Art is 80

I may have written this before, but if I have, I don’t remember. And I am sure you don’t remember. So here I go (again).

Growing up in St. Louis, I was part of a very large Reform Jewish community. My public schools in University City, Clayton and Ladue were about 1/3 Jewish. Almost everyone I knew belonged to one of the five or so large Reform temples in the city or the western suburbs. There were a few Conservative and Orthodox synagogues, but virtually no one I knew belonged to them.

My family went to High Holiday services (one day for Rosh Hashana), had seders (no more than one at home – sometimes we went elsewhere for a second), and celebrated Hanukah. My Sunday School was forgettable at best – I don’t know if I learned anything there at all; I certainly didn’t take it seriously. For my Bar Mitzvah (most of my friends did not have Bar Mitzvahs) training, it took us two years, two days a week after school to learn the Hebrew alphabet, I read a very small couple of Torah lines, a haftarah, and gave a two minute or so speech that I don’t even remember writing (maybe someone wrote it for me).

I went to a nondenominational summer camp. I didn’t belong to any Jewish fraternities or groups through high school.

When I went to college, although I did go to High Holiday services, I was completely turned off by the few events at Hillel that I went to. I seemed to have nothing on common with the Hillel kids, who had a very different Jewish identity that I did. I did take some Jewish studies type courses at college, but that was it. No Jewish extracurricular activities at all.

So how did it happen that virtually my entire extra-work life as an adult in Washington DC has been connected to the Jewish community?

I have been a Board of Directors member and an officer of two synagogues, first Temple Sinai and then Adas Israel.

I was a Board member of the Jewish Primary Day School of Greater Washington (now the Milton Academy)

For twenty years, I was a member of the Board of Directors for American Associates, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and for six years I was Treasurer of that national organization.

I am currently a Board member and the Vice President of the Haberman Institute for Jewish Studies.

I am currently the President of the Jewish Funeral Practices Committee of Greater Washington.

Outside of these organizations, the only other non-profit organizations that I have been seriously active in were connected to my law practice, when I was a member of the Governing Board of the ABA Forum Committee for Housing and Community Development, a Board member and one-time President of the National Leased Housing Association and a Board member of the National Housing and Rehabilitation Association. But all of these were history before I left the practice of law now 11 years ago.

Everything that I have done with all of these organizations has been interesting and I hope useful. But I just must repeat. I surprise myself.

Yesterday was a busy day. And a good one. Let me explain:

My granddaughter goes to Hebrew School on Saturdays at 9 a.m., and the rest of her family usually comes over to our house, close to the synagogue, for an hour or so, and before going back to the synagogue for Shabbat services. That is what happened today. But I held back, did not go with the rest of them, and promised to meet them a bit later. I drove to the synagogue about 11 a.m., hoping to find a parking place within a few blocks, knowing there might not be any reasonable parking space available. But, as a I drove by the synagogue, I saw a space being vacated – a car pulling out at 11 in the morning. Unheard of. And so welcome. So I found a place to park right outside the door.

There was a double bar mitzvah today and I can’t say that I was unhappy to miss it, but I got to services in time to see the Torah returned to the ark and to hear Rabbi Krinsky’s sermon. I don’t think I have ever heard one of her sermons that I haven’t liked. This was celebrated today’s day of celebration (which I knew nothing about, or perhaps which I simply had forgotten about) called Shushan Purim Kattan. It is a minor variant of a minor holiday, as she described it. In seven out of every 19 years, the Jewish calendar has a leap-month, necessary to sync the lunar calendar of 354 days with the solar calendar of 365. In such years, as this one is, there are two months of Adar, I and II. Purim is celebrated in Adar II, but there is history showing that a minor or small (kattan) Purim should/could also be celebrated in Adar I. Purim is celebrated on the 14th of Adar. But yesterday was the 15th, and the 15th is the day that Purim is celebrated in walled cities, such as Shushan (the home of Esther, the hero of the story) where it took a day longer for the Jews to defeat the warriors of Haman. So yesterday Shusan Purim Kattan – a holiday that hardly anyone celebrates and one which most people know nothing about. But it made for an interesting sermon.

Then came kiddish and a chance to say hello (or more) to a number of old friends, and then an afternoon study session with Rabbi Alexander to discuss whether there is such a thing as Jewish dogma, such as the 13 attributes of Judaism as listed by Maimonides in the 12th century. We learned that other medieval rabbis had their own lists, with deviations from Maimonides list. And our discussion was around whether today Judaism has any set principles, things which all Jews must believe, any dogma whatsoever. You don’t see the words SPOILER ALERT here, because I am not going to give you any spoilers – perhaps there are not even any spoilers to be given. But the discussion was lively and the approximately 75 attendees I think came away with something that they didn’t bring into the room.

Edie and I decided to go on vacation for the rest of the day, so we drove to Union Market, about a half hour from our house. At one time, this was the home of Washington’s wholesale produce and meat markets, an area the busiest so early in the morning that most were still in bed. But now, it’s a thriving entertainment and high rise residential area – with many, many, many places to eat, drink and shop.

We started, at about 3 p.m. with a snack at Maman, a coffee shop on 4th Street NE, and then went into a number of places within a few blocks, including La Cosecha, the large Latin American food court, where two restaurants have recently closed, but where the remaining nine restaurants and six retail establishments seem to be thriving. Looking at the various food locations, as well as stores selling Latin American crafts, Spanish imported foods, leather goods and more.

After that, we went to the new branch of Politics and Prose, our neighborhood bookstore which now has expanded their two branches, one at Union Market and one at another upscale DC area, The Wharf. This branch has only been open about three weeks, and we were surprised at how large it is (not as large as the main store, but no longer a tiny outpost).

When there, we saw that there was to be a 5 p.m. book talk by Phillip B. Williams, discussing his new first novel, Ours, the somewhat surrealistic story of an all-Black community located just north of St. Louis, founded in the 1840s by a woman named Saint, who – with magical powers that even she does not understand – was able to free a number of enslaved peoples in Arkansas and bring them north. The author, whose previous work consisted of poetry, and who teaches in the MFA program at NYU, has an extremely lyrical way about him, and – although I don’t normally read fiction, and hardly ever read this sort of fiction – we bought the book, and I started it this evening. I will report on it later. It is getting very good reviews.

That was our day. We came home for supper (leftovers from last night’s Shabbat dinner for 8 where we probably had enough food for 16), kept our eyes on the Capitals game on TV (they lost to Florida, 3-2, in overtime) and the first Nats Spring Training game on a computer (the Astros beat them 7-4, but the youngest Nats performed well), and each tried to get some reading done.

You may never have heard of Bernard Wasserstein. I hadn’t. But he is a British born, Jewish historian, who is now a professor emeritus of the University of Chicago. He has won awards and written several books, each of which, I imagine, is worth looking at.

I have just finished reading his Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945, and found it filled with information, some new to me and some not, but all looked at from a different angle. Not from the perspective of an American wondering if the United States should have done more to stop the Holocaust, but from the point of view of Britain, closer to the action and obviously more vulnerable to both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Britain was involved with the Jews in several ways. It was at war with Nazi Germany, it held the League of Nations mandate to govern Palestine, and it was home to a prominent and growing Jewish population. The book examines all of this.

You may recall the reports of antisemitism within the United States Department of State, and particularly within its immigration policy offices. The same was true in Britain, where the Foreign Office was filled with “Arabists”, officials who by and large had a romantic bias towards the Arabs and an equal aversion to the Jews. Part of this was related to British national needs: they needed to keep the Suez Canal open, they needed axis to Iraqi oil, and they needed to protect the sea routes to India, then still part of the British Empire. Some just the result of fascination with the exotic Arab communities.

At the same time, there was the Balfour population, which had promised the Jews a homeland in ancient Judea, which was controversial from the beginning, but which had been adopted by the League of Nations and made a part of the mandate given to Britain. Britain was clearly in a bind – needing to conform to the mandate restrictions and needing to keep the Arabs happy. These somewhat conflicting goals were made more difficult to balance as Jews wanted to flee Europe, and the Arabs were being wooed by the Nazis. Britain ended its mandate in 1947, but – were it not for the German influence in Araby – Britain might have walked away from Palestine even earlier.

In addition to the conflicting terms of its mandate, there was another conflict playing out in Britain – the division among government officials as to whether they did or did not support the Balfour Declaration’s goal of a homeland for the Jews. The majority of British officials were clearly not Zionists, but a few were, and most important among the Zionists in Britain was one Winston Churchill, who consistently supported Jewish rights in Palestine. Not that he always had a high degree of influence, but he was always there, and had he not been, again things would have been much different. (Interestingly, with so many British officials mentioned in the book, one was noticeably absent – I don’t think Wasserstein ever mentioned King George.)

The 1939 White Paper, which cut back sharply Jewish immigration to Palestine, is viewed today as an evil proclamation, trapping Jews in a Europe where their only choices were how to die, while relatively few were allowed into Palestine. But Wasserstein makes it clear that, at the time, the White Paper was itself a major compromise between those who wanted to cut off Jewish immigration into the mandate territory completely and those who did not. And also, as various ships tried to run the boycott and bring their refugee passengers into Palestine, there were so many questions raised. What should the mandate holder do? Sending them back to Europe didn’t seem right (for obvious reasons). Letting them into Palestine as refugees would only embitter the majority Arab population more, and induce additional Jews to try to make the trip. So often a middle ground was implemented. Allow them into the Palestine, but imprison them. But, obviously, then what? Eventually, they had to be let out, although there were many thoughts about moving them to South America, to Australia, to various spots in central Africa and to remote Indian Ocean islands. At the same time, Britain had to cope with increasing Arab violence, and the development of Jewish terrorist groups, like the Stern Gang.

The book also talks about the Jewish community in England, about various groups of refugees allowed into the country. But should have England allowed even more Jews in? Many thought that they should be (even before the death camps were known), but there were always considerations pointed into another direction, including the fear that if Britain focused to get Jews, and only Jews, out of Nazi occupied Europe, how would non-Jews in Europe feel, people who were also being oppressed and in danger. Would focusing on the Jews just increase antisemitism even more?

And, after the international meetings in Evian and Bermuda, where everyone talked about saving Jews, but no one did anything about it – it became clear that the entire world felt that letting Jews in would lead to massive influxes of groups who would both overwhelm and change societies, and that temporary asylum was not an answer, because there was no way to see the temporary asylum ever ending. At the same time, within Europe, there was a big market in fake visas – for countries all over the world, giving Jews – who sometimes paid big money for their visas – false hopes, while some countries like Spain and Portugal and (at certain times) Italy and Romania and Hungary kept Jews from German hands, only to hand them over at other times.

And then the question, as the war went on, and the Auschwitz statistics began to climb, should the camps, or the railroad tracks, be bombed? Wasserstein’s chapter on this delicate question is very interesting – would attacks on the camps have had a negative effect on winning the war? How much money, fuel, manpower would be needed, and what would not be done? And would it had been effective? If railways had been bombed, would other ways to transport the Jews be used? If camps had been bombed, would inmates have been killed and the Allies blamed for the death of Jews along with the Nazis? And the camps were located at places where British and American planes would have a hard time getting to without refueling, and being spotted along the way. His description of the logistical difficulties in carrying out major attacks on the camps in quite convincing.

There is much more to the book that I am able to write about here. It is a fairly long book, filled with information (most of which you won’t remember, I am fairly sure), but very well written, and worth the time to read through. I recommend it highly.

(1) I was listening to a podcast yesterday while in my car.

Digression: Okay, let me be honest. I don’t know if I was listening to a podcast or not, because I don’t really know what a podcast is, assuming it has a definitive definition. A better way to describe it would be to say that I was listening to an interview on YouTube yesterday while in my car. I could have also been watching it, but my guess is that that would not have been particularly safe. The interview was by someone whose name I don’t remember and the interview was with someone whose name I don’t remember, but who sounded like he had some authority. The interview was apparently one of many conducted by this same mysterious person, whose name I don’t know, under a general “program name”, which I also don’t remember. Was I listening to a podcast? I still don’t know.

I was listening to a podcast yesterday while in my car, and it was an interview and the man being interviewed was asked why our legislative branch is so dysfunctional. He said, as you would assume that he would say, that there are many reasons, but he also said that there was one that stood out above all the others.

So I will ask you. What do you think the main reason for our dysfunctional legislature is?

His answer was C-Span.

He thought that C-Span, by televising, gavel to gavel, sessions of both the House and Senate, including sessions where legislators speak to totally empty champers, empty that is except the C-Span camera, as well as many Congressional hearings, has changed the political world. He believes that C-Span, well meaning as it has been, and efficient as it is, has turned legislative governmental work into show business.

Give it some thought.

(2) “South of the border, down Mexico way…….”

I’ve long said that the southern border is likely to keep Biden from winning a second term. I still believe that, and that he is in a no-win predicament at the border. Yes, it’s the Republicans keeping Congress from reforming our immigration laws, but it was the Democrats who waited until over three years into the Biden term to propose legislative changes. And, after saying that he can’t take strong executive action, it appears that Biden is strongly considering strong action – again over 3 years into his 4 year term.

So even if it succeeds, it just looks like he is pandering, doesn’t it? And will it succeed? The order, as currently proposed, will apparently try to limit political asylum to people requesting asylum before they cross our border, not after. The problem is that Trump issued that order during his time in office, and the courts blocked it, saying that the right to request asylum belongs to anyone who crosses the border, no matter how they get here. Perhaps the Biden administration has a twist that will give it a chance to obtain judicial approval. We will probably see.

(3) Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And the partial shutdown of the government is scheduled for next Friday, one week from today. The remainder of the government will shut down a week later. And the full solar eclipse will occur a month after that. Mark your calendars.

My friend Milton Shinberg has a letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post. I have copied and pasted it below:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

“David Ignatius’s Feb. 15 op-ed, “3 crises give Biden a chance to prove his doubters wrong,” argued

that President Biden’s successes can get him reelected. As is becoming increasingly evident, the optics of his aging make that highly unlikely. It’s time for this wise and accomplished president to take credit for his accomplishments, and they are tremendous, and then make space for a more likely 2024 victor.

Sign up for the Prompt 2024 newsletter for opinions on the biggest questions in politics

Unlike many presidents, he accomplished his overarching goals. He returned to elective office to prevent Donald Trump from retaining the presidency in 2020. He did it. He aimed to get the economy back on track, and he did that, too. He swore to champion the values that are America at our best, and he has done that eloquently.

But now it’s time to take his bow. He has earned it, not only for his job as president but for many decades of dedicated service. Of all people, this president can’t be the person who reopens the Oval Office door to Mr. Trump, the very person he correctly identifies as the greatest threat to our country. The Democratic Party, and the appeal of its leaders and ideals, should not be underestimated. Other heroes will step up and carry on Mr. Biden’s battle, but that handoff has to happen now. The time for a new hero, one who can build on Mr. Biden’s worthy legacy, is running out. It’s time for a graceful, gracious and well-earned exit — and our deepest appreciation.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I could not agree with Milt more.

And time is growing short. I did look this morning at the most recent polls in battleground states such as Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina on Real Clear Politics. Nothing is changing – or if it is, it is changing in the direction of Trump.

How this can be is baffling; we all agree with that. But, baffling or not, this is what is happening and the Trump civil verdicts of over $500 million for various civil infractions do not seem to change this is any way. In fact, Trump supporters are raising money to pay Trump bills.

We need Democratic vision, Democratic vivacity, Democratic charisma. We don’t need someone who, even if he is compos mentis today, may not be tomorrow, and who looks like he may not be today. Perception is so important in politics.

Milt makes a number of good points in his short letter. One is his list of Biden’s primary accomplishments and what will be viewed as his legacy. If he runs against and loses to a felon, or potential felon, and a man a half billion dollars in debt, who is a prime example of what you don’t want your children to be, and who sidles with our “enemies” as he tries to disrupt all of the policies that have so far kept us in good stead, what will be his legacy then?

When I looked at Milt’s comments on line today, I saw there were 276 comments. There are undoubtedly more now. I am going to scan them – maybe you should, too. Something must be done before it’s too late – the Democrats keep relying on public opinion changing – but to those Blacks, Hispanics, young voters and Independents who think Biden is too old and too doddering, there will be no change.

Many seem to be worried about the future of downtown Washington. Today, only about 60 per cent of workers have returned to their offices after the pandemic. This means that office buildings are running way below capacity, that many restaurants (and especially those which specialize in lunchtime business) have closed, and that many retail establishments are no longer operating, or are operating at a shoe string. It also means that commercial office leases, when they expire, are being renewed with much less space being put under lease, and that some firms have moved to suburban locations which might be much more convenient to their employees. At the same time, as people familiar with DC know, there have been many new and large commercial developments around town, such as at The Wharf and in the Navy Yard neighborhood (near the ball park), which pose competition for the downtown office space. At the same time, attempts to convert office buildings to residential space have proceeded very slowly – the cost is prohibitive, and the building footprints are very hard to use for residential purposes (much too much internal space). There has also been (in parts of downtown, particularly around busy bus stops, I believe) an uptick, or a perceived uptick in crime, and – to top everything else off, of course – there is the prospect of the Wizards and Capitals departing from downtown DC for Alexandria, which means that the Monumental Arena will be repurposed or replaced with (still to be determined) buildings designed for alternative uses, while, at the same time, restaurants near the arena will be hard put to keep operating.

OK, so that is one thing. But I am thinking about this today for a very different reason. I live just off Connecticut Avenue, a very major thoroughfare in North West Washington, about 5 miles from Metro Center. When I was working, I took Connecticut Avenue downtown every day. Now, in my retirement, one of the non-profits I work with has its offices about 10 miles from our house, but in the other direction. About once every couple of weeks, I drive Connecticut Avenue out to the suburbs in the mornings (generally between 8 and 9:30 a.m.) against the flow of traffic heading into town.

You would think that, with the downtown area still operating at 40% below its pre-Covid numbers, that the drive into town would be relatively easy. No such thing. The traffic is basically stopped for large sections of Connecticut Avenue on the ten mile stretch from Veirs Mill Road to the District line. I don’t know how long the drive would take form Veirs Mill to downtown DC, but I wouldn’t want to try it.

To me that means that we have an additional problem. Not only do we have diminished activity downtown. We have a clogged transportation system. As you may know, the underground Metro system does not go beyond Van Ness on Connecticut Avenue. Van Ness is about three quarters of a mile closer to downtown than our house. The Metro goes out Wisconsin Avenue/Rockville Pike, and it goes out 7th Street/Georgia Avenue, but not out Connecticut. Bus service is not bad between parts of downtown and the Maryland line (that’s about a mile beyond our house), but is very sporadic (maybe once an hour and maybe only rush hours?) beyond the District line.

If downtown activity picks up……how will people get there on a reasonable basis? And if people can’t get downtown on a reasonable basis….why do we think that business downtown will pick up? Of course, you say, if people on the Connecticut Avenue corridor can’t get downtown and others can, people who live off Connecticut Avenue might choose to work elsewhere, but there would be a sufficient number of people to fill downtown’s office buildings. But, that’s not the case because of the nature of many of the people who live in areas like Chevy Chase and Kensington, or who would drive to Connecticut Avenue on the Beltway, are downtown types – lawyers, consultants and so forth and, of course, government officials.

It’s pie-in-the-sky, but what we need is a commitment to build a transit route (probably most of it underground) between the Van Ness Red Line station, and the soon to be opened Purple Line station at Connecticut Avenue near Manor Road (with parking at that station). What happens when you mix Red and Purple? You get magenta? I think so. The Magenta Line. Of course, it could go (probably above ground) from the Purple Line station all the way to Aspen Hill.

The problem with that, of course, is that Metro is currently struggling to operate even on its current schedule. And, of course, that a new subway line would probably take ten years (maybe) to move from Concept (that would be today) to Design to Acquisition to Procurement to Construction and through Construction.

I wonder if other large cities are facing the same problem(s).

To The Victors Belong …. What?

to write a post when your task is to babysit a three year old.

It’s also hard when your are thinking about the aesthetics of a recent Mexican meal.

or when you really just want a cup of coffee..

so you have to give your readers a meaningless photo montage.

When I was growing up in St. Louis, we celebrated George Washington’s Birthday on February 22 (we did that because that was the day on which he was born, and it was his birthday) and Abraham Lincoln’s birthday on February 12 (for the same reason). Honestly, I don’t remember what we did on either of those days – were schools closed? did the buses run on Sunday schedules? I don’t remember (and that would take a lot of research – like finding other people my age to ask).

But in 1968, Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, which moved Washington’s birthday to the third Monday in February, moved Memorial Day to the fourth Monday in May, and created Columbus Day, a federal holiday celebrated on the second Monday in October (and yes, it is still Columbus Day, not Indigenous People’s Day). It also moved Veteran’s Day from November 11 to the second Monday in November, but this was reversed some time later.

So, today being the third Monday in February, February 19 this year, this is George Washington’s Birthday, a federal holiday. Don’t be confused and think that this is President’s Day (or Presidents’ Day or Presidents Day), because this is George Washington’s Birthday federal holiday – no matter what virtually everybody calls it.

Now you note that today is not George Washington’s Real Birthday Day, which would be this coming Thursday. But here’s something you may never have realized: George Washington’s Birthday never falls on George Washington’s birthday. The third Monday in February has never been and cannot ever be February 22. By the way, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day – which is not called Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday – which falls on the second Monday of January can fall on Martin Luther King, Jr.’s actual birthday, the 15th; it did this year.

Having said all of this, there are state holidays in all of the states (and DC, of course), as well as federal holidays. And every state now celebrates George Washington’s Birthday on the third Monday in February – coincident with the federal holiday. But……..

In some states, like my native Missouri, Lincoln’s birthday is still a state holiday celebrated on his actual birthday, and not on a moveable Monday date, like Washington’s.

And – believe it or not – as a state holiday, today in Alabama and Mississippi, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is called Martin Luther King, Jr. – Robert E. Lee Day? I don’t know what the public perception is, but this is its official title. And in Alabama, one of the states where Lincoln’s birthday is not recognized as a state holiday, the third Monday of February is celebrated not only in honor of George Washington, but also as Thomas Jefferson Birthday Day. This even though Thomas Jefferson was born in April. Alabama also still has a state holiday commemorating the birthday of Jefferson Davis, and another holiday, in April, titled Confederate Memorial Day. Again, I have no idea how these days are recognized or celebrated.

Back to George Washington’s Birthday: It is celebrated as a state holiday in every state, but……(1) ten states call it Presidents’ Day, leading one to conclude that it celebrates more than one president, (2) eight states call it President’s day, a somewhat more ambiguous title, (3) two states call it Presidents Day, leaving out the apostrophe altogether, and making it clear that more than one president, and perhaps all, are being honored, (4) Maine calls it Washington’s Birthday/President’s Day, (5) Arizona calls it Lincoln/Washington Presidents Day, (6) Virginia calls it George Washington Day, (7) ten states call it Washington’s Birthday, (8) four other states use varying titles that include Washington and Lincoln, (9) Alabama, as we know, celebrates George Washington/Thomas Jefferson Birthday (Birthday is singular), (10) in Arkansas it’s George Washington Birthday/Daisy Bates Day (Bates was involved in integrating Central High in Little Rock, (11) California has no state holiday, apparently, (12) Delaware somehow doesn’t even celebrate the federal holiday, and (13) New Mexico, Georgia and Indiana have state holidays celebrating presidents in totally different parts of the year.

Eight states, by the way, do celebrate Lincoln’s Birthday on February 12 with a state holiday. None of those states are states which were part of the Confederacy.

Go figure.

In the meantime, of course, retailers everywhere (I think) offer presumed bargain sales on President’s, Presidents’ or Presidents Day, each term being used interchangeably. Is your head now spinning? It’s a perfect day to honor your favorite president by buying a presidential bobble head. Does anyone know where I can find a James Polk?

Donald Trump wants a national sixteen week abortion ban. He says that he likes it because it is “even. It is exactly four months.” FACT CHECK: Sixteen weeks from January 1, 2024 is not April 30, 2024. It is April 21, 2024.

He can screw up even the simplest things.

In the meantime, he still leads in the South Carolina polls over the state’s former governor Nikki Haley by 30 points. And it isn’t because Nikki Haley is unpopular. It’s because 40 percent or so of this country believes that Donald Trump is another Jesus. And once you believe that someone is another Jesus, it is hard to change your thinking.

I am not a Christian (never have been), so I don’t understand thinking that even Jesus is Jesus. But that’s OK. And I know that Christians have varying views (to put it mildly) about him. That’s OK. But once you believe that Jesus walked on water or revived the dead or turned water into wine (or was it the other way around?) or was born of a virgin or came back to life after three days and then ascended into heaven, it is difficult to change your mind by pointing out what might be considered as facts, or as to impossibilities. It doesn’t matter. You have your set of facts, and you’re sticking with them.

And this is the way that a significant portion of American voters view Donald Trump. And anyone who dares to disagree finds themselves guilty of heresy or blasphemy, or both.

Moving on…..

I didn’t (and probably won’t) watch the Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin, but I did see Fareed Zakaria’s commentary on it this morning, and suggest that you find it and listen to it.

Digression: I must confess a conflict of interest. When my law firm moved out of its offices at 1050 17th Street NW, we were replaced (I don’t know if it was in whole or in part) by Tucker Carlson’s consulting firm (I don’t know if it still exists) and, worse than that, Tucker Carlson took over my very nice, bright corner office. Somehow, I have always felt dirtied by that move – if I had known that was a possibility, we might have stayed.

In addition to kowtowing (as I understand it) to Putin during the interview, apparently Carlson expressed a number of alternative facts that no fact checker would support. According to Zakaria, Carlson talked about the lack of inflation in Russia (Russia says it is about 7% a year, twice ours), the lower interest rates (Russia’s interest rates are about 3 times ours), and the cheaper groceries in Russia (compared to average incomes, Russia’s groceries are much more expensive than ours). He also said that, compared to American cities (which he derided), Moscow is a much better place to live. Zakaria pointed out that Moscow, outside of its impressive downtown core, is basically a city of disintegrating Soviet era high rises, lacking much that all American cities offer.

Zakaria went on to agree that the cities that Carlson mentioned as much better than ours were by and large the product of authoritarian regimes, who are clearly better than us at creating architectural masterpieces, but that these edifices come at the expense of democracy and vibrancy and innovation. It was an elegant defense, I thought, whether or not it is correct in fact. And he used Moscow’s beautiful subway stations as an example of what authoritarian leaders can do, when they are out to create monuments of their regimes, and where cost is not a concern.

By the way, I have noted that Putin himself did comment on the Carlson interview, saying something (I paraphrase, as usual) like: “I was prepared for hard questions, but he didn’t ask me any. I really thought it was a disappointing interview. I didn’t enjoy it.” So there, TC!

In all of his rally ranting yesterday evening, I understand that Trump concentrated on the prosecutors that he was going to exert revenge against when he is elected, and the terrible Biden Migrant Crimes (his words) being committed by people coming across the border, but did not mention Alexei Navalny. That isn’t surprising, I guess, but I saw Liz Cheney this morning (on CNN) suggest that Trump couldn’t say anything because this was a great example of his “revenge” ideology that he himself would implement (to some extent, at least) if he gets back into office.

It isn’t surprising that Navalny died in prison, although the circumstances were a bit surprising, I guess. I must admit that I didn’t understand why he returned to Russia when he did, after surviving the poisoning incident, and wasn’t surprised when he was arrested the day he landed at Moscow’s airport. But it does make for worries that similar fates might envelop for those others, including WSJ reporter Evan Gershkovich, and activist Vladimir Kara-Murza.

Finally, for today, I watched a YouTube video yesterday of a road trip thought Georgia (the former SSR, not the US state), and noted the degree to which Georgian citizens seem to be openly pro-Ukraine, even while its government seems to sidle up to Putin. Why do I mention it? Just because I find it interesting.

A brief Saturday rant.

How many of you read the Saturday New York Times print edition thoroughly enough to see the article on page C5, titled “Hey, Picasso Never Made It to the Moon”? A loopy headline, you say, and you are correct. But it’s also obvious. When the first men walked on the moon, Picasso was 88. And another thing about Picasso – he wasn’t an astronaut.

So what is this all about? It’s about the unmanned SpaceX rocket named Odysseus, which took off Thursday and is headed for a soft landing on the moon. And that, along with whatever else Elon Musk stuffed into the rocket are 125 “miniature moon sculptures” by Jeff Koons. According to the article, this will be the first “authorized” works of art to be placed on the moon, and Koons expects this will “stand in perpetuity as a heritage site”. The article does not say who authorizes art work on the moon, and it doesn’t mention anything about who determines what is a “heritage site” on the moon.

But OK, who cares? (I know this is what you are saying.)

The article goes on to praise and insult Koons – saying his sculptures have had varying reviews from critics. But it also talk about a Christie’s auction in 2019, which saw a 1986 sculpture by Koons (a “silver bunny”) sell for $91 million. Now, I don’t know if any of that $91 million went to Koons or not, but it is an extraordinary amount of money for anyone to pay for a rabbit. (See photo at bottom)

Now, remember that this moon venture isn’t just Elon Musk – this venture was supported (financially and otherwise) by NASA, and, according to a CBS on line article, “the flight is a trailblazer of sorts, for the agency’s Artemis program, which plans to send astronauts to the moon’s south polar region in the next few years. NASA instruments aboard Odysseus will study the lunar environment and test needed technologies for downstream missions.” In addition to the NASA equipment, the rocket will carry 6 commercial loads, including the sculptures. The other types of cargo, privately sponsored, to relate to space travel – cameras, insulated blankets being tested for space use and so on.

Back to Jeff Koons and the Times article. I quote: “The artist said that launching his miniature moons was only Phase 1. Two other components of the project will remain on Earth: a larger version of each sculpture encased in glass that collectors can take home, and a corresponding NFT showing the installation of the lunar landing.”

So, this is meant to be a money making venture for Jeff Koons and – to be sure – also for Elon Musk, who must either (or both) have received a chunk of money (or pieces of sculpture which apparently amount to the same thing) from Koons for the privilege of taking his “authorized” sculpture to the moon, and maybe a share of the proceeds of the sale of the larger replicas and the NFTs. Why should what is basically a NASA venture, paid for by you and me, also include this rather tawdry money making scheme?

One more thing from the Times, which says that some of the information about Koons’ sculptures and his thoughts regarding this venture come from the “Artemis Accords”, which of course I have never heard of but which, according to the article: “protects historically important sites and artifacts in outer space”. To quote myself: “Say, what??”

When I read “Artemis Accords”, I thought (as I suppose I was supposed to think) about the Abraham Accords, which is actually something that is important. But I didn’t think about the word “Artemis”. Until I read the CBS article and realized that NASA has an “Artemis Program” to get men on the moon.

Is the Artemis Accords a NASA project, as well? I assumed it was not, but I decided to Google it. Here goes: “The Artemis Accords is a nonbinding multilateral agreement between the United States government and other world governments participating in the Artemis program, an American led effort to return humans to the moon by 2026….”

Thirty five countries have signed on, and it is actually a comprehensive agreement attempting to avoid national rivalries in space. Included in its many serious components are several that talk about things like heritage sites, and registration of items left on the moon and elsewhere. But my quick read tells me that a heritage site would be, say, a particular landing site, and the items remaining in space would be scientific items – things relevant to the missions.

There is another part of the accords which talks about the elimination of what they call “space debris”. So, tell me – where do the Koons’ sculptures stand under the Accords?

A final thought. Odysseus is an odd name. As I recall, his trip was far from direct and problem free.

I have to thank Fani Willis. If it weren’t for her, I don’t know what I would have written about this morning.

I spent too much time yesterday watching the hearing where she and Nathan Wade testified in connection with the Trump Georgia election fraud case. You probably know this, but Willis is the Fulton County GA District Attorney, and Wade is an attorney she contracted with to be the lead attorney on the case involving Trump and the thousands of other defendants. Wade and Willis had known each other for some time – but during the preparation of the case they became something more than friends; they became lovers and travel companions. But they didn’t tell anyone. And then they were no longer lovers, but still friends, and still working together in charge of the case. And someone found out.

One of the defendants accused them of improper conduct and asked them to withdraw from the case, which they refused to do. He then filed a motion to require them to leave the case, and this motion was set for a hearing, which took place yesterday and should finish today. Under Georgia rules, cases are televised, and MSNBC decided to give its day time staff a day off, and show the proceedings rather than its usual day time line of repetitive news shows.

So…..now I know more about these two attorneys than I did when I woke up yesterday morning, and found them to be relatively boring people, especially Wade, although he seems like a nice man. He has had it rough – his wife had an affair in 2015, leading to a decision to get a divorce, but to act as a family and remain in the same house until their youngest daughter was out of high school. But, beginning in 2015, when intimate relationships between husband and wife stopped, they each felt free to date others, and did.

In 2019, however, Wade was stricken with cancer and stopped dating, largely because this was the same time that the COVID pandemic was at its highest, and he simply isolated himself most of the time. Wade had a law practice with two partners and also did some teaching, meeting Willis when she came to one of his classes. They became friends, but not dating friends, and she turned to him when she needed extra help for the election fraud case. It was while working with each other that their relationship developed beyond friendship.

Although their conduct was probably colossally bad judgement, especially considering the nature of this case, it is not clear what law or ethical rule it violated. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the relationship that prejudiced Trump and his co-defendants. But those who brought this motion seem to want to show impropriety in that Willis hired Wade (her lover) and in return he took her on two cruises, on California trips, and on trips to Belize and Aruba. Willis and Wade both testified that their dating and sexual relationship began after the contract with Wade was signed, but there is one witness (a woman worked in the Fulton County D.A. office, but was fired – or perhaps she resigned so she wouldn’t be fired, and can be classified as a disgruntled employee) who testified that their relationship started before Wade was hired. Wade and Willis also each testified that they basically split the cost of their travels 50-50 (without calculating each penny each time), although they had no records to show that. Often, Wade fronted money for flights, hotels and cruises, and Willis paid him her share, but did so in cash, so that there were no records of reimbursements.

Wade and Willis testified very differently. Wade was controlled, polite and pretty much what you would call a good witness. He made sure he understood each question, he gave short answers, and he was consistent in what he said. Willis, as I understand it, had not wanted to testify and had filed something to challenge whether she needed to act as a witness. But once she was called, she announced she was changing her position and wanted to testify.

She was a very different type of witness. She was angry and sounded a bit like the defendant in the main case, Donald Trump, as she accused the attorney for the defendant who first filed the motion of lying over and over again. She also wanted to tell her story. So, she did not limit her answers to short ones precisely directed to the question she was asked, but answered each question in great detail, going much beyond what was necessary.

Everything she did, I thought, was against what she would have been advised by a lawyer representing her. I am not sure that either of them had separate counsel, but Wade at least seemed prepared. Willis, whose decision to talk came right before she walked up the witness chair, did not seem prepared at all, which is not surprising. It did not sound like she rehearsed answering the questions that could have been asked, and certainly it didn’t sound like she was given (or was following) advice on how to be a good witness. Yet, you would think she would know this, as county district attorney, so perhaps there was method to her madness. I guess we will see.

She is very feisty. You can imagine her as a prosecutor. She also has an interesting background. Her parents divorced when she was fairly young and she was raised primarily by her father, with whom she is very close and with whom she lived for a while. Her father, who had a career as a criminal defense lawyer here in DC, was – prior to that – a founder and active member of the Black Panthers, but one of its most moderate members who left the organization when Fani was a baby.

Whether any of this will have any effect on the Trump case (and it will, if they are forced to recuse themselves in favor of brand new attorneys) is yet to be seen. The best guess seems to be that they will be castigated for their bad behavior, but not forced out of the case.

This we shall see.

Today, I am going to write a little about being 81.

One day last week, my wife and I went to the funeral of a friend who we have known from our synagogue for at least 30 years. She was 95.

This week, on Monday, my wife attended the funeral of a woman with whom she used to play mah jongg.

The next day, I went to the funeral of the wife of one of the men in my Thursday morning breakfast group.

Yesterday, I received a telephone call from a friend from a hospital telling me she just had suffered a heart attack.

I am in regular touch with several other relatives and friends who have chronic and serious medical issues.

Yesterday, I read that one of my high school classmates, with whom I had been friendly, had passed away. When looking at her death notice in a newspaper that had a number of death notices, I saw that another high school friend, an individual a class behind me, also had passed away.

This is what it is like to be 81. Glass half full? Glass half empty?

Sorry – I know this might be a downer. Let me leave you with this. Glass half full.

As I have said before, I don’t know whether Alejandro Mayorkas has been a successful Homeland Security Secretary, or a terrible one. The border has long been a problem, during the Trump years and during the Biden years. How much of this is dependent on external circumstances, how much is dependent on a continually failing Congress, how much is dependent on judicial decisions which have made it harder to maintain border restrictions, how much is dependent on presidential proclivities, and how much is dependent upon the administrative ability of the Homeland Security secretary. I just don’t know.

BUT, and I think I have said this before, as well, if I were Mayorkas, I would have resigned many months ago, and if I were Biden, I would have asked him to resign many months ago. I would have done this irrespective of whether he was doing a good job. I would have done this because Mayorkas had early become a target for the Republicans, and his removal would have removed a target, especially if a successor could have been found who had some Republican blood, and would have shown an attempt to accommodate some of the Republican concerns. After all, isn’t this what the Biden administration is doing in supporting the languishing border bill developed through bipartisan efforts in the Senate?

Leaving Mayorkas in place simply continued to give Republicans more ammunition, as will the House impeachment (particularly as it will be deemed a fruitless effort since the Democrats in the Senate won’t support it, and it will die there). The Democrats like to think that they will convince voters that the effort to impeach Mayorkas was stupid and that it will backfire, but I doubt that that will be the case.

And, now that he has been officially impeached (by one vote), it would clearly be impossible for Mayorkas to resign or for Biden to ask him to do so. Each side now has painted its red line in the sand (as they don’t say).

For an impeached official to be actually removed from office, as we know, a 2/3 vote in the Senate is required. It won’t even get a majority in the Democratic majority Senate.

This brings up two other questions, which I will list without answering (or trying to answer):

First, there is a question of whether a basis for Mayorkas’ impeachment exists. If the House believes an official is doing a bad job, or even doing a good job implementing policies that the House does not like, there would not seem to be a basis for impeachment. The constitution is clear that impeachment is only for bribery, treason or other high crimes or misdemeanors. It is unclear (to put it mildly) what high crimes or misdemeanors Mayorkas is accused of. And if he is impeached without having perpetrated high crimes or misdemeanors, is it even a valid impeachment? And who can decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor in an individual case? Is that a job for the House itself, for the Senate (in other words, could the Senate even refuse a trial on the basis that the impeachment is invalid?) Or would the courts (and eventually of course the Supreme Court) get involved? And who would have the standing to bring such a case?

Okay, that was the first question (with four question marks).

The second question is whether it makes sense for the House to impeach based on a majority vote, while the Senate (per the constitution) can only convict with a 2/3 vote? The Constitution is silent about the vote needed in the House (and the House obviously decides by majority vote on everything – I think, everything, but I might be wrong. But an impeachment without likelihood of a conviction is an absolute waste of time (which, considering it involves the time of the highest legislative officials of the government, is potentially harmful to the governance of the country), so why doesn’t the House adopt a rule requiring a higher vote in case of impeachment? I don’t know of any reason why it could not do so.

On another topic, the Democrat, Tom Souzzi, beat the Republican, Mazi Pilip, in the election to replace George Santos (not to be confused with George Soros) in yesterday’s special election. Trump had the obvious response – she’s a “foolish woman” and we need a “real candidate”.

So it goes.

My grandson is 3 1/2 years old. Whenever he comes to our house, he wants us to put the TV on, and he wants to watch Paw Patrol, although he has seen each episode many, many times. When he isn’t watching Paw Patrol, he is focusing on his obsession with Star Wars. He has Star Wars books, and I am told he has watched the three original Star Wars movies (really?). His obsession is usually manifest by his becoming a Star Wars character – sometimes he is Luke Skywalker, and sometimes he is Princess Leia. He likes others in the room to take on other Star Wars identities and, when that doesn’t happen (and it usually doesn’t), he seems to make up Star Wars adventures which he tells to himself, sometimes in the third person, I think, and sometimes in the first. He likes to hunt down the bad guys, and talks a lot about Darth Vader. He is way ahead of me on all of this. I walked out of the first Star Wars movie almost 50 years ago (believe it or not), as I was bored to death, and haven’t seen anything about Star Wars since.

And I certainly wasn’t obsessed with any television show when I was 3 1/2. In fact, I might not have even known there was television when I was 3 1/2. We did not have one, and my memory is that the first TV I ever saw was at our neighbor’s house. And my guess is I was 5 or 6. I used to go there after school. I think St. Louis’ only TV station at the time, KSD-TV Channel 5, didn’t even come on the air until about 4 in the afternoon, because when we turned the TV on, we watched the test screen, with an Indian in the center. How un-PC. (It wasn’t until later that I also learned that there was a ticker tape with the news scrolling across the bottom. Our neighbor’s TV screen was so small, that we didn’t get to see the news.)

But in my early years, there certainly were TV shows that I watched religiously. Most important, of course, was Howdy Doody and, to tell you the truth, Princess Summer Fall Winter Spring (whose name I did not think was unusual at the time) might have been my first love. And clearly the puppets on the show were as real to me as Buffalo Bob or Clarabel. I test my memory by trying to name all the characters, including Dilly Dally and Flubadub, and both Phineas T and Don Jose Bluster, and Inspector John J Fadoozle (did I get that last one right?). There were probably others.

But Howdy Doody wasn’t the only show I watched. There was Tom Corbett, Space Cadet. I remember what their space ship looked like, and I remember that their “engineer” was Roger Manning, who was Venusian. Tom had a co-pilot I don’t remember at all, and I have no idea what type of adventures they were having, but I know they were exciting.

And before Tom Corbett, there was Time for Beanie. A cartoon series featuring not only Beanie, but Cecil the Sea Sick Sea Serpent. You can find some of the old Beanie episodes on YouTube, and I watch them now and then, especially because of the word play humor that was clearly beyond me as a pre-schooler. I also remember Kukla, Fran and Ollie and, to tell you the truth, this show left me cold. There was nothing in it to attract me, and I became quickly engrossed in something else. Fran was clearly no competitor to Princess SFWS.

That was about it for my childhood TV, except for some Saturday morning cartoons. When my kids were that age, they obviously watched very different things and – to be honest – I paid no attention to their shows at all, even when I was in the same room. People mention children’s shows of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, and early 2020s, and I draw a complete blank. Never watched any of them.

I did, of course, make up stories, with make believe people, but I have no idea where my stories came from. My first imaginary friend, believe it or not, was a grown up soldier, who was serving overseas during World War II. Since the war ended before I was three, I must have been pretty precocious to have invented him. And I think I must have been fairly obsessed. Why else would my parents had got me a dog with the same name, Beadie, as my soldier friend, who disappeared, I think, the day four legged Beadie arrived. (Now, I must admit I don’t know how either Beadie spelled their name – with an ie, or a y; with an ea or an ee; even with a d or a t. I was only 3 years old, after all.)

I think my friend Spike lasted longer than Beadie, although I could be wrong. And I can’t tell you much about Spike. I only saw him when I was sitting at the table eating. I know nothing about his background. I don’t remember what we spoke about. And, no, he wasn’t sitting in the chair next to me. He was somehow sitting on the ceiling (“i after e, except after c”).

Then, I guess, one day Spike was gone. I don’t remember that day, either. No matter how much I try.

I saw a clip of Donald Trump this morning. From an old deposition, I think. He was asked if he remembered saying “I have the best memory of anyone in the world” (or something close to that). His response was: ”No, I don’t remember.”

I am more modest. I have no claim to remember as much as Donald does. But perhaps I should. As Yogi Berra might have said – he remembers more than even he remembers.

Cheers.

            

There are two reasons to keep supporting Ukraine in staving off the Russian invasion. First, it is important for the security of Europe, and of our country. For a second, we made a commitment.

It used to be that everyone performed in accordance with their contract obligations. And people who wanted to stand out, performed in accordance with their handshakes, or their word alone. Now, none of this seems to matter.

Putin, now claiming that Ukraine is in fact part of Russia, ignores the contractual obligations his country made when it took possession of the nuclear weaponry in Ukraine in return for a guarantee of Ukraine’s borders. Trump, claiming to want to make America great again, wants to ignore the various commitments the United States made to Ukraine once it was invaded by Russia, putting to waste all the money and effort we have so far committed to the task of repelling the Russians, and putting at risk the lives of so many Ukrainians as the Russian invasion will continue to wreak havoc on the country.

At the same time, Trump wants it to be known that, if he is again elected president, the United States cannot be counted on to fight against Russia if certain NATO countries are invaded, in spite of the contractual obligation (and moral obligation) we have to defend them if attacked.

Yet no Trump supporters, as far as I can see, are doing anything but continuing to support Trump and to agree with his statements.

Why is this? 

I am reading an interesting book titled In America: Tales from Trump Country by Caitriona Perry, an Irish journalist based in Washington. She wrote the book in 2017, during the Trump administration and before the 2018 midterms. The book was published in Dublin to an Irish, not an American, audience, which makes it all that more interesting.

Perry is doing two things in this book. She is trying to explain the American political system and how it works, at least regarding presidential elections. We know our system is idiosyncratic, but perhaps we don’t recognize how unusual it is. Although this is not what she does, when you read Perry’s explanations as to how America works, you can just see the silent clause that could start every sentence. It would be something like: ”You probably won’t believe this, but ……”.

Then, she is trying to explain Trump’s popularity.

She does this by visiting about a dozen states, and going particularly to poorer, white areas. Places like McKeesport PA, or Portsmouth OH, or McAllen TX. Mainly areas that are much less prosperous than they once were. Where steel mills, or other industries, have closed and moved out. Where some people are barely hanging on, and see their children have to move away to get any sort of worthwhile employment. These are generally people whose families have been in this country for several generations, who typically hold some form of religious faith and are skeptical at best with regard to social changes such as same sex marriage. Many of these people (I’d say even most of them) have voted for Democrats most of their lives, but are making a change now.

What is going on? For one thing, they believe that the “system” has not served them well, that they always get the short stick, and that – if the same group of people continue to run the country – they will always be forgotten. For another (and these are all related), they think that the Democrats have been very good at making promises, but that their promises are empty promises, that they cannot see that the current Obama administration is doing anything for them or far their communities, at all.

The result of this is that they wanted someone different. They wanted someone who could really shake things up. And things now are bad enough that they really weren’t terribly concerned about the type of shake up. Anything would be better than this.

At the same time, they felt that Donald Trump, a man with a very different background than the ones they have, knows how to talk to them, understands what they are saying, knows what they want, and is making the types of promises they want to hear. will he fulfill those promises? They seem to trust his sincerity, and certainly willing to give him a chance.

They also like his personality. His feisty nature. His saying what he thinks. His sense of humor. They like the idea of making America great again (that’s part of the shake up) and putting America first. Yes, he can be gross and embarrassing at times, but they will over look all of that because they think he will get the job done.

I can extrapolate a bit. They had four years of Trump, interrupted by a pandemic, and were told that it would take eight years. But the rest of the country didn’t give Trump eight years, or so they said. Because they were convinced that those in power were self-seeking, worthless and corrupt, they probably believed that election cheating is their norm. And the result of that cheating – the Biden years – have not brought them any visible improvement, and they aren’t going to fall for people telling them that things are better, when they clearly are not. So, they say, let’s get Trump back, without COVID, and see what he can do.

It’s as simple as that.

You are old, Father William, the young man said,

And your hair has become very white;

And yet you incessantly stand on your head –

Do you think at your age it is right?

In my youth, Father William replied to his son,

I feared it might injure the brain,

But now I am perfectly sure I have none,

Why I do it again and again.

• – – – – – – –

You are old, said the youth, and your jaws are too weak

For anything tougher than suet

Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak –

Pray how did you manage to do it?

In my youth, said his father, I took to the law

And argued each case with my wife

And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw

Has lasted the rest of my life.

A coda:

You are old, Mr. Biden, you’re 80 and 1

You should really go home and write blogs

Yet you want to keep at it, in spite of your age,

It’s time to spend time with your dogs.

---

One day last week, I shared some of my cabinet choices if I become the next president of the United States. While I didn’t get any criticism of my choices, I did hear from a number of people who thought that I was too old to be president and to lead the country through the year 2028 (and if I run for a second term, 2032, the year I turn 90). 

I must disagree with them. I looked up my most likely opponents on Wikipedia and guess what I saw. Dwight Eisenhower is already 133 years old, and Donald Trump almost the same age as Ike. And, I remind you voters that maturity is important – you need a president with sufficient perspective to understand the dangers that Mao Tse Tung poses to the free world. Okay, maybe I am a little off my game. I went back on Wikipedia and saw that Mao Tse Tung has been replaced by Mao Zedong. I will have to learn a little about him. I look forward to meeting him.

But seriously folks, if we could only look back to the good old days when Hitler and Stalin ruled 90% of Europe, and Mao and Stalin ruled 90% of Asia, and when only Japan had to worry about an atomic bomb falling on their heads.

So, our friend Donald has done two things, and none of his supporters seem to care. He has accused Nikki Haley’s husband of abandoning her as he is deployed overseas as a member of the North Carolina National Guard, and he has told the members of NATO that, if they don’t provide sufficient funds for their defense (as defined by Don Donald), that he hopes Russia comes in and makes them part of the new Russian empire. And Marco Rubio goes on CNN and praises Trump saying (a) that you say all sorts of things in a campaign, and (b) he doesn’t really mean what he says about NATO but it will encourage NATO countries to increase their contributions – after all, why should we defend them if they don’t up their contributions. By the way, as to his first point, when asked by Jake Tapper how he (Rubio) justifies things he said when he was running for president that he seems to completely deny now, he said (and I paraphrase only slightly), “I was running for president then. It was a campaign.” Let that sink in.

In the meantime, I saw a movie and read a book. The film, which we watched on Netflix last night, is “Rustin”, the story of a part of the life of civil rights activist Bayard Rustin. As we turned the film on, I read the Netflix descriptive blurb and read that Rustin is an “unknown” “icon” of the movement. Is that even possible?

Rustin had a long career supporting civil rights, labor rights, pacifism, and even freedom for Soviet Jewry. He suffered, considering when he lived and was a visible person, as a gay man, and the film concentrates on his sexual orientation.

I highly recommend watching the film – not only for Colman Domingo’s stellar performance as Rustin, but really all of the performances.

The historical importance of the film shows Rustin, the primary force behind the March on Washington in 1963 where Martin Luther King gave his famous speech, and how he organized the rally over a period of about seven weeks, dealing with a hesitant Martin Luther King, an opposing Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, and an even more virulent opponent in Adam Clayton Powell. How he overcame all of this as well as a worried Kennedy administration, eventually (if that’s a term that can be used to describe a period of under 2 months) getting the support of not only all of the opposing groups, as well as the city government of New York (which allowed over 1000 off duty Black policeman to come to Washington to serve as unarmed crowd control aides) and many major labor unions. And how he did it in spite of continual threats to “out” him and to share false information (ever hear of false information being shared?) to threaten other well known Black leaders (including King) as being sexual partners of Rustin.

On the other hand, as I said, a good deal of the film showcased Rustin’s “hidden” homosexuality and his relationship with a young White man, Tom, and a young, married Black preacher, Elias. Not that there was anything wrong with this part of the film per se, except for the fact that neither of these people ever existed. They were made up characters, and I guess cover for the fact that the identities of Rustin’s sexual partners are largely unknown, the 1960s being the 1960s. And, by being so important to the story line of the film, they totally ruin the otherwise quite good historicity of the film.

As to the book, it’s a little read book by local author Herman Taube (he wrote over 20 books during his life), titled Surviving Despair, the true story of a Holocaust survivor who lost the first love of his life after both had escaped Poland into the Soviet Union and been separated by the Russians, lost his second love (his first wife) when she and their twin children were killed in a fire after the war in Lodz, and lost his second wife and third love, who died of illness in Florida. His story was not one of a survivor coming to the United States and becoming a billionaire. Rather it was a survivor who came to the United States and suffered from his memories his entire life, and who found meaning only after the death of his wife, when he moved to the Washington area and became an important translator for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

What he didn’t know is that the first of these three women, who was sent by the Soviets abruptly to a far flung collective farm, also survived. But one day – there she was, telling her story to an audience at the Holocaust Museum where he was volunteering. B’shert, perhaps, as they say.

The book itself does not contain the best prose, and there are so many similar Holocaust stories, but…….I really liked reading it.

For no reason at all, I thought about George Washington this morning. Not the things one might normally think about George Washington, but about the oft-stated fact that George Washington never heard of dinosaurs. Washington died in 1798, before the first dinosaur fossils were found (the word “dinosaur” was first used in the 1840s). So there was no way that George Washington ever heard of, or even could have really contemplated, dinosaurs.

Then, I thought about my father, who passed away in 1979. I went to Wikipedia to look at inventions of the 1980s, to see what my father had no knowledge of, and probably never really contemplated. The Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, CDs and DVDs, the World Wide Web, personal computers, individual cell phones, and even, yes, Wikipedia. And, of course, also everything that has been invented in the last 30+ years, from 1990 until the present.

That got me thinking about the late 1970s, when I was involved in the development of a large, two building subsidized apartment project in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, a suburb of San Juan. You will see the connection in a minute.

In the 1970s, before the age of electronic communication, business travel was much more common for lawyers than now. I did a fair amount of travel in those days, including making numerous trips to Puerto Rico, where I eventually developed a number of clients. The Guaynabo project (I will call it “Guaynabo Towers”) was the first project I had been involved with in Puerto Rico and, for this development alone, I think I made four or five trips.

The reason that all that travel was necessary and why it took so long to finish, had to do with all the characters involved in this project. And, boy, were they characters.

I represented the only party which was headquartered in the 50 states – the company providing the construction equity. Everyone else was from somewhere else. I can’t say I remember all of them, but I certainly remember some of them. The lawyer who represented the ownership entity was a frenetic San Juan lawyer, whose frenetic energy sometimes helped move things along, and sometimes did the opposite. Efficiency was not his strong suit, and I wondered then what would happen to him as he career went forward – I assumed he would wind up in some sort of trouble. He didn’t – he became the Commonwealth’s Secretary of State, the Deputy Mayor of San Juan and the head of the largest electric utility on the island. I remember his wife, who wasn’t directly involved in Guaynabo Towers, but – since there was a fair amount of socializing surrounding this deal – I met her several times; I remember she didn’t like me at all – probably because my ways and her ways had little in common. 

I remember one of the other lawyers involved, a much less frenetic fellow, with whom I wound up working quite a bit over the next 30 years or so. He seemed to be able to switch between Puerto Rican and stateside rhythm with little problem – I marveled at that until I learned that his Puerto Rican father was married to his Ukrainian-born mother. Then all was clear.

Then, there was the Lebanese gentleman who owned the land on which the project was to be built. He was a businessman, the owner of a number of large furniture stores across Puerto Rico. He was anxious for the deal to close, of course. I never met him in person, but he somehow thought that I was the representative of the Federal government (the project’s mortgage was insured by FHA, and its rents subsidized by a HUD problem) and that I was therefore the problem, the reason the project had not proceeded to closing. One day, at a meeting where he was being represented (not in a legal sense) by his attractive young daughter, she handed me the phone and told me, after taking a deep breath, that her father wanted to speak to me. Speaking in very poor English, he said to me (I am obviously paraphrasing here): ”I am from Lebanon. I hear you are Jewish, right? You know my daughter there with you? Do you know her husband is Jewish? I really like Jewish people. Can you approve this project so we can move on?”. I gave the phone back to his daughter and gave her a “what am I to do with this?” look. She just rolled her eyes, and the meeting continued.

The head of the construction company was French, but had been living in Colombia, in Bogota, for most of his adult life. He was a Hemingway-like figure, always dressed casually, and looking like he was ready for his next big adventure. He was also very casual about the construction. Everything for him was easy – there would be no problems. He was super-contractor. He was very bright, very personable, and very trendy. One day – a day I won’t forget – he brought a new device to a meeting. It was a Texas Instruments hand held calculator. It could add, subtract, multiply, and divide (and probably do more) just by pushing buttons. It was small. And you didn’t have to plug it in. We all stood at his desk marveling at this wonderful new invention. We (none of us) had ever seen anything like it. 

Because I didn’t live on Puerto Rico, I was always in a somewhat different position than everyone else. I had planes to catch. I think I always made it, but never with more than 5 seconds to spare. After all, it was necessary for everyone else to see how long they could delay my departure to the airport. For me, it was a challenge, not a problem. All in good sport.

After months of wrangling, back and forth, the transaction closed, the land owner got his money, HUD gave its approval, and construction began on what became a successful project. After the official closing, held at the San Juan District HUD office, I was ecstatic and anxious to get home. 

No one else seemed as happy as I was, and that confused me. Until I realized what I think is a great truth. The difference between life in Puerto Rico and life in Washington. My goal, in connection with any transaction, was to make it as good as I could for my client and then wrap it up and get on to something else.

Not so for everyone else. Their goal was to play a part in the transaction and have a good time doing it – a good time with friends and a good time giving your friends new challenges; it was a great game. And when the game was over, and the closing completed, there would be no more socializing with this group of friends. It was done. It was not a time for celebration, but for a bit of sorrow. The fun was over. Would we find another way to have as good of a time as we had developing Guaynabo Towers?

I can’t tell you which approach is the better. But I can tell you it was a learning experience and helped me in my future work in Puerto Rico. And, whenever anyone complained about their frustrations dealing in PR or similar places, I could give them a little perspective. We like “done”. They like “doing”.

I really liked working in Puerto Rico. And I did work with some of these same people again and again. Sadly, most of them are no longer around.

And speaking of “no longer around”, I just realized that today is February 10, the 71st anniversary of my grandfather’s death. Boy, does time march on.

There are many things I don’t know. For example, when a Special Counsel is ready to issue a report, who reviews it before it is released? Anyone?

I ask this because, as I remember it, when Robert Mueller’s report on Donald Trump was issued, there had been reviews in the Justice Department and then Attorney General Barr was involved in writing a misleading press release, etc. In the case of Robert Hur, I don’t know if there was any review at all. I have not seen anything that makes it look like anyone above him was involved. Both Mueller and Hur were “Special Counsel”, so I assume that their authority was equal.

I also know that there was something issued by the Justice Department near the end of last month, saying that Attorney General Garland was having back surgery the weekend of January 3, and that he would be back at work sometime this week. Whether he had the surgery, whether he was back at work, whether the Hur report was issued while Garland was on medical leave, I don’t know. (You get my drift.)

But I am curious. Because the remarks of Republican Hur, who is reputed to be a very intelligent fellow, regarding his impression of Joe Biden’s mental competence seems so out in left field, that I can’t imagine it would pass any general Departmental review, irrespective of whether the Departmental review thought it accurate or inaccurate. I also don’t know if the 5 hour interview (or was it interviews) with the President have been recorded, or transcribed. It would be nice to see what exactly was asked and answered during that session (those sessions?)

What we do know is that, during the Mueller report, Donald Trump did not give similar impressions of senility, not because he might not be senile (after all, he is just 3 years younger than Biden), but because he refused to sit and answer any questions. So the Mueller report was issued without the benefit of any responses from Trump which, to me, along with certain other things in that report made it much less useful than it could have been. And, I think Mueller’s final report was as problematic as Hur’s, just in different ways. As to Biden? No good deed goes unpunished.

But – and I will say it again – even assuming that Biden’s memory is as good as it has ever been – I don’t think an 81 year old should be running for president. And I would like to see him bow out and the Democrats agreeing on someone else to run against Trump, or whomever.

And it looks like Trump will run, because of what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court. As I have said before, if the Court decided that Colorado could leave Trump off the ballot, chaos would result (I am thinking legal chaos, not physical chaos, although there would be a good chance for that as well.). And I don’t want to repeat what I said within the last week or so, since I know most of you remember everything I say.

But I have been thinking about other things related to presidential election ballots. And, although as usual I have to admit my lack of precise knowledge on the subject – or any other subject -, it seems to me that our election laws are rather vague and incomplete and it’s probably only by luck that we have been as successful as we have been for as long as we have been.

One big example, of course, is that in voting for the President, we are voting for electors to cast their ballots when the Electoral College meets. And we know that states choose their electors in varying ways: most give the popular winner all the state’s electoral college votes; two divide the electors in the same proportion as the popular vote is split among the candidates running; and several have agreed to an interstate compact (not now operating) where they would cast their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. We also know that there was confusion during the 2020 elections as to whether states could select electors in other ways, and what the Congress would do with those electors when the count is held.

But states can keep would-be candidates off the ballots in other ways. For example, if I called the Colorado Secretary of State and told her that I have decided to run for president, and would she please put my name on the ballots, she would laugh in my face. States seem to have their own ways of deciding who can go on a ballot. I don’t know what all of them do, but one common way is to require a certain number of citizens of the state to sign a petition. Or to file their intention to run by a certain date. This doesn’t seem to be a requirement of nominated candidates of the Republican or Democratic parties, although I am not sure why. But whenever there is an independent candidate running, there is always a question as to how many states that candidate will be on the ballot in. And as to the No-Labels movement, if they nominate a candidate, it is unclear to me how that candidate will be required to proceed to get on the ballots.

Now, some things are, I guess, clear. A state cannot set unconstitutional requirements for candidates to get on a ballot. For example, a state can’t say only men can run, or only Whites. They also probably cannot be arbitrary or capricious in deciding who can, and who cannot, be on a ballot.

But can they make other distinctions? Can a state say that no one ever convicted of a misdemeanor or felony can run? Can say they no one who has never served in the military can run? Or no one who holds dual citizenship? You get the idea.

And of course, paragraph 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t talk at all about running for office. It doesn’t say that someone who has been involved in insurrection or rebellion can’t run. It just says that they cannot hold office. Does that mean that they can run, but not be inaugurated (without a 2/3 Congressional vote)? And if it does mean that, could a state pass a law (or even adopt a regulation, pursuant to a general law) that states that no one involved in a rebellion or insurrection can run because they can’t be inaugurated?

All of this goes back to our concept of federalism – or rather our lack of a general concept. Does it make sense that state laws at all apply to federal elections? Does it make sense that states run federal elections?

Does anything make sense?

Someone recently asked me: ”so what do you think is going to happen with Israel and Gaza?” Usually, I have an answer to any question like this, even if my answer is “I don’t know”. ”I don’t know” is of course an answer. But with regard to this question, “I don’t know” seems like a cop-out. Since I don’t have any other answer, but I don’t want to be accused of avoiding a substantive answer to an extraordinarily important question, I just become flummoxed (I should keep a record of each time I use a new word on this blog – I know I have never used flummoxed before).

What does seem clear is that, at least over the next several millennia, the Arabs won’t kick out all the Jews, and the Jews won’t kick out all the Arabs. What does not seem clear is whether or not these two important groups will ever stop distrusting each other, or killing each other. But between these extremes, there is a lot of gray, and what is normally a possibility – let’s just keep the status quo – is not possible here. Nor is the status quo ante.

Let’s look at some of the possibilities (I erased a word that I had originally typed in: “likely”). Israel destroys Hamas and determines the fate of Gaza. Hamas outlasts Israel and retains control of Gaza. An outside country, or a combine of outside countries, take control of the situation and tell both parties what to do, and the parties comply. Etc. etc. etc.

But perhaps there are other possibilities, possibilities that can only be identified by “thinking outside the box”. If you allow your imagination free reign (or something approaching it), what could you come up with? 

With this in mind, we attended a presentation by a mixed Israeli-Palestinian group called A Land For All (or ALFA), a relatively new organization which has an “out of the box” vision for the future of Israel and Palestine, even if they have note quite figured out how to get there. Actually, I think I should have omitted the word “quite” from the last sentence. And, I should add, if they have truly envisioned what their vision would actually look like, I missed that in their explanation. The evening was sponsored by the New Israel Fund and held at Adas Israel.

What I understand ALFA to be suggesting is a different sort of two state solution. Yes, there would be Israel and there would be Palestine, and their borders would be based on the June 1967 borders, but that would be unimportant, because the citizens of each could live anywhere in the two states, and be subject to the local laws of wherever they live, but vote in the national elections of whichever of the two countries with which they identify.

Okay, take a deep breath.

This is a great idea, I guess, if it promotes peace, but does it even do that? And how do you even know what it does, if you don’t know much more than what I have told you?

I should say that there were at least 200 people in attendance and that Aaron David Miller moderated. He is a former US official, now with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, a CNN pundit, and a NIF board member.

There are so many questions. For example, does this mean that the population of Gaza City can decide to move to Kfar Saba, or to West Jerusalem? Or a current resident of Tel Aviv could buy beachfront property in Gaza. Does this mean the 600,00 Israel Jews who live beyond the Green Line would live in Palestine but vote for the Knesset? And what about non-Arab non-Jews? To which country do they owe national allegiance? And children of mixed parentage?

I must admit that once again, I was flummoxed when I tried to understand what they thought was possible.

But bad times gives rise to desperate proposals. Years ago, we heard a presentation by Martine Rothblatt, well respected CEO of United Therapeutics, on her book “Two Stars”, where she proposed her way to achieve peace in the Middle East – make Israel and Palestine the 51st and 52nd US states. She was serious, too, and the setting for her speech was Ben Gurion University in Israel.

You’ve heard of one step forward and two steps back, right? How about zero steps forward and zero steps back?

So the DC Circuit doesn’t think that a United States President has the right to kill a political opponent and his/her family on a whim and get away with it because of a concept of total presidential immunity. And it seems clear as can be that the Circuit, voting en banc, will not decide otherwise. So, then the question would be whether the Supreme Court would take the case and, if so, what would they decide? Most pundits (including those who went to law school, which is about all of them) think that the Supreme Court will not take the case at all.

This would mean that the insurrection lawsuit in DC could go forward. Let’s put aside the question of what punishment would be appropriate if DJT is convicted. Let’s look at the question of how this would affect the 2024 presidential race.

As I understand it, as this is a criminal trial, the procedures are very different from the E. Jean case, or tomorrow’s argument in the Supreme Court as to whether or not Trump can/has to appear on the ballot in Colorado. In those cases, Trump can come to the proceedings or he can ignore them. I don’t think that’s the case in the criminal trial. In the criminal trial, Trump has to be in the courtroom. So, if this trial starts in, say, May and lasts 4-6 weeks as anticipated by many, Trump would be limited from campaigning in daylight hours. How would this work out?

I understand that the Supreme Court argument about whether Trump will or will not appear on the Colorado ballot will be broadcast live tomorrow (but of course not televised), and it will be interesting to be sure. I have certainly heard a lot about the issues (is the president an “officer” of the United States, who decides if he was engaged in “insurrection”, what is an “insurrection”, what does “engaged” mean, etc.), and I have no idea what the Court will decide, or when it will decide it.

But there are some things I have been thinking about, which I am sure others have as well, but which I have not heard about or read about. For one example – if the Court decides (for whatever reason) that Trump cannot be on the ballot in Colorado, does that automatically exclude him from all states, or can one state decide he was engaged in insurrection, and others say differently. In other words, if one states says that someone is not eligible, can he still become the president of a country in which that state is a state? And, can the Supreme Court leave it to the decision of/whim of a state supreme court (in this case the Colorado Supreme Court), even though the conduct has taken place outside of the state?

Another question is whether someone has to be actually convicted of an insurrection-like crime before they can be kept out of office. If Trump is convicted of insurrection in the DC case, a week before the election, will votes for him be nullified? Or better yet, if he wins the election and is inaugurated, and then is found guilty of insurrection, is he automatically out of a job?

These are all questions that I can’t answer because they are above my pay grade. But in truth, are they within anyone’s pay grade?

This would all be so interesting if it were part of a Netflix series, wouldn’t it? Okay, maybe it wouldn’t be. 

So, let’s call it a day, since it’s almost evening here. We will skip the strange goings on with the GOP failure to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary, and with the GOP’s failure (House and Senate) to get behind immigration reform. Now, let’s see what the Senate does on the Democrat’s Ukraine/Israel without the Border bill. I assume it won’t get 60 votes, so it will just be business as normal.

So long for today. Until we meet again. Happy Trails. That’s all, folks.

As you may know, one of my retirement activities has been my activity with the Haberman Institute for Jewish Studies, which I serve as vice president. The Haberman Institute is named after its founder, Rabbi Joshua O. Haberman, who created the institute under the name Foundation for Jewish Studies 40 years ago. This year we have devoted a number of programs to the memory of Rabbi Haberman.

Joshua Haberman was born in Vienna and was in rabbinical school there when the Nazis moved into and merged Austria with Germany. Luckily (to put it mildly), he received a tuition free scholarship to complete his studies at the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and came to Cincinnati in the fall of 1938.

We had already done a program on the Jews of Vienna, and last night was our program on Rabbi Haberman’s time in Cincinnati. Our presenter was University of Michigan professor Karla Goldman, who formerly taught at Hebrew Union.

Her talk was fascinating. It was not a chronological history of the Cincinnati Jewish community, and it was not solely the story of Rabbi Haberman’s experiences when he was there at school. Goldman took a much more interesting and unique approach.

HUC had given scholarships to eight young rabbis or rabbinical students – seven from Germany, and Josh Haberman from Austria. Karla Goldman told the story of all eight of these rabbis, who had just escaped Nazi Germany and wound up in the heart of 1930s classical American Reform Judaism, something to them completely foreign.

There was so much that surprised them. They were met at Cincinnati Union Station by Prof. Nelson Glueck of HUC and his wife, and brought to their house for an American breakfast. These eight kosher-keeping rabbis were served bacon and eggs. You can imagine their shock.

Then, on the first Shabbat, they were told that a car was going to pick them up and take them to services. Sure, some German Jews must have driven on Saturdays, but the idea that a rabbinical school would pick them up to drive them to services? You can imagine their shock.

When they got to the synagogue, they were given prayer books unlike any they had seen before, mainly in English. In fact, virtually the entire service was in English – almost no Hebrew. And of course, their English was still very weak. They understood little.

Finally, at the end of service, they met the rabbi, David Philipson, one of the most prominent Classical Reform rabbis in the country. Philipson was not too happy to meet them, it appears. In fact, he was apoplectic – how dare these young men come into his temple with their heads covered. If that happened again, he would kick them out.

Karla Goldman told these stories and much more, leading to how all of these rabbis became rabbinic leaders, and how almost all of them stayed in the Reform movement, helping to reset the Reform movement and push it back to many traditional practices.

Her talk showed she did quite a bit of research – looking at such things as memoirs and letters written by the eight foreign born rabbis, Jewish newspapers and newsletters of the time and more, as well as from the writings and sermons of Rabbi Haberman.

When I introduced her, this type of a talk was not what I expected. I thought she was going to talk more about the general history of the Cincinnati Jewish community, which would have been interesting, but not as interesting. I mentioned that I expected to hear about Jewish celebrities born in Cincinnati – director Steven Spielberg, actress Theda Bara, scientist Albert Sabin, mayor/tv host Jerry Springer, actress Sarah Jessica Parker, or activist Jerry Rubin. Or how about square matzos, first produced by Cincinnati’s Manischewitz family?

If I were elected president, I think I would ask Gen. Wesley Clark to be my Secretary of State, and Nikki Haley to be my National Security Advisor. Anthony Blinken would also play a major role in my administration, but before I tell you what it would be, he and I would have to talk.

I say this because I am now in the process of lining up my cabinet…….just in case. When Biden drops out and the party realizes that Harris would not be a winning candidate, let’s be honest. To whom else would they turn? (Don’t feel too sorry for Kamala Harris – she really doesn’t want to be president. She will be content to eliminate some of the pressure, spending four, or eight, years as the wife of Attorney General Emhoff.)

But my biggest concern is foreign policy. I spent an inordinate amount of time reading the NYT this morning and I was convinced that attention must be paid. I quote: “But now, with an undependable America, an aggressive Russia and a striving China, as well as a seemingly stalemated war in Ukraine and a deeply unpopular conflict in Gaza…..”. That about says it all, right?

I am reading a very interesting book, and although I am only about halfway through it, I will tell you about it. It’s almost ten years old and a lot has changed in ten years, but it brings up so many points in such a clear manner. Whether I agree with it or not, I am not sure. I will wait until the end. It’s NYT reporter Bret Stephens’ book America in Retreat: the New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder.

I have written about isolationism as a major and recurrent part of American international thinking already. (Well, gee, with 450 or more posts, what have I not written about already?) But Stephens did it so much better (he probably spent more time on his book than I did on my post). He describes American isolationist tendencies not as being a characteristic of only the right, or only the left, but of both. He has a fascinating section describing left wing Henry Wallace’s isolationism and right wing’s Robert Taft’s isolationism as being more closely related and more similar than one would expect. We know about World War I and Wilson’s second term campaign motto “He kept us out of war”, and we know that Roosevelt and Churchill had to keep America’s plans to help arm Britain during World War II a secret. But, after the war, there were again strong isolationist tendencies in this country, personified by Wallace and Taft. I had never focused on that

Stephens is not an isolationist. Of course, I am speaking of Stephens in 2014. I must admit that his many entries, often in dialogues, in the current Times have not captured my fancy, so I don’t really know how he feels today. Perhaps you do.

But the thesis of his book is that, during the Obama years, the United States is once again heading towards pulling back its activities in foreign affairs, and that this is dangerous. And he does give examples. Until very recently, he would probably have said the same things about both Trump and Biden.

No president comes out particularly well. He talks extensively about the George W. Bush years – saying that Bush had two foreign policies, and that they were contradictory. One was to maintain global order, which Stephens seems to feel that only the United States would be able to do, but also to support freedom and democracy everywhere, which Stephens says is idealistic, and totally impossible. He may be right.

When America in Retreat was written, we were of course still in Afghanistan, following what Stephens described as an indecisive course of action which would, he believed, lead to a withdrawal without leaving behind an Afghanistan able to maintain order. As to Iraq, Stephens believes that removing Sadam Hussein was the correct thing to do (WMD or not), and he lists a large number of ways that Sadam was harming global order.

Where the second half of the book will take me, I am not sure.

But today, with a possible Trump second term looming over us, we do need to be worried about all of the things that Stephens was talking about ten years ago. Trump was, after all, the architect of pulling us out of Afghanistan, which Biden completed after minimal delays, and we see that as a disaster, particularly for Afghans, but maybe as time goes on for neighboring Pakistan as well. Trump says that he will end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours, which means that he will lead Putin to believe that he can do anything without fearing American reprisal. Trump will again pull us out of the Paris accords and other international agreements, we can be sure. He will once again weaken our position with NATO. He will try to isolate us from China, by imposing dangerously high tariffs on Chinese manufactured goods. And who knows what he will try to do to isolate us from our other strong trading partner Mexico as he clamps down on the border between the two countries. The only place where isolationism may not be part of the Trump doctrine would be Israel – we really don’t know what he would do there other than I am sure he would try to expand the Abraham Accord countries.

Stephens seems to feel that anything that isolates us threatens global security and therefore threatens us, and the this is the only country who can – and should – play world policeman. Not doing this would of course put Europe at risk. If Putin “wins” the war in Ukraine, will he feel emboldened to go after the former SSRs, now independent European countries, most of whom are scared to death at the present time? If a NATO country is attacked, what would Trump do? In fact, what would NATO do – there’s an interesting article in today’s Times about Germany, where it is reported that 62% of Germans did not want Germany to become more involved in international affairs, and 71% were against Germany having a leading military role in Europe. (At one point, a German military role would have been anathema to most of the world; today – not so much.) And right wing victories in other European nations – most recently the Netherlands – might also not bode well for the entire continent standing up to an “aggressive” Russia.

I am pretty convinced that isolation will make this country more vulnerable. But I am also convinced that we don’t want to bite off more than we can chew. Whether we should maintain our military presence in so many places across the world is one example of a question that I would want my advisors to address.

This is why I will rely on the advice of Haley and Clark. I’d also like to bring General Milley back in some capacity, and maybe McChrystal.

As to the rest of my cabinet? I might hang on to Buttigieg, if only I could remember how to spell his name. Mayorkas would be out……completely out. He may, or may not, have done a good job – but I am not going to keep any obvious targets. 

Anyone else? One more. I think I would like to appoint Eric Holder as Secretary of DEI and Woke Affairs. Any objections?