Time for Another Criminal Edition

The first sentencing of a guilty defendant in the college admissions scandal escaped incarceration in prison. Instead John Vandemoer, the former sailing coach of Stanford University who directed $770,000 in bribe money to the sailing program in exchange for finagling entry to the prestigious school, received a punishment that included just one day in jail (already served), six months of home confinement and two years of supervised release. 

So, he will be locked up at home for 180 days. I dunno. Sounds kinda soft to me. Prosecutors had wanted prison time of 13 months to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime. Home detention seems no more daunting than when one grounds a teenager to his or her room for staying out past curfew. 

Yes, being confined to quarters can be depressing but given the amusements and distractions available today the punishment seems light. Perhaps it needs some tweaking, such as a concurrent loss of Internet and cable television privileges. And maybe throw in restricting conjugal rights to four times a month. 

I am joking, of course. Still, as the some 50 cases of college admissions fraud proceed through the court, observers will be monitoring how the privileged fare compared to less powerful and wealthy defendants in all non-violent crimes.

Contrition is an essential component of regret, an admission of wrongdoing. One reason I find it hard to embrace Al Sharpton as a qualified human rights leader is his failure to accept responsibility for his actions in the Tawana Brawley affair. As noted last year in a profile published in The New York Times, “He is known best for the worst thing he’s done: His loud support of Tawana Brawley, an African-American teenager whose claims of abuse and rape by a gang of white men turned out to be a hoax” (https://nyti.ms/2G8hZPx). 

The failure to adjust one’s position after new, often exculpatory, evidence comes to light, is an egregious sin. With the airing of the Netflix series on the Central Park Five wrongly arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for between six to 13 years, for the rape and beating of a woman jogger in 1989, the fallout has been long-coming but steep. Though the convictions were overturned in 2002, it has taken more than 16 years for the for prosecutors to be held accountable. The lead prosecutors, Elizabeth Lederer and Linda Fairstein have resigned from faculty position at prestigious universities (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/entertainment/elizabeth-lederer-resigns-when-they-see-us/index.html).

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has yet to recant his belief that the five accused Black and Hispanic youths should have been executed. In full page newspaper ads at the time he advocated for the return of the death penalty. 

Trump’s failure to apologize is symptomatic of all his actions. His current claim of presidential executive privilege for almost everything and everyone Congress has subpeonaed reflects his belief that, as in his private company, he has the final word as president. He does not countenance anyone questioning his authority or decisions.  

He also has a very discriminate view of the rule of law. To him, everything he says or does is legal, as in his admission to ABC News that he would listen to dirt on any political opponent offered by a foreign entity without committing to informing the FBI. Naturally, legal scholars question his interpretation of the law (https://apple.news/ASrww_lp6Qt2vJSAEI0cygw).  

Thoughts on Anti-Semitism

The first time I heard, in person, an anti-Semitic remark I was 24 or 25. It was not directed at me. I was in the Ansonia, Conn., bureau office of The New Haven Register writing a story while two late-teenage girls in the next room discussed their car buying adventures. Unhappy with the price she was offered, one of the girls said she would try to “Jew them down.”

I remember recoiling at the words but remained silent. The bubble I had grown up in had been punctured. I was no longer in Brooklyn. 

In the Brooklyn of my youth almost everyone I encountered was Jewish. I went to Jewish day schools through twelfth grade. My summers were spent at Jewish sleepaway camps. Brooklyn College was overwhelmingly Jewish. All my friends outside school were Jewish. 

Indeed, the only gentiles I interacted with were the workers in my father’s factory and the housekeeper-cooks my mother employed so she could join my father at what she euphemistically called “the Place.” I knew most of them by name and task: Eloise who sewed lace onto the slips and panties pieced together by Big Mary and Little Mary, Solita who packed the finished goods, a dozen to a box, Ricky the piece goods cutter, James the shipping clerk and overall heavy lifter, and Lucy, the floor lady who supervised all the workers and who, in my parents’ later years when they no longer required a full-time housekeeper-cook, came every week to their home to clean and sit with my mother. Our housekeeper-cooks were mostly black—Bertha and Virginia being the most prominent and long-tenured. Bertha baked the best butter pound cake I ever tasted. Virginia was a better cook than baker. She and James chaperoned my sister Lee’s Sweet 16 party in our basement, though our parents were not too thrilled to discover Virginia had laced her several glasses of milk with scotch. 

One of my high school social studies teachers tried to enlighten his students about ignorance in the outside world, ignorance that can lead to violence. Lou Morose grew up in Albany in the 1920s and 1930s. Often, he told us, gentiles would rub the top of his skull. They were searching for his horns. Boys and men who barely had an appreciation of any artwork were instilled with the canard transmitted down from Michelangelo’s famous statue of Moses from whose forehead the sculptor fashioned two goat horns, a misrepresentation of the Bible phrase that light emanated from the lawgiver’s head when he descended a second time from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments. 

While I was enjoying a shtetl-like sheltered life among fellow religionists, Gilda’s childhood in Saratoga Springs in upstate New York was far different. During the winter gentile boys threw rocks encased in snowballs at Jewish children as they exited a school bus outside their Hebrew school. When they sought relief from their rabbi he simply suggested they move faster from the bus to the school door. 

I didn’t encounter any discrimination at The Register. If anything, I benefitted from reverse discrimination. The managing editor who hired me grew up in Brooklyn, went to a rival Jewish high school and, perhaps most serendipitously, shared my first name. Murrays stick together. 

To my knowledge, I never encountered any anti-Semitism during my subsequent career as a journalist at Chain Store Age, though I do recall a Rose’s discount store manager in rural North Carolina saying he immediately recognized me and one of my staff, Marty Brochstein, as visitors from New York the moment we walked into his store. Marty and I had no difficulty understanding his drift.

As parents, Gilda and I observed incidents that challenged the protective bubble in which any good parent tries to envelop their children. 

One December, when Dan was about seven and Ellie four, he asked why so many Jewish homes displayed Christmas lights. For him and Ellie their only reference were friends from their Jewish day school. They thought everyone in White Plains was Jewish. Thus began their education into the real world. 

Five or so years later Dan and his school basketball teammates encountered overt anti-Semitism. Players on the opposing public school team taunted them by throwing pennies on the court. 

Though my brother and I attended modern Orthodox religious day schools, we never wore yarmulkas before or after classes. It had nothing to do with fear. Our safety was pretty much assured in our neighborhood. At Brooklyn College our friends, almost all graduates of similar Jewish day schools, didn’t wear them either, even when eating. The symbols of religious observance were not as openly displayed 50 years ago. At least not by my crowd.

I suspect no Jew, even the most religiously garbed, presumes he or she will be attacked on the street, much like the public at large does not feel they will be mugged when outside. 

For a time back in 1968 assaults on individual Jews and Jewish institutions seemed to be daily transgressions in New York City. To combat the appearance of Jewish passivity Rabbi Meir Kahane founded the Jewish Defense League. The objective was “to combat anti-Semitism in the public and private sectors of life in the United States of America.”

I recall discussions about the JDL among my friends as we sat in the Brooklyn College cafeteria, but no one I knew joined the JDL, for sure after it turned more extreme, eventually to be labeled a “right wing terrorist organization” in 2001 by the FBI. 

Antisemitic attacks domestically and abroad have risen to intolerable levels. Some reasons can be traced to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some to religious bigotry. Some to gang membership practices. Some to economic imbalance. Some to the very conditions JDL identified 50 years ago: “political extremism” and “racist militancy.” And some to that same condition my teacher Mr. Morose related—ignorance. Plain and simple ignorance that shuts out the humanity and tolerance of anyone different. 

“Fahgettaboud” No Obstruction. House Probes Will Continue To Vex Trump

Funny thing about the law. One person’s lie to obstruct an investigation can be another’s chivalrous obfuscation to conceal an infidelity. One person’s suggestion that all the evidence is not yet in to prove innocence or guilt can be another’s hand-washing conclusion, “no foul, no crime.”

Perhaps Melania really does love him. Or maybe she loves the bank account that goes with him. Could be she has a forgiving, and forgiving, and forgiving, heart. Or maybe, like so many who cast aside a disapproving eye as they watch their retirement accounts soar with the stock market, Melania is comforted by the growth of her personal fortune. 

The charade has gone on too long for me to assume anything less than her deep-throated complicity. 

What can we expect next? Democrats won’t accept Attorney General William Barr’s and Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein’s assessment that no obstruction occurred. They will continue their House investigations. 

Trump will crow daily there was no collusion and no obstruction. By summer’s end, at the very latest by New Year’s Day, he will pardon all whom Mueller indicted: Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Alex van der Zwann, Richard Pinedo and Konstantin Kilimnik, but not George Papadopoulos as it was his loose lips that unleashed the two year-plus investigation into Trump’s campaign and presidency. Only Stone has yet to be convicted or plead guilty. 

You can rest assured Michael Cohen will not receive any clemency. 

One takeaway from the Mueller investigation—lying to a federal official, be it the FBI, a grand jury or Congress, is a crime. Lying to the American people, or your wife, or a reporter, is not. You can go to jail for the former. For the latter, you could lose an election, that is, if the American people have sufficient brain power to care for the sanctity of our nation’s founding principles. 

According to Barr, Special Counsel Robert Mueller reached no conclusion on the question of obstruction of justice. Barr and Rosenstein did, finding no obstruction happened. Perhaps they reasoned that since Mueller found no evidence of collusion with Russia to undermine the 2016 election there could be no obstruction. It is a simple math problem: nothing times something results in nothing.  

In New York lingo, “fahgettaboud” Trump asking FBI Director James Comey to go easy on Flynn, or firing him when he wouldn’t, or firing his successor Andrew McCabe, or continually undermining the credibility of the special counsel and his team. Fahgettaboud Trump openly admitting on television to NBC’s Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. 

We cannot say we weren’t warned Barr would take Trump’s side. In a 19-page memo to Justice Department officials prior to his appointment as attorney general, Barr said the Mueller probe was off-base. “Mueller’s core premise―that the President acts ‘corruptly’ if he attempts to influence a proceeding in which his own conduct is being scrutinized―is untenable,” Barr wrote.

These are times of strange judicial doings. There have been a string of not guilty verdicts in cases of policemen shooting, mostly killing, unarmed or non threatening men of color. And just as I was completing this blog prosecutors in Chicago dropped all 16 charges against the actor Jussie Smollett for allegedly faking his own racial and homophobic assault. No reason given for their action. Chicago’s mayor and police chief are justifiably outraged. 

Kavanaugh's Calendar Key to FBI Probe

So the Dumb-ocrats got what they asked for, a new FBI investigation into allegations the teenage Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted 15-year-old Christine Blasey (Ford) back in the summer of 1982. The Feds also will look into two other allegations of sexual misconduct alleged to have occurred during his high school and Yale undergraduate days.

Unlike the professional background checks the FBI performed six times on Kavanaugh for his successive federal jobs, the new investigation will focus on his behavior before he earned his education degrees. Here’s how The New York Times described the scope of the inquiry: https://nyti.ms/2OXnzrE

Of particular interest might well be the calendars Kavanaugh innocently enough submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee as evidence he could not have sexually assaulted Blasey Ford. While Democratic senators tried to decipher some of his obscure (to them) notations, they missed an opportunity to reveal to the nation the extent to which Kavanaugh was a party boy and not the wholesome football and basketball varsity jock and top student he projected during Thursday’s hearing. 

Kavanaugh acknowledged his love of beer, an infatuation with the brew he said he maintains to this day. But several times he either misled or provided incomplete responses to inquiries about his calendar entries.

He claimed he legally drank beer during his senior high school year, when he was 18. But Maryland had raised the legal drinking age to 21. None of the Dumb-ocrats seemed aware of this discrepancy. 

For a more detailed explanation of his calendar’s cryptic meanings, including keys to “Renate Alumnius,” “Devil’s Triangle,” “boofing,” and “Beach Week,” read Vox from September 26, the day before the committee hearing (apparently the Dumb-ocrats and their staffs did not): https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17901368/kavanaugh-yearbook-boof-devil-triangle-renate-beach-week.

No doubt, the anguish on the faces of Kavanaugh’s family reflected the pain and trauma they have gone through over the past two weeks. But I also wonder if some of the horror evidenced on their faces came from the revelation that their all-American boy and husband was not the straight shooter he portended to be in his youth. Did his parents know he routinely got drunk? As both his parents were lawyers, they should have been aware the legal drinking age had been raised to 21. Aware now of how frequently he abused alcohol, could a seed of doubt be festering within their devotion to their son?  

So we await an FBI report likely to corroborate Kavanaugh swallowed prodigious amounts of beer back then, but likely to fail to pinpoint any fact to corroborate Blasey Ford’s testimony. 

It will be her word versus his. Her memory seared into the hippocampus part of the brain versus his beer-saturated recall aided by calendar entries he is reluctant, probably embarrassed, to fully explain. 

And on this division, the fate of Kavanaugh’s seat on the Supreme Court and with it the future of our country, hang in the balance. 

Dumb-ocrats Miss Revealing Kavanaugh's Inner Man

From police procedurals in film and TV, to real life criminal cases, we have seen how law enforcement can secure convictions by planting evidence. What we saw Thursday during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault as a teenager was an official decision to withhold testimony that could corroborate or refute the charge against a member of the white male establishment. By refusing to subpoena Mark Judge, an alleged eyewitness to the assault, and other witnesses, such as the administrator of the polygraph test taken by Christine Blasey Ford, the all male Republican majority on the committee ensured that justice would be blind as well as deaf and dumb. 

On Friday a semblance of fair play returned to the committee. Though a party line vote sent Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate for consideration, Arizona senator Jeff Flake said his aye vote would be contingent on the FBI doing an investigation of the charge, a request Democrats continually made Thursday. 

Mark Judge’s cooperation is not assured. Late Friday afternoon the president ordered a supplemental FBI probe to be completed within a week.

Meanwhile, what the divided nation is left to debate are the performances of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford. Righteous indignation, even contempt, by the accused; anguish and trauma reluctantly displayed by the accuser. 

They were the star performers. But the senators also provided fascinating but not uplifting displays of statesmanship. Both sides grandstanded, though none as over the top as Republican Lindsey Graham. 

I’m most disappointed with the Democrats, or as I think we should henceforth call them, the Dumb-ocrats. With the whole world watching they allowed Kavanaugh to bulldoze them, to fire up his base while they failed to dig deeply into his psyche. 

The Dumb-ocrats kept asking him to call for an FBI investigation. The Dumb-ocrats kept asking if he was an excessive drinker, prone to blackouts. They kept asking if he sexulally assaulted women. Did they really think he’d surrender an “aha” moment and admit to being imperfect? 

Dumb-ocrats, rather, should have gently probed his character, his judicial reasoning, his family values. By exposing them they would have made it clear to any who had not already committed to his confirmation that Brett Kavanaugh was not the all-American judge, father and coach he tries to put across.

If the questions the Dumb-ocrats posed were insufficient, what should they have asked? I provided some in my last blog (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2018/09/nine-hours-of-she-said-he-said-leave.html), but a wider range of questions were submitted by New York Times readers from across the country (https://nyti.ms/2NNvgE7).

I liked the one from Lynda of Gulfport, FL: “Which actions in your life do you now regret taking but have learned from and have made you a better husband, father, teacher and judge? Have any of the mentors in your career been men you admired professionally, but that you had private concerns about with regard to their attitudes toward women in your workplace? As a father to two daughters, did you ever feel any responsibility to express a concern about the language used to describe women in any of your workplaces?”

I read somewhere the following question: Would you permit your daughters, when they are 15, to go to the type of parties you attended in high school? 

Answers to these questions were insight opportunities lost because of Dumb-ocratic obsession with trying to reveal a smoking gun. As the Trumpster would say, Sad.

Nine Hours of She Said, He Said: Few Changed Minds Over Blasey Ford-Kavanaugh Affair

The contrast between the demeanor of the two star witnesses testifying Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee could not have been starker. The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was demure and almost naive in her demeanor to be helpful. She was not seeking revenge. She was merely performing her civic duty. 

The accused, Brett Kavanaugh, was forceful, angry, argumentative, tearful and combative in maintaining his innocence and anguish at the destruction of his character and his family’s peaceful all-American existence. 

Whom to believe? My guess is few minds were changed by anyone who watched or listened to the full hearing, as I did over nearly nine hours. 

But there’s information I didn’t find out, based on questions not answered because they were not asked. Here are questions I would have liked to have heard posed and answered by Kavanaugh so the public could more adequately gauge his sensitivity to the issue of sexual assault and harassment: 

*Define the #MeToo movement

*Do you believe it has legitimacy?

*Do you believe the women and men who have come forward in #MeToo cases are sincere?

*Do you see any similarity between #MeToo victims and the boys, now men, who for many years did not speak up about abuse by Catholic priests?

*Can victims suppress the memory of their assault?

*Why do you believe so many women and men did not report a sexual assault when it occurred?

*Can someone do violent actions after excessive drinking?

*Do you believe excessive drinking can result in not remembering events?

*As a jurist do you believe an independent investigation provides a benefit when statements are disputed? (Democratic senators tried to ask this last question by asking Kavanaugh if he would ask for an FBI investigation, but he declined, hiding behind a comment that he would submit to whatever the committee desired, knowing full well that the Republican majority would not vote for such an inquiry.)

There is little reason to believe Blasey Ford had any ulterior motive in bringing forth her allegations of sexual assault and possible rape, allegations she confided to her husband and therapist years before Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. 

His fervent defense was what could be expected. It was compelling. Regrettably for him, his denials brought to mind similar denials by the president who nominated him who repeatedly disparaged Stormy Daniels and denied knowing of payments to her, denials that turned out to be facts. 

Indeed, rarely if ever has any political figure—and Kavanaugh is a political figure—readily admitted to any sexual indiscretion. 

Kavanaugh may well be telling the truth. 

Or Blasey Ford is.

We just may never know which one is.

Starbucks: A Brew of America's Latent Racism, Comey vs. Trump: Choose Your Truth Teller

If I were arrested each time I scurried into a restaurant to use its bathroom without first or ever ordering any food or drink, my rap sheet would be longer than my arm. Both arms. Throw in both legs, as well. 

What many considered an oasis of progressive tolerance, Starbucks has now been transformed into a symbol of the bigotry, intolerance and double standard white America harbors toward people of color. All because an employee and his manager brought their prejudices to work and let them surface by calling the Philadelphia police to arrest two well-behaved black men, one of whom wanted to use the bathroom as they waited for a meeting with a (white) man who had not yet arrived. 

The Starbucks personnel claimed the black men were trespassing, though other patrons—white patrons—said asking to use the facilities without buying anything never provoked negative reactions, much less a call for police backup. 

It is the type of racial profiling, overt discrimination, that has alarmingly increased over the last decade and been at least tacitly condoned by the current occupant of the Oval Office. 

Starbucks has been shamed and apoplectic. Apologetic. It has reportedly reassigned the manager, though many have called for his dismissal. 

I wouldn’t fire the manager or the employee who called the police. Rather, as a condition of their continued employment by Starbucks, I would require each of them to perform 200 hours of community service in disadvantaged neighborhoods of Philadelphia. Perhaps that would educate them to the reality that people of all different colors are decent and deserve equal treatment.

Whom Do You Trust? Comey vs. Trump. A career straight shooter vs. a habitual stretcher of the truth (okay, a dyed-in-the-wool liar). 

Barring the existence of a tape recording of their conversations, the choice of truth teller very much lies with your prejudices. You can probably guess mine. 

What perplexes many observers is the stedfast support Trump receives from evangelicals of all denominations despite his less than pristine character, a character that former FBI director James B. Comey asserted Sunday night on ABC News makes Trump “morally unfit” to be president and that he doesn’t represent the values of America. 

Perhaps the linked article by David Von Drehle, a columnist for The Washington Post, will help you understand them better, why despite all his apparent flaws, Trump retains the allegiance of those in the nation’s heartland : https://wapo.st/2qfp0X0?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.2ff8098e5218

Kasich Is All Cuddly But at Heart a Conservative

You have to hand it to John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, who failed in his attempt to secure the Republican Party presidential nomination but who continues to try to present himself as a reasonable, humane, thoughtful, non divisive alternative to Donald Trump should there be a vacancy, for any reason, at the top of the 2020 GOP ticket. 

Kasich appeared on Late Night with Seth Meyers a day before Trump delivered his State of the Union address Tuesday. He sounded soooo normal. And Meyers, usually a sharp observer of the political landscape, fell into the trap Kasich set. 

You see, Kasich is a conservative. His tone might be different, more pleasing, than Trump’s, but his substance, the outcome of his actions, were he to inhabit the White House, would not be materially different.

Like an old sweater one wears around the house, Meyers felt comfortable talking kumbaya with Kasich. (Here are two clips encompassing the totality of the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4sZY_RowM

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnd-dyL5SIE) 

But Meyers never asked him any nitty gritty questions about what the Trump administration has done and if he would have done the same or acted differently.

What, for example, is Kasich’s position on coal? Is he in favor of softening environmental regulations on coal mining and burning? What’s his position on alternative energy sources? Would he permit oil and gas exploration along our coastlines?

Would he have nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court? In general, what criteria would he use in selecting federal judges?

How would he have fixed Obamacare? 

What are his beliefs on abortion and funding of Planned Parenthood for non abortion related activity?

What are his positions on NAFTA, the Paris climate accords, NATO, the Keystone Pipeline, the Trans Pacific Trade Pact, the United Nations, Jerusalem as the location of our embassy in Israel, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the Iran nuclear deal?

How would he resolve differing views on the Dreamers? Would he build a southern border wall? What, if any, changes would he like to see in our immigration policy?

Does he believe Russia interfered in our 2016 election? 

Is he comfortable with the influence the religious right is having on government? 

Is the new tax plan acceptable to him?

Many of these questions can be answered by looking at Kasich’s Web site (https://www.johnkasich.com). For example, Kasich champions his opposition to abortion and funding of Planned Parenthood. 

We live today in a sound bite world. For Meyers (and, to be honest, lots of other TV hosts) to give Kasich and other politicians a soapbox to sound statesmanlike without providing specifics would result in saddling us with another Trump, albeit with a more teddy bear demeanor.

We would be shaking our heads and wondering how we got duped again. Meyers is an entertainer. I get that. But he has injected himself five nights a week into the political dialogue so he needs to step up from one dimensional attacks on Trump’s behavior to offer constructive alternatives. 

Have more respect for, and confidence in, his audience, that viewers want not just jokes but hard information when interviewing Kasich et al, as he has done with his Closer Look segments. 

Alternative Universe: What alternative universe does Donald Trump live in? Prior to delivering his State of the Union speech he said his goal would be to end the divisiveness that has existed in the country for many years. 

It’s a laudable objective but does he not recognize that he is a prime reason we are a polarized society? 

From his despicable advocacy of the birther movement questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency to his abusive comments, delivered live and in tweets, mostly about women but also about anyone who disagrees with him, to his embrace of neo-Nazi and alt-right leaders and members, to his denigration of national organizations such as the FBI and the CIA, Trump has done more to divide our country than any president of the last century. 

It’s no wonder that Kasich thinks being a “good guy” might be enough to propel him forward. 

Chaos-Creator-in-Chief Inflames Passions over Immigration, Leaks, and, Naturally, Chaos

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Keeping Up With Trump and Other Dangers to the Republic

The president is being investigated for possible obstruction of justice, but like watching a duck swim serenely on a pond, there’s a whole lot of action—in Washington—going on under the surface, much of it hazardous to the progressive state of the last 80 years.

Last week Politico initiated a new feature: “5 things Trump did while you weren’t looking.” It is difficult, depressing, but required reading, for it goes beyond the orange-topped menace. Trump or Mike Pence or any Republican in the Oval Office would be doing much the same.

Here are links to the articles for first two weeks: 

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/06/09/five-policy-changes-trump-this-week-000455

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/06/16/5-things-trump-did-while-you-werent-looking-week-2-000462

 If you’re not already reading Politico, this series is a good reason to begin.

If you’re not already too bummed out, spend 35 minutes listening to Nancy MacLean tell Leonard Lopate of WNYC about the origin of the conservative movement’s plan to deconstruct government. MacLean is the William Chafe Professor of History and Public Policy at Duke University. Here’s the link: http://www.wnyc.org/story/engineer-rights-libertarian-takeover/

A Breadth of Fresh Air: I listened Thursday to Terry Gross of NPR’s Fresh Air interview former vice president Joe Biden. It was refreshing to hear a reasoned discussion absent of hyperbole and self-aggrandizement. It got me wondering if we have become enmeshed in an era when intelligent, civil dialogue no longer is expected or the norm. 

Let me not give a wrong impression—neither Gross nor Biden hid their disapproval of Donald Trump. But they did so in articulate, non abusive language and discourse, so different from what so often passes for acceptable practice on talk shows and during public forums.

If you have 40 minutes, do yourself and the country a favor by listening to their discussion: 

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15cad59c689d41d1

Talk To Me: Whenever the subject of talking to oneself comes up I volunteer that I do. I talk to myself, I say, whenever I want good conversation.

Now that The New York Times has published results of studies showing the benefits of talking to oneself (https://nyti.ms/2sWvKc3), I guess we can expect more public displays of private patter.

For some 20 years or more we have seen lots of people babbling as they walked. General reaction at first was that more crazy people were walking among us. It was as if Elwood P. Dowd had developed the procreative trait of his friend, Harvey, the 6’ 3½” rabbit invisible to all but Dowd (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvey_(film)&oldid=781895785). Only upon closer inspection did we come to realize cellular phone technology was at play.

Of course that meant it was harder to pick out the actual crazy people talking to themselves as they ambled among us.

For all the benefits of talking to oneself noted in the studies perhaps the perils of internal conversation can best be observed from the public admission of our fearless but scare-inducing talker-in-chief. In his famous or infamous interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Trump made the following admission about his reason for firing FBI director James Comey:

“And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”

And that’s how we have arrived at the point where Comey went before a Senate committee to say before the American public and the world, with klieg lights shining and cameras rolling, the president of the United States is a liar.

Many of us may have thought it but few if any would have had the courage and the character to say it in so public a forum.

Many of you might also have thought Trump is an idiot. In case you missed it, here’s an Op-Ed piece that explains the origin of the word “idiot” and how it might be conferred upon our fretful leader: https://nyti.ms/2se1igv. 

Beauregard Sessions Cares More for His Honor Than for Info on Russian Election Interference

The news business being what it is, the attempted assassination of Republican congressmen Wednesday morning in Alexandria, VA, pre-empted the horrific, deadly London apartment house fire as the lead story throughout the day. Both events co-opted our attention from the more important ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections and the Trump administration’s seeming lack of interest in safeguarding our national heritage.

Perhaps the most damning piece of testimony from Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee was his admission that he knows nothing more about Russian activity “than what he has read in the (news)paper.”

Asked by Senator Angus King (I-Maine) asked if he believed Russians interfered with the election, Sessions said, “It appears so. The intelligence community seems to be united in that. But I have to tell you, Senator King, I know nothing but what I’ve read in the paper. I’ve never received any detailed briefing on how hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign.”

Sessions went on to acknowledge he never asked for or attended a briefing from the intelligence community or read a report of their findings. 

Is it possible that our standards for public officials have dropped so low that our top law enforcement officer cares not a whit about actions that could destroy our democratic ideals? And that Trumpettes, masquerading as U.S. senators, coddling favor with their egotistical, autocratic chief, do not show any inkling of consternation or anxiety about the assault on our most cherished right as citizens?

His voice dripping with righteous indignation, Sessions defended his honor against any suggestion he colluded with Russians or knew of any such activity by Trump campaign associates. If dueling were legal, you could easily picture Beauregard—that really is his middle name,  his full name being Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III— slapping the side of Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) face with his glove and demanding satisfaction for his persistent, some might say impolite and impolitic, questioning. 

Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) had hoped his colleagues “would focus their questions today on the Russia investigation,” but he might have been equally well-advised to ask Sessions to be similarly focused, as the attorney general revealed little interest in uncovering the veracity of Russian interference in the 2016 elections or even the widely reported contacts by campaign officials with Russians. That incredulous position prompted comedian Stephen Colbert to say Tuesday night Sessions “really seems to know nothing, which explains why he was the first senator to endorse Trump.”

As political theater the hearing provided some fireworks and little by way of information as Sessions invoked a premature claim of executive privilege on behalf of Trump, an odd practice as executive privilege, which can only be invoked by a president, usually must be cited prior to testimony before Congress. As Trump did not make such a claim, Sessions refused to answer questions just in case Trump would at a later date seek executive privilege. 

What the hearing did provide, however, was the complicity of Republican senators in the administration’s efforts to reject the validity of the allegations that the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians and that former FBI director James Comey was fired because he aggressively pursued an investigation into such activity. GOP senators failed to seek the reasons behind Comey’s dismissal, why Sessions would not answer questions about conversations with Trump, and why he had not immersed himself in the details of the intelligence reports.

The hearing also provided another example of Republican antipathy toward female senators, particularly if they are Democrats. For the second time in a week Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was interrupted, admonished, during her questioning of a witness. Earlier this year Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was cut off on the Senate floor when she tried to read a letter from Coretta Scott King. And let’s not forget that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) chose a group of 13 men–not one woman—to draw up a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. 

Trump: The Inscrutable, Promotional President

With rare exceptions most people have public and private faces, revealing the latter only to their closest confidants or under extreme duress. Countries and political movements operate similarly.

Saudi Arabia, for example, professes to oppose radical Islam but through its funding of madrasas throughout the world it is the number one propagator of extreme Wahhabi Islam that is anti-Semitic, dismissive of any infidels and behind much of the carnage by radical Islamic terrorists.

It is useful and instructive to assess a politician’s, a government’s, a movement’s true intentions by monitoring their words and deeds expressed to and understood by their primary audiences. Take the PLO, for example. Even as some of its leaders say they accept Israel’s existence, it continues to teach children hatred of Jews while lauding terrorists who kill Israelis, even rewarding their families with payments if they die in their efforts. 

It’s a two-sided street. Over the years Bibi Netanyahu has expressed support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but almost everything his government has done in the West Bank territories has undermined the prospect of that ideal becoming a reality.

Which brings us to Donald Trump. Casting himself as the great dealmaker Trump envisions being a peace broker between the Palestinians and Israel as well as a coalition builder of “moderate” Arab states to defeat ISIS.

With an oversized Santa Claus bag of military goodies, Trump curried favor with the Saudi royal family and the dictators of other Sunni lands, but how credible is he in their eyes? Did the rhetoric their ears heard in Riyadh erase what they witnessed and heard for nearly two years, months upon months of attacks on Islam, including in March 2016, “I think Islam hates us”?

Which are his baseline beliefs—his diplomatic use in Riyadh of the phrase “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires,” or the catchphrase “radical Islamic terrorism” featured in all his rallies and in his attacks on President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their failure to similarly identify Muslim attackers?

One wonders if the Arab Sunni world will be as discriminating as U.S. courts have been concerning Trump’s candor on the campaign trail. In restraining implementation of Trump’s travel ban from seven predominantly Muslim countries, courts have determined candidate Trump’s words are a more realistic reflection of his inner beliefs than his post-election public posturing.

Trump shows his true, unfiltered face when he tweets or departs from prepared remarks. 

Apparently under duress from the probe of alleged Russian influence on his campaign during the election, Trump seemingly revealed his lack of understanding of constitutional restrictions on the powers of the presidency. If James Comey is telling the truth, Trump asked the then-FBI director to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s ties to Russia. It has also been reported that Trump asked the director of national intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. 

Under duress to score political wins, Trump has turned his back on campaign promises never to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid funding. His proposed fiscal 2018 federal budget might not get passed as is, but it is instructive as to Trump’s true feelings. 

His budget calls for an $880 billion cut in Medicaid, a $191 billion cut in food stamps, a $72.5 billion cut in aid to the disabled, and a $21.6 billion cut in welfare over the next 10 years. Many of those reductions would impact the very voters who propelled Trump into the White House. 

Trump also promised to repeal and replace Obamacare with a better, less expensive health care program that would cover more people. But the bill he supported that passed in the House of Representatives would reduce coverage by 23 million over a decade, be more costly and provide less coverage, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (https://nyti.ms/2qXzbSq).

Again, Trump’s core voters would be deeply affected by Trumpcare, if passed as is. 

So how to gauge the true Trump? Might I suggest this measuring stick—consider him the “promotional president” not bound to any rigid doctrine or philosophy. He cares only about the optics of winning, of promoting himself, without regard to those who may be adversely affected by his waffling positions and advocacy for legislation or executive orders that are detrimental to millions of Americans, many of whom voted for him in the expectation he would improve their lives.

We have always had wheeling and dealing presidents, perhaps none better at closing the deal than Lyndon Baines Johnson. Trump, however, does not seem to be rooted in any political principle other than his personal aggrandizement. Perhaps that’s why he reacts so quickly and violently to any slight, real or perceived. Perhaps that’s why he is eager to share the perqs of his office with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, why he is willing to bow down, even curtsy, before the Saudi king, why he could not help himself but risk a constitutional crisis by firing Comey, the man responsible for leading the investigation of his administration. 

Trump is a man of limited vocabulary, limited attention span, limited fealty to the truth, limited appreciation of historical context, limited loyalty to principle. It is not a compliment to say he is inscrutable. One would hope a president of the United States stands for values long forged in the American experience, not someone who favorably compares our values with those of Saudi Arabia where, among many repressive actions, public dissent is illegal, women are considered chattel with few rights, slavery still exists, religions other than Sunni Islam are not tolerated and where the press is restricted. 

Saudi Arabia practices Sharia Law. But that’s okay with Donald Trump. After all, they extended to him a welcome fit for a king, complete with a gold medal, showering him with praise. To get a $110 billion package of military hardware, the Saudis knew just how to appeal to his ego. 

   

Fear Factor: A Partial List of Worries Inspired by A Mean-Spirited, Cruel, Vindictive President

Shortly after winning the presidency, after receiving an intelligence brief on threats facing America, Donald Trump cautioned the public there were “lots to fear.” Hardly a reassuring tone from the person whose word can launch a thousand nuclear-tipped missiles.

Well, are you feeling relief now that Russia has denied that the blabbermouth-in-chief revealed classified information to its foreign minister and ambassador to the United States during an unprecedented visit to the Oval Office last week? Do you feel safer, less anxious?

Give The Donald his due. He has elevated the art of instilling fear to an extreme.

Of course, the fear-monger-in-chief might have chosen to calm the public’s nerves since taking office. But that’s not his style. Instead, through his rhetoric and executive actions he has unleashed a Pandora’s box of fears: 

Fear of foreigners

Fear of immigrants

Fear of political retribution

Fear of Twitter shame

Fear of Twitter bullying

Fear of mass deportations

Fear of mass incarcerations

Fear of mass prosecutions

Fear of mass persecutions

Fear of a police state

Fear of the world coming to an end

Fear of nuclear conflagration

Fear of unchecked climate change

Fear of unsafe air and water

Fear of a religious state

Fear of censorship

Fear of loss of health care coverage 

Fear of insurmountable health care bills

Fear of widening racial divide

Fear of widening income disparity

Fear of loss of faith in government

Fear of loss of belief in media objectivity and veracity

Fear that elected officials will blindly follow rather than act on their conscience

Fear of politicization of the FBI

Fear of authoritarianism

Fear of flying (United or any U.S. airline)

Fear of government by Twitter

Fear we have an idiot as president and not just any idiot  Fear we have a mean-spirited, cruel, vindictive idiot as president

Fear the Constitution will be subordinated for political gain

Feel free to add your own fears to this list, if you’re not already cowed into the fetal position.

Question of the Day: Will the New FBI Probe of Clinton's Emails Matter?

The question of the day is: At this late date, 11 days before Election Day, with early voting already underway in many states, will any minds be changed by Friday’s revelation that the FBI has reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails?

Against any candidate other than Donald Trump the answer would be an emphatic, “YES!!!” But these are never-before (and hopefully never-again) political times with a Republican candidate anathema to a larger swath of the American public than the Democratic standard bearer. 

What can be said, without equivocation, is that if, as many polls now say, Clinton will be elected our 45th president, it will be a historic achievement, but one that may ring hollow for at least two possible reasons. 

First, without at least a majority of Democratic senators—it is too wild a dream to expect the House to be flipped to the Democrats— Clinton’s presidency would be stymied even more than President Barack Obama’s last six years. She would be hard pressed to advance any of her legislative agenda. She will be forced to govern by executive action, which will generate lawsuits from Congress and/or affected state and municipal governments.

Moreover, without a Democratic controlled Senate, Clinton will most certainly be tied up with investigation after investigation launched by the GOP House, regardless of the findings of the latest FBI probe. Republican congressmen are itching to file impeachment charges. As it would take 67 Senate votes to ratify impeachment, a conviction is unlikely, but the time spent defending her presidency would take its toll, especially during a period of Russian aggressiveness and the still constant threat from Islamic extremists here and abroad. 

A second reason a Clinton return to the White House would be submarined would transpire if Democrats fail to secure control of the Senate. Already three Republican senators—John McCain of Arizona, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ted Cruz of Texas—have indicated they would hold up any nominations to the Supreme Court made by Clinton. Can Majority Leader Mitch McConnell be far behind?

Their recalcitrance stems from wanting to deny Clinton the opportunity to recast the Court in a more progressive mode. While Republicans say the Court in the past has functioned for years with fewer than nine justices, they are not so coyly gambling the health and welfare of the Supreme Court against the health of aging justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. 

It is a lurid tactic waiting for a death or retirement among the liberal leaning justices to secure a conservative majority lost when Antonin Scalia died in his sleep almost a year ago. It goes far beyond loyal opposition and their stated explanation that they haven’t acted on the nomination of Merrick Garland because they wanted to wait until the people chose the next president. 

If they proceed to deny any nominees from a Democratic president, the GOP would have hit the trifecta in undermining the validity of each of our three branches of government. It is a parlay a quarter century in the making.

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich shut down the government in 1995 and 1996; Republicans shut it down in 2013, as well. For years Trump led a birther movement that questioned the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. By not even granting hearings to Garland Republicans have shown disdain for the constitutional process of advise and consent.

Is it any wonder, then, public confidence in government is at historic lows?

Putin's in the News and so Is Goebbels

Vladimir Putin is in the news for what he might have done and said. The stupid and embarrassing Democratic National Committee email scandal on the eve of the party’s nominating convention may have Russian fingerprints on it. Some are suggesting Putin had his tech spies hack DNC computers earlier this year so they could be released to WikiLeaks in time to discredit Hillary Clinton’s primary and caucus campaign. The FBI said it would look into the matter. 

Can you imagine Republican reaction if the FBI comes to Clinton’s and the Democrats’ defense after deciding there wasn’t sufficient grounds to indict the former secretary of state for her personal email server mistake? I can just hear Donald Trump screaming the FBI is rigged against Republicans as he besmirches another of our national institutions.

Putins also is in the “news,” so to speak, for a speech he allegedly gave to the Russian parliament about the need for Muslims to adapt to Russian laws and conform to Russian customs if they want to live in Russia. Copies of his “speech” have been circulating through the Internet.

However, according to Snopes.com, Putin never gave such a speech. It is another example of people using the Internet to create their own version of history in the hope of influencing a wider audience.

Secretary to the Great Influencer: A new documentary of a 105-year-old German woman, “A German Life,” is making its way around. She is not just any centenarian. Brunhilde Pomsel served as one of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels’ secretaries during the last years of the Third Reich.

“The people who today say they would have done more for those poor, persecuted Jews,” she says, “I really believe that they sincerely mean it. But they wouldn’t have done it, either. By then the whole country was under some kind of a dome. We ourselves were all inside a huge concentration camp.”

Take a moment to read the linked article from Monday’s New York Times http://nyti.ms/29gL4aH.

Now, understand why some think a Trump victory in November could easily be the first step on a downward path. If a domestic terrorist attack similar in impact to Paris or Nice occurs after he takes office Trump could declare martial law.

It is scary to think of the implications. “The dangers are still alive. It could happen again,” (one) of the directors, Olaf Müller, said. “One of the main aims of the film is to have the audience question: How would I have reacted? What would I have done in her situation for a new step in my career?”

Déjà vu: The GOP House Seeks an Impeachable Offense to Stymie a Clinton Presidency

As per FBI Director James B. Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton learned this week she will not be indicted for her email indiscretions, but she may well face an impeachment process if she is elected president. If we have learned anything from Republican behavior during the Obama years and, yes, during the Bill Clinton presidency, it is that the GOP will do almost anything to obstruct a Democratic president from devoting the necessary time and energies to serving the country.

House Republicans are laying the groundwork for such a move after grilling Comey during a hearing Thursday for four hours. They are not convinced he was right in determining Clinton did not commit a prosecutable offense by handling top secret emails on her personal server. Indeed, they will seek further investigation by the FBI as to whether Clinton perjured herself during testimony before Congress. 

If she is elected president, and Republicans remain in the majority in the House, expect impeachment talk to be front and center from the start of her administration. Don’t expect Donald Trump to bring impeachment up during the campaign as it would hint he doesn’t think he would win. But if he loses, expect a fusillade of tweets and rants that Hillary should be impeached.  

The Constitution states a president may be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Clinton’s alleged failures fall under the vaguely-worded “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Former President Gerald Ford, when he was House minority leader more than four decades ago, defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” (http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html)

A GOP majority in the House jumps that hurdle.

However, it is uncertain if actions taken before she was elected president would qualify Clinton for impeachment. Doubters need only look to Ford’s analysis to expect a positive take on that question from a Republican House.

Impeachment, though, would not kick Clinton out of the White House, as conviction would require a two-thirds vote by the Senate, a level of agreement difficult to attain in a forum expected to be almost equally divided by the parties. As more than a dozen Democrats would have to vote to convict, Hillary, like her husband, would remain in office after acquittal by the Senate.

For Republicans, however, the reward of impeachment is not necessarily in conviction as even then the presidency would remain in Democratic hands. Rather, the GOP goal is to stymie Clinton, to divert her attention from governing. 

Clinton would not be the loser. The country would, unless you believe in the Republican mantra first espoused by Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” and any reduction in government is a benefit, even if it means harming, perhaps irrevocably, our national institutions.   

Homeland and Other Worries

So here's my problem with Showtime’s Homeland, now that Gilda and I are watching the DVD of the first season. The suspected Al Qaeda plot the CIA and FBI are investigating—a sniper attack against the president as he leaves or boards his Marine One helicopter at Reagan National Airport—is based on erroneous fact. Air Force One, the only plane the president flies in, does not use Reagan. It flies in and out of Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, nowhere near the Virginia house Abu Nasir's terrorist cell bought and planned to use in their assassination attempt because its roof has a direct view of the helicopter landing pad at Reagan. 

There are no doubt other points we could dissect but this one is troubling. You'd think the CIA and FBI would know the president doesn't use Reagan National Airport. Maybe the dilemma is cleared up in the last two episodes of season one which we hope to view this weekend. I hope so, because otherwise I really like this show and can’t wait for the second season DVD to become available.

Fox Hunting: Homeland's plot arc has a former prisoner of war suspected by a CIA agent of being a sleeper terrorist turned by Al Qaeda during his eight years of captivity. Marine Sergeant Nicholas Brady is elected to Congress, where he can wreak havoc from within the political system. My niece in England sent me a link to an article in the Guardian about Rupert Murdoch’s failed attempt to co-opt the American presidential race from within. 

It's by Carl Bernstein who has experience in these matters (for those too young to know, he’s the Bernstein of Woodward and Bernstein of Watergate reporting fame). Here are two links, the first to Bernstein’s article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/bernstein-murdoch-ailes-petreaus-presidency), the second to the actual voice tape of the conversation between General Petraeus and K.T. McFarland of Fox News referred to by Bernstein that was obtained by Bob Woodward. Keep in mind this conversation happened a year before Petraeus’ downfall from his alleged affair

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/petraeus-in-2011-fox-news-interview-im-not-running-for-president/2012/12/03/c0aa0c72-3d6d-11e2-a2d9-822f58ac9fd5_video.html). 

Signature Moment: Ordinary Americans always strive to identify with their politicians. Or maybe it’s the other way around. Whatever. My point is, the brouhaha over Treasury Secretary nominee Jacob J. Lew’s signature—a series of connected loops looking much like a Slinky on its side—has me identifying directly with the man whose scrawl would appear on all paper currency should he be confirmed by the Senate.

I for one can’t find fault with his illegible writing. Mine is what I call my executive signature, stroked so quickly that only, and just barely at that, can you make out the “M” of my first name. Sometimes when I sign legal documents I slow down, but that causes a problem, as when I go to the bank to gain access to our safety deposit box. I can never remember which signature I am supposed to match. 

My poor penmanship must be in my genes, for Dan as well has a signature where only the “D” is legible. I used to think Ellie’s signature was decipherable, but since she got married and changed her middle and last names, she too has channeled me, and I know what she’s supposed to be writing. 

Blame, or Praise, Me: If you're wondering why there hasn't been any snow this month, I have an explanation. In my quest for the perfect snow shovel I recently bought a wheeled shovel, good for up to six inches of flakes. I eagerly awaited the next snowfall to test out my purchase. 

Naturally the power(s) to be have thwarted my ability to test drive this model by spritzing rain on us versus snow. I hope you all appreciate this gift I have given you, unless, of course, you like shoveling snow and skidding along on snow-covered streets.

Recalls From Hell: Here are headlines over press releases you really don’t want to have to issue if you run a company:

“Columbia Sportswear Reannounces Its Recall of Batteries Sold With Jackets Due To Fire Hazard”

“High-Pressure Scuba Diving Air Hoses Recalled by A-Plus Marine Due to Drowning Hazard”

Summer Musings

There Goes the Sun: I am green with envy at those able to harness the sun’s power. I learned yesterday my plans to install solar energy panels on the south side of our roof would not be economically feasible as my neighbor’s evergreen trees block too much of the sun, especially during the late fall, winter and early spring months. 

I tried all sorts of different configurations, including panels on the side of the garage facing east, but different trees got in the way. Well, at least I tried to reduce our carbon footprint ...

Out of the Woods: Did you hear about the golfer at Maple Moor Golf Course in White Plains who tackled a suspect fleeing from police the other day? The Good Samaritan golfer saw the suspect running away through a wooded area (http://www.lohud.com/article/20120808/NEWS/308080037/Golfer-tackles-fleeing-drug-suspect-Maple-Moor-course-?odyssey=nav%257Chead&nclick_check=1).

When I picked up driver and putter lo some 30-odd years ago, I played Maple Moor. Had a bad guy rambled through the woods back then I would have been in perfect position to tackle him, or at least take an errant swing at him, as I was most often in the woods because of my frequent errant swings from the tee or fairway. 

We played in a threesome back then, three new fathers—Dave, Rudy and yours truly—seeking diversion on Friday afternoons while our wives cared for our young’uns. We weren’t good golfers. Not even decent duffers. The only time our balls did not wind up in the woods was when the hole we were playing had a water hazard. You can guess where our balls landed when playing those holes. 

Anyway, Dave and I would emerge from the brambles pledging scores of eight or nine. Rudy would own up to a four, five at most. After a few rounds (golf, not drinks, though we did more than a little of that, as well), Dave and I concluded it was no fun playing with Rudy if he wasn't going to count every stroke. 

Easy Rider: Once again The New York Times has printed a story on adults learning to ride a bicycle. Here’s today’s article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/nyregion/a-reporter-learns-to-ride-a-bicycle-as-an-adult.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 but if you want my version of late-in-life daredevil learning and exploits on two wheels, here’s a link to what I wrote in June 2011: http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2011/06/paddling-along.html

Reality TV: Have you noticed reality is starting to look a lot like TV? I mean, when did FBI and other law enforcement spokeswomen start looking like they came direct from Central Casting? 

Regrettably, over the last few weeks we’ve seen lots of TV coverage of mass shootings. I don’t intend any disrespect, but some of the public spokespeople put forward by the police and FBI have been downright good looking, like they belong on CSI or Criminal Minds.  

Perfect Match? As I’m washing up and dressing each morning I listen to the news on WCBS880, the all-news station. I’ve always assumed the station’s audience has above average education levels, and probably above average incomes. 

Which makes me wonder, why do they carry so many ads for male menopause/testosterone fixes, debt relief schemes and other “fly-by-night” remedies for everything from hair loss to car dealerships where “nothing down” lets you drive away in the vehicle of your dreams? It just seems odd that an upscale audience like the one I envision for WCBS880 would be a match for their advertisers. 

The advertisers must be reaping benefit or they wouldn’t be airing the spots so often and for so long. But you’d think that a well-informed audience would know better than to respond favorably to a pitch that promises the sexual performance of a teenager. As H.L. Mencken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."