How Absolutely Convenient Is This? The January 6th Report Fast Track

If any of you are tired of hearing about January 6th, you’ll be happy to know that the committee should be all wrapped up by September 13th, although Newsweek reports that there may be more hearings planned for that month. How do I know this? Because the book “The January 6th Report”, written by Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and published by Celadon Books is for sale on Amazon for pre-order and priced at $16.19 with a release date of September 13th. Also for sale in paperback is “The January 6th Report: Complete Transcript of the Third Select Committee Hearing on June 16, 2022” for $7.95 and, “The January 6th Report: Thompson & Cheney Opening Statements at Select Committee Hearing” for $4.95.  These last two are due for release on July 2cd.

Let’s do a little math. The first hearing took place on June 9th and “The January 6th Report: Complete Transcript of the Third Select Committee Hearing on June 16, 2022”, is obvious.  There are thirty days in the month of June.  Sixteen minus thirty is fourteen.  Add two for the release date of July 2cd and the final sum is sixteen.  Just a little over two weeks to gather everything together and compile it, including artwork, into a paperback for sale on Amazon. The other paperback of the opening statements would follow the timeline of nine minus thirty giving us twenty-one plus two as it has the same release date of July 2cd, so twenty-three days there.    If you’re interested it’s ninety-six days from June 9th until September 13th.  A little over three months.  Just thought I’d throw that in for nitpickers.

I couldn’t find a definitive answer on how long it takes to get a book published by Celadon Books but numerous other sources give a timeline of between nine months and two years for publication.  Hmmmmmmmmm.

The final offering “The January 6th Report” shows on the cover that it is published by Celadon with The New Yorker.  The New Yorker states the following for fiction submissions:

We read all submissions within ninety days, and will contact you if we’re interested in publishing your material. We regret that, owing to the volume of submissions we receive, we are unable to call or e-mail unless a story is accepted for publication. If you have not heard from us within ninety days, please assume that we will not be able to publish your manuscript.

I didn’t see any reference to “non-fiction”.

I happen to think that this all seems very convenient when you consider there are midterm elections in November.  Doesn’t this all seem a bit contrived?  How is it these books are being published so quickly, particularly when the hearings aren’t finished? For God’s sake people, use your brains.

Gas Prices And The Greedy Oil Companies

Note:  The 1st and 4th image in this post have a magnifier feature you’ll find if you scroll over them.

slider image

I looked at a lot of different views of this conglomeration and can’t really find one that shows the enormity of this facility.  I’ve seen parts of it nearly every single day for the past 44 years and am so used to seeing these glimpses I don’t even realize it’s there.  At least not until Wednesday morning when the warning sirens go off at 9am.  This refinery is the second largest in the United States.  I’m sure it was instrumental in helping ExxonMobil  garner blame for causing the rise in price of gasoline by having large corporate profits, which in turn has created the inflation we’re experiencing. That’s what the President of the country infers.

I decided to see which companies amassed the largest corporate profits in 2021.

ExxonMobil was number 9 on the list of the top ten.

slider image

Does that make them and the other oil companies responsible for the high price of gas and the inflation derived from that?  Apple is the top earner.  Alphabet, or better known to you as Google, is in third place and in second is Berkshire Hathaway.  Does anyone have a clue about what these companies are and what they support?  I’m suggesting you check and see if any of their subsidiaries and what they provide could be connected to the present administration’s agenda. Then ask yourself why there’s no pointing of fingers in their direction, for adding to the price of a whole lot of life’s little necessities.

Here. I’ll be helpful and add a link to those that Berkshire Hathaway holds. SUBSIDIARIES

And here’s a link to  ALPHABET, and how many subs under those is anybody’s guess.

I wonder if the cost of advertisement raises the price of anything?

Why is it just the greedy oil companies that are being blamed for the high price of everything when ExxonMobil is the only one to have even made the top ten, but you’ll notice a couple of banks did and made more than ExxonMobil.  What’s up with that?

I’m not saying they didn’t make a load of dough but there are others that made so much more and if you really care you’ll dig deep enough to figure it all out.

Research people.

It will open your eyes.

Breastfeeding, Formula and Shortages

I breastfed all of my kids and worked as well. It wasn’t always convenient and sometimes it was a pain, and time consuming, but I did it anyway because I knew it was best for the babies and it was a whole hell of a lot cheaper than buying formula too.


I’m fully aware that some women for legitimate reasons are unable to breastfeed their babies, but for those that don’t have a legitimate reason, why should they be eligible to receive government funded formula for those babies? That’s a different post though.

I was at the grocery store today and there were signs on each entrance and exit door stating that customers were limited to purchasing 3 cans of baby formula per day. Underneath that it stated that WIC participants were not included in the limitation.

Now that started me wondering how much formula WIC allows daily for program members. I tried calling the 800 number for WIC in Texas but the offices were closed for the day so I found a number for Texas Lactation Support that is available 24/7 so I called that number. They didn’t know the answer to my question but were very friendly and advised me where to call in the morning. I have to give Texas a high five for trying to educate more women in need of WIC services about the benefits of breastfeeding and the obvious goal of their efforts to lower the costs of the program which is federally funded. I don’t know if other states include something like this in their WIC programs, but I would certainly hope so.

Using Google I found a few different numbers for those formula amounts  and they vary quite a lot. Here are two examples I found and they probably differ quite a bit depending on which state you’re in, if they’re correct at all.

#1) How much formula does WIC give you?

When your baby is age 0-3 months

Formula: up to but no more than 9 cans of 12.4 ounce powder*

When your baby is age 4-5 months

Formula: up to but no more than 10 cans of 12.4 ounce powder*

When your baby is age 6-11 months

Formula: up to but no more than 7 cans – 12.4 ounce powder*
*All formula amounts are approximate

#2) How many cans of formula does WIC give a month?

From birth to 3 months , WIC provides 9 cans of powder or approximately 26 ounces of reconstituted formula a day.

Months 4  5, WIC provides 10 cans of powder or approximately 30 ounces of
reconstituted formula a day.

The first example is supposed to be monthly amounts, while the second clearly states daily. This brings me to the whole reason I’m bothering with any of this.

My reason is I want to know if the amounts available to mothers receiving WIC are closer to the second example than the first, why are WIC recipients excluded from the limitation? If there’s a shortage of baby formula why should babies whose parents are able to pay for formula limited to amounts they can buy but mothers who are given theirs free are not?

I don’t have a problem with anyone that needs help receiving that help but I don’t believe when it comes to any type of shortage that their needs are greater than anyone else’s.

I need more information.  Especially as how there seems to be stocks of baby formula on the border. The Biden Administration claims this is because of adherence to the terms of  the Flores Settlement Agreement that requires foods etc. be available for undocumented and unaccompanied minors that are detained there.  This may very well be so but as there’s plenty available there whoever decides what inventory is needed is in the wrong position.  Depending on how large the stockpile is and whatever isn’t in use should be shared about the country to legal citizens.

Here’s an idea. Quit letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry into the country and they’ll quit sending their children ahead knowing that they’ll be accepted if they’re alone and not turned away.  Visitation and contact with family members regardless of immigration status and family reunification services are also required by the Flores Agreement.

Regardless of that litigation, I would think the first duty would be to your own citizens.  Someone can always file another lawsuit.

Anne Boleyn: Beloved – Betrayed – Butchered – Black

Before I typed the first word here, I knew that this post will probably make some people angry, but I’ve decided to write it anyway.  Namely because I feel there’s a line being crossed that shouldn’t be, because once this particular line is crossed, there’s no going back.  At first what we see may seem insignificant, but something as small as a snowball can start an avalanche.

What happens when the actual facts of history are distorted if not totally obliterated?

Now I understand that race, for quite some time, has been a sore point with many different people of many different factions in this country and even more so during the past few years and that instead of trying to fix anything, there are those that just want to fan the flames.  I’m not trying to do that here, I’m just trying to make sense of people deliberately changing historical facts to alleviate blowback from certain groups.  I myself am a member of the human race and as such see other people, no matter their race, as fellow humans.

With that being said, whose idea was it to have a black woman play Anne Boleyn?  Anne lived during the 16th century in England, the second wife of one of the most notorious English kings in history. A woman who was white.

I’ve been a fan of Tudor history for quite some time and Anne Boleyn is one of the most memorable parts of that history. I was searching the other day for videos or movies about her and I found a three episode drama that originally aired on a British television network in June of 2021 titled, “Anne Boleyn”.

Anne was played in this production by Jodie Turner-Smith, a black British actress.

I actually enjoyed her portrayal of Anne, she was haughty and snarky and self-assured right up until the time they were about to throw her in the tower and I could see the character clearly.  However, regardless of the fact that she did a fine job in the role, she’s not a white woman, and Anne was.  What does this say about taking historical facts and turning them any which way is chosen?  Her brother, George, was also portrayed by a black actor, but their Uncle Norfolk, a blood relative, was  played by a red-headed white man.  Do what?

If this hadn’t been something that was supposed to deliver information backed by historical fact, I wouldn’t be writing this.  I don’t have a single problem with black women acting in any role they’re capable of bringing flesh to unless it’s something like this where it’s a well-known fact that the person they’re acting as was a white woman.  Take the show Bridgerton, which is based on novels written about the competitive world of high society in London during the early 1800’s, also known as “The Regency” years.  The queen, various dukes and earls, and ladies are portrayed by black actors and actresses. Even though I know there wasn’t a plethora of black dukes, earls, ladies and queens in England at that time, it doesn’t affect my historical sensibilities because it’s a fictional story.  A really good one too; at least I’m enjoying it.

I wouldn’t like to see Meryl Streep  acting as Rosa Parks, but it wouldn’t have anything to do with Meryl not being suited to the role, that woman can play anything. It would be that she wasn’t black and it would be historically incorrect for her to play Rosa.  Do we need to restructure history with such blaring inaccuracies?  Particularly considering  how younger generations seem to believe everything they see and there is too much effort as it is to paint history with whatever convenient brush is being wielded at the given time.

As philosopher George Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

What’s your take?