History, Realpolitik Lessons from Khashoggi Killing

Here’s what history teaches us: When an absolute monarch or would-be-monarch-with-absolute-powers expresses displeasure with someone within their access there are bound to be sycophants who will eliminate the source of that displeasure. 

Did Henry II of England command the death of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, or did he merely express frustration of his one-time friend and current antagonist when he is said to have said, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

Who knows? All we do know is that four of Henry’s loyal subjects rode to Canterbury and did away with Becket in the cathedral. 

That was in the year 1170. Yet, even in medieval times kings accepted responsibility for actions taken on their behalf, at least when the murdered is well known and admired by the populace. So Henry accepted blame and took some, light, punishment. 

In 21st century Saudi Arabia—among the remaining principalities that could pass for having Middle Ages morals and values—the monarchy is not prone to accept human frailty or responsibility, no matter how damning the evidence of its complicity appears to be in the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, an outspoken critic of the Saudi regime living in the United States. Khashoggi was killed October 2 inside the Saudi Arabian embassy in Istanbul by a Saudi hit squad linked to the crown prince after he was lured there on the pretense he could obtain proof he had divorced his wife so he could legally marry his Turkish fiancee (Though Turkey is an Islamic country, it does not accept polygamy.) 

Targeted assassinations of a country’s dissidents are not exclusively a Saudi province. Kim Jong-un has dispatched operatives to permanently silence voices, even those of relatives, he doesn’t want talking about his treatment of North Korea. Vladimir Putin has seen fit to rid the world of Russian truth-sayers about his autocratic rule of Russia.  A common thread among these tyrants is that with impunity they care not that these rubouts may occur on foreign soil. 

(These assassinations are distinctly different from those perpetrated by Israel. Israel has killed terrorists involved in the murder of its citizens and those who incite other to seek its destruction. Similarly, the United States approved the assassinations of al-Qaeda and ISIS leadership.)

The brazenness of the Khashoggi killing, with lurid as yet unconfirmed details of torture, dismemberment with a bone saw, and the pathetic, infantile attempt to explain away his disappearance and subsequent admission of the cause of death, has challenged the sensibilities of many in the Western world and those in the Middle East who are not in the Saudi sphere of influence.

But let’s keep in perspective the fact that Khashoggi was a journalist, a contributor to The Washington Post. Had he worked in another profession, or for a less renowned publication, the American furor over his murder might have been no greater than the outcry over the deaths of the 45 other journalists killed around the world in 2018. 

As he hardly has met an autocrat he doesn’t feel akin to, Donald Trump is loathe to criticize the Saudi monarchy. He is mindful, some say too mindful, of the extensive investment Saudi Arabia intends to make in American arms and aircraft (Trump inflates the price tag, but it is substantial in dollars amounts and the number of jobs it will support). As with other presidents before him, Trump’s response to Saudi indiscretion is tethered by realpolitik. 

The bottom line is America will hyperventilate for a while over Khashoggi’s assassination, Saudi Arabia will remain ruled by reactionaries, and despots will continue to confront, assault and kill their adversaries wherever they choose. Recall that for all his bluster about Saudi Arabia’s complicity in killing Khashoggi on Turkish soil, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of Turkey, had no regrets about having his thugs attack protesters during his visit to Washington last year. 

Trump Admits Kavanaugh Made a "Little Mistake"

It is hard keeping up with all the noise coming out of the Trump administration especially when the biggest noisemaker is an uncensored egotist whose morals have depressed America’s traditional values. 

While addressing supporters at a campaign rally Friday night in Lebanon, Ohio, the misogynist-in-chief railed against Democrats for questioning the character and temperament of Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court. As reported by DailyMail.com, “He specifically blamed Democrats for the circus surrounding Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, accusing the party of trying to end the judge’s career over a ‘little mistake’” https://dailym.ai/2yje2EO.

“Little mistake?” Did Trump just acknowledge that Kavanaugh really was unfit for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court? 

To what “little mistake” was he alluding? Could it have been his illegal underage drinking and failure to acknowledge the illegality, even going so far as to state his drinking at age 18 was legal in Maryland when the state had already raised the legal drinking age to 21? Could it have been to his perpetual lying and obfuscating during his Senate confirmation hearing on subjects ranging from limits on presidential power to his involvement in vetting court nominees while a member of the Bush II administration? Could it have been his attendance at parties where his high school friends gang raped girls, as alleged by Julie Swetnick? Could it have been when he exposed himself to Deborah Ramirez while a student at Yale, as she claims? Could it have been when he was drunk in high school and sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in a second floor bedroom, just as she testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Each and every one of those “little mistakes” would have been grounds in past times to reject Kavanaugh’s nomination. But Trump has so eroded Republican values that he won confirmation.  

Now that was a BIG mistake!

If Sears and Kmart Closed, Would You Care?

Perhaps if you’ve been paying attention to news unrelated to Hurricane Michael or new Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh or the baseball playoffs or the 1,300 point plummet of the Dow Jones Industrial Average Wednesday/Thursday, perhaps you read or heard a story about the possibility venerable, no longer venerated, Sears and stepsister retailer Kmart may file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as early as next Monday.  

Chapter 11 is not a death sentence. It is a reorganization tool meant to provide management with the time and financial freedom to resurrect a dilapidated business. Macy’s passed through Chapter 11. So did Best Buy. Plenty of other retailers, on the other hand, went from Chapter 11 into Chapter 7—liquidation. 

For more than 40 years I have been tracking the misfortunes, and occasional fortunes, of Sears and Kmart as they strived for relevance as societal and competitive realities evolved around them. (Once antagonists, Sears and Kmart became stepsisters as part of financier Eddie Lampert’s design to turn them around, or at least turn a profit for himself, by selling off their assets, including real estate and brands such as Craftsman.)

For 30 of those 40 years as editor and publisher of Chain Store Age, I met with the consecutive line of chairmen and chief executive officers of Sears and Kmart. Each sincerely believed his formula (it was always a he, never a she) contained the magic potion to resurrect a flailing business (that’s not a typo, I meant flailing). Perhaps, if Walmart and Home Depot and Amazon had not been imagined Sears and Kmart might have had a chance. But retailing is an industry that rewards innovation, particularly as it applies to efficient distribution. From better locations to quicker dissemination of products from manufacturer to store shelf to, especially in Amazon’s case, a consumer’s home, competitors outdistanced Sears and Kmart in their ability to meet consumer expectations.  

Sears was built with the mythology of the “Father Knows Best” family in mind. Even its one time diversification strategies—Allstate Insurance and the Discover card—reinforced the fulfillment of household needs. 

Kmart sought to capitalize on a growing middle class seeking cheap consumer goods in convenient self-service stores. 

But if the lady or teenage girl of the house needed something stylish to wear, Sears and Kmart were the last places they would shop. A department store or specialty store or Kohl’s fit the bill. Maybe even Target.  

If the man of the house was going to work on a home improvement project he turned to a local home center retailer, that is, before Home Depot or Lowe’s swallowed up their customers, as well. Electronics sales went to Best Buy. Toys to Toys “R” Us—the Sears Christmas Wish Book succumbed long before Toys “R” Us did. 

Kids could be dressed in Sears or Kmart clothing. Until, that is, they were old enough to voice their own apparel preferences. 

Will Sears and Kmart be salvaged or scuttled? Ask yourself these questions: When was the last time you shopped Sears or Kmart? If one or both stores disappeared, would you notice? Would you miss them?

For most of my professional life Sears and Kmart represented major portions of the copy that flowed through my editor’s desk. I walked their stores across the country. I shopped their stores. As recently as two weeks ago I bought some supplies in Kmart. 

Apart from the yawning gap closing the White Plains Sears and Kmart would have on their respective shopping centers, I cannot say I would miss them. I’d experience some personal nostalgia, but, no, I could not say I would miss them.

News Updates: Kavanaugh, Living in a Bubble, Trump's Week, Building a Name and Wiring Rod

Brewski Anyone? As Brett Kavanaugh takes a seat on the Supreme Court consider how awkward it will be at day’s end, any day’s end, when someone, perhaps Kavanaugh himself, suggests unwinding with a beer or two…

The continental political and social divide the country finds itself in is difficult to fully fathom until one encounters real-life proof that the respective sides live in distinctive bubbles with little chance they will meld together.  

Case in point: Recently Gilda met a Harvard law school graduate. A resident of the Washington, DC, metro, he related that he grew up in Kentucky. Yet, upon earning his law degree and returning to his home town he found the region preferred lawyers with social ties rather than legal scholarship. Fitting in was more important than knowledge. 

Gilda and I encountered the same primitive mindset more than four decades ago when we moved to Connecticut. Connecticut had an aura of being a state populated by sophisticated, educated residents. Home to headquarters of Fortune 500 companies. 

But there were plenty of factory workers, as well. Trouble was, in the Lower Naugatuck Valley where I was assigned as a reporter for The New Haven Register, hard times had befallen the workers who toiled in the brass mills of Seymour, Derby, Ansonia, Shelton and surrounding towns. Factories cut back production, laid off workers or closed down completely. Still, the dream of most fathers was to have their sons join them straight out of high school on the assembly line. Few aspired for an education-based escape from the Valley. 

Gilda’s acquaintance went on to detail his Kentucky education. The Civil War, he explained, was called the War Between the States as the teacher said it had everything to do with states’ rights and nothing, nothing to do with slavery. Indeed, slavery was not discussed. The war was hardly studied. Students learned about a few battles won by the South. Imagine his consternation upon being exposed in college and law school to the full historical record.  

Unable to find a job in Kentucky, he took his Harvard law degree to Washington.

Alternative facts. Fake News. Outright lies. When the assault on truth comes directly from the White House it reinforces provincial attitudes that are in conflict with principles of equality and tolerance.

The Week That Was: Whatever it was—a napkin or toilet paper—stuck to Donald Trump’s shoe and clearly visible as he ascended the stairs to Air Force One last Thursday, the embarrassment was palpable, the humor undeniable. He surely can blame an inattentive staff, or maybe Deep State conspirators, for the humiliation seen around the world (could the Deep State really have infiltrated his bathroom, or his dining area?). The trail of paper was as bad as when a wind gust last February swirled through his combover exposing his scalp as he climbed stairs into Air Force One.  

Then there were the optics of Melania’s trip to Africa. Ordinarily, dispensing much needed books to schoolchildren would result in laudable coverage. But the very educational programs Melania was endorsing in Malawi have come under attack by her isolationist husband who has disparaged African countries and who wants to cut aid to them. In one of its few acts of spine and resistance Congress rejected Trump’s budget cuts (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/politics/melania-trump-africa-trip-wrap/index.html).  

Perhaps the unkindest but appropriate cut of all, Trump was denied the Nobel peace prize he so desperately covets. Rather than award his still vague peace and denuclearization overture with North Korea, the Nobel was given to Denis Mukwege of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nadia Murad of Iraq for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict. 

How ironic that sexual violence was the dominant theme in the United States last week. Regardless of your opinion on the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of sexual assault by Kavanaugh (Trump has moved from saying her testimony was “credible” to her being part of a Democratic “hoax” to discredit Kavanaugh), it is clear that gender relations will be a more hot button election issue in November than the economy, taxes, foreign relations and health care.   

Trump’s campaign for a peace prize, this year or in the future, probably took a hit with his addresses at the United Nations. It took a high degree of chutzpah to stand at the podium of a world organization dedicated to peaceful coexistence and shared values and spout selfish bromides. 

Trump likes to project toughness and a singular focus on America First. He did that to the approval, no doubt, of his base and even to many who liked his no-nonsense non diplomatic rhetoric. How refreshing for them to hear candor at the UN where obfuscation and deceit are practiced arts. 

The UN is the ultimate global entity. Trump all but tore up its charter before the world’s eyes. Patriotism, not globalism, was his mantra. Inside your borders do what you wish as long as you don’t impinge on America’s self interests. 

You could visualize tyrants the world over smiling. The world’s policeman, the country that had corralled their basest instincts, was hanging up its night stick. Abandoning its beat. Throwing away its handcuffs in favor of a free-for-all posture as long as you said nice things about its orange-faced, golden-locked leader. Play to his ego, not his humanitarian sensibilities. 

Okay. Through our archaic political process we elected Trump to a four year term. He can legally reverse the course of U.S. history and with it the future of the world. 

But only so far as we the people enable him. November will be the first referendum on America’s choice for tomorrow. 

Building a Name: If Democrats gain control of the Senate, this year or in some future election, they should move to rename the Russell office building for the recently deceased Senator John McCain. 

Never mind that McCain was a Republican. He was a strong symbol of integrity and patriotism. Though a Democrat, Richard Russell embodied the white suprematist, racist attitudes current among Republicans. Russell served before Southern Democrats converted en masse to Republicans. 

By initiating the renaming of the building, as minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has proposed, Democrats would be sending a message of unity, though to be honest, those who support Trump and his distaste for McCain, would not welcome such an action. To them Russell is an icon. 

The Wire: Lost among all the excitement surrounding Kavanaugh was the postponed meeting between Trump and deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. 

Rosenstein, who oversees special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and more, has at various times been accused of wearing a recording device while with Trump. The New York Times also reported several weeks ago he entertained the idea of organizing cabinet secretaries to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from the presidency. Rosenstein has denied both allegations.

If ever there was a time for Rosenstein to wear a wire, that postponed meeting with Trump would be the day.

Even though Trump has recently said he is not ready to fire Rosenstein, the dissembler-in-chief is not a credible communicator (see above about his thoughts on Blasey Ford). 

So Rosenstein’s tenure toehold seems to be more precarious with each passing day. An announcement of his departure, never officially distributed, was even prepared for dissemination by the Justice Department on the presumption the meeting with Trump was going to occur, according to the Daily Mail (https://dailym.ai/2OU2iiF). 

Rosenstein is in a seemingly can’t-win situation. Trump has long wanted him out so someone more to his liking can be installed to control Mueller. So what has he got to lose by wearing a wire so he can capture Trump in his firing element?

Now, we’ve all watched Homeland, Mission Impossible and other thrillers that rely on high-tech listening and speaking devices embedded on a body so as to be non detectable. Surely Rosenstein knows intelligence officials, current or former, who would be willing and able to outfit him for sound. Heck, maybe even Mueller’s team would be a possible link-up option. 

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.