinary dad, refereeing lacrosse and basketball games and serving as a board member for an organization promoting gifted-and-talented programs. What provoked him to take on a more activist role was the school board’s decision last year to replace Thomas Jefferson’s highly competitive entrance exam with a new formula designed to increase the number of black, Latino and white students at the expense of Asian-American students. “In the name of equity they established inequity, and it was clearly directed at the Asian community,” Mr. Jackson says.
So in August 2020 Mr. Jackson and other like-minded parents formed the Coalition for TJ, and earlier this year he ran for the PTSA. He and three other reform candidates won their races and the Virginia PTA responded with a letter threatening to revoke the Thomas Jefferson association’s charter. The state group cited “continual disregard and a series of violations of organizational standards,” but Mr. Jackson and other Coalition for TJ members see it as another effort to silence their voices.
Mr. Jackson and other protesting parents are often assumed to be angry white working-class Trump supporters. But this is Fairfax County, where Mr. Biden trounced Donald Trump by 42 points. Mr. Jackson is African-American, and of the coalition members elected with him, two are Chinese-American and one is Indian-American.
“Our coalition destroys their narrative,” he says. “Most of our members are Democrats, and many are people of color.”
Mr. Jackson sees the school board protests as fallout from the Covid-19 lockdowns. “Because kids were home and learning online, parents got a look at what their kids were being taught in the classroom, and they didn’t like it,” he says. “Now they’re speaking up.”
They’re also learning the school system isn’t interested in what they have to say. Terry McAuliffe, Virginia’s Democratic candidate for governor, confirmed suspicions during a recent debate when he declared, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” It was the ultimate gaffe—a politician inadvertently telling the truth.
Mr. Jackson would say it’s all been an education. Apart from the specific disagreements he has with the school board, the experience is teaching parents like him something far more disturbing. Which is that the most important public institution in their children’s lives no longer regards itself as accountable to the public.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Glick believes radicals have already begun their American revolution:
Americans are losing their liberty not to invading armies from China or Russia, or even to terrorists from Al-Qaeda, but to domestic revolutionaries.
By Caroline Glick, IH
(October 10, 2021 / JNS) How does a nation lose its freedom? One way, of course, is through foreign conquest. History is filled with examples of nations being subjugated and enslaved by foreign tyranny. Today, in the United States, Americans are not losing their liberty to a foreign power, but to domestic revolutionaries.
The revolutionaries are willing to use force, as they showed in the summer of 2020 when they burned and looted their way through U.S. cities. But generally speaking, their weapon is not the gun or the jackboot, but demonization and intimidation. And now, with the Biden administration firmly ensconced in power, they move forward with their revolution with the firm backing of the state and its weapons of repression and criminalization.
Read more...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now time for some humor:
The Cruel, Cruel, Sea...
The Cruel, Cruel, Sea...
The day after his wife disappeared in a kayaking accident,
an Irishman answered his door to find two grim-faced constables.
"We're sorry, Mr. O’Flynn, but we have some information about your dear wife, Maureen,”
said one of the officers.
"Tell me! Did you find her?" Michael Patrick O’Flynn asked.
The constables looked at each other and one said, "We have some bad news, some good news,
and some really great news. Which would you like to hear first?"
Fearing the worst, Mr. O’Flynn said, "Give me the bad news first."
The constable said, "I'm sorry to tell you, sir, but early this morning we found your poor wife's body in the bay."
"Lord sufferin' Jesus and Holy Mother of God!" exclaimed O’Flynn.
Swallowing hard, he then asked, “What could possibly be the good news?"
The constable continued, "When we pulled the late, departed poor Maureen up,
she had 12 of the best-looking Atlantic lobsters that you have ever seen clinging to her.
Haven't seen lobsters like that since the 1960's, and we feel you are entitled to a share in the catch."
Stunned, Mr. O’ Flynn demanded, "Glory be to God, if that's the good news,
then what's the really great news?"
The constable replied, “We're gonna pull her up again tomorrow."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment