Art is 80

I did watch the debate last night on CNN between Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, and my reaction to them is similar to what it has been. I think they have both honed their campaign positions, so that they easily can respond to virtually anything they are asked, and they both have a lot of information that they can reach for very quickly.

But I would much rather see Haley as a president than DeSantis. (I understand that neither of them seem to have much of a chance.) Why is that? It’s largely because (and I may be 100% wrong, I know that) I think that DeSantis is a dirty fighter and Haley a clean fighter. I think DeSantis is a bully, and that Haley is not. I see in DeSantis someone much closer to Trump in his thinking about government, and I don’t see that in Haley.

An aside: My father, when I was a high school senior, did not want me to visit any colleges for fear that I would make my choice based on the weather the day I came, or on the personality of the guide who showed me around. I recognize that my thoughts on the two second-tier Republicans is based on similar things. Does that mean my father was correct in seeing how I make my decisions, or that he was wrong because these are very important qualities, and making a choice because of them is fact, rational?

End of the aside.

Of course, as candidates, they are going to badmouth each other (and badmouth Trump), and I am trying to put all that aside and look more deeply at what they are saying. There were certain issues that were not raised in last night’s debate – there was little said about climate change, for example, and what was said seemed to be more for political gain than for spreading accurate information. And I think it was all from DeSantis, who said that he would, upon inauguration, loosen all drilling limitations, ignoring the fact that oil production in America is higher under Biden than it ever has been. (Of course, Biden ignores that, too.) And he said that because China was still building coal plants, there was no reason for us to do anything, which is clearly nonsensical.

There was little said about the economy in general – about the jobs, unemployment rates, only a nod to the lowering of inflation, etc. That was a surprise to me. There was nothing I remember directed to minorities, whether is be Blacks, Latinos, or others. 

There were contrasts. DeSantis is a big government guy, at least big government in that he sees the federal government having a larger role than Haley does. Haley is a big states’ rights advocate (who would like to do more block granting of funds to states), a pro-lifer (who in spite of that believes that abortion policy should be a state by state decision), someone who says that she believes that the federal budget should be balanced. I don’t agree with any of that, yet I think her support of these items would manifest themselves in an honest debate and a fair fight. DeSantis, I believe, would never give up on the things he was fighting for, and that he would not have a goal of being fair in his fighting; this is clear, I think, from his governorship in Florida.

As to foreign policy, I see DeSantis much closer to Trump – I think the Ukrainians could just write off further American support and Putin would declare victory by holding on to large parts of Ukraine and perhaps by destablizing the Ukraine that remained. I see this not only strengthening Russia, but putting eastern Europe in greater danger, strengthening China, and allowing China to pressure Taiwan into capitulation. Haley’s foreign policy would be much different, and I think that I agree with her on what she says in this regard and how she says it. Her UN experience is very important.

As to the border (which I have continually said is that issue that the Democrats are the weakest on, by far), they both want to complete the border wall, cut down on the number of people crossing, and deport those who have come across during the Biden term. Whether the courts would allow them to do this is of course a big question. But they don’t have to be very specific on the border – the Republicans have convinced most Americans that we have an “open” border, that we are overrun by illegal immigrants which definitely include those who come only to do us harm, and that things must be drastically changed. Sadly, I think it’s too late for the Democrats to do anything about this. They could change their current policy 180 degrees, and the Republican candidates would both take credit for it and use it to show how wrong the Democrats have been for so long.

Of course, I would love to see Trump have to drop out of the race (for whatever reason), and I would like to see Biden decide that 82 is too old to start a new presidential term. I remain concerned that Trump will defeat Biden, and I think that other Democratic candidates could beat him by rallying the parts of the Democratic base which Biden has lost. And if Biden is the Democratic candidate and, for whatever reason, the Republican candidate is either DeSantis or Haley (and, per polls, especially if it is Haley), Biden does not stand a chance. And the fate of the country will then be up to the results of the Congressional elections – and they are a toss up today.

You can make a good argument that the President of the United States does not have enough power. The President is hemmed in by Congress, especially when it comes to appropriations and expenditures, and is always in danger of being stopped by the Judiciary. In normal circumstances, the American government seems paralyzed and unable to put one foot in front of the other. You can argue that a president who moves forward through executive orders is only trying to escape that paralysis.

You can also argue that this is a good thing. That the “checks and balances” in our system of government keeps the country from embarking on dangerous and misguided paths with unanticipated consequences. If you take this argument, a president who moves forward with executive orders is challenging the American government as established by the Constitution.

Whichever side you take, if you even take a side as a matter of governmental philosophy rather than simply following your partisan positions, you have to recognize the the extent of a President’s power is a subject of never ending debate.

Richard Nixon had his answer to this question. I remember when Nixon said (in response to a hypothetical question by David Frost as to whether a president could take action which would otherwise be illegal if he deems it in the interest of the country) “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal”. I remember that everyone I knew was shocked at this answer which, at the time, seemed absurd and laughable.

We didn’t know that 50 years or so later another former (and perhaps future) Republican president would not only say the same thing, but have his lawyers argue the position in court. But that’s what happened yesterday, when Donald Trump’s lawyer argued to the DC Court of Appeals that, in most instances, a president (irrespective of his reasons) could even order the assassination of a political opponent and escape any legal responsibility. 

The exceptions? Only if the president had been impeached and convicted by the Senate. I don’t understand the basis for this exception, I don’t understand what it means, and I don’t understand how or when in the process an impeachment conviction would have to occur to permit the criminal indictment to move forward. I have read several articles on yesterday’s hearing – I have not found a satisfactory answer to these questions. I haven’t even found an unsatisfactory answer.

The experts all say that Trump will lose on this question, that it’s just a matter of how much time it will take, since it will probably go up to the Supreme Court. But there still are questions, aren’t there?

One obvious question is: does a President have any immunity, civil or criminal? The idea of immunity for public officials is certainly not unknown – immunity against slander or libel, for example. And the question of how much immunity police and other law enforcement officials have has, even before the death of George Floyd, been a question of much debate, as well as of quite a bit of state legislation. If a law enforcement official throws a punch at some one, there are circumstances where he is protected by full or partial immunity, and circumstances where he may be accused of criminal behavior. But the boundaries are not clear and are set by law, or by the courts. Is it the same with a president? I don’t think we know. And if we don’t know, how can a president be found guilty?

Another question is: what is in the mind of Donald Trump? You remember what he said during his first campaign. He said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes. I assume that he assumed that he could also shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without winding up on Death Row. Does his intent matter in cases where he is accused of criminal activity? And does that intent go beyond intent to commit a particular “crime”, but intent to ignore the boundaries between what would normally be legal and illegal conduct generally?

And, I guess, Donald Trump would not himself have had to had held and fired the gun. He could say to the army, I guess, “if anyone moves, shoot”. And that brings up the question of whether or not the order was authorized. If an order is illegal, members of the army should not obey it. But if the president has immunity, does this mean that his order would necessarily be legal, or just mean that he cannot be punished for his illegal action. And if the order is for an illegal action for which the president has immunity, what is the responsibility of the members of the military?

And finally, there is a question of acts taken as a part of the president’s duties as president, and those taken outside of presidential duties. The easiest example would be perhaps killing a mailman who is thought to be having an affair with the First Lady. Could the president be accused of murder in this instance, but not be libel for murder if the victim was, say, a member of Congress who votes against the president’s proposals on a regular basis? And who would be in charge of deciding what is, or is not, within a president’s official duties.

Trump may very well become our next president. And, although we think we know how the court will rule on what is currently before it, we may be wrong (court’s often surprise), or the ruling may be limited to this case, leaving other situations ambiguous. Donald Trump has already said that, upon reelection, he is going to be a dictator on the day he again becomes president. Dictators do a lot of terrible things. Trump may want to do any number of things on Day One – and, depending on how the court decides this case, he may feel entitled to do things that we cannot even imagine.

Let me end this with an obvious reference to judicial philosophy. Even leaving politics aside, we know that the Supreme Court (where this case will end up) is beholden to the (in my mind specious) theory of constitutional originalism. The Constitution, under this philosophy, is not a living document, but one frozen in time – a document to be analyzed for the what its plain language says, and what legislative history can be gleaned from its 18th century origin. In deciding the question of presidential immunity on this basis, a court could ignore completely the practical effect of its ruling (just as it could ignore any changes in society over the past 200+ years).

Using this type of analysis, we could find ourselves living with a president who could shoot someone at random on Fifth Avenue or Pennsylvania Avenue and walk away unchallenged. And if a president could do this, he could do anything. A one day dictator could easily become a four year dictator. And a four year dictator could easily become a dictator for life.

End of story.

A few days ago, when I was about one third through this book, I wrote that Kendi had suggested that a racist would make things worse, a non-racist would wind up leaving things as they are today, and that only an antiracist (he may have made up the word) could improve things for the racial groups that face discrimination, and that discrimination is inbred in society. I suggested that success would be measured by the number of areas where the percentage of participants of a particular race would equal, or approximately equal, the percentage of the entire country’s population represented by that group.

I think I stated that correctly, but now I have read the entire book and because it has seemed to become such an influential book, or at least an oft referred to book, I need to expand. It is also a book that has been listed several times on a list of books that have been banned, or should have been banned. Although Kendi sort of answers that himself, even before the banning had taken place, I must admit that I don’t understand why anyone would want to ban this book.

In the first place, this is a coming of age book. It’s the story of a middle class Black kid, raised in Queens and then in high school finding his family relocating to Manassas, Virginia, and finding himself more interested in basketball than academics. He feels lucky to get into Florida A & M, an HBCU, where he majors in magazine journalism and African American Studies and then finds himself in Philadelphia at Temple, where he earns a Ph.D. During this time, he becomes more and more interested in American society and role played by Blacks and other identifiable groups. As his education proceeds, so does his thinking, changing and adding things as he goes. What he believes one day, he may not believe the next. Each book he reads, each class he takes, each piece of research he accomplishes, each new friend – he absorbs what they are telling him and adds it to what he already knows. It’s a story of personal growth and maturity, and could stand just on that, irrespective of the correctness or practicality of his ideas.

But his ideas are important. His view of the position of Blacks in society (he focuses on American society, but agrees that the same issues are reflected in society elsewhere) does change over time. But he starts with a basic premise – that all people, irrespective of race, are equally endowed with a moral sense and with intellectual capacity. He then concludes that the subordinate places that Blacks so often find themselves in are not their fault, but the fault of society itself. And not so much the fault of individual actors in society (of which there are plenty who add to the problem), but to the nature of society itself. And there is nothing that a normal Black or a typical White can do about it.

He also concludes that it is a waste of time and energy to try to change the minds (the conscious or unconscious minds, I assume) of members of society. You can’t do it successfully. It just doesn’t work. This is one of those conclusions he reaches over time – it was not obvious to him at the start of his journey. He concludes you have to change society itself, and that has to be done through policies that will lead to the changes you want to see. As a corollary of this, he has determined that the problems of Blacks is not the result of Whites hating Blacks, or of Blacks fearing Whites. He views it as a simple struggle for power, and for fear of losing power. Power and status and money and all that goes with it. And it is this fear that keeps Blacks down.

I am oversimplifying, of course. And that’s in part because, although I can say this is what Kendi concludes, I can’t say that I understand everything he says, much less agree with it. In part, that is because this is such a complicated book.

It isn’t a long book, but it is a packed book. Like it’s only 235 pages, but he has 500 pages of information and thinking in it. The chapters are distinctly titled, but there is a lot of intersecting from one to another.

This is a book filled with data. Data about everything. Economics, housing, education, employment. And not just contemporary data, but historic data. And all of the data is sourced, so I feel comfortable assuming that it is by and large accurate.

This is also a book filled with references to other books – to thinkers, Black and White, and to books reaching varying conclusions as to why things are the way they are. The books are all serious books. Very serious books. The kind you read only if you are taking a class with them on the required list.

In other words, this is an extremely intellectual book. Despite its title, it is not a “how-to”. It’s a book that requires and demands looking at it very carefully, examining every sentence, weighing each of his conclusions. As opposed to a book that should be banned, this is a book that should be read widely. Not quickly, not cursorily, but fully. And what Kendi is asking, I think, is for his book not to be discounted because a conclusion may be uncomfortable, or different from what one would expect. He throws a lot out there, and there is a lot for each of us (whoever we are) to sift through.

He shifts, I think, between optimism and pessimism and back again. He is thinking. He is recording his thoughts. His thoughts, as I have said, change and mature. But he doesn’t erase them, he just adds to them.

As I said, he concludes that policies are what is important. But the book doesn’t outline those policies. I don’t think he had developed them yet. Perhaps by now he has. I don’t know. He knows we are one society. He doesn’t seem to want to see pure assimilation, which he seems to say means that Blacks will (unsuccessfully perhaps) become White. He certainly wants Black identity and culture to remain. But how do you accomplish this, and at same time fight racism? How do you have racial equality and yet permit voluntary racial separateness, separateness not in the sense of segregation, but in the sense of self identity. And what would happen if Black/White intermarriage, already a fairly normal phenomenon, would become even more common?

I need to hear more from Kendi. Hopefully, we will as time goes on. In the meantime, as I have said, don’t ban him. Instead, argue with him. Tell him where he’s right and where he’s wrong. Look at how you see what he is seeing. And how you have changed, as he has changed.

So I just heard what Donald Trump said about the Civil War. In case you missed it, Donald Trump, acting I guess as a foil for Alexandra Petri, said that the Civil War was completely unnecessary and that everything simply could have been negotiated. He apparently blames Abraham Lincoln for failing to hold the country together by not trying to work something out on such lingering issues like slavery and states’ rights. He says that it was really unfortunate because the failure to avoid a Civil War wound up tearing the country apart. And so many people died who, I assume, otherwise be alive today.

So what did you do Sunday afternoon? We went to a hockey game. No, not to the Caps game to see the Caps beat the Kings 4-3. Instead, to see the poor Montgomery County Youth Hockey Ice Devils lose to the youth hockey team from Loudoun County VA, 6-3. Well, the game was exciting enough, even if it didn’t come out the way we wanted it to. Step-grandson Olie did fine. But what I have to tell you is what was the highlight (lowlight) of the game.

There we were at the Rockville Ice Rink watching a hard fought game (the teams are comprised of 15 and 16 year olds), when there was a strong legal hit mid-ice, which led to an attack on the hitter (an Ice Devil) by him who was hit (he who was hit? the hittee? – let’s just call him Number 14) which knocked the helmut off the Ice Devil. This led to a general scuffle between some of the team members (none of this is supposed to happen in youth ice hockey), and the referee put his arms around Number 14 to hold him back, and Number 14 reacted to that by turning around and socking the referee. 

That of course led to a 5 minute penalty and a game misconduct (at least a game misconduct) for Number 14. But that didn’t end it. All of a sudden a yelling match started in the small audience and then two adult men started slugging each other. Exactly what happened and who was at fault, I am not sure. But we think it was the father of Number 14 who started the fracus, which wound up with the two fathers rolling down the bleachers, as shocked fathers and mothers and young siblings scurried away as quickly as they could. Then we saw Number 14 himself leave the ice rink and begin to climb into the bleachers, presumably to help his father. And, after a period of time, we saw a Montgomery County police officer enter the bleachers to escort the remaining father out of the building. What will follow, we don’t know. But talking to our daughter and son-in-law, who are regular attendees at these games, this was a first.

Back at home, after a family Mexican dinner, we turned on the Golden Globes to see actors and directors we don’t know anything about receive awards for shows and films we haven’t seen. 

But I exaggerate. Best film was Oppenheimer. I thought it was good and very ambitious. I didn’t love it. Paul Giamatti was best actor for Holdovers. I thought he did a good job in a role that didn’t require a lot, and really liked the second half of the film but thought the first half was soporific. I was hoping for Jeffrey Wright from American Fiction. As to Lily Gladstone, best actress, again a credible job, but the best? Not sure. The film, Killers of the Flower Moon, was terrific.

But now, it’s Monday. A slow start sitting at Jim Coleman Toyota hoping they give me my car back some time, drinking coffee that doesn’t taste like coffee and eating a blueberry muffin without blueberries.

Things will improve.

Yesterday was the last day I can remember when I saw not one, not two, but three movies. All from the comfort of my home on a day when outside everything was cold and rainy. My three choices were a bit odd, but two I recommend and on the other I maintain neutrality.

The films were (1) Dr. Strangelove, (2) The Dark Past, and (3) Missing. My guess is that you have heard of Dr. Strangelove, but not the other two.

(1) Dr. Strangelove. I have probably seen this 1964 film half a dozen times over the past 60 years. For those who don’t know, it was produced just after the Cuban missile crisis, and tells the story of a misreading of what was feared to be a Russian missile attack which sets in motion a response which cannot be stopped, and winds up with an American nuclear bomb being dropped on a Russian “doomsday machine”, which will spread radioactivity across the entire world and wipe out human, animal and plant life for about 100 years. It’s a comedy.

Peter Sellers plays three roles – he is the somewhat hapless president of the United States, he is a British attache to the U.S. Army who has to put up with General Jack Ripper (Sterling Hayden), who is dead set on destroying the USSR whether or not the U.S. is really under attack, and he is the German-American wheelchair bound scientist (Strangelove) who calls the president Mein Fuhrer, and expends all of his energy trying to keep his arm from giving a continual Heil Hitler salute, but who has a plan to ensure that the elite of mankind can survive underground for 100 years. You have George C. Scott as General Buck Turgidson rooting for war and coming to blows, in the Pentagon War Room, with the Soviet Ambassador to the United States, forcing the president to yell: ”Will you stop fighting? This is the war room.” And you have a crew led by “King” Kong (Slim Pickens), which includes a very young James Earl Jones, cut off from communications, flying under Soviet radar and dead set on dropping the bomb, unaware that the mission has been aborted. 

The film is entertaining, to be sure, but there is also a hint of reality – the facts may be different, but we all know that – unlikely or not – deadly wars can start by accident when events cannot be controlled. Of course, recommended. (I saw it on HBO on demand).

(2) ”The Dark Past” is a 1948 film starring William Holden and Lee J. Cobb, and is probably an archetype of a 1948 film – it is just like almost every other film made in 1948. William Holden is an escaped gangster, and Lee J. Cobb is a psychiatrist who teaches at an upstate New York college and who has a lake house not far from the campus. Holden and his two henchmen and his girlfriend decide to hide in Cobb’s house – Cobb is there with his wife, his young son, a couple who are their friends, and a young man who tags along with this couple because he is the lover of the wife. Another friend stops by, and finds himself a hostage as well.

Because it’s a 1948 film, it ends well, with the gangster and his moll being caught by the police and everyone else readying to get back to their normal activities. How did the police know they were there? Their family cook, an older woman who wears 5 inch heels and has no fear, escapes through a basement window and runs to the police.

And there’s another twist. While they were hostages, Cobb treats Holden’s mental disturbance, and explains his repetitive dream, and you know that Holden, a life-long criminal, will now be a model society member once he gets out of prison.

A rather mindless film, to be sure. (I watched it on YouTube, where I generally use the eeny-meeny-meiny-mo theory of choosing films.)

(3) “Missing”. This was the surprise, the film we watched last night. It’s on Netflix, and was released sometime during 2023. It gets good ratings. I thought it was a film worthy of winning awards.

An 18 year old girl, June, lives with her mother – her father died of a brain tumor 12 years earlier. Her mother has a new boyfriend, Kevin, and they decide to go on a short vacation to Cartagena, Colombia, leaving June home alone. June is to pick them up at LAX upon their return. But they are not on the plane, and not responding to any form of electronic communication. June goes into action, determined to find her mother.

So far, so good. And I am not going to give you any Spoilers. Let me just say that there are many plot twists, and that the acting overall is of high quality.

But the star of the show is technology. June seems to spend much or most of her life in front of her computer, where she is expert on using, and on mining, every imaginable type of social media communication, and you – the viewer – watch her Face Time, and have WhatsApp chats, Google, use FaceBook, use search tools you have never heard of, hack into all sorts of accounts, make notes on line, etc. For most of the film, you are watching the screen, you are seeing what she is seeing, you see her manipulation of Apps that you think you know well, but she can get them to do things that you have never dreamed they can do. Everything moves really fast. I could tell you more about how she rides her computer and phone and smart watch but, as I said, NO SPOILERS.

I really think you should check out “Missing”. I’d love to know what you think about it.

I think it was inevitable that Claudine Gay would resign from the Harvard presidency. And, as a graduate of Harvard (60 years ago this Spring!), the Harvard presidency is of some interest to me. But what I don’t understand is why it is of so much interest to so many other people, not connected in any way with the school.

I should restate that. I can understand why this might be a topic that people find of interest, but I don’t understand why it is a topic that people, with no connection to the school, should decide that it is something that they should take a stand on, involve themselves with, and feel that Gay’s resignation is something that they should cheer or rue as if it was crucial to their own existence.

And now that Gay has retired, there is pressure on the members of the Harvard Corporation (led by Penny Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel chain, and brother of the governor of Illinois) to resign. Why do they care?

There are those, of course, who say that Gay has become a target because she is a Black woman. I am sure that some of her critics are, perhaps subconsciously, targeting her because of her gender and race, but I doubt this is the biggest issue. Just as some people are defending her because she is a Black woman, and wouldn’t be so defensive if she were a White male.

It’s the confluence of two major problems. First, there is antisemitism. Second, there is social justice. These two important issues seem to be at odds with each other. But I don’t think that this is necessary or inevitable.

Let’s start with social justice, or “wokeism”. I started reading Ibram X. Kendi’s How To Be An Antiracist yesterday. Kendi has certainly himself become a target of the “antiwoke” class – and I wanted to understand a little better why. From what I have seen in the first third of the book, Kendi’s position is that it isn’t sufficient to be non-racist. If you are just non-racist, he says, you are in effect supporting the status quo, which is a racist, so you have to be affirmatively antiracist. 

To be antiracist, says, Kendi, you have to work not to achieve equality of opportunity, but to change the balance now existing in certain facets of society. An example? Let’s say that Blacks are 10% of the population, and let’s say that 6% of neurosurgeons are Black. To be antiracist, you must work as hard as you can to make sure that 10% of neurosurgeons are Black. 

The premise is that there is no difference in the innate capacity of people of different races, and that the shortage of Black neurosurgeons exists only because society is racist. You would gauge your success by whether the ration of Black to other-than-Black neurosurgeons reached the 10 to 90 ratio.

Now, I have only read 1/3 of the book, so don’t hold me to this as Kendi’s basic conclusion. After all, if it was, he wouldn’t have had to write the ending 2/3. But this appears to be the gist of what he is saying. And if this is what you believe, you cheer when Claudine Gay is named president of Harvard, and you blame society more than her for her downfall, saying if she was not Black (I don’t yet know if Kendi talks about Black women as a special category in the remainder of the book), she would not have been targeted in the same way by Congress, by Harvard’s donor base, by the press, and so forth, either for her Congressional testimony or her alleged plagiarism. And had she been so targeted and White, she would have retained her job, not been forced to resign. 

And to prove his point, I would assume, he would attack those on the other side who say Gay would never have been put into the position of president unless Harvard felt obliged to hire a Black woman to fill their imagined diversity quota, as being examples of racists or non-racists, but not examples of the antiracists he would like everyone to become. Or would he say this? After all, wouldn’t an antiracist suggest a Black candidate for the presidency in order to play his number game, giving a wink towards her objective qualifications? If her qualifications seem a bit weak, isn’t that just a result of the racist or nonracist society which we live in? So could this be an area where both sides agree with each other, but wouldn’t dare admit it, even to themselves?

See….it is complicated.

The campus antisemitism issue, made more visible by the war in Gaza to be sure, raises a different issue. In order to be antiracist, you must – among other things – make sure that racist acts are eliminated. For someone to call for the elimination of Blacks (either through genocide or through transport to Liberia) is clearly a racist act. So it must be condemned and not permitted.

But campuses have a commitment, by and large, to free speech. Free speech (with limits which can be both clear and fuzzy) is a cornerstone of this country and a major component of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, of course. But the First Amendment applies to governmental actions, not to private actions, and Harvard is a private institution, not a government institution. So the First Amendment does not apply to Harvard. Yet, as I have read (and I can’t right now tell you where), Harvard has taken the position that it will act as if the First Amendment applied to it.

The First Amendment gives people the right to say all sorts of things that may be offensive and even dangerous – but unless there is a clear and present danger that the speech will lead to action (“clear and present” are my words, but you know what I mean), speech wins over repression.

On this basis, Gay and the two other university presidents said that anti-Jewish speech (whether or not it talks about genocide) will not be repressed unless it crosses a line and is leading to illegal action. At a time when antisemitism is at a high, this is not a very satisfactory answer to many people. When she said that these offensive words “depended on the context”, people were rightfully concerned. Where does the “context” become worrisome? As I said, the limits are both clear and fuzzy – depends who you are.

So those worried about antisemitism respond to this by saying (correctly, I think) that universities are reacting inconsistently by (1) allowing antisemitic speech which is meant to encourage action, even if it has not yet “crossed a line” (whatever that means), but (2) not allowing anti-Black speech at all. Or, to put it another way, by falling into a trap which looks to promote diversity reflecting racial balance (a la Kendi), but denying similar protection to Jews who, as a so-called racial group (or its equivalent), do not suffer from the same types of social under-representation.

But, as I said at the beginning, there is no need for these positions to be diametrically opposed. If people would only stop and think for a change.

The Washington Post reports that 25% of Americans believe that the FBI was clearly or possibly behind the riots at the Capitol three years ago, on January 6. Of Trump voters, 44% believe that. Of Fox News viewers, 39%. Of MSNBC viewers, even 16% believe that. (The Post concludes that this might not be surprising, since a 2021 poll showed that 15% of Americans agreed with “a QAnon conspiracy theory that Satan-worshiping pedophiles control government, media and financial worlds.”) There obviously is no basis for this belief at all. But it seems to fit a general and surprising tendency of Republican voters to belittle various federal law enforcement agencies, and to pledge to shrink them, revamp them, or eliminate them.

But, when you think about it, the FBI has often been in the center of controversy. J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI for its first 48 years. He was always controversial, and was widely (and correctly) accused, mainly by left leaning individuals and groups, of keeping secret files on political leaders and effectively blackmailing them, investigating people whom he didn’t like, utilizing illegal surveillance techniques, wiretapping phones, organizing burglaries, and so forth. And then there was James Comey, who ran the agency during the 2016 election campaign, who has been accused by both the right and the left of influencing, or trying to influence the Trump-Clinton presidential election.

Yet beneath the shenanigans of these leaders, the FBI has always been doing important work in investigating criminal activity. It currently has 35,000 employees both here in Washington and in its field offices throughout the country. Do we need 35,000 in the FBI? I don’t know – maybe we could do just as well with 25,000. Or maybe we need 45,000. But the point is that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes at the FBI, and that it shouldn’t be ignored. 

For my first book of 2024, I chose to read The Threat by Andrew McCabe, who was James Comey’s deputy director, and who led the FBI as acting director after Donald Trump fired Comey and before he selected Christopher Wray as the next director, a job he continues to hold today. McCabe is no longer with the FBI, but you see him fairly often commenting on CNN, where he is a security analyst or some such thing. He also teaches at George Mason University. (By the way, for my second book, I chose to read actress Britt Ekland’s 1970 memoir, True Britt, but that’s another story.)

McCabe was educated at Duke and then at the Washington University Law School (my mother’s alma mater), practiced law for several years in New Jersey, and then decided to become an FBI agent. He joined the FBI in 1996. and left the agency in 2018.

McCabe’s book, published in 2019, is very readable, and very, very interesting, and I recommend it. McCabe, who was a registered Republican his entire life, is no fan of Donald Trump (to put it mildly). And a fair amount of the book covers McCabe’s interaction with Trump. He describes his first meeting with Trump:

“He started off by telling me, We fired the director and we want you to be the acting director now. We had to fire him — and people are very happy about it. I think people are very happy that we finally got rid of him. I think there’s a lot of people in the FBI who are glad he’s gone. We had to do it because of all that — you know, the Clinton thing last summer and all his statements and everything, he really mishandled that. He had to go, because of those decisions he made, and for a lot of other reasons.”

Trump then asked him if he agreed with Comey’s decision that Clinton should not be charged with a crime, and McCabe told him that he did. This seemed to displease the president, who then claimed that the FBI was in turmoil because its agents really disliked Comey. McCabe said that, in fact, most people in the agency did like Comey and respected him, although the election situation was very complicated. McCabe then reports that Trump told him: ”about searching for a new director, talking to great people, it was going to be great, there were going to get somebody great, the FBI was going to be great again, and now here I was, isn’t that great?…… He loved law enforcement and the FBI. He thought police people loved him.”

The book, though, is about more than how the Trump administration changed the FBI and rattled its agents. It’s a history of McCabe’s time in the FBI – investigating organized crime, Russian crime rings, the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, the bombing of the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, prospective but not successful suicide bombers on airplanes, the Boston Marathon, Guantanamo, Benghazi, what Trump calls the “Russian Hoax”, and more. He talks about how FBI agents are selected, how they are trained at a special location in Quantico, how they are assigned to particular jobs or locations. He talks about the interaction between the FBI and the Department of Justice, the FBI and the White House, the FBI and the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Defense. He talks about the different styles of Bob Mueller as Director (Mueller preceded Comey) and James Comey as Director, and discusses other government officials that he worked with, including Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions.

I came out of this book with a much better understanding of the FBI, and with an even more intense dislike of Donald Trump. I think your reaction would be the same.

(As to Britt Ekland, who is one year older than me, and always has been, her upbringing in Sweden is not particularly interesting, her meeting and in short order marrying the 18 year – I think – older Peter Sellers is very interesting, mainly because Sellers was interesting if a bit off his rocker and because they wound up on very friendly terms with Princess Margaret and Tony Snowden and, through them, the rest of the British royal family. Her subsequent career was busy but she had no great insights, and her other dalliances with all sorts of famous folks, including Warren Beatty and Ryan O’Neal and Rod Stewart were titillating but dull at the same time. She seems like the “girl who can’t say no”, who falls in love at the drop of a hat, who believes that her love will last forever, and who finds – in every occasion – that it doesn’t. And it’s always the fault of the guy, never her fault, although each relationship winds up the wrong way. I chose to read the book because I wanted something light. It’s not exactly light and, unless you are a Rod Stewart fan, the only worthwhile part of the book relates to Sellers.)

More than enough for today.

I don’t have any New Year resolutions to break, but I do say that at the start of every year, I promise myself that I will listen to more lectures on interesting subjects, and that I will listen to more music. As I write this, I am listing to Martha Argerich play Schumann’s piano concerto (yes, his only piano concerto). Argerich, now 82, has been a prized pianist for decades. Her Jewish family emigrated to Argentina from Germany before she was born and lived in one of Baron de Hirsch’s agricultural colonies. But, German origin notwithstanding, Argerich is a Catalonian name. The presumption is that her ancestors were from Spain, so that it’s interesting that her parents wound up moving back to a Spanish speaking country. (OK, none of this is interesting – I am just trying to show how well rounded I am)

If you have been reading this blog for a while, you know what my general themes are. Jewish identity and security. American right wing political dangers. The failure of America’s contemporary educational system.

Yesterday, I wrote about a presentation by Yale professor Tim Snyder on Hitler’s rational, if totally misguided, belief system. Today, I listened to another program, this one featuring historian Niall Ferguson, now at the Hoover Institute, and formerly a professor at Harvard. He was being interviewed by someone (not introduced) from the Jewish Chronicle (the London Jewish newspaper) and his subject was antisemitism. While I don’t agree with everything Ferguson says, most of what he said on this program makes a lot of sense. Let me see if I can make some of his points coherently.

1. There has been a lot of changes on American campuses over the past 10 years or so. This first change was the emergence of “cancel culture”, where free speech took a back seat to making sure no one would say anything that would offend the sensibilities of the student body, or the reputation of the institution. He believes it was the progressive left that first popularized cancel culture, but that the right and the left now both operate on the premise that one should not argue with people with whom you disagree, but make sure that their voices won’t be heard.
2. He also believes that a double standard exists at most major universities, when it comes to certain groups, and in particular Jews. He claims that there is no punishment when it comes to badmouthing Jews (as we see from the recent Congressional hearing with the three university presidents), but woe to anyone who dares say anything against Blacks or other “favored” groups.
3. He believes that left wing cancel culture is still the most visible and that it has often turned against Israel and therefore Jews (he believes that, as perhaps not true elsewhere, on campuses anti-Israel thinking is clearly antisemitic – that Israel and Jews are viewed as one), and this gave the Islamist students the ability to become allies, although they are miles apart on virtually every other issue.
4. As to why this phenomenon has taken place on campuses, he does refer to what I have written about a number of times – the prevalence of social justice thinking, anti-colonialism, and conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed. He believes that the Islamist movement has milked this theory for all that it’s worth, applying it to themselves even when it doesn’t apply, and turning the Jews into not only white oppressors, but super white oppressors. He also believes that, within the progressive left, which is clearly an anti-capitalist movement, there are those who hold onto the old trope that Jews are central to capitalism.
5. He, like Snyder, is a historian of the Holocaust (in fact he is a historian of almost everything). He was asked to compare what is going on in our universities with what went on in German universities in the 1920s and 1930s. While he didn’t do a direct comparison, I thought what he said about German universities (which he said were clearly then the best in the world) was interesting. One of the most prevalent movements at that time was the study of, and belief in, eugenics, differences based on race, and that Germany was a center of the eugenics movement, and therefore its institutions were primed for determining that Jews were inferior (or at least different) and therefore should not be teaching at the universities. He also said that there was something selfish in all of this, as there were many, many Jewish professors in Germany, and their disappearance certainly helped the careers of the others.
6. Finally, he is very disappointed as to the way the media is following the Israel-Hamas war. He mentioned the BBC, the New York Times, and the worst offender of all, which he described as NPR, which he now doesn’t bother listening to. He said again this was the double standard at action, which has been imported into the media from the academic campuses, and which he feels will get worse as the younger generation – with ideas different from their elders, and experiences much different – become even more prominent in the mainstream media (as they are now on social media).

Of course, there was much more that he said. But you’ve been reading this long enough. (By the way, the Schumann just ended, and I have switched to Rostropovich playing the Dvorak cello concerto.)

Timothy Snyder is a history professor at Yale. He is perhaps best known for two of his books: ”Bloodlands” (2010), primarily the story of Hitler’s move to the East and the fate of Poland, and “Black Earth” (2015), primarily the story of the Holocaust and the fight for Ukraine. I have read them both and recommend them highly.

In addition, Snyder is one of those people that MSNBC calls on for 2 minute appearances to put into context some of what is happening today in Eastern Europe, Ukraine and Russia. He looks friendly, speaks well, and always has something of interest to say. But you don’t get a real feel of what he would be like as, say, a teacher, or to hear in a lengthier presentation.

By the miracle of YouTube, of course, you can remedy that, and that is what I did yesterday, listening to a presentation that Snyder made a few weeks ago at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee. You can find it by simply Googling “Tim Snyder Marquette” (at least, I could); it is just under an hour.

I scribbled down seven points that are worth repeating (there were in fact many more), some of which might surprise you.

1. Hitler was not a madman. He was a wrongheaded, but rational, thinker with a lot of charisma, who knew exactly what the German population in the early 1930s wanted to hear (sound familiar?). Hitler was also not a German nationalist per se; he didn’t think in nationalist terms, but in racist terms. He believed that mankind was divided into various races (including the Aryan race to which Germans belonged), and that these races competed against each other for space and power. This was not something to be sad about; this is the way it was and the way it should be.
2. The Jews were a class by themselves. They were not a race as the major races were. They did not have a territory, and you needed a territory to truly be a race. The Jews, on the other hand, were interrupters. They lived amongst other races, and did their best to deter other races from pursuing their natural competitive activities. They were universalist, cosmopolitans, who interfered with world history, and therefore must be shunted aside, isolated and, eventually, eliminated.
3. Races needed to have enough land to assure a ready supply of food, and to assure security. Thus, the concept of Lebensraum (living room), which led to German expansion and conquest, particularly to the east, where the “black earth” of Ukraine was necessary to feed the German race.
4. As they moved East, the Germans learned to their surprise that the people of the races they were conquering would buy Hitler’s theory about racial struggle and the role of the Jews in affecting that struggle, and agree to the need to isolate or eliminate the Jews. They saw, to their surprise, that they had allies in this action, and that the allies included individuals and groups who, prior to the German invasion, seemed to have no animosity towards Jews, and who had lived near or next to Jews for generations.
5. Some countries, obviously, did have histories of antisemitism (not to the extent of Nazi antisemitism, of course), and some did not. But the treatment of the Jews and their fate in various countries had little to do with prior instances of antisemitic behavior in those countries. In Holland, perhaps the most tolerant of European countries, almost all Jews were killed. In France, where there was a consistent history of antisemitism, most Jews survived.
6. One of the most important elements of Jewish survival during the Holocaust was whether Jews were, or were not, citizens of a country. The Nuremberg laws deprived Jews of German citizenship, the abolition of the government of Poland, or of the Austrian state, for example, made Jews stateless, with no one to protect them, no laws that they could turn to. At some point, he said, Romania, whose Jews had been declared non-citizens, reversed itself and the Jews were once again Romanian citizens. With this act, they were protected for the duration of the war.
7. Hitler admired the United States. Here was a country, he thought, whose main population was Aryan, and which conquered another race, the African race, and held them in slavery, using them to help annihilate a third competing race, the American Indian, and enable the Aryan country to provide sufficient Lebensraum for itself through the conquering of and settlement of the Great Plains. The Great Plains, in Hitler’s view, was America’s Ukraine.

Now, if I put these seven points in front of Tim Snyder, he might say “I’ll give you a B-. You left some things out, and you misinterpreted or misquoted other things I said. But you got the gist.” I don’t know.

Wait a minute! I do know. He’d give me an “A”. He teaches at Yale. (For the academic year 2022-2023, 79% of Yale grades were A or A-. I think I would have made the grade.)

On a totally different point, what do we think of the Israeli bombing a Hamas office and killing vice-chief Saleh al-Arouri in Beirut? (I can’t imagine anyone else did it.) What are they going to do about the head of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh? He lives not in Beirut, but in Qatar. Will they go after him there, too?

And what will the repercussions of all of this be? Can’t be good. Hope they’ll be neutral, but afraid they won’t, especially after the killing of over 100 at the grave of Qasem Soleimani in Kerman, Iran? No reason to think that Israel would do this at this time, but clearly Iran might want to put the blame on Israel. More likely it was a group of Iranian dissidents, or Sunni radicals that target Shia sites throughout the Middle East. But Iran’s leadership will have to respond. 

The earthquake last week in Japan registered at 7.6. The earthquake in the Middle East may exceed that, I fear.

I didn’t leave the house yesterday. Was it cold outside? Sunny or rainy? I don’t know.

For one thing, I was still plagued by the hiccups that started the night before. Three times yesterday, I had hiccup spells of one or two hours each, and I felt vulnerable the rest of the time. This morning, the vulnerability seems to have passed, so I am optimistic. But the hiccups kept me from doing a lot, even when the grand children were here for lunch and most of the afternoon. I paid little attention to them, and they to me. Not the norm.

OK…..onward. I watched a little of the Rose Bowl Parade and, once again, thought it would be nice to live in Pasadena. I watched a little of the Rose Bowl game, and thought for sure that Alabama was outplaying Michigan. I was surprised to hear the result.

I watched the Wiener Philharmoniker concert on PBS. It was the 40th televised concert, and I have probably seen 40 of them. One of my few traditions. I remember thinking that last year’s was pretty dull, but this one was terrific (although they could leave out the staged ballet scenes, as far as I am concerned). They played some lesser known waltzes (and a polka) and conductor Christian Thielemann did a great job conducting the audience (the orchestra didn’t need him) during the Colonel Radetzky March. The audience has clapped since the march’s premiere in 1848. Colonel Radetzsky led the Austrian troops against the Kingdom of Sardinia over the fate of the city of Milan – something you never read about in school.

The Radetzky march was written by Johann Strauss, but not the one who wrote the Blue Danube. It was written by his father – Johann II, by the way, was one of Johann’s 14 children – six by his wife, and eight by his mistress. No, I don’t know any details. Of course, yesterday the philharmonic played the Blue Danube as well.

What else? I finished the 23rd and final episode of the Spanish Netflix series “Unauthorized Living”, which I must admit to have enjoyed. The bosses of the Spanish, Mexican and Columbian drug gangs had all seen their last days, and the two daughters of Nemo Banderas (the Spanish drug lord) were off on their own. And superman Mario Mendoza? His ex-wife and her unborn child went off in one direction, and he and his girl friend in another. What will happen to them? We will never know…..the series is finito.

We also turned on (never before and by chance) America’s Got Talent, and saw two acts who will now go on to the semi-finals (I think there are four more preliminary shows before the semi-finals). And, yes, they had talent: one someone who did finger shadow puppetry, and the other – a young man with clear and strong developmental disabilities who, nevertheless, can write music, sing his songs and accompany himself on the piano. Not hokey, either of them. Talented.

Sort of reminds me of the old, old show – You Asked For It. I still remember the man (woman?) who could type 60 words a minute using their toes, and the man (definitely a man) who could hum the Battle Hymn of the Republic and whistle Dixie at the same time (he wasn’t just whistling Dixie).

One last thing – today is the final day of the over-the-holidays visit from our good friends, the Aronins. As they know, they welcome here any time. Just saying.

It’s 2024 now everywhere and, as promised, here are my predictions for the year. Don’t worry. They aren’t extensive. In fact, my biggest prediction is not even for the year; it’s that 2025 will be better.

For those who like tumult and uncertainty, 2024 will undoubtedly be your year. For the rest of us…….not so much.

The war in Ukraine will continue; the war in Gaza will continue and may even spread in ways we won’t like.

The climate crisis will still be with us – not only continued warming, but unusual climatic events will become more and more usual.

The political scene in the U.S. will be chaotic (and that is probably an understatement), as our government may, in many ways, cease to function at all.

Common sense will continue to be less and less common, as Artificial Intelligence will so blur the difference between fiction and fact that we won’t even recognize the categories in the way we used to.

Our educational system will continue to fail us.

We will all pray that 2025 comes quickly.

That’s it……

We ended the year both with a bang and a whimper. Perhaps I had too much Prosecco, because I wound up with hiccups that lasted about 2 hours, then abated, and then recurred from about 3 to 4:30 a.m. I’m not complaining. I was reminded of Rene Descartes and realized that if he had the hiccups, he would have written “Hiccupo, ergo sum”. That’s the way I felt.

The other thing we did last night was watch “Killers of the Flower Moon”, the Martin Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro film based on a non-fiction book about dozens of murders of members of the Osage tribe in Osage County Oklahoma in the 1920s. It’s a story I knew nothing about. The Osage became quite wealthy when oil was discovered on their Oklahoma reservation, and Whites began to marry into the tribe, and kill off the Indians, to capture by inheritance their rights to oil revenues. At least 60 and perhaps over 100 tribe members were killed over a five year period until the FBI began to investigate and several of those involved were prosecuted and imprisoned (but later paroled) for their crimes.

The movie is 3 1/2 hours long and keeps your attention throughout. I thought it a masterful film. Only one quibble – the ages of the characters did not match the ages of the perpetrators. De Niro, who is 80, played King, who was in his 40s, and DiCaprio, who is about to turn 50, played King’s nephew Ernest, who was in his 30s. They both did a terrific job (of course), but hearing a law enforcement officer who looked to be about DiCaprio’s age call him “son” over and over was a bit strange. But that’s quibble because I thought it worth it to see the two of them play against each other.

Best picture of 2023? Perhaps. It shares top billing with “American Fiction”, IMHO.

OK, time to get back to our regular activities and to prove my predictions all wrong.

What am I thinking about on this New Year’s Eve morning? I am thinking about Nikki Haley.

I keep thinking there must be a reasonable Republican alternative to Donald Trump, although in my heart of hearts I know that there isn’t. But, of the bunch, I say to myself, maybe Nikki Haley would be the best (understanding that my SC friends would disagree with this – and they know more than I know).

But no more. Nikki Haley’s comments about the Civil War are beyond my comprehension. For the first time, I agree with Ron DeSantis when he said that her comments were “word salad”. That’s exactly what they were.

Now, I can make reasonable arguments that the Civil War was not about slavery (my arguments may not be correct, but they would be reasonable). For example, I could argue that the Civil War was about the question that had existed from the beginning of our country, the question of how extensive the rights of the federal government are, as opposed to the rights of state government. This is an argument that is still ongoing today. I could argue that the existence of slavery was just one of many questions that either should be decided at the national or the state level, and that the big issue wasn’t slavery per se, but where the authority of the federal government ends.

I could also argue that the Civil War was about the individual right of states to secede from the United States. After all, until South Carolina seceded, and other states followed, there was no Civil War. We never had states of the United States fighting states of the United States; we had two countries at war. Or did we? That question can also be argued to be the cause of our Civil War. Clearly Lincoln’s goal was putting the country back together again.

But this is not what Haley said; nor did she put forth some other potential argument for the cause of the Civil War. She chose word salad –

Nikki Haley said that the Civil War resulted from how much freedom Americans had, that it was caused by arguments over the question of governmental power versus individual power. States did not seem to be part of her equation at all. Unless (and this is possible) she equated federal power with governmental power, and state power with individual power. And if she was making this (specious) distinction, she didn’t say it.

And if she was talking about individual power, what does that say about slavery? If an individual White slaveholder had the right to own a slave, shouldn’t an individual slave have the right to declare himself free? And if governmental power tells the enslaved person that he must remain enslaved, does it make a difference whether or not the governmental power is the power of the United States or the power of South Carolina?

Her whole word salad argument about the power of the individual versus the power of the federal government, from her own perspective, becomes totally hypocritical (as well as loopy) if you change the focus from slavery to abortion. On abortion, Haley has taken the position that she is firmly pro-life, that she agrees with the Dobbs decision, and that she thinks that the proper position is to keep reproductive rights in the hands of state governments. She is clearly against the rights of the individual. She is apparently against (at least so far) any thought of a nationwide ban on abortion, which puts her in a different position from many Republicans.

So, on abortion, Haley is not arguing for freedom vs. government, not arguing for individual rights. She is arguing in favor of state authority over federal authority. Because of this, it’s my guess that, in answer to the slavery question, she was thinking consistently – about states rights over federal rights, and not at all about individual rights.

But her language is about individual rights. Her language intimates that Democrats are in favor of governmental power and Republicans in favor of less government and more freedom. Her meaning, however, is inconsistent with her language (at least as far as one can tell). She, like the plantation owners of old, and like many politicians in states like South Carolina, are really in favor of state governmental rights over federal governmental rights, the individual be damned.

I have never understood the concept of states’ rights. I have never understood why a woman, or a Black, or anyone else should have different rights if they happen to live in Alabama or Oregon. Aren’t they all American? And shouldn’t all American be treated the same, particularly as today (as opposed to the 1780s) there is so much mobility between all of the states of the Union? Shouldn’t states be required to uphold the rights of individuals – and shouldn’t the federal government be empowered to ensure that they do so?

Tomorrow, I guess I will give my predictions for 2024. From now until then, I will try to think of positive changes I expect to see next year. I can’t promise, but I will try.

So, I have been watching a Spanish series on Netflix called (in English) ” “Unauthorized Living”, a 2 season, 23 episode series. Each episode is a little over an hour long, so it’s a commitment. It accompanies me while I am on our stationery bicycle. I think it is pretty good if you like that sort of thing. I have only 3 episodes to go.

It has an enormous cast, and (with – so far – only one exception) everyone who has a significant role (and that’s a lot of folks) is a bad guy, and a poker faced liar, and someone with at least one hidden agenda. It’s the story of a Spanish Galician drug family, competing with a Mexican drug family, and a Columbian drug lord, and – in addition to the competition – there are many family relationships between members of the various groups. The head of the local family, Nemo Bandereas, has a wing-man, a young lawyer named Mario Mendoza, who is charming, attractive, really smart and as evil as they come.

He, in effect, is Nemo’s Michael Cohen. Not only in his utter loyalty to his employer, but in his decision (maybe) to turn tail, and destroy him. You can hate Mario, but you gotta like him. Just like Michael Cohen.

Well, the latest is that Cohen’s lawyer, David Schwartz, made a submission to the Court (trying to get Cohen’s probation shortened), that included detailed references to some cases that – surprise, surprise – don’t exist. This, by the way for you non-lawyers, is a no-no.

Schwartz says that Cohen gave him the references. Cohen agrees. He also says that another lawyer (whose name I don’t remember) who was a former federal prosecutor reviewed the document before it was filed. (He also says that this second lawyer was the source of the false info, but the prosecutor denies it, and Cohen has admitted that he did it himself.) The prosecutor says that he did review the filing, but that he never even considered reviewing the research work and the case cited by Schwartz. ”Why not?” is a great question.

The former prosecutor also says that obviously Schwartz should have reviewed the cases before citing them (duh!) and that the fact that the info as provided by Cohen is irrelevant. Cohen says that he is no longer a lawyer (I know that feeling), and that he does not have access to lawyers’ research tools (I know that feeling, too), and that he got the information from a Google app called Google Bard, apparently an artificial intelligence application that has the ability to make things up, as well as to transmit actual facts. I don’t think Google advertises that part of it. Cohen assumed that the Bard of Google was giving him actual information, not that it was creating its own alternative set of facts.

I still like Cohen. I can’t believe that Schwartz did this. And I hope it doesn’t work against Cohen, whom I think is now (like Mario Mendoza) doing God’s work, fighting the evil he used to promote.

Yes, we know artificial intelligence is a problem. But, there were problems before artificial intelligence. Take (as Henny Youngman would say, “please”) Claudine Gay, for example. She is, I assume you know, the future former president of Harvard. I think she should quietly fade into the sunset. Harvard has enough problems to be solved, without the solver to get in the way.

First, (a la David Schwartz, more or less) Gay relied on her (real) lawyers and avoided direct and helpful answers to Congressional questions on antisemitism – I don’t think she really believes that saying that Jews should be killed depends on context. At least I hope she doesn’t.

Secondly, she apparently, inadvertently or vertently (which should be, but may not be a word) took other scholars’ words and put them in her PhD dissertation, either forgetting quotation marks or forgetting to cite the sources. I can’t judge how severe these problems were in the dissertation; I can’t judge how Harvard would react if professors reviewing a thesis today discovered similar shortcomings. But the president of Harvard, like Caesar’s wife (I think it was Caesar’s wife) has to be purer than pure. And Gay is not. She really should resign her post, and use her talents in another way.

The war between Israel and Hamas (or is it the war between Israel and Gaza, or Israel and Palestine?) goes on with no end in sight. No end in sight at all.

Yesterday, I attended a private session with someone actively involved in the current situation in Israel and with an extensive history in the area, someone whom I respect, and whose name I cannot share. He gave us his insights. Sure, I found most of them obvious, but some of them were new to me and interesting as I try to put together the entire picture in my mind. Here are some (not all, by any means) of what he said:

(1) In the year 2000, before the Second Intifada, there was a lot of promise in Gaza. Unemployment was down below 15%, there were about 40 factories (maybe averaging 30 Palestinians each) that had been established in Gaza that were turning out goods for export, with the promise of many more. There was a functioning airport, there were still about 10,000 Israeli settlers in the area, communication and travel between Gaza and Israel proper was relatively free. The Israeli military was present to keep the peace.

(2) The failure of the Camp David meeting in 2000 between Barack, Arafat and Clinton, followed by the visit of Sharon to the Temple Mount, changed everything and led to the Second Intifada, and a barrier constructed between Israel and Gaza.

(3) When Sharon pulled the military and the settlers out of Gaza in 2004, he left the factories intact, but the atmosphere had changed, and the election of 2006 (presumably a fair election) put Hamas in charge, eliminating democracy in Gaza and creating a Gazan government determined to wipe out the State of Israel. All of Gaza’s infrastructure fell into ruin.

(4) In addition to skirmishes, there have been two other wars between Israel in Hamas, in 2008-2009, and in 2014.

(5) At the start of the current war, unemployment in Gaza is approximately 45%, with youth unemployment at 70%.

(6) Hamas obviously still wants to see Israel destroyed, and Netanyahu (and a large proportion of the Israeli population) now thinks that a two state solution is completely undesirable. Netanyahu has felt this for a long time – perhaps forever.

(7) Since its creation as an arm of (or a sect of) the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas has been a dangerous terrorist organization. It no longer operates as a terrorist organization. Hamas is now an army, a well trained, well financed and well equipped army, and Israel failed to identify it as that.

(8) The October Hamas attack was the result of not just one Israeli intelligence failure, but a series of them, as has been reported. Israel had Hamas’ complete attack plan, although it’s unclear how far up the chain that info had been transmitted – and nevertheless, Israel left its Gaza border pretty much undefended, diverting IDF forces to the West Bank where radical Israel settlers were disrupting things with the virtual approval of Israel’s right wing government.

(9) Today in Israel, the population has moved so far to the right that there is virtually no “left” left. Netanyahu is very unpopular (18% approval rating), but his policies are very popular. The Israel public has no interest in a Palestinian state of any kind at this time and, shockingly, appears to have no sympathy for the suffering going on in Gaza generally.

(10) The heads of Mossad, Shin Bet, and the IDF will resign most likely after the war’s over, but Netanyahu, for his own reasons, will fight to stay and it is very hard to get him out. The only way to do so would be for the coalition to call for new elections, which this won’t happen because so many of the current members would not be reelected.

(11) Netanyahu’s statement that he wants to total destruction of Hamas is only wishful thinking and will prolong the war, and there is still no post-war plan, and virtually no post-war planning going on. 

(12) Miscellany: (a) Who will pay for the reconstruction of Gaza? Perhaps the moderate and wealthy Arab states, but they will exact a price as to how Gaza will operate that Israel will probably reject, (b) There are about 300 miles of underground tunnels belonging to Hamas (where non-Hamas Palestinians are, to this day, not allowed), and Israel at this time only controls about 15% of them, (c) many of the tunnels are booby trapped, hold hostages, and – when Hamas members leave their underground tunnels – tey cannot be distinguished from other Palestinians, (d) it is believed there are about 35,000 members of Hamas, of whom 10,000-15,000 are in the Hamas military, (e) some of the hostages are being held not by Hamas but by Islamic Jihad – they are smaller but even more ruthless than Hamas.

(13) Netanyahu has no reason to want a short war. The longer the war goes on, presumably the safer he is.

That’s all, folks.

Sometimes, things take a long time. For example, American historians’ appreciation of Dwight Eisenhower took decades. And it took an equally long time for the positives of John Kennedy’s presidency to lose their luster, but they have. The 50s were deemed a lazy, unexciting decade where progress was put on hold, where Americans moved to the suburbs and barbequed hamburgers, and white Americans fought against integrating their kids’ schools. The 60s were deemed to be an exciting period where the civil rights movement got its start, and where the Soviets were convinced to take their missiles out of Cuba and destroy their launchers.

But then it turned out that a lot was accomplished during the Eisenhower years. The successes of the Warren Supreme Court, the creation and funding of the Interstate Highway System, keeping the Soviets at bay through, among other things, a little deception. My mind about Eisenhower was changed when I read Evan Thomas’ excellent book, Ike’s Bluff. The abbreviated Kennedy administration, on the other hand, has now been viewed to be less than successful, with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the start of the Vietnam war, and failure to advance our position with the USSR and China.

So it takes time. Sometimes, a lot of time. You remember the story? A few years ago, an old Chinese philosopher/historian was asked: “What effect do you think Napoleon had on the political alignment of Europe?” His response: “It’s just too soon to tell.”

So what do we feel about Barack Obama? Throughout his presidency and afterwords, compared with the Trump years, I thought Obama was doing quite a good job and today, December 28, 2023, I still think so. But I have friends who will argue the opposite; they will call Obama facile and well meaning, but weak and ineffective, particularly in managing foreign affairs. What will historians say 20 or 40 years from now?

I recently read David Sanger’s book, Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power, published in 2013, after Obama finished his first term. Sanger, a New York Times foreign matters reporter, had covered Obama during the first four years of his administration, and had a lot to say. I found this book just a month or so ago, don’t remember knowing about it at any time, and started reading through it by chance, when I picked up a book to take with me for what I was sure would be a long wait in a doctor’s office waiting room.

Clearly not enough time had passed to allow our elderly Chinese philosopher/historian to reach a conclusion, or perhaps for anyone else to, but I learned at least one thing. These were complicated times, and any immediate determination that Obama did, or did not, manage things well is bound to be wrong. Time must pass, and information must settle and mix with information from other sources.

Sanger, I would say, is generally supportive of Obama. And he is very good at providing context for Obama’s actions. A case in point was Afghanistan – we had very good intentions there, but it seemed that our concept of preparing Afghanistan, of all places, for democracy and a democratic regime was misplaced. We recognized that all of our accomplishments might be lost if the Taliban returned, and that perhaps we could not stop them from doing so. Was it worth our effort? Obama decided to tough it out, more or less. Was this the right decision, even after we saw failure in many respects in Iraq, where our goals were similar.

And what to do about Pakistan, which he describes in some detail as an extraordinarily complex place, with political parties of all persuasions, with strident religious groups with expansionist ideas, and intellectuals whose opinions couldn’t not be more different? With nuclear weapons, of course, so far kept unused. A balancing act, to be sure.

Arab Spring. That’s another one. Obama, who had spent the first years of his life surrounded by Muslims, wanted to change the relationship of the United States and the Muslim world. He was not expecting the Arab Spring, and could not help it when the Spring turned into a cold, cold winter. How to deal with Muslim countries – ignore or ally with despotic leaders of countries important to the United States? Taking an active role in Syria, sending in troops to try to maintain some semblance of peace. Taking an active role in Libya, along with both NATO and Arab allies, with the goal of removing Mohammad Qaddafi from power. Using air power in Libya, but having no troops on the ground. Troops on the ground in Syria – but no attempt at regime change. How do explain the difference? And how to measure success when Syria is still under the Bashir Assad regime, and Libya often seems to have no government whatsoever?

And then remember that Obama had a second term, not covered in this book (obviously). Did he learn anything from his first term and, to the extent he did, was Congress at all cooperative in helping to implement his now experienced policy wishes?

After reading Sanger’s book, I have to conclude that I still think that Obama did a very good job during the time he led this country. He made some controversial choices – focusing on health care over certain other domestic issues, for example. And he certainly wasn’t able to overcome the opposition to whatever he did by a highly partisan Republican Congress (remember McConnell saying that his first priority was denying Obama a second term, and Trump and others from the outside declaring Obama to be an alien, ineligible for the office of the presidency?)

But I also know that I have something in common with the old Chinese philosopher: I may be able to throw together a lot of factual information, but can I say for sure that his presidency was a success? No. Why? Because it is much too early to tell.

Like most people, I am sure that I dream more than I think I do. Sometimes, when I wake up, I know I have dreamed, but have no idea what my dream was about, even though while dreaming it, it seemed unforgettable. Other times, I remember little things about my dreams, but I can’t quite put the little things together coherently. Other times, I don’t think that I dreamed at all – but I am probably wrong. I assume that dreams come in someway every night.

But once in a while a dream sticks with you, and you remember it (or at least you think you do) from start to finish. And some of those dreams are really pleasant. And others are NIGHTMARES!!!

Last night was a nightmare.

Now I usually have some context for my dreams. They usually revolve around familiar themes. I have a lot of travel dreams – I am always surprised at the creativity of my architectural design as I travel to new places and see buildings which, if I knew how to replicate them in real life, I would have fame and fortune. Sometimes, I walk or run or move in some other way through parks and wilderness and extraordinary mountains, or along rivers or river trails. If I were an artist or a painter, I would put them on paper or canvas and, yes, I would have fame and fortune. 

Last night, if there was context, I sure couldn’t find it.

We are babysitting for our grandchildren this week, while there parents are enjoying some well deserved time off. Unfortunately, our three year old grandson seems to like to get up at 5 a.m. like clockwork. Edie went to entertain him (no way he was going back to sleep), while I tried to sleep some more so that I would be in better shape during the day. I had a hard time falling asleep, and thought, about 6 or so, that I should just get up. That’s when I must have fallen asleep.

The dream seemed to be long lasting, and while I was dreaming, I didn’t know I was dreaming. I was in bed (not our normal bed, but a bed), Edie had awakened earlier and was not there, and I got up. I went into the bathroom (not our bathroom, but a bathroom) to wash and brush my teeth. But when I looked at myself in the mirror above the sink, I saw that I was virtually completely tattooed with coal black ink. Not my face, but from the neck down. There were some spaces where there was no tattoo and it was the spaces that created the design. I remember yelling “no” (did I say anything out loud or was the yelling just in the dream? I don’t know), moving back form the sink, looking down, and seeing no tattoo. Then I looked back in the mirror and the tattoo was back. But this time, in addition, there was a man standing behind me. He was sort of young, looked normal, dressed normally, but who was he, and how did he get into the bathroom. I turned around and he wasn’t there. But there in the mirror he was, standing behind my tattooed body.

I am not sure of the plot line, if there was one. But I know that I left the bathroom, and now the man was really there. But was he? He was talking to me, but I wasn’t really listening. I assumed he wasn’t real – but I reached out to touch him, and there he was – completely touchable. At that point, a number of different people appeared, all out of nowhere. I didn’t know if they were real. Some of them had tattoos, some did not. I looked down at myself and now I had about half the tattoos I had when I looked in the mirror. They were still coal black blobs with designs of bare skin, but they didn’t cover my entire body. I was very ill at ease; I didn’t know what to do. I had no idea who any of these people (if they were people) were, or why they were there.

I knew something weird and unique was happening. I didn’t know what it was. There was no one I could ask. I was all alone, except for these beings who just appeared. I still didn’t know if they were real or I was real. 

Whatever it was, it gave me the chills and waking up didn’t end the chills. It was like the dream was still with me (maybe it is, even now), but I couldn’t fully sense or experience it because I was awake.

What do I need? A long winter’s nap.

Tomorrow? Back to our regularly scheduled posting.

Most people who write daily blogs (are there others?) probably are not, at the same time, babysitting for a 3 year old and an 8 year old at the same time. Why is that? You will find out, I am sure, as you read on…….

OK, I will say it here without equivocation. Israel is on the wrong track and many if not most Israelis know it. Hasn’t psychology shown us that hardened criminals are likely to have had tough childhoods, with violent, overbearing parents or neighbors who slap them around or worse? Why would it be different with nations or peoples?

Netanyahu said yesterday that the fighting in Gaza won’t stop until Hamas is crushed, Gaza demilitarized and Palestinian society deradicalized. Is a three part oxymoron still an oxymoron? How is it possible to crush a movement and demilitarize an area, while at the same time deradicalizing a population? And in fact, there’s a fourth facet to this, which I don’t think Netanyahu mentioned – once these three things are accomplished, there has to be a mechanism to make sure they stay that way.

In the meantime, the killing continues, people die on both sides, and Israel is fighting more sporadically with enemies in Syria, Lebanon, and the West Bank. I read this morning that Israel is now engaged in a 7 front war.

Now, I am not there, and I don’t know all the considerations that go into the military decisions being made, and maybe there is a grand, workable plan, but I sure can’t see it from here. 

At the same time, the Hamas leadership is just as reckless. How can a “government” see what is happening to the infrastructure of its territory, what is happening to its population, and what is happening to its armaments, and say “we will fight on”? It shows a complete lack of concern for its population and its territory.

Unfortunately, the governments of both Hamas and Israel think they are engaged in an existential conflict (perhaps they are), and it is their people who suffer in the short run and, I am certain, in the long run.

Enough of that for this morning. I know that, under traditional Jewish law, you don’t mix meat and dairy, and you don’t mix linen and wool, but can you mix war editorializing with a film review? A thorough search through all the Talmudic sources does not reveal a prohibition.

We saw “American Fiction” the other evening and (as opposed to “Maestro”), it’s a first class film. ”American Fiction” is the story of an African American intellectual writer who books are lauded, but don’t sell. So, as a joke, he writes a “Black book”, filled with crime and jargon. At his agent’s suggestion, he published the book not only under a nom de plume, but under a made up identity and personality – a man from a ghetto, serving time in prison for a violent but unnamed crime (“Was it murder?” ”You said it, not me.”). It becomes the novel of the year and primed to be a hit film.

In the meantime, a family drama develops. His mother’s Alzheimers bis worsening, his physician sister suddenly died, his stereotypically gay physician brother proves worthless, and he can’t tell his newly found girl friend that he wrote “the book”.

No spoiler alert here. I have only scratched the surface. See it.

You would think that, after conscientiously writing this blog for over a year, I would know how to “search” within it, but I don’t. I think that maybe I have to make it searchable, which I haven’t done. I am going to try to figure that out.

I am thinking about this now only because it is Christmas and I am sure I wrote something about Christmas when I was growing up a year ago. I am not going to try to repeat all of that now, except to say that, yes, Reform Jews in St. Louis in the 1940s seemed to celebrate Christmas. We knew it was not “our” holiday, and we knew the Christians had a religious reason to celebrate it and we did not, but it was a holiday, none-the-less, a different type of holiday than our Jewish holidays to be sure, but we visited people, as I recall, and we kids got a lot of presents. The presents weren’t under a tree, but they were piled up in a corner of the living room, all gift wrapped, and there were Christmas stockings filled with little things we weren’t interested in. And, yes, they were brought to us by Santa (who didn’t want to leave the Jewish kids out), who came while we were sleeping. There were no Christmas decorations and when we went to sleep, the living room looked normal. And I don’t remember the adults getting any presents, just the children. And my cousin Donna was born on Christmas day, so – after she was born (she’s a few years younger than me) – she got extra presents (I am sure – I actually don’t remember).

Yes, we also celebrated Hanukkah of course, but it was Christmas when we got the big presents (Hanukkah was generally small amounts of cash). And our schools were filled with Christmas celebrations. We used to sing Christmas songs (I never did – I would mouth the words, and always felt a little self conscious, but I would always mouth the words in Chorus, because I couldn’t carry a tune in the 1940s any better than I can in the 2020s and always felt I was doing everyone a favor) at school, but no Hanukkah songs.

At some point, I stopped believing that Santa Claus was real (I was pretty gullible) and I actually remember a conversation with a friend (don’t remember who the friend was) centered on “do you believe that Santa Claus is real?”, where we concluded that we didn’t (but that there was a chance that he was).

Anything else I remember? I remember going downtown with my parents to look at the department store Christmas windows (there were a number of large department stores in downtown St. Louis then – now of course there are none). I remember going to see Santa at Famous Barr and thinking he was the real Santa (yes, true).

At some point, Christmas stopped being a time to get presents, but I don’t really remember when that happened, which is strange, isn’t it? And, although I generally came back to St Louis over Christmas when I was in college and law school, I don’t know what we did on Christmas. Or maybe I do. We must have celebrated my cousin’s birthday, and maybe she remembers exactly what we did when she was in high school or college. Donna……please let me know.

As adults, our family did not give or get Christmas presents, did not go out for Chinese food, and I don’t think ever did anything special. We didn’t want to confuse our children. But was that the right thing to do? Perhaps it was – I don’t know many Jews who celebrate Christmas today like most Reform Jews, at least in St. Louis, seemed to 75 years ago. But guess what? I didn’t get confused. It didn’t hurt my Jewish identity or corrupt my thinking. And maybe it helped my identity as an American, as part of a larger community.

Of course, today, while Jews may refrain more from Christmas, there are so many more mixed families, including mixed families where kids are being brought up Jewish, but at least one parent wants – in some fashion – to celebrate Christmas. I hope people don’t agonize over this – does it send a mixed message? Perhaps but, based on my experience, so what?

We watched “Maestro” last night - the Leonard Bernstein biopic. It’s streaming free on Netflix (free assuming you pay the monthly Netflix fee), surprisingly early for a contender film, I would think. And it is getting a lot of attention.

Did I like the film? Not really. Why? Because it isn’t at all uplifting, and I wanted it to be. Yet, I have to temper my reaction because I thought, as we were watching it, that the film must have made Bernstein’s three children very uncomfortable. But then I have read that they really liked the film, that they think that Bradley Cooper really got the essence of their father and that he spent a lot of time with them and asked them a lot of questions, and that Jamie Bernstein, the oldest of the three, wrote a book about her parents’ marriage and that several of the film’s scenes are based on her book.

My other reaction, when watching the film, was that Bradley Cooper, who looks nothing like Leonard Bernstein, looked so much like Leonard Bernstein. I didn’t mind at all his controversial fake nose. What surprised me were his intensive light blue eyes? I’ve looked at photos of the real Leonard Bernstein, and I don’t see that color. But it is easy to tint eyes in a film, and if Bernstein’s eyes weren’t so blue, why did Cooper (Cooper the actor, Cooper the writer, Cooper the director, or Cooper the producer) keep his eyes that color?

The film primarily is a film about Bernstein’s marriage to his wife, Felicia, and how Felicia coped with Bernstein’s gay extramarital affairs. The movie portrays Felicia as the only woman in Bernstein’s life (at least there is no hint of any others), but shows Bernstein to have had same sex affairs, largely with fellow musicians it appears, both before and during his marriage. Yet, strangely, you don’t learn much about these affairs – what exactly were they? They aren’t depicted, only really hinted at, in the film. Yet the film turns on them.

There’s been a lot of criticism of the film as downplaying Bernstein’s music. I think that is valid criticism, although it is filled with excerpts of musical performances – from On the Town and Candide to Mahler to Bernstein’s own Mass. So it’s not that the film lacks music, it’s that the film doesn’t really connect Bernstein the husband/lover to Bernstein the musician. You don’t see Leonard Bernstein plying his trade; the music just appears, seemingly having little to do with his real life story. 

Yes, you learn about the volatility of his relationship with his wife – the good times, and the bad times, and – at the end – the sad times (Felicia died of cancer only at age 56). But everything else is just in the background. What you want to do is sit down with Leonard and say: So how did you spend your day? And by the way, the same can be said about Felicia – Felicia clearly had more to life than being married to her husband. She was a actress, and you see that, but she was a very active political activist. That you wouldn’t know from “Maestro”.

Leonard Bernstein was a musical genius. But how did his genius develop? (He had a troubling relationship with his father, who was very much against his son following a musical career. His famous quote: How was I to know that Leonard Bernstein would become Leonard Bernstein?) In the film, we meet a 25 year old musically fully developed Leonard Bernstein, who remains fully developed throughout the movie. We see no growth, no changes in emphasis. His musicianship is taken for granted and in effect all background.

Bernstein’s musical career was so unique – as a conductor, a classical composer, a composer of musical theater, a teacher and a personality, that you wish (at least I wish) that more of this was in the film. And having followed Bernstein somewhat over the years, I wish there was more of a lot of things in the film. But maybe that’s the problem. Bernstein was too special – you just can’t cover him in one film.

As an aside, I saw Leonard Bernstein in person only one time. I graduated Harvard in 1964. Bernstein had graduated 25 years earlier, in 1939. This meant that, when we went up to Cambridge for my 25th reunion, Bernstein was there for his 50th. Harvard (I guess it was Harvard) bought out Boston’s Symphony Hall for a special concert – the Boston Pops led by Leonard Bernstein – the audience being the Harvard reunion classes and their guests. I don’t remember what the program was, but what I remember is it was very festive and no one (i.e., me) knew anything about ruptures in what had been Bernstein’s marriage or about his same sex relationships. This was in June 1989. Another thing that none of us knew was that Bernstein would be dead within 16 months.

(Let’s end on a different note? Can you name the five largest states, by area, i the United States? You would think that would be easy – I went through the first four easily: Alaska, Texas, California, Montana. But what’s the fifth? Look it up.)

First, I am tired of watching commercials from St. Jude asking me for contributions. According to what I have read, the endowment of St. Jude is more than $7 billion (with a “b”), and that U.S. News and World Report says that it is the 9th best pediatric cancer hospital in the country, but its endowment is larger than the endowments of the 8 which rank better combined. I am not begrudging St. Jude its endowment, nor am I being critical of its USN&WR rating. All I am asking is that it stop bombarding me with its commercials.

Second, speaking of irritation, I don’t know much about McAfee Corp., the anti-virus company, except again that it bombards my computer with requests to subscribe, or renew, or extend, or whatever. I don’t think I have s McAfee subscription, unless it comes automatically. (Same with Norton) And I have no problem with what McAfee does – I assume it does what it does reasonably well. I am mentioning McAfee because this week I watched a documentary film called “Gringo: the Dangerous Life of John McAfee” on SHO. Have you seen it?

The film is 7 or 8 years old, I think. It talks about John McAfee, the founder of the company, and clearly a wizard who was one of the first to even come up with the concept of a computer virus, and who designed some of the first, or may the very first, program to clear viruses from computers. He was a brilliant, but eccentric and demanding head of the company, until he had a falling out with his partners as to the future of the company and was bought out. 

He was now an wealthy, young, brilliant, eccentric, who bought hundreds of acres in Colorado and created a chic and free for invitees yoga retreat, attracting a cult of followers, until he tired of that (he said people were taking advantage of him) and he decided to move to Belize and live a simple life, while improving society and conditions in the impoverished country. While there, he decided to go into the natural medicine business, to bring in a young female partner, and to hid their lab behind an extraordinary amount of security.

Of course, they had a falling out as well, she accused him of drugging and raping her ala Bill Cosby, and she ran away back to the US. He was picked up by the local police and accused of running a drug lab, but it apparently couldn’t be proved, and charges were dropped. 

Down the beach from him, an American who made it big in construction retired young and built a beautiful house. McAfee and his neighbor, Gary Faull didn’t get along and Faull was killed. All suspicion when Faull fell fell on McAfee and his rough security team. McAfee, who was with one of his many indigenous native girl friends the night of the murder (with all of whom he apparently had a disgustingly bizarre sexual relationship for much needed money), denied everything, and fled the country, going illegally to Guatamala by boat where he was arrested, set for extradition back to Belize. But he somehow (I already forgot this detail) escaped to the U.S.

Back in the U.S., he was able to reinvent himself both as a sought after computer guru and a Libertarian. You may remember he ran for president on the Libertarian ticket – I think twice.

That’s where the film left him. But subsequently, I have read that he was arrested for income tax evasion, fled the country for Spain, again was approved for extradition, this time back to the United States, and rather than face extradition, hanged himself in a Spanish prison.

Did John McAfee even donate to St. Jude? I don’t know. But I do know one thing – the result of my looking up a few things to complain about the intrusion of both St. Jude and McAfee into my space? My Google and Facebook feeds are now filled with solicitations from St. Jude and ads from McAfee. You can’t win.

I read an interesting piece a few weeks ago on why Putin keeps calling the Ukrainian government a Nazi government. I don’t remember where I read it, or exactly what I read, but – as I think about it – the answer was quite simple: the Russian populace has been raised on hatred of the Nazis, so if you tell the Russians that the Ukrainians are Nazis, they will respond accordingly. Not very complicated (and not very different from Trump’s use of insults to tar subconsciously the reputation of anyone who isn’t himself).

But, of course, Israel being the favorite target of so many people, there are many who like to call the Israeli government Fascist, and there is a subset of those who like to call it Nazi. Well, I don’t think there is anything Nazi about the Israeli government – the 20+ percent of the country’s citizens who are not Jewish are not subject to a final solution or random government supported violence, the economy of Israel is certainly different from the economy of Hitler’s Germany, Israel is a multiparty parliamentary democracy and not a one party authoritarian state, free speech is not foreclosed, etc. 

But there is one similarity between the German people in the 1930s, and the Arabs living in Gaza, and many of those living in the West Bank, today. They want lebensraum – more land to live in than the land they have today. But there is a difference – in Germany, they really didn’t need any additional land. But for those living in already overcrowded Gaza, more land is definitely needed. They would like Israel to be part of that additional land, but that won’t give them any lebensraum; it is already the home of over 8 million people. So, eventually, the Gazan Palestinians will have to be able to freely leave their homeland for greener pastures (and almost every place is greener than Gaza).

Yes, the people of Gaza have something in common with the Nazi Germans. They also have something in common with the Jews who found themselves living under the Nazis. No other country, including their Egyptian neighbors, will let them in.

Now back to Ukraine. I need to stop listening to John Mearsheimer, but he seems to be staring at me whenever I go on YouTube with a new lecture or podcast almost every day. Sometimes more than once a day. And he depresses me, because he says things that are opposite of what I think or want, but he says it so well. Today, I heard a 20 minute interview where he again said that it is impossible for Ukraine to defeat Russia, that it was just a matter of time.

But then I discovered Michael Clarke, a British academic who has been a professor of defence studies at Kings College London, and the director of a number of related think tanks. What a breath of fresh air. He is now on my list of favorites. His position is much more open on the Russia-Ukraine War, and quite balanced on what is happening in Gaza.

The difference is, I think, that Mearsheimer thinks with a broad brush (if that makes sense) – he decides who will come out ahead, and then he will tell you every reason he can think of that supports his conclusion; he will not give you any opposing views at all. And he is short on details. Clarke, however, is filled with details – he can tell you precisely what weaponry Russia has, what defense armaments Ukraine possesses, how Russia directs and treats his troops, what those who oppose Zelenskyy politically are saying and so forth. He does not think with a broad brush, he analyzes the little details and, going from the bottom up, reaches his conclusions. And, yes, he speaks as well as Mearsheimer, and has the advantage of speaking with a British accent, which makes him sound that much more authoritative.

His forecast for 2024. Not really a forecast, but a warning. If, he says, the United States, Britain and Europe does not keep the commitments it made time and time again to Ukraine, Putin will win the war, promises to other nations who may find themselves under Russian threats will be ignored, and the balance of power world-wide will change. His analogy again was to the 1930s, when he said the world’s dictators all said that the problems with the democracies is that they could talk and talk and talk, but that they never did anything and therefore were held in contempt.

Mearscheimer says it differently. He is convinced (he is never equivocal) that the western democracies, obviously including the US, will keep losing interest in Ukraine and simply let it go. But he also says that this was obviously what would happen from the beginning, and that the Ukrainians were simply naive and fooled when they believed that the West would save them. He claims that Putin didn’t want war, that all of the Russian claims could have been negotiated at the beginning, and that – if the West hadn’t been intent on adding Ukraine to NATO, Putin would have done nothing, and Ukraine would still be whole, all of the destruction and casualties avoided.

A friend last night told me that he felt that the PBS News Hour, which he religiously watched and which he normally felt did a good job determining what to cover and an unbiased job when the covered the selected stories, had shown bias towards Hamas in its coverage of the Gaza war, because it was continually showing pictures of the conditions in Gaza, over and over again, and was putting all the blame on Israel and none on Hamas. I don’t normally watch the PBS News Hour, so I don’t know whether I would agree with him or not.

But this does bring up a serious question: what does it mean for media to be unbiased, how should a media organization achieve neutrality, and – equally important – should it always strain for neutrality? In case you don’t know, this is a very, very, very difficult question.

There is a myth that American news used to be unbiased. I don’t think this is true. Certainly, during the Vietnam War, the networks were not neutral, although we may think that they were. Every night, the national news would show footage from Vietnam and give us statistics (body counts) that we later learned were totally inaccurate. The media was simply reporting to us what the government was reporting to them without questioning their accuracy. Thus, the Vietnam era media reports were both inaccurate and misleading, leading us to think that victory was inevitable, even if it was taking a little longer than expected.

We know that the Arab media portrays Israel as satanic, and the Gazans and their leaders as victims. I was surprised to learn from Ben-Gurion University professor Amit Schejter, in a presentation to the Haberman Institute two days ago (available on YouTube), that Israel TV was doing the opposite – i.e, it does not show clips of Gazan suffering to the extent that viewers in other countries see them. Media neutrality does not, and cannot, exist.

But, let’s look at what is going on right now. There have been reports that there have been conversations going on, with Qatar and Egypt participating, for the possibility of the release of up to 40 hostages in return for another week or two week long ceasefire. But this morning, I see on the Times of Israel website that “Hamas said to reject Israeli offer for a 7 day truce in Gaza, in return for release of 40 hostages…Egyptian officials tell Wall Street Journal that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are demanding that Israel end military operations in Strip before they’ll discuss a potential deal.” Aljazeera reports are similar, so I think we can assume that this is accurate reporting.

What does it show? To me, it shows that Hamas and its Jihad ally are either unable to lose face, or are convinced that they will eventually come out on top. Or perhaps that they don’t have living hostages to release any more.I can’t tell which, but I would bet it’s one or another. It also shows that Hamas prioritizes its position over protection of the citizens of Gaza, thus guaranteeing more casualties from military attacks or food and aid shortages. Hamas figures, it appears, that the more Israel attacks Gaza, the more public opinion will turn in Hamas’ favor and the more likely an Arab victory (whatever that will mean) will occur.

The media has a choice as to where to put the blame – on Israel’s attacking, or Hamas’ refusal to release hostages.

I am not sure I am making as much sense as I want to this morning (hard to write a blog while babysitting a 3 year old), but my point is (I think) that there is a relationship between the war and the media reporting of the war. And the leaders on both sides are fighting two different wars at the same time – the one on the ground (or in the air) and the one on media. And they influence each other. If the media decides to concentrate on the hardships in Gaza, public opinion will be swayed in one way. If they concentrate on the hostages, or the destruction in Israel, public opinion might be swayed in another direction.

Now, this relationship may not itself affect those directly involved in the conflict – they know what side they are on. But it will certainly affect how the rest of the world looks at the situation.

The participants in a war must decide what to publicize and what to hold close to their chests. The media must decide what to concentrate on. Each could make different choices. And those different choices could change the duration of, or even the result of, the war itself.

First, an aside. I think this is my 400th post on this blog. Whew!

I had a client (no longer living, but will remain anonymous), who I represented for a number of years. His business was affordable housing, he lived in the Washington area, and he wasn’t a big presence in the affordable housing world, but he operated, I think it was, 7 apartment properties, all in Virginia and all extremely successful and well managed and well maintained. The perfect landlord, in effect.

Except for one thing. Most people he knew seemed to hate him.

He was a bright guy, could be sort of charming at times, was very self-directed and, in his way, a perfectionist. Those were his good qualities. He was also a bit paranoid, perhaps, and for good reason. On the negative side, he couldn’t stand it when anyone told him to do anything (I can imagine what his parents must have gone through), and he snapped back viciously at anyone who dared contradict him. He couldn’t stand stupidity (his version of stupidity), he couldn’t put up with fools (his definition of fools) and boy, could he hold onto a grudge

For some reason he and I always got along.

All of his properties were regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and HUD (both in their Richmond field office and in their DC home office) hated him. And they were sure he was a crook. And they were out to get him.

Each of his properties was owned by a limited partnership. He was the general partner with full control. The limited partners were investors, who provided funds for the development of the properties and, in return, received certain federal and state tax deductions, and the possibility of limited cash distributions. But my client didn’t believe in giving his partners any distributions of cash, and he hoarded all of this money in what he called “rainy day accounts”. He was waiting for the day when his properties needed something as they aged, and HUD would not be able or willing to provide necessary support. He had the right to do this under his partnership agreements, although it was very unusual, and HUD, looking at the annual financial statements of the property, decided that something was wrong – why should they keep subsidizing properties when the properties themselves seemed to flush. There were continual accusations and arguments.

After years of this back and forth, HUD instituted debarment proceedings against my client. Each of their arguments was bogus, but if successful, they would have eliminated his ability to participate in any additional HUD properties, and probably made it close to impossible for him to hold onto his general partnership and management positions for his 7 properties.

We fought the debarment. I think it took well over a year . We had a full blown trial before HUD’s chief administrative law judge, preceded by months and months of document discovery and depositions. (What went on during this period would fill a book that I am not going to write.)

We won the case. The written opinion of the ALJ was about 100 pages long. It exonerated my client on all counts. It even said that some of the HUD officials involved could have been guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.

OK. All was well. Big victory. Everyone on our side very happy. The legal fees were over $1 million dollars.

Where did my client get the money to pay this level of legal fees? You guessed it: his “rainy day funds”. His investor partners were outraged – “that’s our money”, they said. But, no, his partnership agreements said that partnership funds could be used to pay any expenses the general partner had incurred as a result of his operation of the partnerships’ businesses, and he didn’t hide his use of the funds, even though debarment defense was not on his mind when he set the funds up. So the investors’ claims, as well, were not successful.

My point is not whether my client should or should not have acted the way he did, even knowing that he had the right to do so. My point is that, had he not been able to pay exorbitant legal fees, his would have been debarred. We would not have been able to mount the defense required to defeat the government’s claims. We were correct in our position. He should not have been debarred. But unless you have that kind of money at your disposal, you would likely lose. (By the way, today this case would have been handled in a more summary fashion; the debarment rules have changed.) And, as we know, most people do not have this kind of “free money” available to them.

Of course, the other result of this representation is that my children were able to attend college. I like to think that we paid for their college education…..but in fact, maybe it was my client. Or maybe his investor partners.

Reminds me of something from Poor Richard’s Almanack – and I am really paraphrasing this one: there were two men walking along the shore when they spotted an oyster, picked it up, and discovered a large pearl. But whose was it? They went to a lawyer, who solved the dispute with words something like this — a shell for thou, a shell for thee; the pearl becomes the lawyer’s fee.

Today, I am thinking about the ripple effect of the war in Gaza. Some potential effects have been obvious from the beginning – the most obvious being the possibility that Iran will enter the war through the various organizations it supports in countries that border Israel, like Hezbollah. We see increased activity, but nothing yet that looks like a second front. Another possible effect would be seeing the UAE and other countries who have relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords backing away. We have not seen this yet, either. A third would be an uprising on the West Bank, where Hamas is quite strong – this has not occurred (just the opposite, we see radical Israeli settlers taking advantage of the attention on Gaza to frighten Palestinians from their villages). A fourth would be a revolt by Israeli Arabs within the Green Line; this has not happened and there seems to be no sign of it as a likely possibility. And there are others.

But in fact, ripple repercussions do exist – perhaps not those which we expected, but ones which are very important, none the less. Let’s look at two of them.

There has been a civil war going on in Yemen for some time now, as you know. The opposing sides are the Houtis, backed by Iran, and the Yemenite government, backed by Saudi Arabia. I guess there is some sort of a stalemate now, but it has been going on for almost a decade now. And, according to the United Nations, 150,000 have been killed through the end of 2022 in the war, and another 200,000+ have died from war related disease or famine.

We could talk about why the media gets so excited, as they should, about 20,000 in Gaza, but not about 350,000 in Yemen, but that’s for another day. For today, the problem is that the Houtis (i.e., Iran in disguise) have decided to send rockets and drones towards Israel from Yemen. Most have either been shot down or have landed somewhere in the Red Sea. The problem with this, of course, is that the Red Sea is a major oil route to the Suez Canal, and is filled with carriers flagged by a variety of countries and carrying oil from and to an even larger number of countries. Carriers are now refusing to traverse the Red Sea because of the dangers. The result of this (duh!) is to make oil more difficult for Europe especially to get, and the result of this (duh!) with oil prices being internationally influenced, is a higher price to pay at the pump (and everywhere else). So, just when – in this country – the Fed claims to have pretty much got inflation under control, a new worry arises – rising oil prices, rising energy prices, rising inflation all over again. And this, among other things, spells more trouble for the Democrats and Joe Biden. Trouble he doesn’t need.

The second problem also concerns Mr. Biden, and is the subject of a front page article today in the NY Times. The headline is (in all caps): MOST DISAPPROVE OF BIDEN ON GAZA, SURVEY INDICATES.

Biden has come out full square on the side of Israel in this war. He, like most others who have not been captured by the “social justice” movement of treating the world as a perpetual battleground between the “oppressed” and the “oppressors”, condemned the Hamas attack of October 7, and understood and approved of Israel’s need to retaliate and cripple (or, if possible, completely destroy) Hamas. But the Israeli response, now over two months old and unrelenting, has destroyed much of Gaza’s infrastructure and its economy, killed 20,000 or so Gazans (many or most of whom have been civilians and women or children), and displaced 90% of the populace. None of this has really been disputed.

The United States has been one of the few countries not voting in the UN for a ceasefire, and not trying to put any limits on Israel, or on funding Israel, other than some general moral suasion that may, or may not, be genuine.

The chart on the front page of the Times says it all: Only 33% of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of Gaza, and only 38% think Biden is doing a better job than Trump would do handling Gaza, while 46% believe Trump would do a better job.

It is true that Biden cannot catch a break. And, in this post, I am not suggesting whether or not Biden’s policies are right or wrong as far as Israel and war go. But for domestic political consumption, it is clearly one more problem for the Biden reelection campaign.

And, a Trump win would be a disaster, as I think we all know.

Just sayin’.