Legal, But Not Legitimate

EDMUND

As to the legitimate: fine word,--legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!

                                     KING LEAR
                                    Act I, Scene 2

     Legitimacy: a word that stalks Donald Trump.  He feels it right behind him and it's why he incessantly scurries to his favorite phrase "no collusion."  It has seeped into his skin and makes him rasp on and on about how "it was a clean campaign, I beat Hilary Clinton easily."  It deflates his ego so he bellows, "We ran a brilliant campaign, and that's why I'm president."

     But the legitimacy of his presidency is more in question now than ever after he groveled before Putin and said, "I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia that interfered in the 2016 election.  Politically and legally Trump is president.  But that fact carries little or no weight if the man in the Oval Office has forfeited his moral standing.  And Trump forfeited his when he supported Putin over the American intelligence agencies that have documented the Russian cyber attacks on our democracy.
   
     Fortunately, most Republican leaders in Congress have been honest enough to affirm publicly that they know the Russians under Putin's direction hacked the election.  Unfortunately, they have lacked the courage to admit the possibility that Russian interference might have affected the outcome.  Paul Ryan, for one, stated, "They did interfere in our election--it's really clear.  There should be no doubt about that."  But Ryan also claimed that the interference had no "effect" on the election. Clearly, Ryan wants to "legitimize" Trump's electoral victory.  Nevertheless, his is a conclusion without basis in fact.  With Trump's margin of victory so slim, it is impossible to ignore how many votes might have been delivered into his column with Russia's help.

     Another Republican, Trey Gowdy, remarked that "it is possible to conclude Russia interfered in our election in 2016 without delegitimizing his electoral success."  Even before the news conference with Putin, Trump's legitimacy as president has been corroded by the findings and indictments of the Mueller probe, the suspicious meeting at Trump tower between Don Jr., Paul Manafort and Russians, and the recent 12 indictments of Russians who hacked into the 2016 election.

    Among the information reported from Mueller's indictment is that Russian hackers stole data from the Democratic Party National Committee used to target potential voters for their candidates.  One Republican consultant has already admitted that he received some of this data and used it to help Republican Brian Mast during his 2016 campaign for congress.  One has to suspect that information from these hackers was passed on to the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

     Perhaps we can balance the legitimacy of Trump's presidency on a single adverb--"not."  On Tuesday, Trump stiffened his back, folded his arms and tried erase what he said Monday about believing Putin over America's intelligence agencies.  He simply forgot to insert the word "not," in "I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia.  Of course, he spoke more about there not being any "collusion" between his campaign and the Russians.

     A child who insults a friend then claims that's "not" what he meant, might believe the lie he uses to squirm his way out of trouble.  I don't know if Trump believes his own lie (and lies); most of America does not.  The Republican party, if it is to salvage its own legitimacy, has to repudiate this "base" man who, though still has the legal authority to occupy the White House, has "not" any moral legitimacy to remain as president.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Trump

     In the film, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, Control, who is head of MI 6, wants to uncover which of his four colleagues is actually a mole planted by the Russians at the top of British Intelligence.  He sends an agent, Jim Prideaux, to Hungary to meet with an Hungarian general who knows the name of the spy, but Control's plan is foiled by his Russian intelligence nemesis, Karla.  

     Watching the film's byzantine plot, which has driven some viewers to theatre exits well before the movie's conclusion, we learn that Bill Hayden, the number two official in British Intelligence, has long ago been "turned" by the Russians into a double agent working on their behalf.   And although it seems implausible that such a plot could unfold in real life, we have been observing an analogous, though contorted, storyline nevertheless produce a disturbing correlative.   To wit: the news conference in Finland where Trump defended Putin and Russia's hacking of the 2016 election.

     Unlike Bill Hayden, who was only an official in Britain's spy agency, the Russians have managed to insert their mole at the very top of the United States Government, President Trump.  Fantastic as this may sound, the evidence has been mounting for two years and today it rose to the level of a national-security emergency.  

     Anyone watching that conference couldn't help but be astonished by Trump's flagrant contradiction of U.S. intelligence reports documenting with overwhelming factual evidence Russia's interference in the 2016 election.  Yet, Trump stood at the podium and announced that "I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia who hacked the election.  When pressed by reporters whether he believed Putin or America's intelligence agencies, Trump replied that there are "two thoughts" about the hacking, and then he shifted the topic to one of his favorite bogyman, Hilary Clinton's "missing" emails.    

     Trump's performance in Finland followed his attacking America's European allies the previous week.  He criticized Germany, claiming that country "is captive to Russia," faulted Theresa May on her handling of Brexit, and stated that the European Union is a foe of the United Sates.  All this while he remained silent on Russia's aggression against Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, the poisoning of British citizens and the cyber attacks on the United States' election.  

     Putin must be smiling broadly these days back at the Kremlin.  He's achieved more than the villain Karla in "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" could have dreamt of in his machinations against the West.  He's inserted his man at the pinnacle of the most powerful country on earth.  Now the rest of us will have to wait and see if the party Trump leads will have the honesty and courage to foil Putin's success and remove the Russia mole from the White House.  

Republican Values

     Ohio Representative Jim Jordan has a lot on his mind this week of July Fourth, and it's not the eloquent virtues penned in the Declaration of Independence.  Allegations that he knew of sexual harassment and abuse of Ohio State University wrestlers while he was an assistant coach there are biting at his heels.  He denies he knew about the harassment or abuse and asserts that if he had, he would have taken action to protect his athletes.

     Luckily for him, the  President of the United States has come to his defense.  Donald Trump believes Jim Jordan.  He believes his claims that he was unaware of any sexual harassment or abuse during his time at Ohio State.   And if Trump says it, then it must be true: "Jim Jordan is one of the most outstanding people I've met since I've been in Washington.  I believe him 100 percent.  No question in my mind."

     But what of the men who say Jordan did know?  They say everyone, including Jordan, knew about the sexual harassment by voyeurs lurking at the Ohio State University sport's facility and the sexual abuse of wrestlers by the university doctor, Richard Strauss.  Are they all lying?  Or are they, as Jordan purports, part of a "deep state" conspiracy determined to bring him down because of his "honest" search for the truth in questioning Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein?

     This is the classic tale of sexual assaults and the astonishing moral torpidity of the grownups who know all about it yet pretend they don't.  We saw this pattern with Joe Paterno and the vile monster Jerry Sandusky.  Paterno's willingness to ignore the rape of young boys stretches beyond the bounds of human understanding and forgiveness.  Like Paterno, Jordan claims that he knew nothing.  Given the number of men who have said Jordan did know makes his assertion of "ignorance" less than credible. 

     Throughout his political career, Jim Jordan has styled himself as a conservative purist.  Conservative on taxes, immigration, the military (which means spending taxpayer's money on unneeded tanks), on the environment (which means allowing corporations to poison the planet), and, of course, conservative on protecting Donald Trump.  He is among those who have led the fight to discredit the Mueller investigation.  Jordan is so loyal to Trump that when asked by Anderson Cooper if he had ever heard Trump lie, Jordan answered that he had not, despite the almost four thousand lies Trump has told since being in office.  

     One expects members of both political parties to be partisan; to frequently stretch facts to fit the narratives they wish to promote.  However, as the tally of lies Trump has told continues to grow, it becomes ludicrous to deny that Trump has ever told a lie, and such a statement by Jordan makes one suspect he too possesses no regard for the truth.  But I guess that's what makes them simpatico.  And like Trump, Jordan continues to receive unwavering support from his Republican base.  That support tells us a great deal about the character of those supporters.  However, in the contest for truth between him and his former wrestlers, Jordan, I afraid, is pinned to the mat.

*********************************************************************************

     While sordidness and sheer dishonesty cling to one of the foremost republican members, on the democratic side of the political aisle a fresh face has emerged to inspire hope for the November elections.  In a New York primary, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez trounced Joe Crowley, the fourth ranking Democrat who was said to be in line for Nancy Pelosi's leadership position.

     After upsetting the highly favored Crowley, Ocasio-Cortez encountered a less than warm reception from fellow Democrats and the expected disdain from Republicans.  Nancy Pelosi dismissed that Ocasio-Cortez's victory as insignificant and limited to "just one district."  Tammy Duckworth, commenting on the primary results said, "I think that you can't win the White House without the Midwest, and I think you can go too far to the left and still win the Midwest."

     Of course, conservatives have expressed disdain and revulsion for Ocasio-Cortez because she is a Democratic Socialist.  Conservative Bret Stephens of The New York Times presented a more balanced analysis of what he fears her candidacy will produce come November, which he has called "political hemlock for the Democratic Party."  Even though Stephens is a conservative, he is afraid that Ocasio-Cortez's political positions will drive the Democrats too far left and thereby hand Trump congressional wins in the fall that could prevent his impeachment.  But what are the policies that Ocasio-Cortez supports which these liberals and conservatives label as too far left to be political feasible?

     Ocasio-Cortez believes in "health care as a human right."  She believes that "every child no matter where you are born should have access to a college or trade school education if they so choose it."  She believes that "no person should be homeless, if we can have public structures and public policies to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States."

     Mainstream liberals such as Pelosi and Duckworth are frightened about being labeled too liberal; and the word "socialist" seems to terrify them.  Conservative, on the other hand, cringed at the slightest notion that government can serve the American people with programs to lessen some of life's hardships.  It's what makes them scorn Ocasio-Cortez's political views.  Ocasio-Cortez's identifies herself as a Democratic Socialist.  But as she herself explains, that label is not what matters most.  What matters to her are the values she believes need to be essential in serving as a representative in Congress.  She puts it succinctly: Being a Democratic Socialist is "part of what I am; it's not all of what I am...and I think that's a very important distinction...I'm not truing to impose an ideology on all several hundred members of Congress...It's not about selling an 'ism' or an ideology or a label or a color.  This about selling values."

     As Ocasio-Cortez says, she is not interested in imposing her beliefs on anyone else.  Her aim is to present her views and try to persuade fellow Democrats and members of the other party that her values, and therefore policies, have merit.  If they accept her ideas and support them, so be it.  If not, she will continue her best to convince them of the merit of her beliefs and values without resorting to demagoguery.

     And that's what it all comes down  to: Which party has the values that will best serve the country and the planet?  The Republicans, who value corporate profits and greed above all else, including the health of new born babies (See "U.S. Officials Opposition to Breast-Feeding Stuns World Health Officials")? Or Democrats such as Ocasio-Cortez, who know that profits and wealth don't measure the real health and prosperity of a country and a world.  When Ocasio-Cortez wins her seat in the fall, the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans will become even more conspicuous and important.  Let's hope her victory becomes a watershed election in the history of American politics.

Independence Day

     This week celebrates the anniversary of the country's Declaration of Independence.  Cold beer, hot dogs and burgers sizzling on grills, fireworks sparkling in the night sky, and flags fluttering will remind everyone how great America is.  But there are many who are feeling sick about America's future, especially with Anthony Kennedy's plan to retire.

     Kennedy's retirement and the prospect of an even more conservative justice sitting on the Supreme Court certainly adds to the oppression the current heat wave is spreading across the northeast.  Yet, even when Kennedy was on the Court, workers in America suffered setbacks to their rights.

     Earlier in the Court's term, the conservative justices, including Kennedy, decided in favor of businesses when they sided with Epic Systems Corp. against Lewis, ruling that businesses can require employees to use a company's arbitration process rather than having to litigate disputes in individual or class action lawsuits.  Now corporations can avoid the legal system and conceal any abuse against workers, limiting the public scrutiny lawsuits would have exposed them to.

     This case parallels earlier ones that upheld corporations' right to force consumers into resolving their claims against businesses through an individual arbitration process set up by a given corporation.  These clauses effectually disable workers and consumers from challenging corporations through class action lawsuits, which is their only genuine means of fighting the daunting power of corporations.  Being funneled into an arbitration process that blatantly serves the interests of the employer or the company abolishes what should be every American's inalienable right to seek redress for grievances in a fair legal venue.  When workers have wages stolen or consumers suffer from fraudulent business practices they are limited to an arbitration hearing that is the same as having chickens guarded by foxes.

      Another setback for workers is the Janus Decision.  Once again, Kennedy joined his fellow conservatives and ruled in favor of the employer.  Yes, there are those who will argue that Mark Janus had his right to free speech violated when he was compelled to pay the agency fee to the union whose politics he found unpalatable.  The public union to whom he submitted that "fee" should have released him from any financial obligation and let him negotiate his employment contract individually.  It would have been interesting to see if he continued to accrue the equivalent salary and benefits had he been on his own.

     In any case, the real substance of this Supreme Court decision reflects the intended consequence those conservative justices envision.  Like their fellow conservatives in congress and like Trump, these men believe that rights and privileges naturally belong to those in positions of power.  Workers and consumers are of little consequence when measured against the magnates of American business.  They are necessary to churn the engine of the economy, but they need to remain relegated to their appropriate station in the American scheme. Or is that American dream?  Happy Independence Day.

Trump Wants It White

     At this point in time it's simple to see what drives Trump's statements reflecting his immigration impulses.  I would say policy, but that would suggest that there is a policy.  What Trump has in mind is to stem the inevitable changing demographics of the United Sates.  The white majority is decreasing; the non-white population increasing.  For him, and others like him, this change signals not just a tinting of pigmentation, but the eradication of American and Western culture.

     To get a full view of what Trump fears as he envisions hordes of Hispanics flooding across the southern border one just has to listen to and read what Pat Buchanan (A Nixon unrepentant supporter) has to say on the subject.  Last week on "The Laura Ingraham Show," Buchanan expressed in the clearest terms what he feels is at stake: "This is the great issue of our time.  And, the real question is whether Europe has the will and the capacity, and America has the capacity to halt the invasion of the countries until they change the character - political, social, racial, ethnic of the country entirely."

     Rather than lamenting the cruel separation of children from their parents, Buchanan dredges up the old racist canard that migrants (foreigners) endanger the purity of a country's culture.  In his language one even hears echoes of Germany in the 1930's, within his use of the word, "will."  One wonders what inspires Buchanan to see these obviously desperate people who are either seeking asylum or escaping extreme poverty as a threat to the culture of America.  Perhaps fear; perhaps malice.  In a blog he wrote shortly before his interview with Ingraham he stated his approval of Trump's grasp of the migrant problem: "Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of the issue of separating migrant kids from their parents.  But on the mega-issue--the third world invasion of the West--he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future."

     For Buchanan, nothing less than the survival of "our civilization" is at stake.  Buchanan has spouted similar anti-immigrant rhetoric before against the "Islamic invasion" of Europe.  And while there is no doubt Europe has had difficulty assimilating some of the Muslims who settled there, most have integrated quite well into their new countries.  As wrong as he is about the cultural calamity he foresees as a result of migrants settling in Europe, Buchanan's analysis of the effects migrants from Latin American countries will have on the United States couldn't be more inaccurate.

     When Buchanan and Trump descry the adverse effects of migrants coming across the border, they ignore important facts or "truths" concerning who these people are and what they have to contribute to the United States.  Research has established that more than  anything else, those who come to America provide needed labor for American businesses.  And although the initial strain on public resources that migrants place on local community schools and health services, these parents and their children, over time, give back in taxes more than they take from the system.

     As to the threat migrant currently crossing the border pose, Buchanan might observe more closely the American culture and character he fears will be destroyed by these "non-whites."  These invaders threatening American culture are in fact more closely aligned with the most rooted cultural practice of the West-religion.  The overwhelming majority are Christians, with most professing to be Catholic.  For a Catholic such as Buchanan, one would think he'd welcome more Catholics, given his history of animus against Muslims.

      And what of this "western culture" Buchanan believes will be extinguished by the presence of these invaders?  Western culture?  Where?  Does he fear for the fate of the American cultural "hegemony" that dominates the globe with its hip-hop music, its MacDonald and Starbucks franchises, its movies?  Those who migrate to the United States already have absorbed our culture; they arrive preconditioned to be as American as those of us who have been living here for generations.

     Maybe Buchanan worries that the new arrivals won't be steeped in the writings of the founding fathers.  Then again, he should look around and discover that most Americans possess very little knowledge or understanding of the Enlightenment tenets upon which the country was founded.  But they have what matters most: white skin.

A Lifetime's Characterization in Just One Day

     Before Trump was elected, Americans got a preview of what a Trump presidency might look like.  Here was a man who issued racial slurs, ridiculed the handicapped and maligned all his political opponents with vulgar names and descriptions.  His supporters defended him, in part, by asserting he would lose his coarse approach once he became president.  In other words, he would become "presidential."  Or, at least, his white house advisers would reign him in and polish the ragged personality that has always been Trump.

     Five hundred days have passed since his inauguration, during which we have watched as Trump has exaggerated or lied countless times.   But on Friday, (6/15/18), Trump went "all in."  He gave two interviews displaying truly who he is and what he represents.  He answered questions regarding the Inspector General report, his administration's handling of the immigration issue and his meeting with Kim Jong Un.

     His die hard supporters must be very proud.

     While being interviewed by a gaggle of reporters, Trump exulted over the results of the I. G. report.  He was thrilled to announce, "If you read the I. G. report, I've been totally exonerated.  There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and if you read the report you'll see that."

     The only problem with his account is the I. G. report has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  Trump's statement is a complete fabrication.  Do his supporters know that?  Do they care?

     Another lie Trump slipped into his exchange with reporters covered the obscene policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the southern border with Mexico.  When asked to justify this cruel policy, Trump blamed the democrats:  "I hate the children being taken away.  The Democrats have to change their law.  That's their law."  Of course, this is a lie.  There is no law requiring children be separated from their parents.  This policy was implemented by the Trump administration's "zero tolerance"  which was initiated in April of this year.

     When it comes to being caught in a lie, many politicians try to wiggle their way out by employing additional subterfuges, which Trump himself has been known to do.  On Friday, Trump tried to justify the misleading statement he dictated about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians during the 2016 campaign that he told to The New York Times as "irrelevant," since he only told it to "the phony, failing New York Times.  That's not a statement to a high tribunal of judges.  That's a statement to the phony New York Times."   Trump's logic: you only have to tell the truth if you're under oath in a court; lying to the media, and consequently, the public, is perfectly acceptable for this president.

     Trump also lied on Friday about the length of time Paul Manafort spent as chairman of his campaign and suggested that Michael Flynn did not lie to investigators even though he pleaded guilty to doing just that.  Facts do not distinguish truth from lies; for Trump, his point of view determines what is truth.

     Chuck Todd of Meet The Press captured the magnitude of Trump's "performance": "Today's Potus performance was breathtaking in the sheer number of provable falsehoods, intentional mischaracterizations and outright lies uttered."

     To countenance so many lies and falsehoods, as his base of supporters continually do, must require an extraordinary reservoir of denial or dishonesty on their part.  How else could they continue to hear the lies that infest Trump's daily discourse.  But chronic, habitual lying is actually Trump's second worst personality trait.  Considerably more disturbing for anyone with an allegiance to democracy is Trump's undisguised admiration for dictators.

     This admiration for dictators starkly contrasts with Trump's disdain for America's long standing allies.  Justin Trudeau is "dishonest and weak" and our European allies are being punished by trade tariffs as if they were adversaries.  Yet, for Putin, Duterte and now Kim Jong Un Trump has nothing but praise.  When asked on Fox and Friends about Kim visiting the White House, Trump acknowledged the possibility and added, "Hey, he is the head of a country, and I mean he is the strong head.  Don't let anyone think anything different.  He speaks and his people sit up at attention.  I want mine to do the same."

     What should be clear is Trump's desire to rule as Kim does.  He wants to be unfettered by democratic constitutional checks and balances, free from the rule of law and, most importantly, he wants to be celebrated by the media, rather than judged and, yes, criticized by it.  Instead of exaltation, which Kim's state controlled media lavish on their dictator, Trump is forced to contend with honest reporting about his mendacious and autocratic personality.  If he could only treat the media the way Kim dealt with his uncle who fell asleep during a meeting.  After all, he believes that "Our country's biggest enemy is the Fake News so easily promulgated by fools."

     I am sorry to say that it is not the press which is our country's biggest enemy; our biggest enemy is Donald Trump.

Is David Brooks"Woke"?

     A retired New York City police officer, who is a friend of mine, complained recently about the number of young, able-bodied black men and women receiving welfare benefits.  When I suggested that his understanding of why people were on "welfare" ( and who is on welfare: more whites than blacks; more single women than men; more elderly than young) might be inaccurate, he brushed aside my point.  As a policeman he had seen many examples how inner city able-bodied young blacks lived off welfare.  They spent their days lounging on apartment stoops talking and laughing the hours away. He was positive that these individuals took advantage of the system; that if they had the slightest desire to work, they could find jobs and provide for themselves.  In his view, it was laziness that kept them dependent on government support.  He then offered a specific example to illustrate his absolute certainty that he was right.

     He recounted the time some young black mechanics had replaced the tires on his car.  He told me that he had chatted cordially with those men and treated them exactly the same way he would had they been white.  When they had finished, he rewarded them for their excellent service with a generous tip which they deserved for their hard work.   In his mind, his observations of those on welfare in New York together with this anecdote proved conclusively that if able bodied individuals--black or white for that matter--wanted to work, then they would.  The jobs were "out there"; they just had to be willingly to get them.

     The sweeping generalization he arrived at regarding welfare and work reflects a method by which too many of us form opinions about the motives and behavior of other people.  We observe the people around us, note to ourselves what they say and do, then become convinced we know why they act and think as they do.  Once that "understanding" settles in our minds, it thickens and solidifies; it hardens into doctrine.

     This hardening of doctrine features in David Brooks' latest column, "The Problem With Wokeness."  Brooks refers to a comment he made on Meet The Press, in which he said that there is "much less gun violence" in schools than there was in the 1990's.  His remark generated a good deal of "hatred on social media," because, as Brooks claims, he failed to maximize the "size of the problem," and therefore "was draining moral urgency and providing comfort to the status quo."

     Brooks identifies the criticism of his 'failure' to adequately understand the "size" of the gun violence "problem" as a "mental habit" analogous to the thought process of "wokeness."  The term "woke" "means being aware of racial, gender and economic injustice," or as Brooks puts it, "To be woke is to understand the full injustice" of a practice, condition, environment or situation in American society.

     In other words, in citing data that show fewer school shooting are occurring today, Brooks believes he is being judged not by the accuracy of his facts, but by the "correctness" of his "perception" of gun violence in schools.  Brooks sums up type of thinking (a "frame of mind" he calls it) as follows: "wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing.  In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation--how woke you are to what is wrong--than what exactly you plan to do about it."

     Like the police officer I mentioned above, who knew the motives of every able-bodied black on welfare, Brooks' critics "know" too his motives and summarily denounced him for them.  By condemning his motives, these critics can preemptively enclose Brooks and his ideas in a box which has written on it, "Do not open; point of view invalid."    Rather than engage his argument, it becomes easier to shut him down and thereby ignore what he has to say.  His voice on the subject becomes as empty as the wind and those who are "woke" have silenced someone who, by virtue of his perception of an issue, cannot be "woke."

      It may seem unfair to lump those who are arguing for social justice with the police officer whose perception of how and why young men women receive welfare, food stamps or any public assistance is deduced from images tainted by assumptions coloring his thoughts before they have entered his consciousness.  It is true that some of the men and women he has seen prefer to receive benefits and avoid work.  But on the whole, the statistics indicate a different story.  Therefore, his claim lacks the evidence to construct a cogent position and his argument disintegrates as each word issues from his mouth.

     Brooks' critics, though "like" the police officer, are not identical with him.  Though they judge Brooks a priori, their frustration with Brooks and his complaint that "The greatest danger of extreme wokeness is that it makes it harder to practice the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see contradictory truths at the same time" is understandable.  And they no doubt think Brooks is at the least rather obtuse when he argues 'that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress not in moments of perceived threat."

     Perhaps his "optimism" isn't the right word or approach.  After all, the "great social reform" that ended slavery, the Civil War, killed some 600,000 Americans.  And the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's sacrificed many lives, including the movement's most loved and important figure--Martin Luther King.

      Near the end of Brooks' essay, he considers the "debate surrounding the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates," for whom, according to Brooks,  "The entire American story was and continues to be based on 'plunder,' the violent crushing of minority bodies.  Even today, 'gentrification' is but a more pleasing name for white supremacy."    Brooks finds fault for Coates seeing the "problem of racism in these "maximalist terms."  Does this view make Brooks un-woke?

     Can one be "woke" and moderate at the same time?  That is the question Brooks would like to answer with a unequivocal "yes."  He believes that "being dispassionate in one's perception of" gun violence or social injustices allows one to fight most successfully against racism or gun violence.  I for one am happy that Ta-Nehisi Coates calls attention to the racism that too many argue no longer exists.  His voice alerts us to the lingering effects of slavery and to those forces today that, intended and unintended, still abuse people of color.  Together, Coates and Brooks provide two prongs that can puncture the propaganda of the Hannitys and Limbaughs, who daily spread lies that warp the minds of far too many, and set a political framework that can counter Trump and his followers who push "alternative facts," argue truth is relevant, and foment division and divisiveness among Americans with Putinesque cunning.

Possum or Weasel?

     Scott The "Possum" Pruitt is a very religious man.  In fact, he is so religious that religion informs his politics: "A Christian world view means that God has answers to our problems.  And part of our responsibility is to convey to those in society that the answers that he has, as represented in Scripture, are important and should be followed, because they lead to freedom and liberty."

     What does Pruitt mean by "freedom and liberty?"  Does he mean "freedom" from congressional oversight into his ethics violations and corruption?  Does he mean "liberty" to spent taxpayers' money on his travel, pens, phone-booth?  It seems that this "freedom" may be slipping away.  According to The New York Times, Pruitt instructed an aid to inquire about acquiring his wife a Chic-A-Fil franchise.  Pruitt's behavior violates the ethics rule against having subordinates perform personal duties and might constitute the crime of using one's office to leverage a personal benefit.  Congress is already conducting 12 investigations into Pruitt.  We must hope the latest revelation finally sends this miscreant back to Oklahoma; sympathies to those in the Sooner state.

Patriotic Snowflakes

     Finally, the fans of America's most violent team sport have been provided with safe space where they are protected from words or actions that offend their delicate sensibilities.  Wednesday, 5/23/18, the NFL owners, defending the freedoms of all Americans, established a new policy fining teams whose players kneel, sit or show disrespect  during the National Anthem.  Players will be permitted, however, to remain in the locker room, if they choose to.

     In explaining the league's new policy, the fearlessly principled NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell parsed the policy's details with Solomonic logic:  "We want people to be respectful of the national anthem.  We want people to stand-that's all personnel- and make sure they treat this moment in a respectful fashion we think we owe.  [But] we were also very sensitive to give the players' choices."  How sensitive indeed.

     The pressure by the league to end the players' protests against police brutality has nothing to do with respect or sensitivity.  It is about money.  A few years ago, the NFL management and owners feared revenues would decline as more scientific research revealed the degree of brain damage that results from even limited years of playing the game.  Around the country, more parents began keeping their kids from joining "Pee-Wee" leagues or high school teams.  Football's image as a means to inculcate discipline and masculinity in its young participants is being supplanted by images of middle-aged former players suffering the unbearable ravages of irreversible and progressive memory loss and cognitive impairment. 

     Then came Colin Kaepernick.  Kaepernick, formerly of the San Francisco 49ers, knelt to protest police violence and racial inequality.  His action offended many fans; many other fans applauded his courage.   President Trump, who himself skilfully evaded the draft five times during the Vietnam War, exploited the issue to incense white Americans against the "millionaire" (predominantly black) players.  He called for any player kneeling to be fired if they continued to protest during the anthem, for the owners to "get that son-of-bitch off the field right now."

     I can understand the pride many Americans feel when hearing the National Anthem.  It is not the country's best patriotic piece of music and verse, but it stirs sentiments that America, despite its checkered history of Africans brought here in chains and Native Americans driven from their lands, embodies democratic principles of equality that were withheld too long from so many, will in time shelter all who live here.  I can understand their anger when anyone seems to denigrate a symbol they love with an almost religious fervor.  As with religion, the flag is inseparable from who they are .  To protest it is to assail the essence of their being.

     To African Americans, however, the flag can, and indeed must, signify centuries of bondage, torture, rape, and murder.  And even to this day, no one can legitimately argue that despite the Civil War and the civil rights' legislation being black in American does not impose a distinction that invariably results in being disproportionately subjected to abuse and violence by the police.

     Of course, crime rates among young black men does exceed those of their white counterparts.  Whites often point to these statistics, and to the impoverished circumstances of "their ancestors" who had lower crime rates, to suggest that the higher percentage of African American incarceration results from some character or social defects in blacks and/or black family structure.  If such defects do exist, then a logical question would be to ask how they came to affect or infect that population?  The answer is simple and all around us.

     When the civil rights laws codified legal equality, they didn't eradicate racial prejudice, segregation  and hatred.  They didn't displace the system that sentences blacks at much higher rates to jail for marijuana possessions than whites.  They didn't homogenize skin pigment as time did the foreign accents which kept Italians and the Irish held down in the underclasses.  The laws and the passage of time have improved race relations in America; but more time must pass for the lasting effects of slavery and racial prejudice to dissolve in the "melting pot" that American can become.

     In the meantime, those of us who have always felt reassured when we have encountered the police, who have never been trailed in a department store, who haven ever feared for our lives during a traffic stop, or have found ourselves roughly patted down on the street, should imagine what those experiences must be like and exercise some patience for our fellow Americans who know what we have never known.  Summoning empathy toward our fellow citizens could furnish us with greater insight into the anxiety and anger felt by young black males encountering all the subtle and overt forms of racism circulating through American life and culture.

     The NFL owners might have the legal authority as employers to enforce the rule and impose the fines against teams whose players kneel during the anthem.  When challenged by the players' association, the courts will have decide whether or not this restriction of speech is constitutional.  If such a case reached the Supreme Court, how, I wonder, would the conservative justices rule?  They have already made clear that corporations have the right to free speech; would the conservative justices extend that same privilege to the individuals constitute the working parts of that organization?

The Quality of Mercy

May 22, 2018

     An editorial in The New York Times, "The Chutzpah of These Men," groaned that Mario Batali and Charlie Rose have been calculating ways to effect a resurrection of their careers.   The Times' editors expressed astonishment that these men would have the gall to contemplate returning to their former public eminence after being fired for multiple accusations of harassing and abusing women.  There certainly seems no question that they are guilty of what they are accused.  After all, the witnesses against them comprise an extraordinary number of women.

     So, how could either man think that anyone would be interested in working with them?   Nevertheless, Batali has been "floating ideas, pondering timelines and examining whether there is a way for him to step back into his  career" (NYT, 4/2/2018).  And Tina Brown revealed "that she had been" asked to co-host a show with Rose featuring interviews with men "who had faced #MeToo allegations."  (NYT, 5/22/2018)

     Both men have expressed regret over their actions.  Batali even offered a picture of a "holiday-inspired breakfast" of "Pizza Dough Cinnamon Rolls."  Charlie Rose issued this soul searching statement: "I have learned a great deal as a result of these events and I hope others will too.  All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives."  And with his new, "profound" insight Rose would be perfect to host a talk show in which celebrities guilty of abusing women could commiserate with each other and begin to heal some of the pain THEY must being suffering in their various banishments.   https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/20/16682728/charlie-rose-apology-sexual-harassment

     What does one say to men like Baltali and Rose who, frankly, sound more like are sexual predators than cads?   Rose's behavior toward young women is simply unacceptable; if he were on the receiving end of what he attempted, would he argue that all should be forgiven and forgotten after such a brief and relatively mild punishment?   To acknowledge responsibility, to express contrition, regret, remorse requires a something of a conscience and a willingness to accept his "just deserts."  Contriving to use  the "behavior" that got him fired as a scheme for a new television project truly adds insult to injury.

     Rose and Batali are narcissists and lack the ability to see themselves for what and who they are.  Their single focus is to gratify their appetites and their apologies are nothing more than calculated attempts to avoid being held accountable. 

     There are men who genuinely regret the way they have treated women, though it is not easy to judge which are and which are not.  But there are cases in which the nature and number of complaints simply overwhelms.  For Rose and Batali it is clear that the quality of mercy should be considerably strained.

Decency

     In his essay "George Will scorns Pence for the high crime of decency," William Bennett chastised Will for calling Mike Pence "America's most repulsive public figure."  According to Bennett, Will's contempt for Pence comes from the vice president's "heinous crime of being a decent man."  In his own column, Will aptly describes Pence's zealous reverence (In a December cabinet meeting, Pence praised Trump every 12 seconds for three 3 minutes running, Washington Post 5/9/18) for Donald Trump as "toadyism" and "obsequiousness."  For Bennett, Pence is not the least bit obsequious, whereas Will is guilty of a "supercilious verbosity" intended to "validate his own sense of superiority." 

     Before explaining why he thinks Pence is a decent man, Bennett complains about Will's choice of words: "Will summons the depth of his ample thesaurus" to write a column "filled with big words that most Americans never use and can't even define."  This charge has been made against Will over the years, as Will's dexterity with language has earned him both praise and criticism.  Yet, it seems surprising that former education secretary William Bennett, whose own essay displays a knowledge of complex words (e.g., "savoir faire," "sesquipedalian," "obfuscates," "supercilious," "lamentations," "otiosity"), would approve of people being too lazy to look up words they do not know.  Perhaps Bennett believes that most "Americans" should accept their intellectual limitations. 

     Beyond his censure of Will's rhetorical style, Bennett objects to Will depicting Pence as a toadying sycophant.  In Pence's defense, Bennett argues that Will proves only that Pence is "very polite and proper."  As Bennett sees it, someone who is "cordial and mannerly" need not distinguish between decent and indecent individuals.  That is why it's fine for Bennett that Pence felt "honored" to have the lawbreaking goon Joe Arpaio among an audience he addressed in Arizona.   And that is why it's fine for Bennett that the pious Pence, who refuses to be alone with any woman except his wife, bends and truckles to a man who asserts his privilege to grope women.  Unlike Bennett, Will understands a simple truth: Pence lacks the decency and courage to spurn those who are indecent. 

     William Bennett edited The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories, The Moral Compass: Stories for a Life's Journey, and the author of The DEATH OF OUTRAGE: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals.  In the last of these books Bennett assails the pathetic rationale of those who defended Clinton's behavior in the White House.  For instance, he mockingly cites Wendy Kamine's observation that it is "childlike and potentially dangerous" to hold a president to a high moral standard.  He admonishes Billy Graham for Graham's specious excuse that it is not Clinton's fault that he makes "the ladies just go wild."  And he recounts how certain women's groups fought against Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court, but remained silent about Clinton because Clinton supported the issues important to them. 

     More than twenty years have passed since Bennett's books published his moral outrage. Maybe such outrage no longer applies in 21st century.  Or maybe such outrage is less important than what Bennett fears most: that criticism like Will's might produce the "ultimate consequence of...a return to power of the liberal establishment."  Terrible as that result might be for Bennett, I should point out his own words to help him reset what surely is his broken moral compass: "In the end, the President's apologists are attempting to redefine the standard of acceptable behavior for a President.  Instead of upholding a high view of the office and the men who occupy it, they radically lower our expectations."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will050918.php3

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/12/william-bennett-george-will-scorns-pence-for-high-crime-decency.html

It's Raining Men

     The other day the accounts of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's odious treatment of his "girlfriends" stunned his supporters and colleagues.  Here was a "true fighter" for women's rights, an antitoxin to a toxic president who bragged about sexually assaulting and demeaning women. Suddenly, a stalwart defender of women's rights was unmasked as a sexual sadist, misogynist, and racist.

    While Schneiderman's disgrace distresses everyone who cares about equality and decency, the White House is particularly delighted by the news about the New York Attorney General.  Kellyanne Conway tweeted "Gotcha," burnishing her credentials as a true Trumpian.  Her celebration of a political adversary's downfall is particularly sickening, because it displays her indifference for the victims who suffered Schneiderman's abuse.  Has working for Trump blunted so Conway's moral faculty that she's incapable of caring about women victimized by a violent, sadistic man?  Perhaps her years defending Trump's offensive behavior against the more than dozen women who have accused him of groping and forcibly kissing them has extinguished whatever decency she might have possessed before she joined Trump's campaign.

     When the Me-Too movement dragged the repugnant Harvey Weinstein into the public view, I thought an avalanche of just retribution would smother him.  More importantly, I believed the Weinstein revelations would enlighten men in positions of authority to recognize women's inalienable right to not be abused, groped, or harassed in any way; that men in authority might even began to finally treat women as equals.  But almost weekly revelations of men harassing or abusing women has stripped me of that delusion.

     According to an article in The New York Times, ("After Weinstein," 2/8/18)  71 men have "been fired or forced to resign after accusations of sexual misconduct that ranged from inappropriate comments to rape."  The sheer number of men cited in the Times' piece is staggering.  And how can these men knowingly commit clearly criminal acts?   Maybe some, like Woody Allen, would say, "The heart wants what it wants."  "Or the hands."  "Or the genitals."  But what about what the other human being wants?  What about what the woman wants? 

     In her op-ed essay, "The Problem With 'Feminist' Men,"Jill Filipovic examines the Scheiderman's sinister motives in fighting for women's rights.  She suggests that he used "his role in progressive politics"and his feminist-minded political work to advance his own career, to ingratiate himself with the women he would go on to harm, and to cover up his cruelties."  Her formulation of Scheiderman's "thought process" offers interesting possibilities as to his motives and means, but unless he were to admit his guilt, explain every thought, desire, impulse, feeling and intention behind his actions, we can only conjecture, perhaps accurately, how calculating this man has been.
     
     Filipovic's essay elicited many comments that criticized her ideas; a number of them viciously assailed her conclusions and the logic she used in reaching them.  Though her assumptions are suppositions and should be honestly critiqued, the grotesque and absurd vitriol hurled at her by some readers is profoundly disturbing.  One man wrote, "Feminist men are the problem.  Period.  No other thoughts necessary.  Feminism is a cancer to both men and women."  Another wrote, "'Donald Trump, who boasted about sexually assaulting and degrading women'...This is falsehood.  Trump suggested that women will LET you...This suggests consent.  Assault is not consensual.  The question is how much damage they do before their demise.  Feminism is just such a movement...Women tend to be more emotional, shortsighted, informed by the concrete.  Men are more rational, farsighted, and comfortable with the abstract."

     The election of Trump has produced two unintended and salutary consequences.  One is the Me-Too movement, which is tearing down the once impregnable walls covering up the offenses perpetrated the likes of the Trumps, Scheidermans and countless other men.  The second consequence springs from the reaction of men who feel threatened by the effect of the Me-Too movement.   In the past, many misogynist men would successfully hide their behavior because women had no recourse open to them.  Today, women feel empowered to speak out against their abusers.  Without meaning to, Trump has instigated a "kind of wild justice," which it is the misogynist's nature to run from, or to spew venom against (as demonstrated by the comments quoted above).  Either way, Me-Too justice will continue to root out sexists and misogynists and move us closer to gender equality.

Much Clamor, Little Consequence

     Michelle Wolf has sinned.  She has sinned against the sanctity of journalism celebrated at The White House Correspondence Association Dinner.  Both liberals and conservatives were aghast at her vulgar and personal insults.  It's no surprise that conservatives would be offended by Wolf's coarse humor and use it to paint liberals as typically tolerant of "obscene language."  After all, it's one more way to blame liberals for the crass culture and disintegration of moral values in American.  However, many liberals also criticized Wolf's performance.  Ashley Feinberg of The Huffington Post has compiled a list of liberals who have (tweeted) criticized Wolf:

Mike Allen:  "Media hands Trump big, embarrassing win." 

Peter Baker:  "Unfortunately, I don't think we advance the cause of journalism tonight."

Maria Bartiromo:  "The resist movement decided its [sic] cool to go against the leader of the free world. Inappropriate, mean, stupid."     

Maggie Haberman:  "That Press Sec sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out, on national television, was impressive."

Jonathan Karl:  "The monologue at last night's WHCA crossed the line."

Andrea Mitchell:  "Apology is owed to Press Sec and others grossly insulted by Michelle Wolf at White House Correspondence Assoc. Dinner."

     Fineberg's full title of her piece is ""A Running List Of Cowards, Strivers, and Suck-Ups. Democracy dies in the Washington Hilton."  Fineberg is rather incensed that these journalists have chosen to join conservatives in condemning Wolf.  However, the complaints Fineberg cites from respectable media figures should surprise no one, since Wolf's monologue mauled several in the Trump administration with caustic and coarse personal ridicule.  To expect the media to defend Wolf would be more than improbable.  The men and women in media are conventional to the point of being Victorian (At least in public; behind closed doors, some of them behave far worse than Wolf's words.)  

     As I watched Wolf's performance and I sometimes winced along with the wincing faces in the audience.  Her bawdiness is not to my taste.  More than anything else, her remarks about Sarah Sanders' eye make-up, which seemed tame compared to her much of what she said, instigated the most severe criticism of her routine.  She aroused such strong female solidarity that journalists who ordinarily censure Sanders for her elasticity with the truth, crowded to her defense.  Mikia Brzezinski tweeted, " Watching a wife and mother be humiliated on national television for her looks is deplorable.  I have experienced insults about my appearance from the President.  All women have a duty to unite when these attacks happen and the WHCA owes Sarah an apology."  That Press. Sec. sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out, on national television, was impressive."

Not everyone has found fault with Wolf's humor. As I noted above, Fineberg has compiled her own Librorum Prohibitorum of those heretical individuals who have attacked Wolf's performance. Arwa Mahdawi, in this week's Guardian, argues that those "urging" Wolf to apologize for her "uncontroversial joke" about Sanders' make-up send "an incredibly dangerous message." Mahdawi believes that the journalists who have criticized Wolf are in fact suggesting "that it's not okay to criticize the president and his people. And it lends credence to Trump's repeated claim that the mainstream media is out to get him."

Calling on Wolf to apologized strikes me as unnecessary. Mahdawi is right; Wolf's jokes about Sanders were certainly benign. She might have expressed some of her jokes with less vulgarity, but her repertoire is well known, so no one should have been shocked by her comic mode. The stream of outrage appears to be more synthetic than genuine.

Nevertheless, Feinberg and Mahdawi overstate the damage and danger of journalists upbraiding Wolf for her monologue. Within days of the correspondence dinner, the journalists were toiling away, reporting the latest lies and chaos convulsing the White House. Maggie Haberman and the rest of the media are back at work, detailing the administration's misdeeds, lies and chaos. (See "On Attack for Trump, Giuliani May Aggravate Legal and Political Perils." 5/4/18) Fox continues to defend Trump and redirect public attention to Hilary Clinton. (See Hannity interview on Fox News with Giuliani) The balance of the universe remains intact; the wheels of justice continue to roll, however slowly. Mueller will inculpate or exculpate Trump of collusion or other crimes. If exonerated, we'll have to wait till 2020, vote Trump out of office, fumigate 1600 Pennsylvania ave, and try to forget the four years of churlish vulgarity we had been subjected to.

Macron and Trump

     These are times which try men and women's souls.  Each day, tweets from the White House and statements by President Trump to the media parade an ignorance in the language one would expect from a fourth grader. (Nina Burleigh in Newsweek, "Trump Speaks At Fourth-Grade Level" 1/18/18, reported that Trump speaks at the lowest level of the last 15 presidents.)  His most recent exhibition came during his joint news conference (Friday, 5/27/18) with German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.  During the conference, when a reporter asked about Ronny Jackson's decision to withdraw as nominee for Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Trump attempted to defend his choice by repeating that Washington is a "very mean place, a nasty place," that Jackson is a great man, that Jackson's son is at the Navel Academy, that Senator John Tester would pay for bringing forward the allegations that induced Jackson to resign, that the allegations are completely false, etc.  But would Dr. Jackson have withdrawn if he were innocent and as wonderful as Trump claimed? 

     The past week offered at least a partial reprieve from the daily deluge of Trump's banality, vulgarity, and mendacity.  After spending a day with Trump and enjoying a lavish state dinner, French President Emmanuel Macron in a speech he made to Congress, rebuffed several of Trump political positions.  Among them were Trump's nationalism and his environmental policy.  Macron's speech  was a pleasure to listen to as he eloquently explained why the president is wrong on these issues.  His speech lasted an hour, far too long for Trump's attention span; but even if Macron's speech were distilled down to a few sentences, it still couldn't penetrate Trump's obdurate and obtuse mind. 

    Macron's comments about isolation and nationalism provided an intelligent and thoughtful response to Trump's bromidic "America First."  What might seem a simple, though shallow, statement of patriotism, "America First" expresses more than the worthy goal of protecting America and Americans.  Its additional unspoken though unambiguous message is one of bigotry and chauvinism, designed to stir up the ugliest form of nationalism.  Macron's vision of America and its role in the world transcends this simplistic, retrograde policy Trump has offered:

"Therefore, let me say we have two ways ahead. We can choose isolationism, withdrawal, and nationalism. This is an option. It can be tempting to us as temporary relief to our fears. But closing  the door to the world will not stop the evolution of the world. It will not douse but inflame the fears of our citizens. We have to keep our eyes wide open to the new risks right in front of us.  I'm convinced that if we decide to open our eyes wider, we will be stronger. We will overcome the dangers. We will not let the rampaging work of extreme nationalism shake a world full of hopes for greater prosperity."

     Macron's words slice through Trump's America First agenda; his words recognize what Trump fails to: that erecting trade tariffs, stoking xenophobic fear and anger and pitting white majorities against black and brown minorities won't reverse the changes taking place in America and around the globe. Trump's policies and tweets only exacerbate the fear and anger such momentous changes brings and  as Macron points out, "Anger only freezes and weakens us."

     On the environment, Macron is equally incisive.  He grasps the consequences of Trump's destructive environmental policies, while understanding the hardships faced by those working in  industries that must be phased out to help ease the human causes of global climate change:

"Some people think that securing current industries and their jobs is more urgent that transforming our economies to meet the global challenge of climate change.  I hear these concerns.  But we must find a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy.  Because what is the meaning of our life, really, if we work and live destroying the planet, while sacrificing the the future of our children.  What is the meaning of our decision is to reduce the properties for our children or grandchildren? By polluting the oceans, not mitigating fuel emission, and destroying our biodiversity, we're killing our planet. Let face it; there is no planet B."

Macron also cleverly turned Trump's "Let's make America great again" into "Let us work together in order to make our planet great again." 

     Macron has returned to France.  Three days have passed since his persuasive oration.  His advice regarding Trump's policies didn't fade; we still hear it.  But they never came anywhere near Trump's brain.  And how could they?  This is a man who cannot read memos.  According to Patrick Radden Keefe, in The New Yorker, when Trump first received memos from the National Security Council, staffers who wrote the memos were told to "Thin" them "out."  The staffers slimmed the documents down to a single page, but were told they were still too long.  One of Trump's aides informed the "staffers that the President is a 'visual person,' and asked them to express points 'pictorially.'"  Memos were reduced to cards, "with the syntactical complexity of 'See Jane run.'" 

     I wish Macron could have stayed longer.  Or I wish someone with his intelligence could be president.  Obama always demonstrated intelligence and a mature command of English.  Whether one agreed with his views or not, he articulated his policies and positions without bluster or threats.  He examined issues deeply and formulated policy after listening carefully to his advisers.  The rest of the world must still be wondering how someone so strangely impulsive, so astonishing unqualified could become president of the United States.  Mark Twain explains: "It is strange the way the ignorant and inexperienced so often and so undeservedly succeed when the informed and the experienced fail." 

Perception of Black Lives Matters

     During summers, when I was a young boy my two younger brothers and I would skip across the street to the elementary school where for hours we would play catch and hit baseballs.  I remember how those days were all blue skies and sunshine and how we would imagine ourselves to be "real" baseball stars.  Back then, our heroes were the sad New York Yankees of the early 1970's, so our ambitions as ball players remained rather modest.  

     During one of these outings, our summer joy was ruptured by twenty black boys and girls who rode their bicycles onto the field like descending Valkyries.  Several of the boys dismounted their bikes and one began accusing me of calling his mother a "bitch."  Through my chattering teeth I told him that I didn't know his mother, but my protests didn't lessen his rage and after repeating himself a few more times, he jammed his right fist into my brother's stomach (I had had the sense to fold my arms in front of my body defensively,)  As my brother slunk to the ground the assailant and his comrades jumped on their bikes and rode away.  

     For several years after that episode, I struggled not to fear and resent blacks.  Luckily, the home I grew up in discouraged racial prejudice and bigotry.  Shortly after I began college, Ronald Reagan was elected president; his race baiting politics and policies together with the liberal education I received at college also helped me uproot the weeds of racism seeded in my youth.  I would love to say that I am no longer capable of any prejudice, but I know too well that no one can be completely immune to tendencies of racial bias.  Yet, I hear people regularly claim, (and read about so many others who also claim, e.g., Donald Trump) that they have no racial bias in them whatsoever.  They often add that blacks have the opportunities as any other white Americans, if they would only take advantage of the economic possibilities this country offers.  
  
     Many whites are quick to point out that today blacks, as well as other minorities, have made great progress since the 1960's.  They have jobs in professions once closed to them.  They hold seats in Congress, state legislatures, one on the Supreme Court; why, one was even elected president.  Blacks also dominate several sports, making millions of dollars in the process.  It all sounds quite good.  But is it what it seems?

     I have lived on Long Island, just east of New York City, my whole life.  Over the years, people have spread east across the Island as the population has risen significantly.   Town and villages have matured into fashionable communities with fashionable restaurants and chic coffee houses.  Among this rising middle class, are successful young black men and woman, sprinkled here and there among their upscale, white neighbors.  It seems the once deeply racist white residents of the past have move aside for a more enlightened generation.   One might say that the Island has matured beyond racism.  But that would misstate the true situation.  

     The obvious truth is that blacks are generally segregated from whites.  Any survey of the Island's population will reveal that blacks are clustered in areas separate and distinct from white neighborhoods.  Is this segregation intentional or not? Do whites prefer to keep blacks out of their neighborhoods (or therefore, public schools?)  My liberal friends are quick to tell me they are not in the least prejudice.  Maybe they aren't.  But it's impossible to tell, since they live their lives apart from blacks.  They are genuinely upset when the police shoot down an unarmed young black man; they expressed horror when they watched the video of Eric Garner being subdued, then killed by the police.  Yet, when their child or friend's child has been denied admission to an Ivy league university, and they subsequently learn that a minority has been admitted, they are quick to deprecate Affirmative Action or Diversity in Admissions for admitting the boy or girl whose "skin color" scuttled their child's chances.  

     But was it someone's skin color that thwarted their child's dream of Ivy?  Try to convince them there might have been some other factor, and you'll find yourself persona non grata. To them, the perception is fact, though they have not a whit of concrete evidence to support it.  It reminds me of what I mentioned above, a perception held by many whites that blacks can enjoy as much progress as whites, if they would only take advantage of the opportunities available to them.  

     An essay by Tracy Jan, The Washington Post, September 18, 2017, cites a recent Yale study that calculated the perceptions whites (and blacks) have regarding the economic progress of blacks.  In the Yale study, the researchers' work "showed that African Americans were the only racial group still making less than they did in 2000."  The study, conducted Jennifer Richeson and Michael Kraus, indicated that "both black and white Americans of all income levels remain profoundly unaware of the economic inequality between the two groups...participants overestimated progress toward black-white economic equality, with average estimates exceeding reality by about 25 percent."  This overly optimistic view about racial equality can be attributed, in part, to wishful thinking, because the majority of whites want blacks to succeed.  The one group that the Yale study singled out as having the most troubling perception of racial progress was wealthy whites:  "Most delusional are wealthy whites, the only group that was overly optimistic about racial economic equality even before the civil rights movement." (Italics mine)

     Norman Podhoretz, in his 1963 essay "My Negro Problem-And Ours," frankly chronicles the twisted feelings he experienced as a result of his many encounters with blacks while he was a boy growing up in Brooklyn.  By the end of his essay, he bluntly acknowledges his racist attitudes and confesses how difficult it has been, and continues to be, to free himself of his bigotry: "The hatred I still feel for Negroes is the hardest of all the old feelings to face or admit, and it is the most hidden and the most over-larded  by the conscious attitudes into which I have succeeded in willing myself."  

     Perhaps some of Podhoretz's points in his essay seem a little dated, but his most instructive insight, the difficulty of facing one's own racism, no matter how small that racism might seem to be, addresses one of the points the Yale study crystallizes: our perceptions of race, of blacks, are always skewed, regardless of how firmly our liberal and enlightened minds try to persuade us otherwise.  Has America become a more tolerant country?  Less discriminatory?  The answer to both is, of course, yes.  But has the country, and all of us, shed every vestige of prejudice?  Just ask the two young, black men who were arrested for not drinking coffee at a table in Starbucks in Philadelphia.  

The President and his Fool

     In Shakespeare's King Lear, the fool and Lear exchange some the most humorous and honest dialogue.  The Fool, for all his discursive ramblings, imparts warnings and wisdom to the King who, of course, takes only his own counsel.  By the third act of the play the Fool vanishes, leaving Lear raging against the wicked duplicity of Regan and Goneril.  Mad though he is, our sympathy for the arrogant king must be unrelenting.  His decision to leave the kingdom to his daughters so he may romp freely through the land, unburdened by the demands of ruling, is his colossal and arrogant blunder, but is nevertheless forgivable.   Because Lear sees only the antecedent world he ruled, he believes he will always command the fealty he took for granted as King.  His Fool (and others) knows better.

     Today we have our own mad leader, Donald Trump, who spouts his rage on Twitter against all the reporters who refuse him the fealty he demands of them.  But there is one media personality who genuflects nightly to him; who praises everything Trump says or does; and who serves as one of Trump's most valued advisers.  He is Sean Hannity.  Over the course of the 2016 campaign and during Trump's presidency, Hannity morphed into the role of a medieval fool.  Unlike Lear's honest Fool, Hannity has never offered Trump honest or remotely accurate facts.  If he had, he wouldn't remained Trump's most trusted friend in radio and on television.  As everyone knows, advisers who state facts candidly find themselves dismissed summarily from Trump's retinue. 

     Just as Lear and the Fool make a perfect contrapuntal pair, Trump and Hannity form a perfectly synergistic one.   Both men pathologically hate the media; this hatred often curdles their speech with invective and coarseness.  Both men have also never met a conspiracy about their opponents that they didn't delight in promoting.  Trump and Hannity promoted the smear that President Obama was not born in the United States.  In fact, after Obama had released his birth certificate, Hannity continued to push the conspiracy and in October, 2016 offered to buy Obama and his family a ticket to leave the country.  https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hannity-obama-kenya-birthers-230317

     As with Trump, Hannity enjoys also smearing conservatives with insinuations that have no basis in fact.  While interviewing Trump during the primaries, Hannity permitted Trump to advance the conspiracy that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK.  Even conservative publications, such as National Review, have chided Hannity for his spreading conspiracy theories.  One particular egregious example was when Hannity zealously hyped the conspiracy that Hilary Clinton and the DNC had Seth Rich murdered.  https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/sean-hannity-seth-rich-conspiracy-theory-disgrace/ 

     Of course, a favorite conspiracy of Trump and Hannity is the "Deep State" and the evil FBI.  According to Hannity, the "Deep State" consists of secret operatives within the government, usually Obama appointees, who are scheming to  destroy Trump's presidency.  Hannity's suspicion of the covert state with the state sounds vaguely familiar.  Could it be that Hannity has watched "Three Days of The Condor" and fancies himself a contemporary coiffed and severely lacquered Robert Redford?  Hannity has attributed the Russian hacking of the 2016 election to this "Deep State."  He alleges the CIA possibly hacked the election and made it appear as if the Russians did it.  He purports that Mueller is working with Comey and the Clintons and all of them, as members of the "Deep State," are colluding to bring down Trump's presidency.

     Some might dismiss Hannity's dissemination of conspiracy theories as just more rantings of another right wing quack.  Unfortunately, millions of Americans believe his lies.   And Hannity's influence extends beyond the average citizens who listen to his radio program and watch his Fox broadcast.  President Trump watches Hannity's television program regularly and frequently calls Hannity for advice and talking points.  http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-kelly-20171010-story.html  After listening to Hannity alternately sing praises of Trump or rail against the president's critics,  Trump reciprocates, by exclaiming how great Hannity is personally and offering endorsements of Hannity's show. 

     The President and his Fool share more than just mutual admiration.  They belong to an unmistakable fraternity of misogynous men who pretend to respect women, but really regard them as simply subordinate to men.   When people point out this obvious sexism, they attack them, calling them agents of the politically correct thought police.  We all have  heard the repeated stories of Trump's salacious exploitation of women.  And what of Hannity?  No stories have surfaced about Hannity abusing or taking advantage of women; but there is plenty of evidence of his sexist personality.  But he certainly revealed his sexist mentality when he commented that Hilary Clinton came across as a grandmother more qualified to change diapers than be President of the United States.  Here is an insult about a woman who has been a lawyer, senator and Secretary of State; Hannity's experience has been that of a dishonest, pontificating knave. 

     Hannity's comment about Hilary Clinton is just a small extract of the extent of his sexist attitude  toward women.  To take full measure of the menace of his misogyny consider his attempt to defend Trump after the Access Hollywood tape revealed Trump's assertion that he could sexually assault women with impunity; or his support of serial sexual harassers Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly; or his initial defense of the degenerate predator Roy Moore.  Trump and his Fool may profess their belief in the equality of women and men, but no one is fooled by their false words.

     Lear's Fool loves his King, and though his ironic discourse never punctures Lear's illusions, his wit never strays from truth.  The  Fool lays before Lear facts that Lear listens to but never hears.  Thus the tragedy rolls inexorably through the play's bloodletting and deaths.  Trump's Fool, on the other hand, hears distinctly all his master says and faithfully recycles conspiracies and lies the President tells or needs to be told to uphold the unethical and sordid farce unfolding day after day in Washington and Mar-a-Largo.  In Hannity, Trump has his devoted Fool; in Trump, Hannity his glorious leader.  Now the rest of us have to endure two insufferable fools until election or impeachment or indictment thankfully removes one of them. 

What's a Constitution For?

       During the dark hours of night, missiles blasted Syria’s chemical weapons’ sites and President Trump exalted the success of the strikes on Twitter: “A perfectly executed strike last night. Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine Military. Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!”  The goal of the United States and its allies is to deter Assad from using more chemical weapons on Syrians.  Last year, Assad used chemical weapons and Trump responded with a missile attack.  It took a year for him to use them again, but use them again, he did.  What will be different this time?

Regardless of how good this response might make some feel, the terrible reality is nothing in Syria will change; Assad will go on brutalizing his people, maiming and killing with impunity those who oppose his rule.  Short of full military intervention, the United States can do nothing to stop the slaughter this tyrant enjoys perpetrating.  And, who knows, if we were to oust or kill Assad, would the violence and killing there stop?  Remember Iraq, anyone?  Assad will continue slaughtering Syrians and after enough time passes, he’ll use chemical weapons again.  So, what do all these fireworks actually accomplish?

For Donald Trump, we don’t have to search for the answer.  This opportunity to strike at Assad enables him to play the compassionate, decisive leader.  Now he can flit repeatedly over twitter self-aggrandizing pronouncements that he hopes will dominate the immediate news cycle and drown all the talk James Comey’s new book is generating.  Unfortunately for Trump, Comey’s book is the slightest of Trump’s problems.  The two investigations, the one in Washington and the recent one in New York involving Michael Cohen, are weaving a net so finely wrought that not even the slippery Trump will be able to slither out of.

Beyond the drama of Trump’s presidency persists a problem even more troubling.  Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the standard rationale for deploying U.S. forces, drones and missiles has been that these military actions are conducted to protect our “freedom and way of life.”  Of course, our freedom and way of life have never been threatened; our safety and peace of  mind, on the other hand have been understandably frightened and potentially endangered by a terrorist detonating a bomb or spraying a crowd with an automatic weapon.  But does the deployment of troops to 149 countries around the world really reduce the possibility of of terrorist attacks?  It’s possible, though I doubt it.  More importantly, has the question of deploying all these troops been seriously examined and debated according to the principles mandated in the Constitution and the War Powers Act?

The Constitution gives only Congress the authority to declare war and the War Powers Act requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of of committing military force and limits that use of force to 60 days.  Except for George W. Bush, who sought and received congressional approval for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars,  presidents before and after him have repeatedly acted without congressional authorization.  Even President Obama violated the Constitution and War Powers Act when he claimed that he needed no congressional authorization for continuing the air campaign in Libya in 2011, for which he received a rebuke from the House of Representatives.  Interestingly, when Obama did seek congressional approval for intervention in Syria, he was maligned by his foes and friends.

Trump has found cover (temporarily) for his troubles.  But the clock ticks and the minutes and hours slide inexorably toward his undoing.  Up to the final moment he falls, I expect he’ll wrap himself in a patriotic charade of more missiles or a military parade.  As he does, maybe the Congress and the people of this country will wake up and finally realize the shameful way we have permitted too many presidents to enlarge their Constitutional authority over the use of the military.  Congress could begin be asserting the authority with which the Constitution has empowered them, and find the courage to constrain what many of the fathers most feared: autocratic presidents.

      And we the people could begin by pressuring congress to stop sending troops into conflicts irrelevant to the United States.  To do that, we must be willing to challenge men such as  General John Kelly and expose what Phil Klay aptly calls “patriotic correctness,” in his excellent opinion piece in The New York Times.  When Americans are repeatedly told to see all U.S. military engagements as hallowed and all those who serve in the armed forces as heroes, questioning and challenging any U.S. military action becomes identified as a desecration of our “pious” patriotism and a blasphemy against the men and women who must be viewed as “sacred.”  The men and women in the armed forces deserve not our adulation, but our support; and the best support we could give them is to keep out of the wars that endanger their lives, but pose no threat to the national security of America.

Link to Phil Klay essay:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/opinion/sunday/the-warrior-at-the-mall.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region