Art is 80

We are on our way to Florida. We won’t be there for the winter, just for about 5 days. Don’t ask if driving was a good idea.

We are in Florence, South Carolina. Enough said. We had dinner at an Outback. Too much said.

It took us longer to get here than we expected. That’s because someone had the brilliant idea to close a short section of I-95 while doing some road repairs. For over an hour, we averaged between 2 and 6 miles per hour. Edie thought that was a better speed than 70.

We were welcomed to South Carolina by a billboard that told us Jesus Lives and gave us a phone number to call for proof. I forgot to write down the phone number. When we pulled in to the Hilton Garden Inn parking lot, we saw a car with a bumper sticker that said God, Guns and Trump. It belongs to a beekeeper. There is a beekeeper convention at the hotel. At least, that’s the buzz.

By and large, the drive was otherwise OK. We tried to learn a few things. We saw a van from Johnson Smith University, the Golden Bears. Who dat?, we said. Edie looked it up and discovered from its website that it’s an HBCU in Charlotte that has 11 faculty members for every student. Don’t believe me? You look it up, too.

Enough for now. On the road again.

If we had kept to our schedule, we would be in our trusty Prius heading south on I-95, on our way to West Palm Beach and Nationals Spring Training (I was thinking I might be the starting third baseman this year). But it was not to be, and the future is……..ahead of us.

It all started over the holiday weekend, when I felt (at first) a small discomfort in one of more lower molars and, as time went on, a larger discomfort. I was able to reach my dentist on Presidents Day, although his building wasn’t open, and he said he could see me at 8:30 yesterday (Tuesday).

I dutifully reported on time, we exchanged typical dentist-patient pleasantries, he looked and poked at my tooth, took an X-ray or two, looked some more, and said: “The nerves are dead; you need a root canal. Everything else looks fine.”

His assistant then called a endodontist two blocks down the street (“you will love her; she’s very good”), booked me an 11 a.m. appointment, which gave me almost two hours with nothing to do, so I wandered a bit, had coffee at Paul on 22nd Street (which I couldn’t really drink) and wound up about 45 minutes early for my appointment.

I filled out my life story on a tablet, and then I was taken to get x-ray after x-ray, including a three dimensional x-ray; I felt like I was a suspicious character and the technician was a TSA employee up for promotion.

I got into the chair, met the doctor (who was very friendly and professional) and she explained to be exactly what my dentist had told me about the root canal procedure (I have had one other root canal, but it must have been 25 plus years ago and the technology has changed). Both my dentist and my endodontist assured me that I would be all fixed up by the end of the day, and that driving to Florida the next day would be no problem.

Here is where my mind gets a bit foggy. I remember that she stuck an IV-like needle into my mouth, which fed me novocaine and, after several minutes, numbed me (numbed me enough, so that I was sure that doctor had asked me “Are you dumb yet?”), and then she and her assistant went to work.

Throughout all of this, I was relaxed and unworried, and looking forward to tomorrow (today) when we could get on the road.

The process was very detailed. The doctor would ask for something, the assistant would give her something. Whether it was the novocaine or something else, I don’t know, but I couldn’t understand any of it. It sounded like “Give me a red”, or “Give me a yellow” or other things that made as little sense. Then, the doctor said (I think), “time for the bite blocker”. And a piece of something was handed across which was fitted inside my mouth to keep it open for the rest of the procedure.

It was quite uncomfortable. In fact, the pain from the bite blocker (if that is even what it is called) was as bad as the pain from the infected tooth. Although the blocker was only on one side of my mouth, my jaw hurt equally on both sides.

You ask “Did you complain?” Ha, Ha. Talking was the one bodily function most beyond my ability at that time. I could moan, I could grimace, I could point, I could do a lot of things. But I couldn’t tell her about my pain or my concern about the bite blocker. Or perhaps, I could tell her, but she did not understand my sign language.

At one point, she realized that I was complaining about the blocker, and she told me it was necessary because otherwise it was too long to keep my mouth open (about 90 minutes, I guess), but she said “I can move it up a bit, and that will give you more flexibility”. She did do that, but I noticed no difference in the pain. I was able to convey this and she told me that this was very unusual, as she went on her business.

The procedure was over. She told me I could close my mouth. But I couldn’t. I could barely move it. She told me to give it a little time. OK, but I can’t move it. I certainly am not going to be able to close it. It seemed more than stiffness.

I guess this is when she realized there was a problem. She said, I am going next door (or maybe down the hall) to get one of the oral surgeons to help. “Huh”, I thought? The assistant told me not to worry, this was not a problem. She came back with a young man to whom she introduced me to as Dr. _______, and he said that my jaw was displaced and that he would set it back in place for me. Just like a dislocated shoulder.

Well, you can bet that that made me feel good. I asked him if it was going to hurt (of course, it was already hurting pretty badly and not moving at all), and he said something very reassuring like “Well, I can’t say it’s pleasant, but it will be ok”.

My mouth itself was still numb from the novocaine. Only the jaw hurt. He stood in front of me and told me he was going to, first, push it down, and then, push it back and up. Oh, yes. That I should just relax. He pushed and said “relax” and pushed and said “relax”. Ha!

Then, he said, “OK, let’s go down to my office. We can get it back in place there.” I asked him if he could sedate me, and he said yes. So I went down the hall to an office which apparently has three oral surgeons, two of whom were there. After I retold my life story on their tablet, I was led into a room that looked like the room in my endodontist’s office and given something through an IV that must have put me to sleep. I remember one of the doctors asking me a random question, but don’t remember the answer, but when I woke up, my jaw worked and I was in a different room (I think).

(An aside: That morning, I had driven to the dentist, and parked my car in the garage in his building. It was only two blocks away, but I was clearly not going to be in shape to drive home, so we called Edie. Edie was home, baby sitting Izzy, who was taking a nap. It all seemed so complicated logistically. I wasn’t involved in the arrangements, but I think Hannah and Andrew came over to our house (Joan was with her other grandfather, who had come in town for Presidents Day), and Michelle drove from her house to our house. Michelle then drove Edie to the oral surgeon’s office, and she and I walked back to the dentist’s building to get my car, which she drove home. It does take a village.)

I was pretty spacey by then. I wasn’t very sure of anything. I hadn’t really had a chance to talk to the doctors about what (if anything) all this meant. Then, I made what I later learned was a mistake. I yawned with my mouth wide open. Boom…….my jaw separated again. This was obviously an important event, although my memory of it is a bit hazy. I remember going to the doctor (or maybe the front desk) and I know that he fixed it again. But I don’t remember how he fixed it. Edie tells me that she was told that they repeated the procedure with a new IV to knock me out again. I don’t remember that, and I don’t remember the surgeon manipulating the jaw without anesthesia. I draw a blank on this.

I was told then not to yawn with my mouth wide open and, if I was going to yawn or sneeze, I should put my finger under my chin and press upward to keep my jaw from dislocating. Jeez. That’s a big responsibility.

I was also given a cloth band (looks like the cartoons of people in olden times who had toothaches – you know what I mean) to wear to keep my mouth from opening too far. I am not sure how long I am supposed to wear that, or if it is optional, or what. I don’t think it’s very long, but this is one of a series of questions I have for the surgeons today. We will call them after I get my list together. I remember asking if I should wear it while sleeping and was told that that was probably not necessary, because I won’t open my mouth that wide while sleeping.

In fact, I don’t think I need it during the day – I am just keeping my mouth closed. I can yawn without opening wide. I haven’t had to sneeze yet. But last night, I slept with it on – and that wasn’t a problem. The problem is, of course, that I want to know how I am. I want to know if I am OK if I open my mouth as wide as I can. It’s tempting. I just have to overcome that feeling.

I have done a lot of on-line reading about displaced jaws. Not fatal. Takes some time to really heal. A jaw displacement is more likely if you have had one previously. But that doesn’t tell me much – does that mean I can expect another, or just that one is more likely for me than, say, for Edie. I don’t know.

I also have to watch my diet for a while – nothing crisp, no nuts, no raw vegetables. But that is as much for the sore tooth as for the jaw. And they told me to take painkillers. Quite a heavy dose of both n-saids and ibuprofen, or whatever works for me. Again, I think that is more for the tooth than the jaw.

OK, for now that’s the end of my story. I will say this: I like my dentist (I wrote him about what happened). I like both of the oral surgeons (especially considering I just barged in on them – a big surprise). As to the endodontist, I can’t say she will be my choice for my next root canal. She told me she had been doing root canals for 30 years and this was maybe the 6th time there was a jaw displacement. I can’t argue with that. I don’t know. But she does get very good ratings. So was this her fault? Was it something in my jaw that made me more susceptible? Was it just happenstance? I don’t know.

We don’t have dental insurance, and root canals are quite expensive for the amount of time involved. Oral surgeons aren’t free either. The endodontist volunteered to cover the cost of the oral surgeon (between $500 and $600). Was this good-will? Was it because she thought I might make a malpractice claim? Was it because she doesn’t want a bad Yelp or Facebook review? I don’t know. I also don’t know what all those consent papers I signed for everyone really say.

I don’t plan on making a claim. But I guess things could change if things (other than Edie, I and the Prius) go south.

I have a number of regular(ish) Zoom chats. My regular Thursday morning breakfast group. My five high school friends and significant others. Leadership meetings for two non-profits I spend a lot of time with. And more. They are all enjoyable and important to me. But the one that sticks out in my mind today is the discussion that I have with a number of college friends every six weeks or so.

Basically, it’s a group of us who were in the same freshman dorm (there is one couple – he Harvard she Radcliffe – that were not in that dorm, but have remained friends with all of us). The dorm was Stoughton Hall at Harvard (Stoughton was formerly named New Hall, but how long can that name have stuck to a building completed in 1804?).

First, it’s the occupational diversity – 3 lawyers, 2 doctors, a physicist, an economist, an anthropologist, and a classicist. Second, the geographic diversity – Washington, Annapolis, St. Louis, Phoenix, Austin. Third, the fact that we were college freshman 62 years ago, and that we have remained in contact all these years (with some notable gaps, to be sure).

So what did we talk about last night in a little less than 90 minutes? Struggles: one spouse recently diagnosed with breast cancer and in treatment, and one friend’s unmarried daughter having recently delivered a baby in a place where external support will be a challenge. Travel: plans to go to Amsterdam, Lisbon and Chile, and recent travel to the Panama Canal and Ireland. Health: Covid experiences and current practices. The New Yorker: 6 of 8 homes subscribe to the New Yorker – discussion about recent article on Austin and various other articles, and the cartoons.

While all of these things may seem normal, let me assure you that the contents of these discussions were more substantive than you might expect. But there was more.

The physicist (retired as a prominent academic) is studying the relationship between Newtonian and quantum physics, looking at the mathematical basis for the operation of the smallest particles yet discovered by science. One of the doctors (retired from running a laboratory at a major university) is partnering with a young colleague to gt an NIH grant to continue developing a nasal vaccine for C-diff. Discussions about both of these topics.

It goes on and on. The next class Zoom will probably be in April. No telling what that will focus on.

I am still running through my collection of Penguin paperbacks. The past week or so, my luck has been mixed. I have started four books, but finished only two of them. The other two I dropped about a third of the way through – for two very different reasons.

First, the successes.

(1) Andre Maurois was a very important French intellectual and writer of the early twentieth century. According to Wikipedia, he wrote 57 books and at least that many short stories over his career. What you probably don’t know about him is that his birth name was Emile Salomon Herzog, and was born into a Jewish family in Alsace. Surprise!

The book I read was “Ariel”, his biography of Percy Bysshe Shelley. He only lived to age 30, when he and a friend drowned off the coast of Italy in a small boat in a storm. Shelley was born to a wealthy family, but was never on good terms with his father, who wasn’t a fan of a life dedicated to atheism, poetry and literature and a sort of philosophy. Shelley ran off at a young age with the daughter of a pub keeper, had a child and then abandoned her in favor of Mary Wollstonecraft, the future author of “Frankenstein”. Their life was one of poverty, uncertainty, and movement. Maurois depicts Shelley as sort of a luftmensch, a man with his two feet planted firmly in the air. One of Shelley’s good friends was Lord Byron – who comes out even worse, not as a luftmensch, but as a unsympathetic cad, looking only to seduce women. Both Shelley and Byron were very attractive.

The book worth reading? Sure. The best possible biography of Shelley? Probably not. But very well written, as you would expect.

(2) Next, I read Thomas Mann’s final book, “Confessions of Felix Krull, Confidence Man”. Like Schubert’s 9th Symphony, the book was not finished when the author died. The Penguin version is about 350 pages – the first person narrator is just beginning his round the world tour, year long journey, so who knows? This book could have been longer than “War and Peace”. I don’t know what Mann had in mind – maybe the narrator would have stopped in Lisbon (that’s where he was at the end of the unfinished manuscript) and never crossed the seas.

Felix Krull, the narrator, was born in a small town in Germany. His father made sparkling wine and was a big man in town, but then went bankrupt and died. Felix, his sister and mother were left to their own devices, and a family friend arranged for Felix to get a job in a Parisian hotel.

Now Felix, if you ask Felix, was the most attractive youth ever, and also the smartest, most clever and luckiest person alive. He is also the best linguist. And the book shows it, as he excels at his hotel work (starting out as an elevator operator, but quickly transitioning to a dining room waiter). He meets a young aristocrat who is in love with a lady of the night, and whose parents want him to take a trip around the world to rid him of his infatuation. Felix and the young man decide to change identities and Felix, now a marquis, travels to Lisbon, where he falls in love with the daughter of a scholar he met on the train. Her name is Zouzou, not to be confused with the love interest of the real marquis, who is Zaza.

The first half of the book, I think, is terrific, but after Felix starts on his journey, the narrative falls apart, starting with a long talk on the train about the nature of man and the universe. Without knowing, I would expect that, had Mann lived past 80, this part of the book would have been edited and extensively shortened. I would expect. But I still recommend the book – for some extraordinary scenes, such as Felix convincing the German army doctor that he is totally unfit for military service.

(3) I couldn’t get through Stevie Smith’s “Novel on Yellow Paper”, a stream of consciousness novel that I couldn’t understand at all. Maybe I would have in 1936, but maybe not. At any rate, about a third through, I decided I was really wasting my time.

Smith was basically a poet, and she took, when she was a young woman, a book of poems to a publisher, who said “No, thanks. Why don’t you come back with a novel?” She did just that, and when he saw the novel, he said “No thanks”. I and that publisher see eye to eye. Another publisher thought differently, and apparently the book was a success.

(4) The Autobiography of St. Teresa of Avila. The introduction of this book says it was the second most read book of the 16th century in Spain. OK, and it does have some interesting.

Teresa, born in Avila in 1515, less than 25 years since the expulsion of the Jews, was the daughter of a “formerly” Jewish father and a Christian mother. Clearly, there was some Jewishy stuff going on in her house, and she was close to her father, who she describes as quite religious (in a Christian sense, to be sure).

She was the youngest of a large family and her father’s favorite. She was a self-described sinner (although her sins seem to be limited to wearing nice clothes and looking in the mirror) and wound up in a convent. Her story is interesting – she was very sick, she was miraculously healed by St. Joseph, she became very contemplative and mystically oriented and wound up reforming the Carmelite order, creating new convents all through Spain.

But her book reads like a Christian Marcus Aurelius. Every line is advice on how to live a good and godly life. That’s ok, and of interest, I thought – I agreed with some things, not with others, and still others I had to think about.

Why didn’t I finish the book? It was Ground Hog Day. Page 265 was just like page 43. Too much repetition. Probably not meant to be read straight through.

That’s all for now.

First, you wonder who Martha is. My guess is that she really isn’t Martha. That Martha is a professional name. Martha is an Hispanic woman, who is a barber at the Bradley Barber Shop in Bethesda.

Why is she poor? Well, I don’t really know that she is poor (in the financial sense). I have no idea of her finances.

But she is poor in the sense that she had to listen to one of her customers this afternoon, who just didn’t stop talking.

Poor Arthur…….

Arthur is poor because he was getting his hair cut in the chair next to Poor Martha and heard the entire monologue.

A young looking man sits down in the chair. After asking Martha how she is, and telling her that he is great, he tells her that he wants his hair clipped very closely on the sides – “give me a 1, an 0, no a 1”, and to leave it as-is on the stop.

Then he tells her that he has been very busy, that business is good, that he just brought on a new person and already has 15 or 20 appointments of new people for him to see. His business, he said, is financial advice, teaching young people how to save and how to invest their money (“it’s hard to do these days”), so they will have savings when they are older. If she has any financial questions, she should give him a call; he’d be happy to talk to her.

Then he switched to Valentine’s Day. “Do you know my wife asked me why I didn’t get her roses on Valentine’s Day? I told her that roses on Valentine’s Day were $45 a dozen (no baby breath, no anything, just the roses. At Safeway, no less), but today you can get a dozen roses for $11. So I got her roses ten days before Valentine’s Day – that’s the smart thing to do. There is not reason to waste money. I got her chocolate back then too, and gave her a little each day. I gave her the last part on Valentine’s Day. So I did my part.”

Then he told her he just had his 41st birthday. “You think I don’t look 41, don’t you? That’s what everyone thinks. 41. Well, I really hide it well, I guess. But I am 41. 41.” His own son is 13. Maybe he should come to the Bradley Barber Shop, too. “I think I may bring him next time”.

During all of this, and more, Martha said nothing.

In announcing her campaign for the presidency, Nikki Haley called for competency tests for any candidates over 75. That would affect only two known candidates – Donald Trump and Joe Biden. So, it’s a clever comment.

But she didn’t make it sound like a clever comment. She made it sound like a serious position. And her supporters will, I guess, take it seriously.

Let’s unpack it a little. First, Joe Biden is the only individual to be elected president over the age of 75. He was 78 when inaugurated. When we think of other “older” presidents, Trump, Eisenhower and of course Reagan, we sometimes don’t realize they were all younger when first sworn in. When Ronald Reagan was first elected, he was only 69, for example, and he was the oldest until that time.

26 American presidents were in their 50s, 8 in their 60s, 9 in their 40s and the last two in their 70s. The average age at first inauguration was 55. Times, they have been changing.

But a competency test? What would it test? Perhaps, it would test for dementia. I know those tests exist, and perhaps they are reliable. But dementia can hit at any age, even though it is more common with advanced age, and it can progress at varying rates. Perhaps it should check for disease in general, with requirements of transparency. Perhaps it should check for stamina. All these things are probably important, to be sure.

But Roosevelt was president with several disabilities – he couldn’t walk because of polio and, at least for some time, he had serious cardiac issues. Lincoln suffered from depression that now and again put him out of commission. Wilson had a stroke that was kept from the public, as his wife apparently acted as a pseudo-president. Eisenhower had both a heart attack and stroke during his presidency. Young John Kennedy had Addison’s Disease. And the list goes on and on.

Mental competency? Trump passed a “test”, right? Did that show him to be competent? And if we were looking for mental competency tests, who would decide the appropriate test? Who would grade it? If a candidate did not pass, then what? Back to the courts for another constitutional crisis?

And what about the Constitution? It says you have to be 35 to be president, but sets no outer limit. How could any requirement for a competency test based on age be constitutional? Or any competency test, for that matter, not based on age?

Of course, you could have voluntary testing and disclosure that could be added to the mix of information presented to the voting pubic. But all you need is a Trump to say “not me”, and you are back where you started.

So, the Haley comments cannot be taken seriously, although they will be and will add to the prejudices against older candidates. For better or for worse.

A couple of other thoughts on, or close to, the subject.

(1) Any test of this sort should also apply to the vice president; that seems obvious. But what of applying it to the next few in line of succession to the presidency? How about to every public elected official? But then why limit it to elected officials? What about applying it to all presidential appointments? Etc. etc.

(2) Because a constitutional amendment might be necessary to have any of this mandatory, should the amendment refer to competency tests (which would always be subject to subjectivity and debate), or to simply an age limit. Such as “No individual shall be elected president if under the age of 35 or over the age of _____”. 70? 75?

There is a lot of talk about older people not being able to perform as well as needed. But, for example, look at federal judges in the United States, most all of whom have lifetime appointments. There have been suggestions to cap the age of Supreme Court justices, to cite one group, so that they would have to retire at a certain age. In many (perhaps most) countries, this is how it works. And we certainly have a history of older Supreme Court justices. But have you ever heard of one being criticized because of his age? I don’t think I have.

So, maybe we just let the people decide when they cast their vote whether they believe the candidates are competent. At least at this point, I am not sure that any change we could make would really help the situation.

I am on a campus somewhere. Red brick buildings. Green lawns. White walkways. Rolling terrain. I am walking. I run into a former Senator whom I know. We say hello and he suggests I follow him and another man. We get to a door, where a tall, somewhat stately, but elderly woman is standing. He introduces me. She used to be the British Prime Minister.

The former Senator and his friend enter the building, motioning to the two of us to wait outside. We do. The ex-PM tells me that they are deciding whether or not she can get a 7 million pound grant to go on a speaking tour around Britain. I ask her what she wants to speak about. She tells me she wants to speak about that awful female politician……but she can’t remember her name. I say “Corso”. She says yes, and that freedom of speech is very important.

I respond by saying that the Queen was a big supporter of free speech. “Look at how she let her children speak their mind”. She gave me a blank look and said “the Queen?” “Yes”, I said, “Elizabeth”. Oh, yes, she said “Elizabeth”.

I told her that “Of course, they couldn’t discuss politics”. She nodded, keeping her blank stare.

Whether she ever got her grant, I do not know. But I am not going to hear her speak.

Pretty random, I say.

So, it’s clear that the first object we shot down was a Chinese surveillance balloon. It isn’t clear what it was surveilling, but the front page article in today’s New York Times about a Professor Wu who for years has been designing balloons such as these both for peaceful and potential military purposes is fascinating. I would assume that “people” knew about this activity, and it seems to me that is not surprising and, from China’s perspective (and potentially ours), makes sense. And what about the thought that the Chinese system would not be too different from Elon Musk’s Starlink? Should China shoot down Starlink? What really is Starlink anyway? If you haven’t read the article, do so.

So we watched it for a week or so, and then shot it down off the coast of North Carolina. Should we have shot it down sooner, or should we not have shot it down at all? Was there really a danger to people on the ground if it was shot down over Alaska or Montana?

Was it the first balloon like this that China sent over our territory? Did they have reason to believe that we would shoot it down, or was this a surprise? What about all those Republicans who yelled that we should have shot it down over Alaska as soon as we saw it? What about Trump, who said that the Chinese would never have sent such a balloon over the United States when he was president? He said that just before it was announced that actually they did – at least 3 times – and that nothing was done (or said) about it? Did it even come to his attention? Should it have? Should they have been destroyed?

And now, all of a sudden, we seem to know a lot about Chinese balloon history. We now all of a sudden know that Chinese balloons have been sent over 40 countries. And the Times seems to know that at least one was sent on an all-around-the-world trip and recovered. We know all of this from “stored” information – what does that even mean? And how did we find it so soon?

OK, since then at least three other “things” (hereinafter “UFOs”) have been shot down over the US or Canada. What were they? Apparently we don’t have any idea, because we have not yet recovered any debris. Why is taking us so long to recover debris?

These items are smaller than the Chinese balloon. They operated at about 40,000 feet, rather than 60,000 feet. They didn’t hover and couldn’t be controlled from the ground but were just carried by wind currents (how do we even know that?).

The first was described as the size of a small car. I have been thinking about what size a small car is. There is a Fiat down the street. But maybe a small car is a Smart Car; everything else is bigger. But some would even say that our Prius is a small car.

What is the size of a small car? I know – a small car. Could someone have small car into space? They did in “Back to the Future”, and the Israelis are now apparently development a car that can also fly – maybe they were testing it?

Another of the objects was cylinder shaped. What could it be? A cylinder? A football? A box of Pringles? Again, so many possibilities.

The third was not any set shape, perhaps, but had strings hanging down. What’s your guess on this one? I think it could be a flying jellyfish – we haven’t seen one of these in quite some time, I am told.

Why are we finding all these things now? Because we are looking harder – using more refined equipment?

And a few more questions. Are they from outer space? I find it doubtful that an advanced civilization from another galaxy would send a small car, a box of Pringles or a flying jellyfish into our airspace, so I think you can ignore this possibility.

Is it from an enemy power? The Chinese again? Or how about from Kim Il-Un and North Korea? I don’t know. But I bet it is Un-known.

I think it unlikely that these are simply privately owned, commercial UFOs. If so, I would think companies (Kia, Proctor & Gamble or the Baltimore Aquarium) would already have fessed up.

Or maybe they are just American military skeet. Skeet shooting works like that, right? You send up the skeet and you shoot it back down. I have always wondered what a skeet was. Maybe now I have found out.

(1) I was a young senior – high school? college? Hard to say. But in my school, they were helping an estate get rid of a lot of written material that the deceased had collected in boxes and files. They took up the entire gym. Volunteers from the school were assisting by going through the files and making sure that there was nothing in them that was of value and should be saved. I was one of the volunteers.

While I didn’t find anything of monetary value, I did find a few things of clearly no value, but which interested me and I decided to save. They clearly were not the things the estate wanted to save, so I put them in my pocket for myself. One of the school officials saw me do that, and yelled at me to stop. We spoke and I explained what I was doing and he told me to sneak out the back door, but not to come back.

Later I ran into a rabbi whom I knew, who had heard all about this incident and balled me out, telling me it was just another example of my problems, and that this shows why nobody likes me. I told him that I thought he was my friend; why was he talking this way? He told me that I was sort of a friend, but he was just being honest.

Later I was at a lunch, or I was going to lunch, or something and I was talking to two “friends”, one male and one female. They had heard about the incident, too, and told me the same thing. This is why no one liked me or wanted to be around me. And never had.

I was shocked, and told them that I never knew people didn’t like me until now. It was their turn to be shocked, as they couldn’t believe that. I vowed to myself to change my ways, so more people would like me. But then I realized that I had no idea what was wrong, so I had no way to know how to make it right.

Then I woke up.

(2) I was traveling to Europe. I was on a plane by myself, but going to join a group (I knew no one in the group) there for a tour or a series of activities. I met the group. All seemed nice. We were all dressed in nice travel clothes (remember those days?). The men had on sports jackets; the women dresses and heels (not stilettos). It was a warm, sunny day.

Our tour leader told us that our first stop was going to be a work camp. We didn’t know what that was, but it sounded like something interesting to see. When we got there we learned, we were not there to see it, but to work. We were all overdressed and tired. We were led into a room and given uniforms and told to change. We did.

When we went back outside, we asked how long we would be working. It was approximately 3:30 in the afternoon. We were told that our shift would end about 10 p.m. We were aghast. This is not what we thought we had signed up for. I said that I was 80 years old and couldn’t do this kind of work (I have no idea what it was) for over 6 hours. I was ignored.

I woke up again.

So why am I thinking about restaurants? And especially about restaurants that I ate at when I was growing up?

In the first place, we really did not eat out very often. At all. It was quite a special time when we did.

I think that the first real restaurant I ate at was The Green Parrot, which I remember being on Big Bend, maybe in Kirkwood or some place like that. Some neighborhood where I hardly ever went. The other place that I remember from those early days was Buckingham. It was on Manchester, not as far away as The Green Parrot, but again in a strange part of town for us. Buckingham specialized in fried chicken. I don’t know about the Green Parrot. I probably ordered a club sandwich. Fried chicken and club sandwiches were my go to foods at restaurants.

This was largely because I never ate hamburgers. Everyone I knew ate them all the time. But I just didn’t like the idea of ground beef. I think it had something to do with how my mother made hamburgers – my memory is that she put chopped onions in the hamburger meat. I certainly didn’t like chopped onions. I know no one else put chopped onions in their hamburger meat, but I was making sure I wouldn’t be played a fool. Years later, I asked my mother why she put chopped onions in her hamburger meat. She told me she never did such a thing. So who do you believe? (I also told my mother that the pie that she made that was my favorite was a cherry pie. She also told me that she never made cherry pies. Again, was she just playing me?)

Going back for a minute to the fried chicken. At some point, I stopped going to Buckingham’s, or maybe it went out of business. I don’t remember much about restaurant fried chicken after that. (After a great deal of research – ha! – I see that the Buckinghams sold the restaurant in 1962 and that it closed in 1968; Trixie Buckingham lived until the mid-1960s, until she was 103 years old) Until high school, when we discovered The Stoplight in East St. Louis. That was the best.

I really don’t remember much else about St. Louis restaurant eating until junior high school or high school. Then there were a few places I went to quite a bit. The Parkmoor and Medart’s, although I always thought Medart’s was overrated. Rinaldi’s for pizza in U. City. (Rinaldi’s opened in 1956 and closed, or rather moved, in 1969 – it served thin, square cut pizza. Best was it’s home made Italian sausage.) The Lotus Room for Chinese food. Schneithorsts. (Schneithorsts opened at Clayton and Lindburg in 1956. I now see, but did not know, that the family had, before that, operated Bevo Mill in South St. Louis and two restaurants that the St. Louis airport.) Garivelli’s on Debaliviere That’s about it. I was deprived.

But then there were the downtown lunch spots I ate it, while I worked in my father’s office during the summers. Miss Hulling’s Cafeteria, and Pope’s Cafeteria. The Brown Cow in the Mark Twain Hotel. And, most of all, the little hidden restaurant in my dad’s office building at 722 Chestnut St, that no one knew but me.

Not very exciting, I know. But I don’t think St. Louis had very many exciting restaurants. I know there were the Italian restaurants on The Hill, but I don’t remember them when I was young. And I remember when Nantucket Cove opened up in mid-town. What? A seafood restaurant in St. Louis? Amazing.

Were there other ethnic restaurants? Japanese? Indian? Even French? Not that I knew of. Of course, there were the delicatessens – Pretzels, L & E. More? But those were for Sunday carry out food, not for eating in.

That’s it for today. And I am no longer hungary.

As some of you know, I belong to a men’s group that meets (sometimes on Zoom and sometimes now again in person) every Thursday morning. There are about 50 members and about 30 show up each week to hear one of the members make a presentation.

I am going to talk on the proposed changes to the Israeli Supreme Court next month, and am beginning to put together my material.

Looking at it from an American perspective, one needs to keep a couple of things in mind. First, while the United States has a federalized court system, with each of the 50 states (and DC) having their own courts, in Israel there is just one court system. Secondly, where our system has three quite separate governmental branches (executive, judicial and legislative), and where our legislative branch is bicameral with each chamber often controlled by different parties, Israel in effect has two governmental branches only. It has a parliamentary system, where the party (or coalition) which controls the Knesset also controls the executive branch, and its legislature is not bicameral, but has only one chamber. Thirdly, the United States has a written Constitution, Israel does not. Instead, the Knesset gets to classify certain laws as “basic laws”, which in theory (and largely in practice) are a bit more sacrosanct as other laws, but do not rise to the level of a constitutional provision.

In the United States, the Supreme Court (and in fact the lower courts as well), as a matter of regular practice, review decisions of the legislature and either bless them as lawful and constitutional, or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Israel has been doing the same.

How did the United States courts, our judicial branch, obtain the power over the legislative branch (or, when it comes to, for example, executive orders or administrative regulations) over the executive branch? You might think that the Constitution set it up that way, but that is not the case. In 1803, The United States Supreme Court, under then Chief Justice John Marshall, simply gave itself that power in deciding the case of Marbury v. Madison. And it has maintained that power until today. And that’s it.

Similarly, in Israel, the Court took upon itself to determine when a law, or an administrative decision, abrogated a Basic Law.

There is little talk about curbing the authority of the Supreme Court in this country, other than the occasional polemics about whether the number of justices should be changed. But in Israel today, there is a lot of talk about limiting the authority of the Supreme Court. In fact, the current new right wing government, under Benyamin Netanyahu is hell bent on accomplishing radical changes. And radical they would be.

In the United States, we certainly do not have a perfect system, and we can all too easily see how the Court becomes politicized in many ways. In Israel, this politicization of its Court was less possible, because the method by which judges have been selected has been less political. Justices are nominated by the President and approved (or struck down) by the a mere majority of the Senate. When the Senate is controlled by the party of the President, it is easy to see how political allies could be appointed to the Court. And this is what has occurred, especially recently.

In Israel, this does not occur. There is a body of 9, who selects new judges for the country’s Supreme Court. Only 4 of the 9 are representatives of the party in power. 3 of the members of the committee are current judges of the Court and 2 are representatives of the Israeli bar association. The Court, therefore, is by design, not political per se.

But the change proposed by the government would create an 11 member body to select Court members. You would still have the 3 current Supreme Court judges on the committee, but the bar association would be eliminated, and all of the remaining 8 members would be representatives of the current government. Quite a change, as you can see.

Similarly, the Court would no longer have complete authority to strike down laws passed by the Knesset, or administrative orders of the Executive. Under the proposed new structure, the Knesset, again by simple majority vote, could simply override any such decision of the Courts. While the precise mechanism for this is a bit complicated, generally any such override would last for 4 years, when a new Knesset could either extend or reverse it.

Israel is a land of many delicate issues. Issues of settlements in the Occupied Territories, issues of Arab civil rights within Israel proper, issues of religious freedom, issues of free speech, to name just a few of the more important.

You can see how this change, with a right wing government in control, whose coalition depends on some of the more extreme elements of Israeli political thinking as to the West Bank and as to religious freedom, could cause panic in Israel and in the Diaspora.

The government, by the way, counters these fears by saying that the current system, which gives unbridled authority to unelected judges over the elected Knesset is undemocratic, and it is time to let the people’s votes count. They say that this problem has become more troublesome because the Court has become more and more active and acts as an unelected legislative body. They also point to Court systems other than the Israeli and American ones, where Courts have limited abilities to alter laws of legislative bodies; these systems include those of Canada and the United Kingdom, just to name a few. And the Courts in these countries seem to operate successfully. Is there any reason why these systems would not work in Israel?

OK, this is enough for a teaser. I may post more after I complete my presentation next month.

Like many people, when I read I often keep a dictionary (or its electronic 1. an 1equivalent) next to me and use it to look up words or allusions that I don’t understand. The reasons are obvious.

But yesterday, I came across the word “monad”. Here is what it said on Dictionary.com:

1. An unextended, indivisible, and indestructible entity that is the basic or ultimate constituent of the universe and a microcosm of it.
2. a basic and irreducible metaphysical unit that is spatially and psychically individuated.
3. any basic metaphysical entity, especially having an autonomous life.

Sometimes, it doesn’t pay to get out of bed.

The book, by the way, is a English translation of Andre Maurois’ “Ariel”, his biography of Percy Bysshe Shelley. I’m only about half way through the book. So far, I conclude that (1) Shelley’s short life was interesting, although not to be recommended or applauded, and (2) Maurois’ writing style is a bit simplistic. But it is a quick read with short chapters, and does paint a picture you can almost visualize.

I remember when Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled “You lie” at Barack Obama during his State of the Union address. I was aghast at such disrespect, as apparently were most of his House colleagues, because he was sanctioned by the House.

When many Republicans yelled at Joe Biden Tuesday as he was delivering a State of the Union address, I was not aghast. I was not even surprised. Subconsciously, I think I even expected it. And I enjoyed it, as I think did Joe Biden.

Yes, times have changed. We seem to expect entertainment in our politics now. And I guess that is fine, as long as it isn’t dangerous. During the Trump years, the entertainment was very dangerous. The banter at this week’s SOTU seemed to me harmless.

This does not excuse Marjorie Taylor Greene’s yelling “Liar”. That is rude and uncalled for. There are ways to do everything, and this is not an acceptable way.

Now Joe Biden played the Republicans well during his speech. By stating that some Republicans want to curtail Social Security and Medicare, he baited the left side of the room. But Florida Senator Tim Scott, who holds a leadership position in the Republican Senate, did suggest that all government programs be sunset every five years. This naturally would include these two programs. Can you imagine if programs died without Congressional reauthorization every five years? With our divided Congress that can do nothing?

So what Biden said was legitimate. And he said that not all Republicans favored this. But the GOP went crazy. And Biden smartly turned that around and said – well, I guess we all agree that this is wrong then, that’s great. And he went further to state that he will stand up for seniors, which was followed by the Democrats in the room physically standing up and applauding. And because the Republicans could not just sit by and not “stand up for seniors”, soon everyone was standing, and everyone was applauding. I thought it brilliant.

I thought that this year’s State of the Union address was excellent for two reasons, in addition to Biden winning the bantering. First, because of the statistical success of the American economy (whether or not that has been appreciated by all), and because so many of the bills passed last year by the Democratic Congress only come into effect this year or in the future, it was very important that Biden not only talk about what he was planning to do, but what he had already done, even if some of that is not yet visible. Secondly, I thought (and maybe this was by chance) there were many spots which can become short term film clips that can be used again and again, as well as giving Democratic supporters talking points that won’t be overlooked.

As to the unnecessary Republican response given by the Governor of Arkansas who cannot help but being both disingenuous and nasty, I will say no more……now.

I reported some time ago that I was reading through my collection of old English Penguin paperbacks, and I mentioned a couple. But maybe it is time for an old fashioned book review. Not like the ones that you fall asleep to in the New York Review of Books. Just a quickie or two or three.

The last book I read was “The Heat of the Day” by Elizabeth Owen. It was originally published in 1949, but was a World War II book. The year is 1943. Set primarily in London, the main character is Stella, a woman of about 40, living by herself, her husband having first divorced her and, second, died. She has one son, 17 serving in the army, stationed in England. She has had a boyfriend for the past two years, Robert. It seems that both Robert and Stella work for the government, but you don’t hear much about that. But you do hear about Harrison. Harrison is rather mysterious. He shows up at various times in Stella’s life and he often irritates her, but she keeps seeing him and talking with him. She knows little about him, doesn’t know where he works or where he lives.

One day, Harrison tells Stella that he is a British intelligence agent, that he believes Robert is passing on military secrets to the Germans, that she better not say anything to him, and that he needs her help to get enough evidence to arrest him. Robert is as English as they come, and of course Stella doesn’t believe this, particularly as it seems that Harrison has designs on Stella (which Stella for the most part rebuffs) and perhaps just wants Robert out of the way.

I won’t tell you how it ends, but this is the basic story line. There are, as you probably suspect, other story lines that waft through the book (a cousin of Stella’s dead husband also dies, and leaves a house and land in Ireland to her son; Robert’s mother and sister live in the big, old family house and don’t know if they should keep it or sell it; Harrison met another young woman at a Sunday park concert, who appears now and then), but all of these side stories could have been omitted in favor of the main one, and the book shortened from 320 pages.

It’s an interesting book, even if Bowen has a tendency to overwrite, and to be a bit too dense, and to use words that maybe I would know if I had lived in London in 1943, but which baffle me now (I should have made a note of them).

It isn’t a must read, but it is worth reading to find out what has happened to Robert and Harrison. And Stella.

A television film was made in 1990. Available on YouTube. I will probably watch it.

Before that, I read another novel, “Nightrunners of Bengal”, by John Masters. This is the second Penguin by Masters I have read. The first was called “The Lotus and the Wind”. I went into it with low expectations, but found it surprisingly enjoyable. Set in the 1880s in India, written in 1953, it tells the tale of a young British soldier who doesn’t like soldiering very much, but who is the son of a modern major general, who really likes fighting and all that goes with it. The young man is married, living in a military compound, hoping to get out of the army in one piece. But then he is asked to take an assignment, a dangerous assignment. To go into the hills of northern India, in disguise, and track down an elusive Russian spy. After a lot of hand wringing he agrees, hoping this way to prove something to his father.

It’s a long mission, and he has to leave his wife behind, and travel into very rough country, alone. His mission, described in interesting detail in the book, is successful. His sense of self esteem is raised, and he feels like he can now retire from the army filled with pride. Before he can do that, he is asked if he would take on another assignment – also a tracking down task, but longer and even more dangerous. Of course, he will turn it down. Or won’t he?

The second Masters book, written two years before “The Lotus and the Wind”, is called “Nghtrunners of Bengel”, again set in India, this time earlier, in the 1850s. A placid military camp south of Bombay, a ho-hum existence for the British soldiers and their families. Yes, occasional problems with the natives, but nothing that can’t be handled. A local rajah is killed – what will that mean? It looks like the rajah’s wife might be involved. She denies involvement, but believes she needs protection. She asks Rodney, a talented British officer to leave the army and work for her. He refuses. Life goes on, but one day (after a lot of rumors swept around), the British settlement is attacked, in the middle of the night, by armed Indan natives. It’s a slaughter. Rodney’s wife is among the many who are murdered. He doesn’t seem to mind (he didn’t cheer, but he also didn’t mourn), because he is already interested in Caroline, who also survived, as did Rodney’s young son. They escape, they hide, the enemy draws closer. What happens now?

I didn’t like this book as much as the first one. To be sure, some of the scenes were very exciting and very well written. But Rodney’s lack of grief over the many deaths, including his wife’s, and the awkward relationship he has with the totally inexperienced Caroline, lack credibility. If you want to try out Masters, go to the Lotus and avoid Bengal.

Finally, I read George Bernard Shaw’s “Caesar and Cleopatra”. Of course, reading a play and seeing a play are very different things. But reading this play was, for me, a bore. Young, stupid Cleopatra and smarmy Caesar just don’t seem to make sense in this one, either as a drama (the four scenes have little to do with each other) or a drama.

This is the 5th Shaw play I have read in my Penguin Quest. Need I saw that Pygmalion (the base on which My Fair Lady was built) was first class. So was The Doctor’s Dilemma, not only the play, but Shaw’s lengthy essay which accompanies it and tears apart the capability and sincerity of the medical profession, as well as the science behind it. The Devil’s Disciple was another disappointment. But Joan of Arc, which I assumed would be not to my liking, turned out to very clever, very well constructed and, I am sure, a delight to watch.

The death toll in the Turkiye/Syria earthquake is now over 5,000 and climbing. It hit major cities, as well as smaller villages and rural areas. Do you know, for example, that Gaziantep, Turkiye, has over 2,000,000 residents? Do you know that the areas of northern Syria have been torn apart by the civil war there and that there were thousands of people already displaced and jobless and (in Turkiye) refugees from Syria? And that part of the area affected in Syria are “rebel” held and not under control of the Damascus? And that the temperatures drop to the 20s Fahrenheit at night, with a significant amount of snow in some places?

Earthquake thoughts:

1. 5,000 sounds like a lot. But in 2004, the earthquake in the Indian Ocean near Indonesia caused over 200,000 deaths, the 2010 Haitian earthquake caused well over 100,000, and recent earthquakes in China and Pakistan each led to over 85,000 deaths. How quickly we forget.
2. There have been over 150 recorded earthquakes rated at 6.0 or higher in the United States. The big San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was approximately the same size as yesterday’s Turkish earthquake. The 1811 New Madrid, Missouri, earthquake was more powerful. Because population of southeast Missouri was so small at the time, the casualty statistics were low.
3. I saw a map yesterday of earthquake prone areas in the United States, and, as to serious earthquakes, the areas are up and down the West Coast, in southern Missouri and, to an extent, along the South Carolina shore. At some point, it seems clear to the experts that a major earthquake in California, and most likely one in Missouri, is inevitable.
4. The Turkish earthquake was felt in Lebanon and Israel. It has long been assumed in Israel that a major earthquake is coming. How that will roll out is not clear. Israel has serious building standards to enable most of its newer buildings to withstand major quakes, but yesterday I read that there are about 600,000 residences in the country which were not constructed to withstand major earthquakes.
5. There was an earthquake that affected Washington DC in 2011. We were in Europe at the time, and there were no casualties, but some buildings were affected, including the Washington Monument and the National Cathedral. The Cathedral is just finishing up its repairs, which were quite extensive, now.
6. There was an earthquake on the Big Island of Hawaii in 2006. We were there at the time, staying at a remote house we had rented in the hills off the Kona coast, and clearly felt it. Shortly after, we left this house and went to the Mauna Kea resort on the coast, half of which was shut down because of damage, and which closed in its entirety shortly after we left.
7. There was a minor earthquake that hit St. Louis in 1968. It was on a Saturday morning and I was doing some research for an Urban Studies degree I was then pursuing at Washington University, walking through the commercial area on Woodson Road in the suburb of Overland, not far from the St. Louis Airport (I can’t remember exactly what I was looking for). All of a sudden, I though that something was wrong with me, perhaps I was having a stroke. Because as I was walking along, I saw all the storefront plate glass windows waving in and out. I felt nothing on the ground, and was sure that I was imagining what I was seeing until I saw people running from buildings out onto the street. I didn’t know, until then, that you could feel the earthquake stronger inside than if you were outside on the street.

It’s starting to fade. I better hurry.

I am at a lecture hall somewhere in Virginia. I am not sure how I got there (I think I took a long walk), but I left the car for Edie. At the end of the lecture, I realized that I didn’t know how I was going to get home. It was now night time, and it seemed dangerous to do any length of walking. The lecture hall was down a rural road, quite remote from, say, public transportation.

A woman was walking out of the lecture hall, and I asked her if she was going into Washington. She told me she was and that she would be happy to give me a lift. I asked her where in Washington she was going; she wasn’t sure, she said, she was passing through and following her GPS’ directions. No problem, I could get home from anywhere once I was in the city.

We got to her car, an old fashioned station wagon, and I realized it wasn’t just her. She was part of a group, maybe a family. I got into the back seat with three others. Next to me was a young (maybe college age) blonde. In front, I remember a younger boy, about 12. The woman from the lecture hall was driving.

It is very quiet in the car. No one is saying much. I try to make small talk. Where do you live? Where are you going? The answer to the first question was: Wisconsin. The answer to the second: we are going northwest. Where northwest, I asked, trying to draw out more conversation. Wisconsin. That’s all I got.

We cross the Potomac. Washington seems busy and somewhat familiar – although something is off. I ask again how she is going through the city. The driver tells me Highway 3. I know of no highway 3 and tell her so. We keep driving, and things lose their familiarity. We are on a commercial street, driving through a very busy commercial neighborhood. Cars on the street, people on the sidewalks, every storefront is occupied, small stores, big stores, each with many signs, some neon lighted. I tell her I have never been in this neighborhood, and in fact I was very confused. I tried to read the street signs, but they weren’t clear. We may have been on Seton Avenue. Something like that.

I asked her to look for a Metro sign, but there were none. Finally, I said that I would get out and find my way home from here. No problem, she said, and stopped the car so I could get out.

A young couple approached me on the street, another college age looking woman and, presumably, her boyfriend. He seemed distracted and wandered (short distances) here and there. She asked me if I knew the people who had given us a ride. Us?, I asked. She said she got a ride with the same people but that, while I was in the car, she was in the truck that followed them. I hadn’t seen the truck.

She was also trying to get to Wisconsin. I am not sure why she got out of the truck. But I told her I was going home and that I was sure we had room for her and her boyfriend if they wanted to spend the night. She was glad and said they would. He was still wandering. I never did speak with him, I don’t think.

I didn’t really know what direction to go, but (from my memory of our route once we got to DC), I suggested we go to the left and look for something familiar. We went through one or two blocks of low apartments, and then got to what at first looked like a park, until we could see, down the green hill, a fairly broad river. We both knew at once that this was the Missouri River.

There was no bridge. but there were a series of logs crossing the river. And there were people walking and crawling on the logs (in both ways) to cross.

It was then I saw Edie and, I think, Michelle. They were on our side of the river, near the logs, and they began to walk across. I told the young woman I was with that that was my wife and my daughter. And then I said “They would never do this in real life. They only do this in a dream”.

We went down the hill (her boyfriend had now disappeared, I think) to the logs. She said: come on. I was skittish, but she convinced me it would be all right. We started across the logs (I may have crawled, rather than walked), and about a third of the way across the river, the logs began to sink into the water. Soon, we were swimming to the other shore. I had no concern about making it or not. The water temperature was perfect; there was virtually no current. At some point, I realized that if I put my feet down, I could feel the bottom and we could walk the rest of the way.

Edie and Michelle were waiting on the other side. Once the four of us were together, we started to go home.

That’s all I remember.

One. I read this morning that Marjorie Taylor Greene said that if she or Trump were running the zoo, the Chinese would never have dared send a balloon the U.S. Did she say that, or is it fake news? I don’t know. Then I read that, in fact, the Chinese sent three balloons over the country when Trump was president. Did they do that, or is that fake news? I don’t know the answer to that, either. But let’s go further. If the Chinese sent three balloons over during Trump’s years, was he correct in letting them go across the country without interference, or should he have shot them down? Did Biden make a mistake shooting down the balloon? Did he make a mistake not shooting it down over Montana, where there really aren’t any people anyway? Why hasn’t Marjorie Taylor Greene asked whether or not the balloon was really Chinese or whether it might have been another platform for Jewish space lasers? Or has she? Was it in fact a platform for Jewish space lasers and, as such, should Biden have shot it down or not? And what if, instead of shooting it down, we had simply sent our balloons across China? And what about this green comet that everyone is talking about? Who sent it? Is it part of an alien civilization’s Green New Deal? And what does Marjorie Taylor Greene have to do with a Green New Deal, anyway. Is this just a question of the age old rivalry of Green vs. Greene? Or is it something more sinister?

Two. Enough about her. What is the College Board trying to do? By creating this AP Black History Course, they knew they would be creating controversy, right? Why did they do that? Why didn’t they simply create an AP course called The Evils of the American Government. Conservatives would have loved it and made certain assumptions about the evils that it covered. They never would have looked into the course, and the College Board could have used the same curriculum it developed for the Black History Course. As you look at it, everything that creates the need for a Black History Course can be traced to an Evil of the American Government. Oh, you think that the Conservatives would have looked at the curriculum? Maybe so – but do you think they would have said that anything in the course (slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, lack of fair hiring practices, redlining, housing discrimination, etc.) would be something that even Conservatives would want to defend and support? I don’t think so.

Three. Let’s all get excited about the Democrats deciding to let the South Carolina primary go before the Iowa caucuses. Do we really care? If so, guess what. We shouldn’t. It should be very simple. There should be one primary day, the same day in every state across the country. The primaries should not be party related, but should have everyone compete in the same primary. We should have ranked voting in the primary with the top three candidates running in the general election. We should also have ranked voting in the general election. The primaries should be the Tuesday after Labor Day, with the general election campaign limited to 8 weeks. Thank you. You heard it here first.

By the way, I have many other suggestions for the improvement of the country. All that is needed to implement them is for everyone to agree with me.

Having had dinner last night with two friends who had serious illnesses this year, hearing that one friend who has been quite sick is now that much sicker, hearing another friend is now in home hospice, and speaking to a friend at the synagogue this morning who is in the middle of chemotherapy, I realized once more that getting old is not necessarily fun.

Today’s monthly jobs report saying that the economy added more than 500,000 new jobs in January, combined with the recalculation of some prior months to add an additional aggregate 500,000, is hard to process. Generally, I didn’t think January is a big employment month – the seasonal jobs created for the Christmas season are gone, the weather is cold, and businesses are just beginning to think how to approach the new year.

In addition, as you may know, there are a number of private companies who do their own polling and are usually pretty accurate. Earlier this week, I heard a report of one of those surveys, suggesting that the job increase in January this year would be about 150,000, much lower than previous months, with a suggestion that one week of winter storms had led to the low estimate, with the other weeks showing more hiring.

Isn’t it unusual for this private estimate to be so far off?

Well, get this……

I asked Professor Google what they thought (they, the appropriate pronoun for the singular, non-binary professor), and they told me that one year ago, in January 2022, the estimates of the private polling companies was that the job growth would be about 150,000 at best, with some even predicting job losses, but that in fact the real number turned out to be 467,000 new hires. And, to top it off, last year, like this year, the numbers for December and November were recalculated, adding another 700,000 jobs.

Someone needs to explain how the two January results could be so hard to understand, yet so strikingly similar.

I have written before about the way jobs are calculated. I posted on Facebook on February 4, 2022, when the 467,000 was released, just a year ago. Even that was not the first time I addressed this topic, but here is what I said:

“I have written in detail before about the problems in the way the government reports employment data. Not taking into account people who decide not to look for jobs, not showing the difference between long term and short term employment. And who knows what they do about gig work, self employment, part time work, etc. But today’s good job news does sort of take the cake. 467,000 new jobs in January in spite of Omicron (with over 7,000,000 saying that they missed time last month because of Omicron), many more than the expected 150,000.

But what was more surprising were the increases in the December and November figures. 300,000 more jobs in December and 400,000 more jobs in November than originally reported. OK, great, another 700,000.”

What explains the two parallels? First, that the private estimates of January hiring were so much lower than the official calculations, and by virtually the same amounts? And, second, what was it about the November and December calculations each year that led to such enormous revisions?

Are there problems with the calculations themselves, or with the premises on which the calculations were based? Until we get an answer to these questions (which I assume somebody other than me is asking), what can we trust?

Part 1: I don’t know how many of you listened to former Chief of Staff Ron Klain saying goodbye yesterday. He listed the accomplishments of the Biden administration during its first two years, even though (a) it came into office with the smallest majority in Congress of any Democratic president in the last 100 years, (b) while helping fight the largest land war in Europe since World War II and (c) fighting the biggest pandemic in the United States since Woodrow Wilson. Here is his list:

1. The most ambitious economic plan since FDR
2. The largest infrastructure bill since Dwight Eisenhower
3. Confirmed the largest number of judges in first two years since JFK
4. The second biggest healthcare bill since LBJ
5. The most significant gun control bill since Bill Clinton
6. The biggest climate control bill passed by any country anywhere anytime.
7. Student loan relief
8. Most health care coverage any time
9. Marijuana pardons
10. Most Black and Brown employment ever
11. Lowest number unemployed in 50 years
12. National debt relief
13. Less child poverty

As Klain said: not bad.

Part 2: Did you hear Congresswoman Ilhan Omar speak today on the House floor before she was kicked off the Foreign Affairs Committee by a totally partisan vote? Like Ron Klain’s speech, it is worth listening to. How a 9 year old Black Muslim war refugee from Africa is being targeted for attack by the Republicans, after the same Republicans attacked former Black President Obama as being Muslim (which he wasn’t) and born in Africa (which he wasn’t). How as a young girl hiding under a bed waiting for the bullets to stop is going to stand up for other young children hiding under beds waiting for bullets to stop. How she epitomizes the American immigrant who believes in the promise of America.

Part 3. Examples of apples and oranges:

1. Raising the debt ceiling to satisfy existing obligations v. holding down future spending.
2. Controlling the border v. guaranteeing the rights of asylum seekers.

Conflating both of these items by the Republicans is simply forestalling progress on any of them.

Part 4. How will the Republican House carry on this term? If today is an example, they will spend our money arguing whether a member should or should not be allowed on a particular committee, and then they will have another vote to “denounce socialism”. And I myself can’t wait until they get to Hunter Biden.

If you didn’t watch the interview last night between CNN’s Jake Tapper and Benjamin Netanayu, you should. I am sure it will be played again and again over the next few days.

Here are my takeaways:

1. Netanyahu is still a very smooth talker and a very good diplomat.
2. Jake Tapper asked some very good questions, although he did not touch on most of the domestic issues that are arising as a result of the extreme right wing elements in the current government, with the exception of the plans to curtail the strength of the Supreme Court. Perhaps, this is because the other internal Israeli issues are not of interest to the greater public; perhaps there just wasn’t time; perhaps he did ask the questions and they were edited out.
3. In talking about the Supreme Court, Netanayu made the following points: (1) The Supreme Court has become too strong and, with the ability to cancel decisions of the Knesset, has made Israel less democratic, not more, (2) to allow the Knesset to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court would bring Israel in line with countries such as Canada, the UK, and New Zealand; it is the US that is the outlier, (3) there are details in the government’s reform proposal that people aren’t paying attention to, because they are acting on instinct, and some of the critiques are just not accurate, and (4) he is waiting for a counter-proposal, and would be happy to consider any modifications, including modifications which would increase the number of Knesset members who could vote to overrule the Supreme Court from his proposal’s simple majority. (I realize that I know nothing about how the highest courts work in the former British colonies or elsewhere and I certainly realize that the American system has its flaws; maybe I should study and rethink this.)
4. He believes Putin was completely wrong in invading Ukraine, but Israel’s position is complicated in part because Russians are in Syria and Israel wants to make sure that Iran stays out of Syria, so Russians and Israel together control Syrian airspace, and they need to keep cooperating or Iran may get a stronger foothold.
5. The Americans have taken American weaponry that they have placed in Israel and moved it to Ukraine (It’s the US perogative to do so, and Israel hasn’t complained), and Netanyahu’s job is to keep Israel safe, but Israel has been taking action against Iran’s manufacture of non-nuclear weapons, which would otherwise go to Russia for use in Ukraine.
6. Israel kept Iraq and Syria from getting nuclear weapons; it will keep Iran from becoming nuclear, as well. Iran does not want war with Israel because it knows it will lose.
7. Don’t worry about Ben Gvir or Smotrich, because Netanyahu has both hands on the government steering wheel. Some of these right wing guys say things before they are in public office, but then moderate.
8. Netanyahu and Biden have been friends for 40 years, even when they disagree. He thinks Biden is, from his heart, a strong supporter of Israel. Trump did great things for Israel, but he isn’t going to comment on who should be the Republican candidate in 2024. Trump’s meetings with Kanye West and Fuentes were big mistakes.
9. Because the Palestinians want to eliminate Israel, working anything out with them seems to be impossible. So Netanyahu thinks that the way to go is for Israel to work things out with the other Arabs and then they will all be in position to get to Palestinians to face reality and negotiate.
10. Any Palestinian state would give the Palestinian full autonomy to run their economy and their country, BUT security has to remain in the hands of Israel. Presumably, that would mean that raids, such as the raid in Jenin last week, could continue.
11. He didn’t say that he still favors a full Palestinian state. They didn’t talk about the relationship between the West Bank and Gaza, only that every time Israel pulled away (Lebanon and Gaza), militants took over.
12. He is not going to change the rules governing the Temple Mount. He is not going to change the Right of Return. (Remember, he has both hands on the steering wheel). He doesn’t believe in collective punishment, but believes that taking action against the family members of terrorists, those who condone, participate or support the activities, acts as a deterrent.
13. He has been chosen prime minister for the 6th time, because during his other 5 times, Israel has been safe and prosperous.
14. You have to have a strong military and create a credible threat to reach peace with others in Middle East.
15. If asked by all parties, he’d consider acting as a Russian/Ukrainian mediator, as long as it didn’t take him away from his responsibilities towards Israel.
16. Response to antisemitism abroad? Keep Israel strong and cooperate with the many governments which are fighting antisemitism.
17. He also wants to keep Israel’s economy strong.

I remember my first trip to Washington. In the Spring of 1959, with my high school junior class. I was 16.

Believe it or not, it was my first time on a plane. We had two chartered TWA jets – just for us. And it was a great trip. I remember it well.

One of the things we did was go to Mt. Vernon. It was a beautiful day – temperature in the high 70s or low 80s, everything was blooming as we bused down the GW Parkway.

All of a sudden, there arose such a clatter that we jumped from our seats to see what was the matter!

Sirens blaring, we saw a number of police escort motorcycles and cars rushing past us, surrounding a black Cadillac limousine with two flags fluttering, one a flag of the United States, one not. It turned out it was 23 year old King Hussein and his entourage. They came with us on our tour of Mt. Vernon.

Skip forward a few days. It was the last night of the trip and we had a formal-ish dinner/dance at the Shoreham (now Omni-Shoreham) Hotel on Calvert Street. I don’t remember the menu, but I remember the after dinner dance, when our party was crashed by a number of outsiders (all male). They were King Hussein’s party – I assume some were security, some were diplomatic. But no one told them to leave, I don’t think. And they didn’t leave.
I remember one who danced with one of my classmates for more than one dance. They seemed to get on quite well. He didn’t know, I guess, that her father was a leader of the national Israel Bond drive that year.

Or…..maybe he did?

Professor Arieh Saposnik of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev spoke for the Haberman Institute yesterday on the topic (and I am paraphrasing) of whether Zionism was a movement of national construction, or of religious redemption. I introduced the speaker.

He brought up a number of points that are worth pondering. His conclusion, of course, is that Zionism is a little of this and a little of that, and that the problem of attaining a common acceptable definition of Zionism continues to this day.

If Zionism is a national movement, the providing a place for members of the Jewish nation, formerly all in exile, to come together and live with national autonomy, that’s one thing – then you can leave God and religion out of the equation.

If on the other hand, Zionism is a spiritual or redemptive movement, which enables a formerly colonized people to change their ways and become a new type of Jewish people, with a stronger moral and ethical basis, that is something else.

And in fact, there is a third hand. And that would be a messianic Judaism – paving the way for the Messiah and the Messianic Age to come.

And, yes, he did talk about Jews as being “colonized” in Europe – not in the sense, perhaps, that Africa was colonized, but colonized none the less. But did the Jews go from being colonized to being colonizers? That is another question – but Saposnik points out that the early Zionists were not trying to displace anyone, and that all the land that came into Jewish hands were purchased, not taken, from previous owners. Today, of course, for all sorts of reasons, things are a mess – but maybe this was not the necessary result.

The Balfour Declaration, he says, was not meant to become the central document that it quickly became. Saposnik says that its centrality was mainly the result of Chaim Weitzmann and Nahum Sokolow making it such, and once it was central, its importance could not be denied. He also says that, at first, British (Christian) and Jewish interests were allied in bringing the Jews back to the Holy Land – it fit the needs of both – politically, culturally and religiously. This is one of the reasons the Balfour Declaration became so important. But this amity didn’t last long, as the reality of the Mandate period set in.

Finally, he said that Jews – whether “religious” or not – always felt a connection to The Land, always felt themselves living in exile. He did not try to answer the political question as to whether the Jewish settlement was in fact appropriate, but simply that, in the minds of the Jews, it clearly was. They did not believe they were taking someone else’s land, even though others were living on part of it. Whether the Jews as a whole knew how hostile the Arabs would be to their coming, he did not discuss.

I have not done justice to Prof. Saposnik’s presentation. In a day or two, it will be available for you to watch on YouTube, or on the Haberman website: http://www.habermaninstitute.org. It would be worth your while.

To add a few of my own thoughts. These are fascinating questions, to be sure, but do they have any relevance to today? Israel is a nation of over 6 million Jews and over 2 million non-Jews. Does it really make a difference how the Jews got there? I would suggest that it does not with regard to Israel “within the green line”, but that when you get to the West Bank, it does. Not a part of the State of Israel, it is the home of almost 700,000 Jews (about 25% of the West Bank population), who live in specially protected areas and settlements, and who are treated in every respect as citizens of Israel. If there is to ever be a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, the question of boundaries and the rights of the Jewish residents who will live outside the boundaries of the Israeli state will loom large. And then there is Jerusalem. I think the boundaries of Jerusalem are set, as are the boundaries of West and East Jerusalem. As an entire city, Jerusalem is about 60% Jewish and 40% Muslim (yes, there are some Christians, but not enough to distort this ratio), but West Jerusalem is about 100% Jewish and East Jerusalem majority Muslim, except again for Jews in particular urban settlements in the city. But here, Israel has “annexed” East Jerusalem, and considers it part of Israel proper. The Palestinians deny the validity of this annexation.

All of this is so confusing, that I can’t figure out how to understand any of the population figures. When you ask about the Jewish population of Israel, I am sure they include the Jews in East Jerusalem and I believe they must also include the Jews in the West Bank, although the West Bank is not part of Israel. When you ask how many Arabs live in Israel, I presume you get figures including the Arabs in East Jerusalem (although I don’t know that for sure), but I know you don’t get the 2 to 3 million Arabs living in the West Bank.

You see how confusing this is. And you see that, by increasing Jewish population in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Zionism is still alive. But as to how to define that Zionism – that’s another question. Is it religious? Is it nationalism? Is it simply a land grab? Is it required for the defense of the State of Israel?

As Israel’s critics and enemies decry this continuing movement on the ground, how does Israel defend against these criticisms ideologically? I think, in fact, it doesn’t try to. It just keeps on keeping on.

All of this is worthy of a lot of discussion and soul searching, to be sure. This may be the place for it, but today, I guess, is not the time.

The Washington Post this morning reminded us that Donald Trump, in the last several years, has said a number of things on his Truth Social website in support of the Q movement. It said, for example, that Q’s motto “The storm is coming” was used by Trump. And it reminded us that Q believes that many or all high level democrats are pederasts who kidnap and eat small children. Apparently, a surprising number of people either believe this, or wonder if it might be true. And for most of these people, belief will be hard to shake.

Take another example. All those people who believe that the world, or at least civilization as we know it, is about to come to an end because God has deemed it so. That there will be major battles, that Jesus will return to the earth, and the good folks will be raptured up into heaven. For these people, too, belief is hard to shake.

Or look at those fierce antisemites who believe that Jews control the world and are the cause of all evil. They believe that Hitler was correct, and that today’s Jews, like the Jews of the early 20th century, should not only be isolated, but should be murdered. Their belief, too, is hard to shake.

To cite a much less important case, remember years ago when the DC area was afraid of the Beltway sniper? During those days, the first reports stated that it appeared that the sniper was driving around in an unmarked white panel truck. We were warned to be very wary when he saw any such vehicle. It turned out that the snipers were using a dark red Chrysler station wagon, or something like that. White panel truck owners were exonerated. Today, 20 years later, I am still suspicious of unmarked white panel trucks. Even this belief is hard to shake.

No great moral here. Just that we need to learn how to sort through our beliefs, identify the ridiculous ones, fight against our continuing impulses to stick to such beliefs, no matter how ridiculous or how dangerous.