Art is 80

I am watching MSNBC this morning, and am a bit surprised at the reporting. Hamas had executed this extraordinary attack on Israel, with over 40 people killed and almost 1000 injured in Israel, and the concentration on MSNBC is more focused on Israeli treatment of Palestinians recently and historically than on this attack itself, and more focused on the assumed Israeli response than on the chaotic scene in Israel today. The primary voices on MSNBC are two journalists who normally seem quite unbiased, Ali Velshi and Ayman Mohyeldin. Interesting, both are Moslem, Mohyeldin born in Egypt and Velshi, born in Kenya to Indian Ismaili Moslem parents. I am not sure what to make of this, so as of now I am just noting it. My guess is, though, that there will be repercussions of some sort. Keep tuned.

The big picture:

What I think is important to remember is that there has been a state of war in this area since the destruction of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the creation of the British Mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations. Sometimes that war becomes very hot (1948, 1967, 1973, 2006 and now 2023), sometimes it is cold, and sometimes there are flares. Israel has been a country for the past 75 years (that’s all), and there still has not been any fully recognized borders. Although the United Nations had created a plan to partition the country between Moslem Arabs and Jews, the partition was only accepted by the Jews in 1948. The attack by Arab armies in 1948 was ended by an armistice, not by a treaty, and the armistice put Israel in control over somewhat more land than Israel would have received under the United Nations partition. The six day 1967 war ended with Israel occupying the West Bank of the Jordan River, which had been under Jordanian protection, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai, which had been governed by Egypt, the Golan Heights which had been part of Syria, and East Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Temple Mount. Clearly, as we now know, both Jordan and Egypt were happy to relinquish their responsibilities for the West Bank and Gaza.

In Israel, following 1967, there were differing opinions as to how Israel should deal with the territories it was occupying. At first, the issues dealt with security, how to protect Israel itself, but eventually other forces took control. These forces included those who felt that Jerusalem should be united under Israeli control, allowing non-Jews religious freedom (under Jordanian control, Jews were excluded from East Jerusalem and many Jewish historic sites were destroyed). They also included those who thought the best way to secure Israel proper was to bring Jewish settlers into portions of the West Bank surrounding Jerusalem and elsewhere, and the number of settlers in 2023 is now approximately 600,000 Jews. And they included those Israelis known as Religious Zionists, who look to the Bible to determine what should be the considered the Jewish homeland, as the greatest part of biblical history deal with the history of the Jews in what is now the West Bank. They believe Israeli control of this area should be permanent.

Because Gaza does not have those biblical connotations, and in the hope of ending the conflict between Gaza and Israel, Israel, during the time that Ariel Sharon was Prime Minister, dropped its military occupation of Gaza and moved all Jewish settlers in Gaza out of Gaza. But it kept up its non-occupational control of Gaza, a territory which is unable to provide for itself on its own, and which could always become a danger to Israel.

The result of the departure of Israel’s military forces from Gaza changed some things, but not others. It certainly didn’t tamp down Gaza’s opposition to Israel and to Israel’s control of Gaza’s largest borders. And it eventually led to the failure of the Palestinian Authority to retain control over the government of Gaza and to its replacement by Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government has defined a terrorist organization. Hamas has a charter which denies the existence or legitimacy of the State of Israel, and claims Arab control over all of greater Palestine, including the territory known as Israel.

For this reason, there cannot be negotiations between Gaza and Israel – as Israel says “you can’t have a negotiation if there is no one with whom to negotiate”.

So, perhaps today was inevitable. And the time itself should not be a surprise. Look what is going on: (1) Israel now has its most right wing government in history, (2) the current Israeli government has been harder on Palestinian Arabs generally, and has made it clear that its goal is to annex most or all of the West Bank as a Jewish controlled area, (3) the Israeli population is hopelessly divided and diverted to other issues, as shown by the daily protests in the streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and elsewhere, (4) the protests have clearly affected the Israeli military – reserves who say they won’t fight, governmental statements about members of the military who do not support the current coalition, etc., and (5) the Abraham Accords have not benefited the Palestinians and the Palestinians have been worried that Arab governments who have now recognized Israel and negotiated with it without requiring any changes in Israeli-Palestinian relations. It looks like this will continue as negotiations between Israel and Saudi Arabia continue and look fruitful.

And this doesn’t even go the question of how Israeli military intelligence didn’t know that this operation was in preparation? How is that possible? This was not planned two nights ago over coffee and baklava. Was the intelligence failure also a result of internal Israeli dissension?

So what will happen now? More war and casualties mostly on the Arab side (to me, the Gazans who entered Israel proper are a new kind of suicide bomber), with great destruction in Gaza? What will happen to Israel’s other Arab neighbors – will they hold back, will they feel the need to support Gaza, will they (especially the Iranian backed forces in Lebanon and Syria) use this as a time for their own incursions? Will it change the negotiations with Saudi Arabia, etc? Will it threaten the governing Israeli coalition and lead to the end of Netanyahu’s leadership?

So much to figure out. Beyond me.

There are a number of things on my mind this morning.

Thing no. 1: I recently received the invitation to my 60th college reunion in May of next year. I remember when I graduated, in 1964, and how old the 50th reunion class attendees looked that year, and how we are ten years older than they were. I also recently stumbled upon the class photo taken at our 40th reunion. I looked at the hundreds of folks in that photo and thought that they looked pretty old. We are now 20 years beyond the time that picture was taken. Do we look 20 years older? (Rhetorical question)

Thing no. 2: I had my annual physical exam last week, and everything looks pretty much OK. That’s good – at least nothing from my recent COVID experience showed up anywhere in all of the many, many statistics that I now get from the Johns Hopkins network. And there is something that really fascinates me. I have a “health” folder where I keep info I receive, and I saw that for the last four years, my weight has only varied by one pound. I don’t understand how that is even possible – it’s not that I try one way or the other, and I never step on a scale. I think the highest I have ever weighed is less than ten pounds higher than now – it happened two times. First, when I graduated from high school 63 years ago. Second, when I went on a strictly vegetarian diet for ten years, ending about 15 years ago, and my weight when up and all my indices went the wrong way. I also remember about 45 years ago, when I weighed almost 15 pounds less than I do today. I could eat as much as I wanted, and I stayed very very thin. I didn’t know why, until my then doctor figured out that I had picked up some sort of parasitic infection on a trip to the Amazon. Those were the days.

All right – neither of things are very important to you, or probably even of interest. So, let’s move on.

Thing no 3: We had a house guest this week. The son of friends, born in Israel, now 40 years old and living in Dallas. We had only met him twice before (we think). He and his family stayed with us when he was 7 years old (the last time he was in Washington), and we saw him on an Israel trip in 1999 when he was 16. He has changed a lot since 1999.

He now has his own cybersecurity firm, working with clients around the country and, I guess, to some extent internationally. He and I had an interesting talk last night (over 3 hours) about a bunch of things, including what a cybersecurity company does and how it does it. Not that I understood a lot of what he told me, although I tried to make it look like I understood everything, and think I succeeded.

But that’s not what I want to focus on right now. Nor do I want to talk about all the solutions to the problems in the Middle East that we came up with – I’ll save that for another day.

Arthur, quit wandering all over the place. Focus!

Our guest (I wish I could use his name, but it’s against my policy; should I make up a name? Nah.) told me that he has hired a number of “interns” (I am not sure how to define that – didn’t ask him), young folks in their early 20s, to help him investigate problems clients are having after being hacked or how their systems need to be modified so that they won’t be hacked. He said that, to a person, these young interns are very bright, and very able to gather data that is necessary to figure out the next steps. But, he says, once they gather the data, they don’t know what to do with it. They can’t figure out what the next steps are. That, he says, is because to process this data and make it useful, you need to know things about the client company, and that means they need to learn more about the company, where it has been and where it wants to go , and means communicating with company officials, asking them questions and listening to their answers. The interns, he said, have no idea how to do this. They do not know how to communicate – they don’t know how to develop or ask the questions, who to contact or talk to, and so forth. They obtain the basic data, and then they are paralyzed.

The day after he told me that, I went to a session of my Thursday morning breakfast group, where the presenter (a friend of mine) talked about his work running the “year in Washington” program of a major university. Bright kids (mainly undergraduates), he said, and interested in making the most of their year in Washington, which was a combination of class work and interning in government or non-profit offices. They needed to be taught, he said, how to communicate. How to talk to and relate to others in an office situation, how to write simple letters and memos, etc. The very same things.

Then, after that session, I drove home with another friend, who is active in an “increase the vote” type effort, and who is working with various young volunteers, whom he knows only through Zoom. He, too, said these were bright and interesting young people, but he said that they too don’t seem to know what to do, how to take initiative, and that he finds that he needs to continue to give them precise instructions. He didn’t think this would be as true in past years.

So, three consistent voices. And to what do they attribute this? Over reliance and dependence on technology exacerbated by the isolation of the pandemic years, so that the current younger generation (this is Gen-Z, right?) have not had the type of in person, oral or even one on one written communication skills that past generations take for granted.

Whew! I finally got out what I wanted to say. Good for me.

I have started to read a brand new book (very rare for me, I know), titled: “Two Roads Home: Hitler, Stalin and the Miraculous Survival of My Family” by Daniel Finkelstein. Finkelstein, the back of the book says, has been a member of the House of Lords since 2013, was an advisor to Prime Minister John Major, and writes a weekly political column in the Times of London. He is 61 years old.

The book is about 300 pages long, and I am only on page 43, so there is a lot I haven’t read yet. But what I have read is very interesting. Finkelstein’s mother’s family came from Berlin; his father’s family from Lviv. Both families were wealthy and prominent. Although I only know this from the title of the book, his grandparents survived Nazism and Communism and found a much better life in the UK.

The Lviv Finkelsteins made a tremendous amount of money in the iron and steel business. Finkelstein’s Berlin grandfather, Alfred Wiener, was a well educated Arab speaking Berlin Jew, who fought in the German Army in World War I, who became highly concerned about the incipient Nazi movement in Germany in the early 1920s, and who was an active leader in the CV, the Centralverein, an organization that represented the 600,000 German Jews until it was disbanded under Hitler. I admit to never remembering hearing about the CV, or about Alfred Wiener, and I was surprised to read about its activities in the early chapters of this book.

I raise this because it cast a new light on German Jewry through the Weimar years and the first part of Hitler’s 12 Year (not 1000 Year) Reich. What I didn’t know is that there were large Jewish organizations, during all this time, that invested time, energy and money in countering the Nazi antisemitic publicity and activities. Wiener and others gave speeches, wrote articles and pamphlets, organized meetings and did everything else you might imagine a Jewish group doing today in the United States to counter antisemitism. What they didn’t know during this time was that none of these activities would do any good.

Today in the United States, where there has been an increase in antisemitism, the ADL (and, I am sure, other less well known organizations) are doing the same thing that the CV did in Germany. Of course, here conditions are different. While there has been a marked increase in antisemitic activity in the U.S., we are not faced with a political party spewing an antisemitic program. But the responses of the various organizations are parallel.

In addition, as you might expect, one of the goals of the CV was to counter false information and disinformation. Today this is true of those who are responding to antisemitic literature, but it is also true to those who are responding to disinformation spread by the MAGA world, by Russian specialists and by so many others. Compared to what the CV was facing (and which it was so unsuccessfully trying to combat), the amount of fake news and disinformation circulating today, as well as the means of circulation, are so much more extensive. If the CV, led by individuals I am sure of the highest competence, could not combat disinformation in Germany during the 1920s, can we expect today that efforts to combat disinformation will be any more successful?

I am looking forward to the remainder of Finkelstein’s book. I think I will keep today’s post a little shorter than usual, so I can get back to it.

I am confused. If you aren’t, you haven’t been paying attention.

Going back to my remarks yesterday about Bill Ayers, I recall that he first felt success when the home made bomb went off in a bathroom at the Pentagon. But then he realized that it made little difference. A pipe bomb in a Pentagon bathroom was not going to end the war in Vietnam. So, there must be a better – and a very different – way.

Maybe Matt Gaetz will find out something similar to what Bill Ayers discovered. Yes, you can plant a pipe bomb in the House of Representatives and destroy the Speaker of the House, but soon you will realize that it makes little difference. Eight of two hundred twenty one Republicans can make a lot of noise, but they can’t change the course of this 118th Congress of the United States.

But you live by the rules, and you die by the rules. The current rule gives one person the authority to make a motion to vacate the Speakership, and the authority to force an immediate vote. My guess is now that the rule might be changed – but until then, it is what it is.

Similarly, the rule allowing the vacation of the Speaker’s position also says that there will be a Speaker pro tem until a new permanent Speaker is elected. I didn’t know how that provision would be implemented. And then I heard that Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina was being appointed as Speaker pro tem. I wondered how that happened. It certainly wasn’t part of the vote.

Then, I heard there was another House rule, a House rule that requires anyone elected Speaker to provide to the Clerk of the House the name of a number of persons who, in case of death, disability or removal of the Speaker, would act as Speaker pro tem until a new Speaker could be elected. And I heard that, upon his election in January, McCarthy gave the Clerk the name of Patrick McHenry, and others, and – to my real surprise – the names given were kept secret, released only yesterday. I wonder what the purpose of that secrecy is. And I wonder why there should be a rule that gives a Speaker the right to choose his successor, if his successor becomes third in line for the presidency.

That brings up a few things that I still don’t understand. If there is a Speaker pro tem, are there any limits on his authority? I don’t know if anyone knows this for sure. Yesterday, I heard (a) that the Speaker pro tem can do anything that the Speaker can do, and (b) that until there is a permanent Speaker, the House basically can do nothing. Which is correct? And – speaking of presidential succession – does a Speaker pro tem become third in line for the presidency, or does he not? Many people have opinions – but does anyone know?

Again, from what I heard last night, it seems that the House may not be in session for the next week. It may be that committee work and the like will continue (or not), but apparently the House itself will be in recess. Is this necessary? Is this the choice of the Republican caucus? Or is this the choice of Patrick McHenry?

Normally, who cares of the House is meeting or not for a week. But now, we are in the midst of a 45 day period during which the appropriations bill must be signed or another CR must be passed or the government will (you know what comes next) shut down.

You and I are not members of Congress, so I can’t quote Walt Kelly. But I can paraphrase him. “We have met the enemy, and they are them”.

Let’s leave Trump and McCarthy and Gaetz aside for the day. I have a few thoughts to share about the last three books I have read.

First, “Fugitive Days” by Bill Ayers. You know Bill Ayers? You might know him as a long time Professor of Education and the University of Illinois, Chicago (retired since 2010), or as the author of several books on education. Or, you might remember that, earlier, he was a member of the Weathermen, involved in anti-Vietnam War activities, including bombings (luckily no one killed or injured) both at the Capitol and at the Pentagon. You may remember that, in 2008, his name was brought up as a close associate of Barack Obama, thus tarring Obama as associating with a known radical.

“Fugitive Days” is the story of his “radical” years and the story of the formation of the Weathermen and their dissolution, following (as you may also remember) the explosion in a row house in Greenwich Village which killed three members of the Weathermen, including Diane Oughton, a close friend of Ayers. The explosion was an accident that occurred as some of the Weathermen were learning to make pipe bombs. (All charges against Ayers were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct.)

But that isn’t why I mention this book today. I mention “Fugitive Days” because of Ayers’ discussion of Vietnam itself during the war years. He talks about how the United States had a half million troops in the country, how Vietnam and neighboring Cambodia were carpet bombed, and how – when it was difficult to tell the friends from the enemies – all Vietnamese, including the most innocent, became the enemy. But through all of this, the Vietnamese people were impossible to defeat and impossible to discourage, always maintaining that they would come out the winners. And so they did.

What struck me about this was the comparison that can be drawn between the Vietnamese in the 1960s and 1970s, and the Ukrainians during the 2020s. From what it appears, nothing will destroy the Ukrainians, nothing will discourage them. They will persevere. The Russians may not yet have realized this.

Next, “A Farewell to Arms” by Ernest Hemingway. Yes, I had read this years and years ago, but it was certainly worthwhile reading again (this time the Penguin edition). Although Hemingway is always in fashion, it seems that even more attention is being paid to him (books and films about him and his legacy) today. For example, we recently watched on PBS the first two hours of Ken Burns’ six hours of film about Hemingway.

In talking about Hemingway, the focus is often on his style. No wasted words. Short, stubby sentences. Nothing extraneous. I am far being a literary critic (very far), but I would like to add something more. One of the problems I find with some novels is that there are multiple plots going on – one or two main plots, and a number of subplots that are hard to keep in mind. You don’t have this problem with “A Farewell to Arms”.

You recall the story line? An American is in Italy when World War I starts and he decides to do his part, join the Italian army as a medical driver. He develops a relationship with an English nurse working in a military hospital and finds, when he gets badly hurt, that he is sent to the hospital where she is working. Their relationship develops, he recovers and is sent back into combat, and tragedy happens. It’s a very simple story, although it takes place in very complex times. There are no distractions. Sure, there are other characters in the book, but we really know little about them – we only know them in their relationship to the two main characters. It makes the book so much easier to read and follow.

The third book, another Penguin, is one that you have probably never heard of – “Invitation to the Waltz” by Rosamond Lehmann. It was published three years after “A Farewell to Arms” (1932/1929). Was Lehmann influenced at all by Hemingway? I have no idea. But I can see the similarities (and, equally as important, the differences).

The similarities are, as you might already have guessed, a very straightforward and simple writing style, and one plot, without any complicating subplots. The differences? “A Farewell to Arms” is, I think, a very masculine book – war, machismo, coarse conversations, brothels, sex, and sarcasm. “Invitation to the Waltz” is a feminine book.

Why am I talking about a feminine book? Because it is so well written, and flows right along so smoothly, that it is worth everyone reading. There is no war, there is no machismo, the conversations are purposely refined, no brothels, no sarcasm, and sex is dealt with very differently.

The plot (broadly speaking)? Two sisters, the younger one (and the focus of the book) is 17, and thinks of herself as a “plain Jane”, especially in relationship to her somewhat older sister, whom she thinks of as a natural “belle of the ball”. They live in rural England, their family is comfortable but not wealthy by any means, and their wealthy neighbors are having a party – a fancy ball. And, for the first time, 17 year old Olivia is invited.

The story line is simple. Olivia is nervous she will be a failure. She is concerned that her dress is the wrong style, the wrong color. She isn’t going to know anyone there, and so forth.

The night of the ball arrives. She walks through the door and is “introduced”. She is given a dance card for the 19 dances. Her sister’s dance card seems to fill up immediately. Hers? Not so fast. But there are those who want her to be a part of the party – so they cajole people to ask her to dance. And you meet these people – they don’t interact with each other; they only interact with her, during their dance. But each is a character; no two are the same, and some of them are as uncomfortable as she is.

The night is not a failure; it is also not a success. It’s just a night. Olivia lives through it – she likes part of it, she shudders at other parts. But when it’s over – Olivia is content, ready to go on with her life.

Yes, “Invitation to the Waltz” is very different from “A Farewell to Arms”, and it is very similar. You’d be happy reading each, or both.

Tomorrow? Back to the real world.

I must admit that I don’t understand the growing sentiment that Putin is OK, Russia is OK and Ukraine may just become collateral damage. Growing sentiment in parts of Europe; and growing sentiment here in the U.S. of A.

Here is my brief history. Once upon the time, the world knew conquest and empire and eventually, the tsarist Russian empire covered land that included today’s Ukraine. Then, the tsars were overthrown and a new “union” of separate soviet “republics” was formed. Boundaries for the various soviet republics were determined. Ukraine, like Russia, was one of those “republics”. Then the Soviet Union broke up, and each of the soviet republics became, one after another, independent. It was determined (for example, with the USSR’s United Nations seat, that Russia, the largest of the Republics would be the heir of the USSR.

(By the way, there was a wrinkle, as I recall it. At first, the Crimean peninsula, important to Russia because it was the home of the Soviet (now Russian) naval fleet, was important to Russia and remained in Russia. But, during the Khrushchev years, for reasons I assume of efficient administration, Crimea was turned over to Ukraine, and remained there after the two governments separated.)

But some things were not so easy. The Soviet Union had been a nuclear power, and a parts of its nuclear facilities, including its nuclear arsenal, were located in other republics, such as Ukraine and, I think, Belarus and Kazakhstan. A treaty was signed in 1994 (I am not sure of the details) by which Belarus and Ukraine would turn their portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal over to Russia in return for certain security assurances regarding the sanctity of their territory, including the territory of Crimea, although Russia was given long term leases so that its naval fleet could remain. The United States and Great Britain were also signatories to that agreement.

But Vladimir Putin, former Communist, former KGB official, had other ideas. He views the Soviet Union as one country, blames Gorbachev for allowing it to disintegrate, and Yeltsin for selling off its assets to the highest bidders (or to his best friends), and he seems to believe that he can put Humptiskii Dumptiskii back together again.

The place to start would be Ukraine, which has had a really interesting, but difficult history since its independence was declared. Really interesting, because its urban and educated classes have made it clear that they wanted to be part of the West, while much of its rural and poorly educated classes seemed to care less and to be more stuck in their conventional ways. In addition, the Ukraine government has been riddled with corruption and its leaders have vacillated between those favoring Russia and those favoring the West. When it became clear, with the elevation of TV actor Vlodymyr Zelensky as prime minister, that Ukraine seemed to be tending West and might be lost to greater Russia forever (and even become part of the European Union or NATO), he felt he had to act.

In 2014, Putin moved in and took the industrial and quite impoverished east of Ukraine (the Don basin) and Crimea. There was mumbling in the West, but no more throughout the Obama and Trump years, so in 2022, the time seemed ripe to move into the rest of Ukraine. He never expected the reaction he got, either from Ukraine or from the West. And the rest is history.

I believe one can rationally be on either side of the intellectual argument as to whether Ukraine and Russia are bound together by common history, or whether Ukraine, if it wants to be a part of NATO and the West, should be welcomed into that alliance. But I don’t see how you can rationally support the actions of Putin and Russia – the invasion, the bombings, the kidnappings, the violation of its previous treaty obligations, and so forth.

The unfortunate thing, of course, is Russia is a major, nuclear power, and Ukraine (although it could have been) is not. And Ukraine needs help, which it has been getting. Why has it been getting all this help? Several reasons. The principal of state territorial integrity. The danger of a Russia which is too powerful. The fear that Ukraine may be first, but Lithuania and Poland may be next and so forth.

But now there is backsliding. Some of Russia’s European neighbors are beginning to be concerned about potential Russian invasion and the way to keep that possibility at bay is to become friends with Russia. Some of Ukraine’s main supporters are wondering about the cost of continual help, including some major elements within the United States. We will see how this plays out. To date, the U.S. has done quite a job uniting most of Europe in the defense of Ukraine. I saw over the weekend the amount of money and materiel Europe is contributing. A greater percentage of their individual GDP calculations than we are in many cases. Can this continue?

To me, it’s simple. We committed to the defense of Ukraine, and we keep our commitments. A too powerful Russia would destabilize much of the world, and pose dangers to much of Europe. Appeasement (and that it what it would be) has been shown to be failing policy when dealing with a totalitarian state. Territorial integrity is crucial in a complicated world. Other powerful countries see the possibility of moving into their own Ukraines (like China moving onto Taiwan) if the world let’s Russia march right into its neighbors.

I would hope that our President keeps his strong stance on this subject, and that Congress follows suit. We are about to see what will happen as a bill to increase support of Ukraine is about to hit Congress. We know that there is now a growing sentiment among right wing Republicans that we should let Ukraine worry about Ukraine, while we worry about our border and our budget. This is not a new kind of sentiment – we had major sections of our populace very much against our involvement either in World War I or World War II. This is a repeat.

I expect, for now, we will keep our commitment to support Ukraine. But for how long can we really afford to do this? At some point, if the war does not end (and the end is not now in sight), the arguments against future involvement will grow. I hope that, within government circles, there is a Plan B, Plan C and Plan D, ready to go if necessary.

But I can’t guess the future. Nor can anyone else. There can be all sorts of twists and turns.

So what have I accomplished by this post? Not sure – there is so much more to think about – short term, mid-term, long-term. Putin won’t last forever. Zelensky won’t last forever. Biden won’t last forever. Trump won’t last forever. This war won’t last forever – but it might outlast all of today’s political leaders. The end may be way, way, way down the road.

Several days ago, I wrote the following on Facebook: “How’s this? McCarthy puts the Senate’s CR to vote in the House, they take Ukraine out but deal with it separately, and House Dems vote McCarthy for Speaker.”

People ignored my prediction, but they should pay closer attention to me, I think, because it looks like I may have forecast it correctly. The CR which McCarthy put on was basically the CR that the Senate had passed without money for Ukraine. It did include additional money for disaster relief (this provision helped by the recent flooding in New York City), but McCarthy took out money for the southern border and took out the 8% across the board cut, both of which had been in the draft CR that the right wing of his party wanted to see. “Wanted to see” actually is a little too mild – without these provisions, a number of right wing Republicans said they wouldn’t vote for an extension at all. That they’d rather see the government shut down. And of course they were cheered on by the still favored, but increasingly irrelevant, nominee for the Republican position on the presidential ballot, Donald J. Whats-his-name.

When the vote on the modified CR came up for a vote in the House yesterday, every single Democrat, but for one, voted for it, and 90 Republicans (over 40% of the Republicans in the House) voted against it. When the same modified CR was brought to the Senate, the vote was 88-9, about as bipartisan as you can get, with 9 Republicans voting against it.

The president signed the bill last night, and so, yes, the United States continues to have a government for the next 45 (oops, make that 44) days.

Those who voted against the CR yesterday will, I am sure, explain their decisions to their constituents, many or most of whom will agree with them. But one thing must be remembered: in voting against the CRs, each of the naysayers (did you know that was one word?) knew that the CR was going to pass and that their vote was not going to shut down the government. So they were each “making a point” or “standing up to principle” or something. It will be interesting to see how they talk about this, and it will be interesting to see what D.J.What’s…. has to say about the vote. And what they have to say about Kevin McCarthy.

When I woke up this morning, I decided that Matt Gaetz would not move to vacate the Speakership (did you know that this is apparently not a word?) on Monday. But I heard this morning that he has said that he will follow through. He probably can’t succeed, but I guess we are back to “standing up to principle” and a guess that this will help him politically when he runs for his next term, or when he runs for the Senate, whichever it will be.

But the Democrats will most likely eventually support McCarthy and McCarthy’s election and potential tenure will therefore be bipartisan. This could have some unanticipated benefits. I would think that the Democrats will try to negotiate a bit with Speaker McCarthy before they cast their votes for him. For example, they will probably get a commitment from him to put a Ukraine supplemental bill on the floor quickly. And he will probably be willing to agree to that……provided that they can also add something for increased southern border security. Whether those will be stand alone bills or melded into the pending appropriations bills, I don’t know. But I think they are likely.

As to the appropriations bills for the next fiscal year, the House has now acted on the majority of them (with figures that Democrats can’t support), and the Senate committees have completed work on all of them – each of which is guaranteed passage when it comes to the Senate floor. Normal procedure would then require some sort of conference committee to come up with final bills. My guess is that, in order to support McCarthy as speaker, the Democrats will at least require a procedural agreement as to how to get the bills into conference quickly, so that as much can be taken care of as possible before November 17, the cut-off date for this CR. And remember, in their conversations on this, the Democrats will fall back on the budget agreement that McCarthy has already made.

These negotiations will be interesting, although most will probably be held out of the public eye. And 44 days are not many, and if there is pressure to remove McCarthy on Monday, we won’t even have anything approaching 44 days.

But what if all of this fails, and a sufficient number of Democrats will not be willing to support McCarthy as continuing Speaker? From what I see, there is a House rule that authorizes the vacating of the speaker’s position, and the election of a speaker pro-tem. Because this has never been done, I don’t think we know how it will work or its effects. One assumption is that such a motion would be a matter of privilege, and come to a vote without the necessity of committee actions, etc. And what happens if such a motion succeeds and there is no Speaker? At the start of each new Congress, the election of a Speaker is an essential first step; that if there is no Speaker, the House cannot do any business. So, is the House paralyzed if there is no Speaker in place because the position being vacated? The Rule I cited above (without attribution, because I don’t know how to attribute it) talks about a Speaker pro-tem. Does this mean that you can only vacate the position if, at the same time, a speaker pro-tem is appointed by House vote to take the position temporarily, so that the business of the House can continue until there is a new vote on a permanent Speaker? If so (and again there is no precedent either way), it makes Matt Gaetz’ job that much harder – it is doubtful that the House, divided as it is, will be able to approve a Speaker pro tem. And if the Speaker position is vacated and there is no interim Speaker elected – does that mean that the House cannot function and that Matt Gaetz has won his initial battle and shut down the government as of, say, next Monday?

Stay tuned……

Don’t tell me that everything isn’t falling apart. It’s bad enough that the government is going to shut down at midnight. What is even worse is that there is no obvious way to see how this shutdown is going to end. And, I would guess, every bit of confidence much of the rest of the world gained in the reliability of the United States after Donald Trump left power is going to be lost over the next few weeks.

It doesn’t have to be this way. And, perhaps if we could elect a one-party, rational government, things could change. What would such a rational all-powerful party support to insure that the government of the United States could function in sickness and in health? Try these things as starters:

1. I would abolish the 60 vote rule in the Senate for approving most pieces of legislation. I understand that there might be some concern that a 51-49 vote might not give sufficient protection to a Senate minority, so I would go to a 55 vote rule, and see how that works. All votes to end debate and bring a bill to the floor would be 51-49.
2. As to Senate filibusters, I would suggest that a filibuster only last as long as live Senators are on the floor (24/7) arguing their cause.
3. I would certainly abolish the rule that one Senator (such as the man from Alabama) could keep legislation from moving forward.
4. I would establish a minimal quorum (maybe 25 members) must be present for Senate business to continue – no more Senators speaking to TV cameras in an empty room, just for their own political media campaigns. Similar restrictions would be implemented by the House.
5. I would eliminate the requirement of Senate approval for most presidential appointments – keeping them for cabinet members, appellate judges and justices, and general officers in the military.
6. I would end the requirement that spending bills have to originate in the House.
7. Legislators could no longer pose amendments to bills which are extraneous to the main bill (the parliamentarian decides) – no abortion restrictions tied to a military appropriations bill, for example.
8. The Speaker of the House would no longer be a purely political appointment. No one could become speaker without a bipartisan vote, with at least 25% of the vote having to come from minority parties.
9. I would implement both term and age limits. No one could run for either the House or the Senate who is 80 or older. Senators would be limited to four terms (24 years) and House members to ten terms (20 years).
10. I would move the country to a three year budgeting and appropriations schedule, rather than on an annual cycle (with provisions for amendments at any time, of course).
11. The government would never shut down. At the end of a budget/appropriations period, until new appropriations were passed, the previous level of spending would automatically continue – an automatic equivalent of a Continuing Resolution, with no vote necessary.
12. No debt ceiling caps.
13. I would eliminate lifetime appointment of judges and Supreme Court justices. Terms for all would be 15 years, and all would have to retire (or take a form of senior status) at 80.
14. I would drastically restrict campaign spending, the length of political campaigns, and the ability to sitting members of either body to campaign while “on the job”.
15. I would implement rules against members of the Senate or the House badmouthing other members. It is one thing to argue against someone’s position; quite another to accuse them of treason or being anti-American.

Okay, that’s enough for today. I am sure I am missing something (in fact, many somethings). And I know that, while some of this could be implemented administratively, some of the items would need legislation, or even constitutional amendment. So be it. I think it all important.

Why? Because everything actually is falling apart and keeping things going under today’s rules and practices is equally impossible. That’s why.

We saw the new film “Golda” with Helen Mirren playing the role of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. I remember leaving the synagogue here in Washington on that day, and how beautiful a day it was. When I heard that Israel had been attacked by both Egypt and Syria, the day was no longer as beautiful.

(Quick digression: it was a beautiful day on September 11, 2001 when Al-Qaeda attacked the Trade Center and Pentagon, and it was a beautiful day in September 1939 when Nazi Germany entered Poland. Why always such beautiful days?)

The 1967 attack on Israel, as we know, was only a 6 day war and the end was never in doubt. In 1973, the war lasted about three times that long, and the end was in doubt through most of that period.

The Prime Minister was Golda Meir. As the first Israeli Prime Minister without any military experience, this was the last thing she was looking for. And although she had to rely on her military and intelligence advisors, she knew she was the final decision maker. As the old saying goes, the shekel stops here.

The film? I should say that Edie really liked the film. Not me.

It took a lot of makeup to turn Helen Mirren into Golda Meir, and it almost succeeded, but I never felt I was looking at the Israeli Prime Minister. And I think they really failed when they tried to turn Liev Schreiber into Henry Kissinger, or others into Moshe Dayan or Ariel Sharon. In the film, Sharon looked like he was 6’2″. In real life, he was about 5’3″.

Then they had Golda, who was born in Ukraine but raised in Milwaukee, talking in perfect English, while her advisors all spoke in Israel-accented English. This made no sense to me, and I decided that the only way this movie could possibly have worked for me is to have been filmed in Hebrew (Golda speaking with an American accent) with English subtitles.

In addition to this, there were a few homey scenes (Golda serving Kissinger borscht and insisting he eat it, for example) that I could have done without. And many of the other scenes were either repetitive, or too ordinary. After all, how many strategy discussions around a conference table with the same folks can you sit through? And how many cigarettes can you watch Helen Mirren smoke? How many maps can you watch on a screen.

I just didn’t think the film was very good. They took an important story and made it into a B-grade docudrama.

But that doesn’t mean I didn’t learn a lot. I didn’t know (nor did many people, I don’t think) that Meir was suffering from lymphoma during this period, that she had lymphedema, causing her ankles and legs to swell and was undergoing extensive radiation therapy. I didn’t know that Moshe Dayan, hero of previous wars and Minister of Defense through this one, almost had, or did have, a nervous breakdown, rendering him useless through the early days of the conflict, when among other things, he threatened to unleash Israel’s nuclear power.

Finally, I had always thought that this attack was totally a surprise to the Israelis. I didn’t know that there had been a general feeling among the Israeli leadership that an attack was coming, and the only question was when. I did not know that Meir had promised Kissinger that Israel would not strike preemptively. I didn’t know (nor apparently did many others at the time) that Israel had bugged President Sadat’s office, but that the bugging equipment was turned off, explaining why Israel did not know about the attack in advance. Apparently, Meir too did not know that their bugging had been disconnected. I didn’t know that the chief of military intelligence (I think that was his title) had actually received advance intelligence that an attack was imminent, but didn’t pass it along; I don’t think the film gave a reason for this, if there was a reason.

All of those failures of intelligence were kept secret, even after the war, and Golda simply took responsibility for all the casualties and for not mobilizing troops sooner without deflecting the blame on her intelligence services. This helped galvanize Israeli popular sentiment against her, and she was long felt to have been a failed Prime Minister, who permitted an attack that should not have occurred, causing much death and turmoil.

The American role was filled with ambiguity. The United States hesitated in giving aid because it was afraid of encouraging Soviet involvement (so what else is new?), and because it was afraid of antagonizing Saudi Arabia who would cut off its oil from the U.S. (again, so what else is new?). Kissinger had told Meir that, if Israel attacked first, no American help would be forthcoming. But finally, Nixon and Kissinger did come through. And it was in large part, if the film can be believed, that Golda Meir was very tough in her dealings with Kissinger, and he caved.

In 1973, I was a 30 year old lawyer who had a secretary who was a young Egyptian woman who had recently relocated to the United States. She had a younger brother, who was in the army in Egypt (her family was all in Cairo), and a member of the Third Army, stationed in Sinai. Towards the end of the war, when it was clear that Israel was on top, the Third Army was trapped, surrounded by Israeli troops, in a location where there was no water. No one knew what was going to happen, except that it was clear that the entrapped Egyptian Third Army was clearly going to be used by Israel to gain leverage over the Egyptians in ceasefire negotiations and over the United States in the negotiations for more aircraft. Had these negotiations not been successful, the entire Egyptian Third Army could have starved to death. I remember how worried and upset my secretary was. She was certainly not anti-Israel or antisemitic. But she was very worried about her brother.

He came out of the war just fine, as the treaty between Israel and Egypt, which included representation of Israel by Egypt and return of Sinai to Egypt ended the precarious position of Egypt’s trapped soldiers.

Do I recommend you see the film? Why not? It is instructive. But I don’t think it is good cinema. And, by the way, it is certainly not fun.

I watched the Republican debate last night. CHAOS!!

Now I am watching the first hearing on the proposed Biden impeachment. CHAOS!!

The government is likely to shut down this weekend. CHAOS!!

What more is there to say?

There is a lot of ranting going on this morning on Morning Joe. That isn’t unusual, since Joe himself is becoming more and more prone to ranting as time goes on, but what is different is that today (1) there are so many things to rant about, and (2) everybody is doing it.

Of course, one of the main targets of the rant is Donald Trump. You can rant about him every day, and the fact that 2/3 (or whatever it is) of Republicans idolize him and that no other Republican has a chance at the 2024 presidential nomination at this point remains mind-boggling. It’s the old story – about 1/3 of Germans wanted Hitler in 1933, and 1/3 of Russians wanted Lenin in 1917, 1/3 of Ugandans wanted Idi Amin before he became dictator and it’s the same here. OK, so I made up all of the 1/3’s – I have no idea of the real number – but you get my point. There is no such thing as American exceptionalism, and if Hillary Clinton was politically or otherwise wrong in defining these people as “deplorables”, let us admit that had she referred to them as “political deplorables”, she would have been right on target.

The latest Trump outrages include these two. First, accusing General Milley of treason and asking for his execution. It’s hard to believe, but there it is. General Milley, from everything I have read, was an exemplary Joint Chief of Staff leader, an intellectual and a thinking military officer. Even if he weren’t, Trump’s accusation would be well beyond the pale. Second, he accused Joe Biden of being a pawn of Nazis and Fascists. This may be ridiculous, but of course his troops believe him. His accusation also mirrors the accusation that his buddy Putin made regarding the Ukrainian government before he invaded Ukraine last year when he said Russia invaded Ukraine to save the Ukrainians from their Nazi leaders. It worked for Putin the closed society known as Russia. Will it work for Trump here?

I am paraphrasing, but in responding to Special Counsel Smith’s request for a partial gag order on Trump in his case about his actions on and before January 6, 2021, has suggested that no witness has yet refused to testify because they have been intimidated by Trump and that no rational individual would be influenced to do something illegal by Trump. It seems to be that Trump has made Smith’s point for him. We aren’t worried about the rational individuals, but about the irrational individuals who, as far as I am concerned, make up the vast majority of Trump’s supporters.

But let me continue to rant. The Congressional Republicans have shown they can’t govern or, perhaps, they have no interest in governing. That is now clear (actually has been clear for several years), and it seems likelier and likelier that a government shutdown will go into effect this weekend. It is hard to know what that means – but it will be bad, and expensive. I could go on and on about this, and about Donald Trump’s recent statement that, unless the Republicans (by whom he means his Republicans) get whatever they want, they should shut down the government, but I will stop here. It’s obvious.

But what wasn’t obvious was the reassuring remark made by the Republicans this morning: that even if the shutdown occurs, the hearings being conducted to lead to the impeachment of President Biden will continue. Since this is not a hearing to examine any high crime or misdemeanor that the President has been accused of, but rather hearings to look for any possible charges that could possibly be brought against the President, they are outrageous in concept and that the idea that they will continue while the government ceases to be able to operate, well…….

Trump’s former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper (Trump fired him of course because he was competent) was on Morning Joe this morning. He is someone who has impressed me from the first and now even more so every time I listen to him. In addition to the obvious issues, they discussed a few others. Fewer than 25% of young Americans now meet the qualifications required to join the military. It used to be that there was a draft that took everyone, except for those with physical or mental disabilities. Now, our military pool is too low, and – beyond that – our younger generation is in real trouble. And, in fact, the problem is even beyond that – none of the branches are meeting their recruitment goals. And that is not only because of the small number of Americans meeting the qualifications, but because fewer than 10% of Americans would even consider military service.

In the meantime, stores like Target are closing locations due to a massive increase in serious shoplifting, and many categories of crime, including homicides, are rising making life much more difficult and dangerous in virtually every city in the country. How can our cities be coming so out of control? One problem is drugs, another is the failure of the education system to control truancy after the lax attendance during much of the pandemic, and still another is the inability of cities and counties to attract sufficient qualified people to join police departments and other enforcement and assistance services. This problem is, of course, related to the problem of filling our military.

Who, if anyone, is to blame? The Republicans will, of course, point to the Democratic administration and the to the Democratic led cities. The Democrats will point to the Republicans’ continual attempts to eliminate dignity and politeness from society and to denigrate all governmental institutions. But it is clear that the less responsible elements of society have fewer and fewer public role models to look up to, and that the lack of sincerity of the Trump Republicans has disrupted American society in ways we are just beginning to fathom.

If a country does not have a government that can function, it will not have a functioning society, and if does not have a functioning society, it will not be able to elect and support a functioning government. If the goal of government is to accuse your political opponents of being Nazis and Fascists, if the goal of leading politicians is to select out public servants to be targets of death threats or worse, and if governmental leaders are incapable of meeting any of our internal problems, what will become of us?

I have to temper all of this by saying that the Democrats do have policy positions (mostly good, although I am sure some could be better), while the Republicans only want to destroy, and that only the Democrats appear capable of facing the failures of society and attempting to turn things around. This can be shown in part by the Biden economic program, which has been very successful in spite of the worldwide, post-pandemic dangers of inflation. But if the Republicans refuse to govern, but still get half of the vote of Americans, I am not sure how much more can be done.

One more thing – the southern border. Here, neither party has figured it out, and you need both parties working together to come up with the best solution for an insoluble problem. For all the reasons stated above, it’s not going to happen.

Of all of this, the most serious threat to our future is Donald Trump. Almost everything I have ranted about above can be laid at his doorstep. He has been indicted on 91 counts of criminal activity, he has been found to have committed civil business fraud, and sexual predation, and libelous action. Yet he still might be re-elected President?

Remember Back to the Future, Part II, and the dystopian future portrayed there? We might be living it before you know.

Yom Kippur is over. Whew! No more Jewish holidays until ……. Friday night, the first night of Sukkot. Back in the day, this meant that it was time to put up our sukkah, but that was back in the day. We still have the raw material in our basement, but the idea of bringing it all upstairs and putting it together now. I don’t think so. After all, yesterday, I changed two light bulbs upstairs. That took me a couple of weeks.

This year, as you might already know, we did the High Holidays from the comfort of our family room, watching Adas Israel streaming on our TV. As I am still coughing, I know that no one would want to see me sitting next to them. And I still just don’t feel myself ready for prime time. Why that is, I am not sure. But it clearly is. I think I am afraid of people (a weird sensation, to be sure).

But let’s move on (the readers say and I agree).

The Yom Kippur services are long. At Adas, they start at about 9 in the morning, and go without a break until almost 3 in the afternoon. Then there is a 2 hour break, and they pick up again and last from 5 to about 7:30. During that break, there is a tradition to have a guest speaker, and the guest speaker is always someone prominent, and often a congregant.

Yesterday’s speaker was Doug Emhoff, Vice President Harris’ husband, the Second Gentleman. So today, I want to give a major shout out to Doug.

I am going to call him Doug, even though I have never met him, as a token of what appears to be his overall down-to-earthness. His wife seems to call him Dougie (that’s pronounced Duggie, I have to say, for those of you who remember Dougie Martin of the St. Louis Hawks, pronounced Doogie).

I think Doug is a charming person. But more than that, I think, as the first man married to a Vice President, and as the first Jewish man in that position, he has so far been an absolute role model, and I hope that the way he has gone about his position will change not only individuals married to Vice Presidents, but individuals married to others with high government positions, as well.

He talked about his background yesterday. Not an unusual one for a 58 year old Jewish man. Born in Brooklyn, moved at an early to Matawan NJ, about 40 miles south. His family belonged to a Reform synagogue, he had a Bar Mitzvah, he attended a Jewish summer camp in Pennsylvania, and when he was 16, his family moved to Los Angeles. He went to California State at Northridge for college, and USC for law school. He was, I am sure, a good student, and he was a good athlete. Just an ordinary Jewish American kid.

He was successful in his career as a litigator and entertainment lawyer with two national law firms, he married, had two children, divorced, and five or six years later married Kamala Harris. And one day, his wife received a call from Joe Biden, and everything changed.

Here is where things get even more interesting. He could have kept up his law practice and simply joined thee Washington office of his law firm. We have seen example upon example of politician’s spouses who maintain, and even concentrate more on, their careers, often raising ethical issues as to whether or not they are making money off the position of their spouses, or whether their business interests in fact influence how their spouses handle their public service positions. We don’t have to go so far as to look at someone like Clarence Thomas’ wife to find examples of this.

But Doug didn’t do this. Doug quit his job (sure, there was a financial cost to this, although I am sure that they are not anywhere near financial distress), and decided to devote his time to supporting his wife and her new responsibilities. He made it clear that giving up his law practice, which he loved, was difficult. And he is staying connected with “the law” with a very part time position at the Georgetown Law School as a visiting professor.

He made other things clear, as well. He is not the power behind the throne; he does not tell his wife how to do her job, and there are many things she knows that she does not tell him. He is not her chief of staff. If anything, she is his boss. He goes out of his way to do more “husband stuff” (his words) and to make sure their relationship runs smoothly, so that she can concentrate on her job, and not worry about her house.

Besides this, he has a job, and an office in the West Wing of the White House. I assume it is a volunteer, unpaid job (this did not come up yesterday) and, through it, he is able to attend various functions around the world as his wife’s representative, or the country’s representative (and I am sure he does this well). But more than that, he has become a point person and spokesman for the Biden Administration’s campaign against antisemitism, often working with Deborah Lipstadt (the official U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism) on this essential, but difficult task, which he says keeps him very, very busy.

I think this is quite something for a Vice Presidential spouse, male or female. What, for example, did Lady Pence do during her four years? She wouldn’t even go out of her house, it appears, if there was a possibility that she might wind up in a room with a man other than Mike. What even did Jill Biden do during her years as the wife of a Vice President? A few things, to be sure, but mainly she concentrated on her own academic job. Lynne Cheney wrote books (good ones). Tipper Gore talked about family values (and then got divorced). No one has done what Doug Emhoff is doing.

I am not one to toot someone else’s horn. I am by nature cynical. I am sure there are things about Doug that, if I knew about them, I would temper my praise. But I don’t know about them. And I will stick to what I know.

Doug Emhoff is the model of what a spouse of a high level American politician should be. Period. Full stop.

Just because there’s no content, that doesn’t mean that this isn’t a post that counts.

First, the interesting fact of the day:

I used to know only two things about Joseph Seligman. Now I know three.

Thing one: Joseph Seligman was a very successful and well respected Jewish investment broker in 19th century New York.

Thing two: Joseph Seligman in 1877 was not allowed into the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga Springs NY because of his religion, apparently the first example of antisemitism of this nature in this level of American society.

Thing three (NEW): Joseph Seligman had five sons, and hired a live-in tutor to teach his sons for a number of years. The tutor’s name? Horatio Alger, Jr.

Who knew?

Next, new joke of the day:

“My wife told me, when I went to the grocery store, to buy six cans of Sprite, but I picked seven up.”

Now, on to business:

Did anyone else see the Jonathan Capehart show on MSNBC this morning? He just had a great panel (sorry, I didn’t get the names of his guests) about predictions for the 2024 presidential election. Two of the panelists were Democrats, and one a Lincoln Project Republican (or ex-Republican, I am not sure).

The focus was on the continuing low approval ratings for President Biden (a very recent poll put approval at 41%) and continuing concerns about his age and health (over 50%).

The panelists had a number of responses (I list them as I remember them, no ranking or order intended):

1. Can you name one 2020 Biden supporter who now says “I am going to vote for Trump?”
2. Based on polling, there was no chance that Trump was going to win in 2020 – the anti-Trump sentiment was too strong.
3. The number of people with a favorable opinion of Trump is even lower than the number with a favorable opinion of Biden.
4. The Trump supporters tend to be older – many have died since 2020. If you look at the younger population and first time voters, they poll overwhelmingly Democratic.
5. Only 30% of younger voters went to the polls in 2020 – this is a challenge, but if this number can be increased……
6. The only way to look at polls is to compare them to what happened in previous elections…..but this election is like no other election, and such comparisons may be misleading.
7. The one-off local elections that have been held over the past couple of years have gone very strongly Democratic.
8. The abortion issue is going to be stronger than anyone now thinks, as the Republicans double down.
9. Two thirds of people polled oppose a government shut down.
10. Over 60% of Americans are very concerned about Trump’s legal problems.

Admittedly, this was a “biased” panel, but it was also a quite optimistic panel. I still wish the Democrats had an alternative candidate. But these three have tamped down my pessimism. I hope they are right.

Gmar tov (cough, cough)

This is the 310th straight day that I have published a blog post. Time to stand up and applaud.

It’s going to be a rainy weekend in Washington (they call it Tropical Storm Ophelia, but I see no rose petals), and it will end with Kol Nidre, which we will once again participate in virtually. I am feeling much better, but the lingering cough is still there and, although I am told I am clearly not contagious, no one wants to be sitting next to a lingering cough. Plus, not surprisingly, crowds scare me right now (for no good reason).

I was sorry to see that New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez and his wife have been indicted once again. I can’t quite figure it out.

By all accounts, Menendez, a self-made man and son of Cuban immigrants, has been a fine Senator, currently serving (or at least until yesterday serving) as chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. About a decade ago, he was indicted for the first time. I don’t remember the details, but it involved whether or not he was doing favors for a Puerto Rican businessman and long time friend, who had given him various types of financial assistance. Like Clarence Thomas, Menendez maintained that there was no quid pro quo, that he was just doing what Senators do, and that his friend was just doing what friends do. (At least, this is my take from memory.) It went all the way to trial, there was a hung jury, and then it was over. Menendez ran for reelection. He was reelected easily.

With that background, you would think that Menendez would have learned a lesson and would have been determined not to let anything like that happen again. Au contraire. Menendez decided to repeat his former ways, perhaps this time on steroids. While the details are yet not 100% clear, it seems that Menendez and his new wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars from New Jersey businessmen and people involved with the government of Egypt, again in return for what appear to be favors. Apparently, Menendez will maintain for a second time that he wasn’t doing anything special for any of these people – he was just performing normal constituent services. I don’t think he has, as of yet, commented on money and the gold ingots that were found in his house and his safe deposit box, and his Mercedes, and he has not commented on the various texts and emails which connect the funds with his “friends”.

I read brief bios of the three others who were indicted with Menendez and his wife. Two things seem clear – these are very bright and talented people whose businesses have not only been successful, but have added to this world (large scale, successful redevelopment activities in New Jersey, and production of halal meat in large quantity). But they are also all individuals who have been the targets of law enforcement in the past. I would really like to know more about their motivations. And about what the mutual attraction is between this type of person and Bob Menendez. BUT SEE JEFF DWYER’S COMMENT BELOW.

And why did they give him such lavish gifts if Menendez did not use his influence to help deflect criminal charges involving at least one of his benefactors, and did not provide information to the Egyptian government so that his friend could become the sole purveyor of halal meat imported into Egypt?

And, there is always, of course, collateral damage. I wonder what the future holds for Menendez’ daughter Alicia, who is an MSNBC weekend anchor and, to me, a talented and forthright media journalist. She is a Harvard graduate with years of journalistic experience and a wonderful reportorial and interviewing style. Remember that Chris Cuomo, another media journalist whom I greatly respected, was not able to hold onto his job after brother Andrew became involved in potential criminal charges involving alleged sexual predation. I hope Alicia Menendez does not meet the same fate, but it will be a difficult dance.

Now, to national politics. Will the Menendez indictment help the Democrats respond to allegations that the Justice Department is not operating as a tool of the Democratic party? You would think it might, although I have already heard some Republicans say that the Justice Department indicted Menendez only to try to show that they are not acting under bias, and that they have made Bob Menendez a target only to take the eyes of the world off their soft treatment of Hunter Biden. Oh, well, sometimes you just can’t win.

One more thing today. Hunter Biden. How can I say this succinctly? We have been brainwashed to think of Hunter Biden as a useless wastrel who, were it not for his father, would never have been able to make a living and who would probably be dead from drugs by now.

Let’s set the record at least halfway straight. Hunter Biden is a Yale Law School graduate, who had a successful career working for a New York investment company of which he was executive vice-president, who has been counsel to a major New York City law firm, who was a Bush-appointed member of the Amtrak board of directors and was vice-president of that board for a period of time, who ran a major charitable organization which worked with the U.N. to bring food to countries where food was in short supply, who with his uncle ran a hedge fund and a consulting company to aid businesses looking to expand overseas, and who – of course – was involved in a Chinese controlled venture capital fund, and a Ukrainian oil company named Burisma.

At the Jim Jordan hearing last week, Jordan said that even Hunter Biden himself had said he had no qualification to sit on the Burisma board. This is not true. In fact, Biden said he was at least as qualified as anyone else on that board, perhaps more so, but that – had he not been his father’s son – he probably would never have been asked to serve on the board. But it doesn’t appear that he was just a name on a board, doing nothing but trying to influence his father.

Okay, one final point about Senator Menendez. The name “Menendez” may be the most unnatural combination of letters to type quickly on a QWERTY keyboard. It’s just downright uncomfortable. Whether that helps him or hurts him, I don’t know. But it does not make him fun.

“Soon it’s gonna rain, I can feel it. Soon it’s gonna rain, I can tell. Soon it’s gonna rain…….”

They say the rain will start tonight, maybe about 11, and continue without let up for about 36 hours until sometime Sunday afternoon. We need it, for sure, but our four tickets for tomorrow’s Nats-Braves game will certainly go to waste.

But it’s not raining now, so…..

Let’s jump right into it. The Reverend Henry Ward Beecher (the brother, not the father, of Harriet Beecher Stowe of Uncle Tom’s Cabin fame), was an extremely well known and well respected Congregationalist minister, who had prominent positions first in Indianapolis and then at Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, in the years leading up to and immediately following the Civil War. He was an unabashed abolitionist and social progressive. He was a religious reformer in that he replaced the old Calvinist notion of predestination with a new theology based on God’s love. He was a supporter of Charles Darwin and his theories of evolution, which Beecher proclaimed to be fully in accordance with Christianity. He was a supporter of any and all women’s movements. He was extraordinarily charismatic.

But guess what? His life was not perfect. He had married young and his marriage has been described as quite unhappy. He had eight children, four of whom died. And, perhaps because of this (perhaps not), he apparently became quite a womanizer, having affairs with members of his congregations and others, many professed by the women involved, others assumed through innuendo. This although he apparently preached often about the sanctity of family values.

One of his friends in abolitionist circles was a journalist named Theodore Tilton. At some point, Tilton’s wife Elizabeth told her husband that she had had an ongoing affair with Beecher, which of course outraged Tilton, but Tilton, his wife and Beecher vowed to keep it quiet, so as not to create an uncontrollable fire storm. Eventually, the storm broke, a committee at Plymouth Church was formed to investigate their beloved pastor, an article was published and widely distributed by suffragist Victoria Woodhull, a free love advocate who wanted to call out hypocrisy in the suffragette movement, and Elizabeth Tilton publicly left her husband.

Believing he had no choice, Tilton filed a civil suit against Beecher alleging alienation of affection and seeking $100,000 damages.

At the time, the ins and outs of this litigation was first page news in American newspapers. Beecher became known as the “most famous man in America” and at least one journalist lamented that the trial had wiped Reconstruction off the front page.

What became of this litigation? The jury was out for six days. They came back with a hung verdict. The truth is still open for discussion.

I want to end this with an anecdote: apparently, Tilton left the country and moved to France, where he lived the rest of his life. While in France, he made a good friend, a man with whom he played chess on a regular basis. This man was former Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin, the highest ranking Jew in the government of the Confederacy, and the former U.S. Senator from Louisiana. Yes, you heard this right. The former abolitionist and the former Confederate cabinet officer, whiling away their final years together, in exile (voluntary and not) in Paris. Such is life.

Fascinating story. But why do I even mention it? Many of you know that Edie and have an on-line used book business (www.abebooks.com/bookseller/arichard). We have the books that are listed in pretty good order – if someone orders a book, I generally know exactly where it is. But as to the thousands of books that I have that are not listed for sale – their location is more hit and miss and I have decided to make them easier to find, as well. This will be a slow task, but winter is coming.

So yesterday, I started my long task. And this is where Beecher comes in. The first book I picked up, published in 1874, is a 600 page book entitled The History of the Brooklyn Scandal, published in a limited edition, available by subscription only, and not to be sold in book stores. The cover of the book is quite deteriorated, but the book itself is whole and clean and tight. It is not a book you can walk down to Politics and Prose or to Second Story and put in your shopping bag. Spending a little time on the internet, I can only locate three other copies of the book – one at the Library of Congress, one in the Wellesley College library, and one (whose cover looks to be as worn torn as mine) which sold in 2018 at auction in San Francisco for $100 (about half the anticipated sales price).

This book is indicative of my entire collection. It is old, it is not necessarily pristine, it is uncommon, and – most important to me – it holds a high degree of fascination, and I can learn something. I love having books like this around me – why I am not so sure.

So stick with me and we will look at more like this over the colder months.

Next? The original report of the House of Representatives covering hearings undertaken in 1856 of the investigation of the caning of Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner by Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina in the Senate chambers on May 22, 1856. 142 pages of hearing transcripts plus exhibits. Bound later (by whom, I do not know), in a nice, block hard cover, whose spine neatly says “Assault on Sen. Sumner, Wash. 1856.

The report includes the recommendation that the House expel Brooks, a dissent not arguing against Brooks’ guilt but concluding that Congress had not been granted authority by the constitution to expel or otherwise punish members, interviews with witnesses, physicians and Sumner himself, an analysis of previous instances where members of Congress had been published and, of course, Senator Sumner’s long speech (which involved the admission of Kansas as a free state) itself.

COVID status? Still coughing, still fatigued, but I am told not contagious. I need to be patient. But I also need some exercise. COVID and 80, not the best combination, I guess.

Yesterday, I left the house and drove my car for the first time since I tested positive for COVID. Not a big trip – to Zips, the dry cleaners, which is about a half mile from my house. A number of things surprised me. First, there were other cars on the road. That meant I had to be extra careful. Some of them were coming in the opposite direction, right at me. Then, as I turned into the Zips parking lot, a battered dark red car drove out, and the driver motioned for me to stop and roll (ha, ha, I mean push?) my window down. I did, looking at him and deciding that I hoped he was going home for a shower, and looking at his car which had seen better days a very long time ago, and he surprised me by saying “I used to work for Toyota and I have the white. Want me to fill in your scratches?” My car is white – but it is very low on the scratch count, and his car…….one big scratch, it seemed to me. At any rate, I did get home without any new scratches, but – recovering as I am – I really think my reaction time wasn’t what is normally is. I’ll give it another day or two. Weird. Why aren’t I all better?

I did watch the entire House Government Oversight Committee hearing with Atty Gen Garland. Basically from 10 to about 3:30. Pretty much a waste of my time. But let me give kudos to three: (1) NY’s Gerald Nadler – who summed it all up in a terrific opening statement; (2) CO’s Ken Buck – a Conservative Republican who actually asked substantive questions, and (3) MO’s Cori Bush, who – in spite of being a Democrat – set out a list of civil rights type issues where she felt the DOJ could be doing much better. Cori Bush takes a lot of flak, because of her sometime outrageous comments, but this time I thought she was right on. Both Buck and Bush were doing something unusual in an oversight hearing; they were focusing on oversight.

Garland did a good job, I thought, of saying nothing (and appropriately so). Most of the Republicans wanted to bash him for keeping David Weiss on the Hunter Biden case (can you imagine what they would have said if he had replaced Trump appointed Weiss with someone who would need time to catch up?), and for various aspects of how the case has been handled. Garland maintained that he had not intervened in the case at all – that this is what he promised when he was first nominated to be Atty General and that this is what the Republicans then wanted from him, afraid that he would put political weight on the outcome. Why did they fear him this way? Probably because it’s what they would have done.

And of course, they were equally critical of Jack Smith, but there were really few questions on the Trump situation. They wanted to concentrate on Hunter B. Why did Weiss work out a plea agreement that a judge found ludicrous? Why did Weiss let the statute of limitations go by for Hunter’s 2014 and 2015 taxes, the years when he made so much from Burisma? Why isn’t there an ongoing investigation as to who is buying Hunter’s art work? There was a lot of preening for the TV, of course, and a lot of false claims. Garland’s answer was universal: I didn’t intervene, ask Weiss. I was surprised, by the way, that there was not one mention (that I heard) of Hunter’s laptop.

While watching, I was also doing a quick read through David Suzuki’s book “The Sacred Balance”, written in 1997. It’s a book focused on humanity’s destruction of the earth and why that’s a bad idea – chapters about cosmology, water, air, soil, sociology, ancient practices and so on. I thought it was a great book – written so you can understand what he is saying, and all-inclusive with regard to the relationship between humanity and everything else. Most of it would probably be the same if it was written today – maybe a little more about extreme climate events, about technology (especially AI), and about the dangers of war. I suggest you read it – it is not heavy and you could get through it in just a few day.

Back to St. Louis. We watched an hour long video on You Tube that I think was produced by the public TV station in St. Louis on the Jewish history of St. Louis. Easy to find.

An interesting, if not perfect, documentary, it tells of a story that started in the early 1800s, when the first Jews came to a territory when it became U.S. territory and Jews were allowed to come. The film goes through the history of religious St. Louis Jewish history – the forming of United Hebrew Congregation, first west of the Mississippi, in the 1830s, and the various breakaway congregations, B’nai El and Temple Israel, with Shaare Emeth breaking from Temple Israel. The growth of St. Louis reform Judaism all the way to the movement of the congregations to western St. Louis County, and then the establishment of Central Reform, back in the city. It also covered the start of two of the large St. Louis department stores, Stix, Baer and Fuller (the Grand Leader), formed by two young men from Ft. Smith, Arkansas, who move to St. Louis and joined Charles Stix in this venture. Interestingly, the Tilles family, as will and the Baer and Fuller families all got their mercantile starts in Ft. Smith. And then there were the Mays, who started in Leadville CO, moved first to Denver and then to St. Louis where they bought two existing stores – The Famous Store, and Barr.

If you watch the video, you will see that it ends with a discussion of Jewish involvement in the early civil rights movements in St. Louis, and concentrates on a fascinating woman, Fannie Cook, who was an author, a literature instructor at Washington University, and the wife of my grandparents’ doctor, Jerome Cook. Fannie Cook died very young, in her 50s, in 1949 and I don’t remember her. I do remember her husband, who was at my grandfather’s bedside when he passed away in 1953.

Fannie Cook wrote several novels, apparently all based on Black-Jewish or Black-White relations in St. Louis. The one that I read (some time ago – I should look at it again) was Mrs. Palmer’s Honey, which I thought was an eye opening book when I read it. Mrs. Palmer was a middle class, or upper middle class, Jewish housewife living in suburban St. Louis, and Honey was her Black maid. They were very closes to each other, but there was a big difference. Honey knew everything about Mrs. Palmer’s life, and was there to be an advisor and confidant. Mrs. Palmer knew nothing about Honey. Nothing really at all. They both had sons about the same age (I don’t remember if Mrs. Palmer knew about Honey’s son or not – probably knew of his existence). Mrs. Palmer’s son graduated form high school, enrolled at the University of Missouri and joined a Jewish fraternity. Honey’s son worked in the dining room of the fraternity.

As usual, I remember the characters and remember nothing of the plot line. Did the two boys become friends, or enemies or what? How did this impact on either Honey or Mrs. Palmer? I gotta go back and see.

This wasn’t what I was planning on writing about, but I was looking at the Wikipedia biography of Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki this morning (the reason is not important) and saw that he was born in Vancouver BC, as were his parents. His grandparents had immigrated from Japan at the turn of the 20th century. He was born in 1936.

Why do I write this? Because, I learned something. I learned that the United States was not the only North American country to intern its Japanese Citizens during World War II, and that Suzuki’s parents were forced to sell the store in Vancouver and move to a camp in the British Columbian interior, where his father was put to work in some sort of a labor gang. I also read, and I don’t think this was the case in the United States, that after the war, when the camps were closed, all of the residents were required to move east of the Rockies, Suzuki’s family winding up in Ontario. Eventually, David Suzuki made his way back to the West Coast, teaching at the University of British Columbia for almost forty years, but this was only as an adult.

We often tend to think of Canada as a nicer, friendlier version of the United States, and perhaps this is so today, but 75 years ago, when the Canadians (of course they were a British dominion then) interned their Japanese citizens and, as we have been reading for a while now, took their native Indian children and moved them from their families into assimilationist boarding schools where they were often maltreated and sometimes died, this was clearly not the case.

Just sayin’. One more thing to think about.

By the way, those of you who were interested in the Tilles and Cella families and their extreme influence over both American horse racing and St. Louis philanthropy, let me add a couple of things.

As to Tilles, he was married for a short time and had no children. He had been born and raised in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, not St. Louis, and had moved to St. Louis as an adult with his Adler cousin. His father Louis had a store in Ft. Smith and Tilles himself created another Tilles Park, this one the Louis Tilles Park, located in Ft. Smith.

As to Cella, I said that the house across Delmar from my grandparents’ house was a large house which we called the Cella House, and that I had no idea about its residents. I don’t know who lives there today, but I did Google the house, 7100 Delmar Blvd., University City, MO, and you can see almost 70 photos of it on Zillow or one (or more) of those sites. I suggest you do it. It is one beautiful house – inside and out (warning: you have to like green).

The Cella family is still involved in racing, and they are involved in the museum and Hall of Fame in Saratoga Springs. The current Louis Cella owns and operates Oaklawn, the track in Hot Springs, Arkansas. My Hot Springs cousins probably know all of that – but they probably don’t know the St. Louis history. (And will they read this post and find out? That I don’t know, but it shows what could happen if you don’t.)

Of course, Hot Springs, back in the day, was one of those gambling meccas, just like Saratoga Springs, and it was also – like Saratoga Springs – a hangout for Italian and Jewish mafiosi. Do you know that Lucky Luciano was not so lucky in Hot Springs? It was there in 1936 (Okay, coincidence, David Suzuki was born in 1936, bring all of the segments of this extraordinary post together) that he was arrested by the authorities and extradited to New York (and eventually back to Italy, where he continued to prosper, but died). By the way, there is a picture of Lucky in the city museum in Saratoga Springs and a reference to his Hot Springs capture.

So, I know this is all a lot to absorb. You have 24 hours before there will be more.

That is information that you really have no need to know, and that is of absolutely no value to you. But there is other information that will be helpful to you – will help you put everything on context. Let’s get started (as Fareed would say).

First, COVID. The Washington Jewish Week puts out one polling question every week. I always look and virtually always answer, and sometimes find the question important. Today’s question was whether or not COVID had any effect on your celebration of Rosh Hashanah over the weekend. Now, you know what my answer was. But…..

40% of respondents said that COVID had an effect on their observances this year!! You think we are beyond the pandemic? Ha!

So, it’s now been 10 days since I had my first symptoms and (barring a reaction from the Paxlovid), the CDC and my physician tell me that I am almost certainly not contagious, and that I can go about my business, even without masking. I took them at their word, and decided to go out for a short walk yesterday. Really short – four blocks in one direction, four blocks back. Flat terrain. Certainly not a quick pace.

I felt fine on my walk. But when I got back, I soon felt exhausted, lay down and fell asleep for almost an hour, and felt the rest of the day like I had moved two steps backwards. So, I am going to go slow. Slow.

Second, St. Louis. If you don’t know anything about St. Louis, what I am about to say may be again be of no interest. But – I am not sure – maybe it will be. It’s about horses.

The general subject is horse racing. At the start of the 20th century, horse racing was the most popular sport in the United States. And in St. Louis itself, there were at least three tracks. One track was in South St. Louis (it was the first track ever to have electric lit night racing). Another, the St. Louis Fairgrounds track, was where the Forest Park Community College is now located and where the St. Louis Highlands Amusement Park was located while I was growing up. And the third, Delmar Garden, was located near the University City Loop.

Each of these race tracks went out of business during the first decade of the 20th century, when “progressives” took over the government of the State of Missouri (hard to believe, I know) and ended most forms of legal gambling. The owners of the track (the same group owned all three tracks, as I understand it) were not hurt because the land had become very valuable, and was ready for development.

In University City, the track had been located near the U. City Loop (close to the Washington University campus), north of Delmar. The track site was developed with red brick mid-rise apartments, which became the home to many Jewish families, among others. My mother, for example, was raised on Enright, and my father lived on Cates, both streets in this general area (although I don’t know the exact boundaries of the track and track-related buildings, and there was also a neighboring amusement park and outdoor theater and other facilities.). But you may be familiar with the streets Eastgate and Westgate. I never thought about these names as being reflective of what were the two largest entrances to a race track. But that is what they were.

And who owned these race tracks? It was an organization known as C.A.T. , which was owned by three men, Louis Cella (his family house was on Delmar across from my grandparents’ house in the 7100 block), Samuel Adler and Andrew “Cap” Tilles. You may know of Tilles, because of Tilles Park in Ladue on land he donated to the city of St. Louis, which the city later sold to St. Louis County, using the proceeds to build another Tilles Park in South St. Louis. Or of the Rosalie Tilles Non-Sectarian Foundation, which continues to provide university scholarships and educational support in St. Louis (its non-sectarian nature was assured by its requiring at least one rabbi and the Catholic archbishop to be members of its Board of Directors). Tilles himself was a member of the St. Louis Jewish community, as was his relative Adler; Cella was ethnically Italian.

But there’s more. At one point, Tilles monopolized horse racing everywhere in the country except on the two coasts. Only Churchill Downs in Louisville and a track in Chicago were outside of the Tilles empire in non-coastal America. And, of course, in addition to the tracks, there was the gambling.

Earlier this month, when we were in Saratoga Springs, we went to the National Horse Racing Museum and Hall of Fame. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t remember any reference to Tilles. If he is not mentioned, I wonder why.

I am going to do a little research on this. Maybe I will tell you what I discover.

As we start a new year, 5784, I thought it important to look back at those who used to be a part of our lives, but have passed away and remain only in our memories. It seems to me important for them to know that they have not been forgotten (and yes, I know, that this makes no rational sense).

So I list my Facebook friends who are no longer able to post, to read posts, or even to consciously ignore Facebook altogether. Some of these people were very close to me, some I had little contact with. They played their roles in various periods of my life, from my childhood to the year 2023.

I post this list with gratitude and respect.

Alexander Goren

Aliza Ben-Tal

Arnold Hammer

Arthur Isack

Avi West

Billy Reed

Bob Dubinsky

Bob Hausman

Eva Rodriquez-Brana

Gary Gise

George Spreitzer

Irwin Lebow

Jim Crause

John Topping

Judith Heumann

Kim Fischer

Margaret Brill

Margit Meissner

Michael Greenberg

Murray Fromson

Nancy Lurie

Razi Yitzchak

Rhoda Baruch

Robert Keimowitz

Robert Rovinsky

Sandra Carlson

Sherry Sherman

Steve Protulis

Steven Lopata

Susan Hessel

Susan Sanford

Victor Cohn

I guess it is true that, in some respects, as you age, your circle grows smaller. It makes it that much more important that you continue to remember and enjoy those who remain. And, yes, this list – sadly long as it is – represents only 6% of my Facebook friends. Of course, with a little more work, I could make another list of those departed friends who never joined Facebook. Perhaps I will do this in 5785. We shall see.

One of the sections of the Rosh Hashanah service is dedicated to memory. In fact, at one time, Rosh Hashanah was referred to as Yom Hazikaron – the Day of Memory. Exactly what was to be remembered? Or who was to be doing the remembering? On that, there are many opinions. Is it God who is to remember (frankly, I have no idea as to what that even means)? Or is it us, and if us, what are we to be remembering?

Whatever. But bear with me a bit. Because I woke up this morning, remembering.

I remembered that today, September 17, was my Aunt Loraine and Uncle Sam’s wedding anniversary. Distinctly. I told this to their daughter Donna, who told me that I was off by about six months, that their anniversary was March 23. So, okay, we have now received our first lesson about memory. It is not infallible.

One of the reasons I focused on this wedding is that I was there. I was born in November 1942. The wedding was in March (not September) 1945. So I was 2 1/2. But I remember being there. It’s my first distinct memory, I think, and I was obviously younger than I thought I had been.

It was in my grandparents’ living room. Loraine was my mother’s only and younger sister. The living room was not enormous and there were a lot of people there. The ceremony was to take place in front of the fireplace. How could I see it with so many people in the way? I remember scooting through the crowd and finding a place near the front, under the grand piano, a place where only I could fit. What else do I remember? I remember people walking down the aisle. And I remember someone singing a song. I can tell you that the someone was relative named Manny Fisher (he’s on the family chart, but I’d have to go back and see exactly how he fit in – and you don’t care), and that the song was O, Promise Me. Now, I don’t know anything about that song, and I don’t remember really hearing it, do I? I am not sure. But for years I heard people say “remember when Manny Fisher sang O, Promise Me at Loraine’s wedding?”

I also don’t remember exactly who was at the wedding, but I could probably guess. And, not surprisingly, I am now the only survivor.

What else do I remember at such a young age? Franklin Delano Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945. I remember being in the room at my grandparents’ house we called the library (because it had a full wall of bookcases and books), when the radio reported Roosevelt’s death. I remember a flurry of conversation and activity. Did I know who Roosevelt was? I was 2 and 1/2. I assume not. But I knew he was someone important. Did I know what death meant? I can’t even answer that. Do I really remember this correctly at all? I think I do. I have always thought I do. But I guess it could be a false memory, right? Can’t prove it one way or the other.

Finally, my dog Beadie. I don’t know how old I was when Beadie came to live with us. I know he was with us two or three years, and he was “sent to a farm where he’ll be happier” when my sister was born in October 1947. So I assume that Beadie arrived when I was 2, or maybe when I just turned 3. Maybe before FDR died; maybe after. No way to know.

Before Beadie arrived, I had an imaginary friend. Now I think a lot of 2 and 3 year olds have an imaginary friend. But my imaginary friend – with whom I must have spent a lot of time, and whose name was Beadie – was a soldier, and he was away in the war and I talked to him from afar. (Many in my extended family were in the military, so Beadie’s profession was understandable.)

But something about it worried my parents, so they got me a sprightly black cocker spaniel puppy, whose name – talked about coincidences – was Beadie. And, lo and behold, as soon as canine Beadie arrived, soldier Beadie disappeared.

Canine Beadie and I were best buddies. But Beadie was a problem. He liked to bark, or better he liked to yip. And he liked to run away overnight – he did this again and again (how was this even possible?) and then return in the morning. The morning being about 5 a.m. with scratching on the back door. Every time he disappeared, we did not know if he would ever return – but yes, every time he did, and it was always before the sun came up.

Except once. Once, he ran away during a cold winter spell and didn’t return. Or at least he didn’t return on his own. He was brought back by a couple of University City MO police officers who saw him struggling under an ice sheet on the pond at Lewis Park. He apparently went swimming, got frozen over, and was able to breath because there was some air between the ice and the water. He was in quite precarious condition as you might imagine, but he pulled through. (I understand you can question my memory here. This sounds impossible. I remember the police thought it was a miracle. As did my family. But no memory loss on this one.)

And then there was another time that he ran out of the house, across Delmar Boulevard and was hit by a car. Again, he was really hurt – I remember blood seeping out of his eyes when they brought him home. But, again, he lived.

But, my father told me, after my sister was born: “We think Beadie would be happier on a farm where he could run to his heart’s content, so that is where he sent him.” (Not a direct quote) Of course, this was told to me after the fact, but I believed it, and I remember accepting it. I wanted Beadie to be happy. But where did Beadie really go? I have no idea. I prefer not to think about it.

That’s it.

Rosh Hashanah. Day of memory. Yom Ha Zikaron.

Of course, because of Covid, we could not get to Rosh Hashanah services today, but instead streamed them on our TV. You obviously miss something by not being present in the sanctuary, and you miss something not seeing so many old friends, and the clergy doesn’t know why you aren’t there (of course, they have other things to think about – and they don’t think about us individually – but they know that there could be more people there than there are and they wonder if it’s their fault, don’t you think?) But the TV streaming, if done well, is one great substitute. Especially when the services are so welcoming and telegenic, as those at Adas Israel here in Washington are.

But I feel bad that we weren’t there, and hope we will be able to be present on Yom Kippur.

I did think there were some special things about today’s service. I thought Cantor Brown’s voice and her management of the musical accompaniment, her supporting quartet and the youth choir, were just right. I thought all the Torah readers did a flawless job (and the Haftorah reader as well).

I thought Rabbi Alexander’s sermon about the significance and the contemporary relevance of the Book of Deuteronomy (based in part on the writing of Micah Goodman) was first class – speculation about whether the Book of Deuteronomy was “found” during the reign of King Josiah, or whether it was in fact “written” (as I have assumed) during Josiah’s reign, but also speculation as to whether it was a purposeful rewriting of the story of the Israelites/Jews in the other four books of the Torah to reflect then contemporary concerns and problems (thoughts new to me, and well worth thinking about).

And finally Rabbi Krinsky’s introductions to various portions of the service, as insightful and fresh as ever: first, her description of the Hineni service, where the Cantor proclaims his/her unworthiness for the task, as telling us that we are all unworthy for the tasks, that we do our best and that is okay, nothing more is required, and recognizing the truth of that is liberating; and second, her belief that the Unetaneh Tokef prayer (the prayer you all have heard, even if only via Leonard Cohen, that reflects that, over the coming year, God will decide who will live and who will die, etc., but which says that repentance, good deeds, etc. will avert the decree just is not realistic, and that we know that from experienc. But if you look at the roots of the Hebrew words, and you see that it really isn’t a question of averting a decree, but rather a question of getting help and support through problems that may lay ahead, it makes perfect sense. The problem is not in the prayer, but – she says – in the way it is traditionally interpreted.

This would have been my first Rosh Hashanah service after reaching the age of 80. For some I am reminded of my grandmother, my father’s mother, when she was probably 85 or so. Each year we would buy high holiday tickets for her at United Hebrew in St. Louis where we belonged (she herself was not then a member), but one year she told my mother not to get her a ticket. She was not going to go to High Holiday services this year. We couldn’t think of any reason why that would be, she wouldn’t give any, but she was adamant. So we didn’t buy her a ticket.

But on Rosh Hashanah morning, when we arrived at UH, there she was, sitting in her usual place. We were very surprised, and asked how she got a ticket, since you needed to be a member. She said (and I paraphrase): “Why should you pay for a ticket? I knew they wouldn’t refuse a woman in her 80s who wanted to get to Rosh Hashanah services.”

That year was a one-off. Future years, she let my parents get her a ticket.

L’shana tovah to all.

Enough about my COVID for now. Everything is progressing satisfactorily, although we will obviously miss in person Rosh Hashanah services. Which is too bad, because it’s such a good opportunity to see all of those we see less often than we would like see more. But it is this socializing that spreads COVID of course, so we will sit at home and live stream services.

But COVID, like crime, seems to be spreading rapidly. When we arrived back in DC, because we were exposed even though I had not yet tested positive, we did not attend a function that I was involved with. This morning, I learned that someone else who attended tested positive the morning after the event.

In addition, a friend told me her sister flew to the United States from England to meet up with some high school friends, and tested positive when she got here, isolating herself from her friends. And a cousin of mine told me of a friend of hers who flew, with his parents, to Hawaii for a family wedding, only to have his father test positive when they got there, so they all missed the wedding.

It seems obvious that this is going to get worse, at least until the next vaccine becomes taken widespread and takes effect.

And it’s not the only thing that seems to be falling apart. How about the United States of America? I’m exaggerating? Maybe. But maybe not.

Crime, especially violent gun crime, is increasing exponentially across the country. The new abortion restrictions are having secondary consequences – a shortage of ob-gyns, and women avoiding pregnancy for fear that, in case of medical emergency, necessary treatment will be unavailable. Problems handling asylum seekers are spreading to cities in the north and midwest. Hurricanes, floods, fires. All of the attention on Donald Trump’s four active major cases, and now one against Hunter Biden. And, of course, the opening of the Biden impeachment investigation.

But the most pressing matter right now is what is going to happen after September 30, when it is most likely we will have a federal government shut-down.

Months ago this seemed inevitable. But I hoped it could be avoided. There are 12 appropriations bills that must be approved. They are all based on the budget agreement made several weeks ago. The Senate has, I think, passed all of them. I heard the vote was something like 91-7. The House has passed only one. And the right wing Republican crazies say that they won’t vote for any, that a government shut down is no big thing, and that if Kevin McCarthy goes ahead and brings any of them to a vote, they will move for his removal as Speaker of the House. No great loss there, but there is no one to replace him.

And what do the right wins GOP reps want? They want to ignore the budget agreement and drastically cut spending, they want to build a wall on the border, they want to cut funding for Ukraine, and more.

Maybe there will be a 30 day extension, so the government will stay operating another month. Maybe not. Whichever – it sure doesn’t solve a problem. Fourteen months until the next election ? Fourteen months of chaos.

This will be another short one. Nothing to say about yesterday. As COVID cases go, I think I am still mild. The main symptoms are the very unpleasant coughing, the sore throat that maybe easing a bit, and general malaise. I discovered I am more comfortable being horizontal, and probably slept or napped most of yesterday afternoon as well as last night.

The saga of the 11 friends who spent last week together is, as one of them wrote me, hard to make sense of it all. One of tested positive Friday evening and we all scattered Saturday morning (one couple had left on Friday). Two of us have since tested positive. At least five others of us have come down with symptoms that seemed like it could/should be COVID, but continue to test negatively. Just seems odd, that’s all.

I lost my interest in things yesterday. I could not concentrate on TV or computer, could not read a book or a newspaper, didn’t really want to do anything. I hardly ate at all. And I slept (low fever, not serious).

Until later.