The Case for Obstruction

This may have been the longest period of time I haven't blogged since I started in '06. Not positive. Just busy and trying to get everything done before a little deserved vacation in Alaska and have slacked off on my blog.

I'm considering in this post the case against Trump for obstruction. Congenitally unable to just start writing on my actual subject, I have to preface it with some comments (which I promise will not be long . . . I swear).

This post isn't about (mostly, anyway) the politics of the Russian Interference or special prosecutor investigation, although arguably, that may blend into defenses at some point if impeachment claims are brought or if a D president in 2020 (if that happens) decides to prosecute Trump (who will pardon himself and everyone he knows prior to leaving office, if he's smart). My personal feeling is that hatred (some of it deserved) and hysteria (not deserved) over Trump has led to opposition to him at a fever pitch at least since Nixon, if not including him. Yes, there has been unreasonable and usually partisan animosity previously displayed to almost every other president (I would say that relatively fewer people on the "other side" tended to hate Gerald Ford or George H. W. Bush), but it wasn't like this. Not even for Nixon, where there was much good reason for impeachment proceedings and his resignation, and they were - so far at least - more violent times. If you look at just one fact Mitch McConnell brought out that has, as far as I can see, been unopposed, it says it all. In Trump's first two years there were 128 cloture votes against Trump nominees whereas there were only 24 - just 24 - among Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush II and Obama nominees in the same two year period. And that animosity has led to the difficulty Trump has had in governing. I could go on, but that's not what this is about.

This post is also not about Russian collusion itself, a misnomer if there ever was one. Mueller's Report ("MR") put an end to the illogical and plain wrong notion that there was even such a thing as a crime of collusion. It was ridiculous that supposedly intelligent politicians and lawyers were arguing about this. There is a crime of conspiracy to commit a crime, but the report found neither collusion nor conspiracy with Russia and the Trump campaign. For some reasons that weren't very instructive to me, the MR chose to talk about "coordination" (also, though, the MR points out, not a crime) rather than "collusion." Whatever the proper word, it was concluded: "We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

And before you scream "But he didn't clear him," prosecutors don't clear people, any more than the NFL selects a "non-Pro-bowl" team. Prosecutors have to show reasonable cause to go forward in an investigation or arrest someone and then they have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Comey was serverely criticized precisely for doing what prosecutors don't do - clearing Hillary Clinton.

As anyone who has been blessed by knowing about my political updates since Trump came on the scene politically (was it a decade ago?) knows, I didn't like him or think he was suitable for the presidency. I didn't vote for him. On the other hand, I don't think most of our presidents or candidates are suitable for the job and I do think in some aspects he's done a good job. But, that's not what I'm writing about either.

I did not rush to judgment on this. I've said almost since the onset of these claims that collusion wasn't a crime, that so far we hadn't really heard any facts which sounded like an actual crime and that it may be a political witch hunt, but, if the report comes to a fair conclusion, I could immediately change my mind. And, before coming to a conclusion about obstruction of justice, I read that part of the MR (as well as the general introduction) very closely and really thought about it. After reading the report, I did, naturally, confirm my expectation that there was no collusion/conspiracy/crime and that it was a witch hunt, for which I do not blame Mueller, but both Ds and Rs who voted for it. I have also stated that I do not like these special counsel statutes which, whatever the legal language used, appeared to be investigations into a person with the hopes of finding a crime, rather than having probable cause to think a crime was committed. That should never be permitted. The law should be severely limited to investigating only when probable cause exists, not just that a crime was committed, but that a certain person committed the crime. And, if determined during the investigation that the facts underlying probable cause were not true - the investigation should cease to exist.

I have had a generally good opinion about Bob Mueller for many years. Not that he was perfect. I thought he was too lackadaisical about the great abuse of National Security Letters when they were first available to the FBI, and that he was even pretending to try to rein them in. I had a similar or even better opinion about Comey, until he proved himself a self-promoting, to some degree dangerous and duplicitous director of the FBI, and really disappointed me. I also think because of the close relationship between Comey and Mueller, widely reported, Mueller may indeed have a conflict of interest which should have been addressed. If there is impeachment or future prosecutions, their friendship will become an issue. But, despite the pressure to find something against Trump, Mueller didn't yield to it and it appears kept a tight hold on his team in terms of not leaking.

I analyzed just one of the events that are being considered for obstruction and realize that is all I'm going to do and just use it to stand in for all of them for now, as they all seem to follow a pattern and suffer from many of the same objections. I'm doing it for the simple reasons that there is a similarity to the charges (Trump can't shut up) and no one would want to read anything as long as what would be necessary to analyze all of the claims (I have to wonder how many would read it even to right here). In the end, I didn't find any of Trump's acts considered to have risen to the level of obstruction, though a few gave me pause. None of it means I approve of the behavior of a president who seems like a jerk in so many ways. But, I will have more commentary on this at the end of this post.

Obstruction: I'm going to use the standards and facts used by the MR, with the exception that I think the MR may be wrong about one issue of law - and if it is not wrong, should be wrong.

The MR's standards: Here's a summary of the crime of obstruction and what the MR used as its standards. I am going to try to use common English words rather than the legally-schmegally words of the MR. In order to do that and keep this short, I have to leave out some definitions, like what "corrupt" or "witness tampering" legally means and rely on your common sense and general knowledge. But, I'll give you two important ones:

False Statements: It is a crime to lie about a "material" thing to a federal officer, and that usually means the FBI.  But, it also applies to congressional committees and subcommittees. The statement has to be false and the defendant had to know it was false and that it was a crime to make the false statement (which is why they tell you before you speak with them). The statement has to be actually false - if it is just misleading but technically true, it's not a crime.  And to be "material" it "must have a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, a discrete decision or any other function of the agency to which it is addressed." E.g., if the president lies about how many people were at his inauguration, it is not material to this investigation because it wouldn't influence it.  In the same way, you also can't lie in the same way to a grand jury or when testifying under oath. 

Obstruction of Justice: This is the most important definition for purposes of this part of the MR: The wrongdoer had to make an obstructive act with a corrupt intent which has some connection to an official proceeding; and there has to be criminal or corrupt intent. You can also be guilty of attempting obstruction and it can also be based on circumstantial evidence (you wake up in a field you took a nap in and find your face and upper body are soaking wet, but nothing else around you is. It's circumstantial evidence of the fact that someone poured water on you. If you wake up and everything is wet and there are puddles around, it's circumstantial evidence it rained). Circumstantial evidence can be very powerful (as my favorite American author wrote) like when you find a trout in your milk, but, also, it can be terribly misleading. Perhaps everything is wet because a damn broke or a river flooded. Perhaps there are underground sprinklers.

Trump's Hope about Flynn.

I'll tackle the part where the MR considers whether Trump's alleged statement to Comey that he "hoped" he would see his way clear to letting Flynn go during a private meeting is sufficient to bring charges against him for obstruction. 

The MR acknowledged that the president denied many of the underlying facts (that he asked that Comey go easy on or let Flynn go), but acknowledged privately that he brought up Flynn with Comey. The MR seems to believe Comey's version. Part of the reason for that seems valid, that other people remember Trump clearing the room to speak with Comey and Comey's statements about what Trump said and some other behavior by Comey was consistent over time (that is, he was consistent in his story about what Trump said to him). Fair enough. But, I do not find Comey's own notes and testimony persuasive myself any more than I find Trump's denials persuasive. In fact, it is for me a sign of conflict that Mueller does not list some reasons we might doubt Comey - his extremely controversial behavior with the Clinton investigation, his obvious dislike of Trump, the fact that he took what were private notes meant to protect himself (he said so himself), and which are therefore self-serving, and which were leaked to the press by through a friend, etc.  Are those not evidence of duplicity? At one time I would have easily believed Comey over Trump. Not so anymore - especially after it has turned out that collusion was what Trump claimed it to be - a made up story - and the disdainful and self-aggrandizing statements of Comey, not to mention his book in which even he admitted he had gone too far. Not that I mean I ever believe Trump. But, I can't believe Comey either.

But, much more disconcerting is the MR's conclusion that anyone alone with the president would have taken his words - "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go ... I hope you can let this go" as being an order. The conclusion is not only contrary to plain English, to what Trump actually said, if Comey is being honest, but also contrary to the fact that Comey acknowledged in congressional testimony that he could be ordered to stop an investigation by the president. What if Rosenstein had ordered Mueller to stop investigating? He was the one who made the order to Mueller to investigate in the first place. And the president is his boss.

To suggest that "I hope you can see your way clear to" means "I order you to" without proof that this is what was meant by some smoking gun, seems to me to be another sign of conflict on Mueller's part. More, Comey did not act as if it was an order. He neither argued with Trump, nor resigned, nor followed up on the so-called "order." What am I missing, particularly as in his testimony Comey indicated he felt intimidated by the president? Moreover, if it was an order, why did Trump not act like Comey had disobeyed an order? There is no claim to a follow up by Trump to see if Comey followed up an "order" the way he followed up with other things he wanted done, which are highlighted in the MR. 

I was also surprised that the MR indicated that Trump speaking with Comey alone was evidence of intent to interfere - that is - it was done secretly. That makes no sense. In fact, it indicated to me that there was some bias afoot.  If Trump, the executive, wants to speak with the director of the FBI about an investigation, who should be listening in? I think the answer is no one, no matter where the conversation goes. Even the Vice President is not allowed to be involved in criminal investigations. But the president actually can. And that can't mean - any president but Trump.

Certainly, if those are the facts before a jury, there has to reasonable doubt (I'm not counting people who just hate Trump so much it has to be "guilty, guilty, guilty") if for no other reason than the words Trump used - he hoped. That is imploring, not directing. Comey doesn't suggest that Trump spoke in an aggressive manner or threatened him. In fact, it seems he was often made efforts to be conciliatory with Comey (though it clearly made Comey sick). When Trump asked if Comey would be loyal (and I really do not have a problem with that - its not the same as - I want you to be disloyal to the country or lie to Congress), as after all, Trump didn't appoint him and there were many who were trying to pin something false on him. Do you really think Holder and Lynch weren't loyal to Obama? When Comey answered that he would be honest with him, Trump said, that was what he wanted, "honest loyalty" (torturing the language as Trump can, but at least acknowledging the honesty aspect of it). You know what I think Trump meant? That Comey shouldn't try to screw him or take what the NYTimes stated as fact.

The MR also suggests that if you believe Trump did what Comey said he did, it was interfering with an investigation. I cannot go along with this either, for the obvious reasons that Trump is the president and Comey himself said that he could have ordered him to shut down the investigation. Did I miss that in the report? If I (that is, the beloved angel-like author of this blog) come into your store and stop you from making ice cream, I have committed a crime. But, if your boss does it, it is not a crime.

I do agree with the MR that Trump's statement had a nexus to a case. Obviously, it does - the Flynn case. But, it is in the discussion about a president's immunity from prosecution for obstruction that I have a disagreement with the MR on the law. The MR spends a lot of time reviewing the issue of presidential powers and whether it prevents Congress from obstruction charges. It's mostly about the separation of powers. At the end of the discussion, it concludes -  "Accordingly, based on the analysis above, we were not persuaded by the argument that the President has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise-valid Article Two powers."

Well, though they only say - "not persuaded," which is pretty thin, I agree with that very broad statement, and believe it is clearly backed by the law. The president is not above the law. He can't bribe someone or perjure himself because he's the president. He can't willy-nilly interfere with investigations in a corrupt, probably surreptitious way, by paying off investigators, intimidating witnesses, etc. But, let's also not forget, the president could have simply pardoned Flynn. Would that be corrupt? It's pretty much deemed an absolute power while the president is in office. Presidents have pardoned rebels and traitors and terrorists. If the president wanted to pardon Flynn (who, by the way, I have always considered a slightly deranged individual and hoped would not be in the administration), he absolutely could have. Could he have done it to protect himself? I think so. I think George H. W. Bush did it when he pardoned 6 men involved in Irangate - which involved actual crimes that should have been investigated. The prosecutor said "Cover-up!" and it likely was, in my view. Made me really mad (though I think GHWB one of the better, if not the best president, in my lifetime). But, I didn't think he couldn't do it. If Clinton can pardon Marc Rich, and Obama a terrorist and a traitor, Trump, like any president, can pardon whoever he likes too, whether you or I like it or not. And, he doesn't even have to explain it. If we don't want the president to have that power, we have to amend the constitution.

The above is especially true in light of the fact that his good will towards Flynn seems not to be for the president's own benefit. So, the MR found and if you want to accept some of it, you shouldn't dismiss those parts that are uncomfortable for you.

With respect to intent, the MR does, however, conclude that because he made a statement that firing Flynn would end the Russia investigation, his act was intentional interference with that investigation. Now, that's just silly. Why would he even assume that the president didn't want anyone who actually did interfere with the election to be punished? There's no claim that Flynn interfered with the election and no question now that no American did. If I have a fire and call the fire department and mention that at least calling the fire department will mean we won't have to sleep at a friend's house, it does not mean in any way that I called the fire department to stop having to sleep at neighbor's homes. I called because there was a fire. The statement about not having to sleep at my friend's house is an observation of a fact, not a causal relationship. At least without more evidence (like a statement "I'm going to call the fire department (fire Comey) solely to avoid sleeping at our neighbor's house (avoid the Russia investigation) and for no other reason as I don't care if my house burns down." Trump clearly thought there was no there there with respect to his campaign's collusion with the Russians - and he was right - and thus thinking that firing Comey, who lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador (not about the election) - would end the election investigation, is not evidence of guilt, but was at that time at least rational (if way too hopeful and naive) thinking. This is hardly rocket science because, as far as Mueller could tell after 25 million dollars and two years was that, "the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." You can believe otherwise. Investigations can come to wrong conclusions. But, officially, and in investigating obstruction, you have to take it as a fact.

Last, the MR also concludes that because Trump asked a deputy National Security Advisor to do a memo indicating that Trump did not ask Flynn to discuss sanctions with Russia's ambassador is a sign of intent to interfere with the investigation. That's a big stretch. Why not conclude instead it was for the purposes of memorializing what the president saw as the truth? You know the saying to a hammer, everything looks like a nail? It applies to prosecutors too. It's one reason their investigations should be restricted. Well, actually prosecutors are restricted . . . except, it seems, for special prosecutors.

I'll end my analysis of the Flynn "hope" issue there. There were other acts by Trump that were considered under the MR and for which, ultimately, there was no conclusion either, but the implication was that there were actionable grounds but for his being the president. Without going through a long analysis on each, I do think the president could legitimately ask Comey to go public with what he told him privately - that the FBI wasn't investigating him personally. Trump could make outreach to the heads of departments (like the CIA and National Security). He could fire Comey (no one deserved it more and the Ds use to think so too, until it benefitted them to not) even if he did say he was thinking of the Russia investigation at the time (which he knew he couldn't stop - the next day he acknowledged that his firing Comey could make the investigation last longer), particularly in light of the fact that there wasn't a basis to it. Imagine if the rule was, as long as there is a possible investigation of the president, the Attorney General and the director of the FBI are immune from being fired. That's a type of tyranny too, even if not by the head of state.

In the end, were any of these acts solid cases of corrupt interference with a prosecution or an investigation that could lead to a case, presuming they are true? I think not. Trump could also mislead the press, even if it's a bad idea. The grounds for obstruction can't be, "See, the president is a jerk" or has impulse control issues (boy, does he). And, being a little defensive for myself, though I don't like the president - think he's almost unlikeable - I would have no problem believing he was guilty of a crime if there was evidence - like, say, there was for OJ, who was a childhood hero of mine and I presumed innocent until the chase in the white Bronco. If you read the evidence or watch the O.J. trial, he was guilty of murder (though possibly not the unrelated crime they later convicted and imprisoned him on) even if he was personally charming.

What I care about is that we have rule of law. If we have special counsels who are essentially directed to investigate a president in the hopes of finding a crime, rather than investigate someone there is probable cause committed a crime, then there's a big problem. And it has been before this with Clinton and Whitewater. If we have broad and very vague crimes like obstruction, and there's no perjury (or the like) or witness/jury tampering or bribery, involved, then we have to be very careful to restrict them to something very solid or we risk truly becoming a banana republic. The road to tyranny has many paths. One is by giving anyone too much prosecutorial power. Another is by unseating a president by investigations or prosecutions when his opponents are concerned they won't beat him in 2020. Another is giving what is the power of elected officials over to courts. Another is by turning every investigation into an investigation into cover-up, which is often the real goal since Watergate. And, because it seems there is a tendency to cover up even when there is nothing to cover up, you will likely find something.

There are certain crimes that, while not black and white either, are easier to define than obstruction - perjury, witness tampering, etc. The president can't ask someone to perjure himself or lie to a federal agent. I read Mueller's brief and it does not appear Trump did so even if he did ask people to make statements that it seems he believed to be true (I find people's ability to talk themselves into believing anything that benefits them simply human nature). Obstruction is a very broadly defined crime and if we aren't careful, it can mean almost anything.

In the end, like with Kavanaugh, this really isn't about obstruction of justice. It's about "lock her up" and Garland, about the birther claims and the general hysteria over identity that is consuming too many Ds and may fracture them. Generally, you know, Trump must be destroyed. We have, as always, another election coming. It's going to be wild and likely disgusting. We should be done with this investigation. Not that I expect us to be.

As always, I wish there could be comments. You can email me and I will post them myself, anonymously, if you like. I know this stuff is upsetting and people feel very strongly one way or another.

I pledge to post again quickly when I return from Alaska, but almost certainly, about Alaska. And then, if you are really lucky, I might even finish my post on Why Wittgenstein Doesn't Matter. You think I'm kidding, don't you? Actutally, I wrote another that is finished and that will be a lot more fun.

Who Said It XVII

We haven’t played this in a while. I pick quotes from my library, give you 4 choices and you guess who said it. Answers are below.  Sorry you have to scroll down each time. I just don’t know how else to do it so you don’t see the answer. Easiest if you write your answers down and then look. The quotes are from my own library (well, almost always), which is for personal reasons (apparentlly) important to me. And I wouldn't know the answers either except that I read them. And apologies for my endless formatting issues.

1.       “I think it cannot be maintained by any candid person that the African race have ever occupied or do promise to ever occupy any very high place in the human family. Their present condition is the strongest proof that they cannot. The Irish cannot; the American Indian cannot; the Chinese cannot. Before the energy of the Caucasian race all the other races have quailed and done obeisance.”

A.      Ralph Waldo Emerson   B. David Henry Thoreau  

C. Edgar Allan Poe   D.   M. L. King, Jr. 

2.       “[I]f God was to exist and had a chance to meet him, what would you ask him? . . . I would like to ask however did he think of anything as complicated as M-Theory in eleven dimensions.”

A.      Albert Einstein  B. Richard Feynman  C. Stephen Hawking 

                        D. Bill Belichick

3.       “As to the divination which takes place in sleep, and is said to be based on dreams, we cannot lightly either dismiss it with contempt or give it implicit confident. The fact that all persons, or many, suppose dreams to possess a special significance, tends to inspire us with belief in it [such divination], as founded on the testimony of experience; and indeed that divination in dreams should, as regards some subjects, be genuine, is not incredible, for it has a show of reason; from which one might form a like opinion also respecting all other dreams. Yet the fact of our seeing no probable cause to account for such divination tends to inspire us with distrust. For, in addition to its further unreasonableness, it is absurd to combine the idea that the sender of such dreams should be God with the fact that those to whom he sends them are not the best and wisest, but merely commonplace persons.”

A.      Aristotle    B. Martin Luther   C. Martin Luther King, Jr.

D. Sigmund Freud 

4.       “The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, whatever the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour.”

A.   Pericles  B. Shakespeare C. Winston Churchill

             D. Prince Charles

5.       “Our captain, who is about 25 years of age, is the son of my most intimate friend. But whether the father is dead or living, I have not dared to ask. Mrs. H. is the sister of a priest name Elliot, a man of sound sense, and much esteemed. He came to establish himself at Fairfield, with is two sisters, while I was there. We were much attached       Mrs. H. is the youngest of these two sisters. She would be greatly astonished were I to recount to her all the little anecdotes I know of herself and her family    But I shall refrain from it.”

            A.                  Richard Burton (actor)   B. Richard Burton (explorer)

C.           George Washington         D. Aaron Burr

6.       “I had been in the library on the first floor, and had just turned out the lights and gone upstairs with Mrs. ______ to retire. I had reached the upper floor and undressed, but had not yet retired. I heard a crash downstairs as if something had been thrown against the front door. It was followed immediately by an explosion which blew in the front of the house. The door against which it was thrown leads into the library in which we had been sitting, and the part of the house blown in was in front of the library. The police and other agents who hurried to the residence to make an investigation found in the street in front of the house the limbs of a man who had been blown to pieces by the bomb. No papers were found and no evidence has yet been uncovered to indicate his identity, and it is not yet known whether the limbs were those of the person who threw the bomb or of a passerby. I hope sincerely that they were not portions of the body of some innocent person passing the house. No one inside the house was injured by the explosion. It cracked the upper part of the first story of the house, blew in the front of the lower floor, broke windows, and knocked pictures from the walls. The damage done was chiefly downstairs.”

A.   Theodore Geisl   (Dr. Seuss)                  

B.    A. Mitchell Palmer (of the Palmer raids)                

C.    G. Gordon Liddy (of Watergate fame)         

D.   Walter Winchell  (famous journalist)           

          

7.       “I love women. An awful lot of women have been kind and generous and magnificent company. I spent some time in [Salt Lake City] with the girls along Commercial Street. They were, let’s say, named for the street. We got along well.”

A.                  Bob Dylan   B. Jack Dempsey   C.   Warren Harding  

D.           B. B. King

8.       “I know that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for anyone, filled with cowardly threats, and hideous cruelty. But I do not fear prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant who took the lives of seventy of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.”

A.                  Adolf Hitler     B.  Nelson Mandela    C.  Fidel Castro   

D.           Josef Stalin

9.       “Such an astounding lack of talent was never before united to such pretentiousness.”

A.         Tchaikovsky on Richard Strauss.

B.          Winston Churchill on Dwight Eisenhower.

C.          Beethoven on Bach.

D.         Mamie Eisenhower on Richard Nixon.

10.   “I saw that mathematics was split up into numerous specialties, each of which could absorb the short lifetime granted to us. Consequently I saw myself in the position of Buridan’s ass, which was unable to decide upon any specific bundle of hay.”

A.                  Jean Buridan

B.                   Calvin Coolidge

C.                   Alan Turing

D.                  Albert Einstein

ANSWERS

1.       “I think it cannot be maintained by any candid person that the African race have ever occupied or do promise to ever occupy any very high place in the human family. . . .”

I love quotes where some famous person has written something which so appalls modern people that if modern pols and others so easily outraged knew he/she said it – they’d become a historical persona non grata to many.  Both Emerson and Thoreau became noted abolitionists. MLK, Jr., of course, a famous civil rights figure. But, Poe, like it seems every past famous person, is being vetted for racism. Well, his family did own slaves and his portrayal of blacks seemed racist – pretty consistent for the times. But, the answer, is not Poe, but Emerson, A, who, living in the 19^th century, like Lincoln, said similarly racist things. In any event, this quote is from Emerson’s journal, years prior to his celebrated speech when he finally ceded to his wife’s wishes and joined the movement against slavery.

2.       “[I]f God was to exist and had a chance to meet him, what would you ask him? . . . .”

I put this in because it just shows how stupid really smart people can be. Really, that’s what you would ask God, if you had one question? Not, how can we know the difference between right and wrong? What is your nature? Where did you come from? How did you know how do all that cool stuff? In retrospect was Eve a bad idea? Or Satan? Or karaoke? What are next week’s Powerball numbers? Etc.

You’ll be surprised to know that this was Bill Beli. . . kidding, kidding.  I’d like to think that Stephen Hawking, C, in Brief Answers to Big Questions, was kidding too, but it doesn’t seem so. If there is a God, why would M-Theory*, if it is even right, be difficult for him (I know, or her)? If you assume a God both omnipotent and omniscient – well, doesn’t that answer the question in itself? By the way, Stephen Hawking may have been brilliant, but I read some of Brief Answers and it could have been written by Oprah or Tom Brady, for that matter. Not that there aren’t interesting musings there, but it is not earth-shaking stuff. He writes mundane answers to well visited questions like -  Is there a God? No; How was the universe created? Spontaneously from nothing (well, that clears it up!), Are UFOs manned by space aliens? No. Yawwwwwn. Time travel? Maybe, he says. Will we survive on earth? Maybe again. Will we colonize space? He hopes so. Get the picture?

Hawkins didn’t dream up this theory; a scientist named Ed Witten did to make all the different string theory [also nonsense] more consistent.

3.       “As to the divination which takes place in sleep, and is said to be based on dreams, we cannot lightly either dismiss it with contempt or give it implicit confident. The fact that all persons, or many, suppose dreams to possess a special significance. . . .”

The answer is Aristotle, C.  I’ve wandered through Aristotle’s works from time to time. Only an insane person (or maybe an incredibly focused, dedicated and intelligent person who would appear insane to the rest of us) would try to read it straight through. What is remarkable is not that he was right much in the long run, but his curiosity, dedication, depth of thought, scope of learning and creativity. Not, alas, his eloquence, although maybe Greeks of his time thought he was. They didn’t have youtube cat videos to distract them. Well over 2000 years ago, he was writing about logic, physics and metaphysics, the heavens, creation and corruption, nature, memory, dreams, ethics, politics, the soul, rhetoric and poetry, etc., and he did it without Wikipedia and Google.

4.       “The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. . . .”

That could have been any of them (what I try to do here, obviously), but it was Winnie, C, the irascible, lovable, impossible and motivating Prime Minister who won the war for Britain, and then lost his job and then won it back. This quote is from his eulogy of his predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, who seemed such a failure if judged alone by the famous appeasement at Munich. But, Churchill seems to me to be talking about himself too.  Chamberlain would agree with him. They were both heirs of the same tradition of British stoicism. Chamberlain wrote shortly before he died – “So far as my personal reputation is concerned, I am not in the least disturbed about it. The letters which I am still receiving in such vast quantities so unanimously dwell on the same point, namely without Munich the war would have been lost and the Empire destroyed in 1938 ... I do not feel the opposite view ... has a chance of survival. Even if nothing further were to be published giving the true inside story of the past two years I should not fear the historian's verdict.” (Self, Neville Chamberlain). Frankly, I doubt it. Just my opinion, but it is quite possible the stoicism only ran skin deep and he was consumed with thinking about it. But, I could be wrong. I try to be stoic (sometimes), and there are some people who actually think I don’t let other people’s opinion bother me. I try not to and sometimes I succeed, at least relative to some others, but sometimes not so much. We are all human, social animals and I think everybody cares to some degree what others think of them.

5.  “Our captain, who is about 25 years of age, is the son of my most intimate friend. But whether the father is dead or living, I have not dared to ask. Mrs. H. is the sister of a priest name Elliot, a man of sound sense, and much esteemed. He came to establish himself at Fairfield, with is two sisters, while I was there. We were much attached       Mrs. H. is the youngest of these two sisters. She would be greatly astonished were I to recount to her all the little anecdotes I know of herself and her family    But I shall refrain from it. . . .”

He’s not going to tell us who it was? Or ask his friend’s son if his father, his most intimate friend, is dead? Why? His evil reputation would lead one to believe he would be happy to do so. And, why wouldn’t ask after the health of his most intimate friend? Alas, Aaron Burr’s, D’s, memoirs are kind of boring, that being one of the more interesting comments. He was a fascinating person, and in my view, more honorable than famous contemporaries who blackened his name – Jefferson and Hamilton. At least he got revenge on Hamilton who wouldn’t say – sorry. But, his memoirs, covering a middle period in his life while he traveled about - yawn!

6.       “I had been in the library on the first floor, and had just turned out the lights and gone upstairs with Mrs. ______ to retire. I had reached the upper floor and undressed, but had not yet retired. I heard a crash downstairs as if something had been thrown against the front door. It was followed immediately by an explosion which blew in the front of the house. . . .”

The answer is not Dr. Seuss, sadly, although that would have been really cool. It was the former U.S. Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, B. This was 1919, the days of anarchist bombings. His neighbor across the street was none other than FDR, then Asst. Sec’y of the Navy, and his wife, Eleanor. They were walking home after parking their car when the bomb went off and FDR joked to her that the bomb shell he had brought home from Europe must have fallen. But, as they got closer, they started to run. The streets were covered with debris, including human legs, with some flesh even making it all the way to their doorstep. Their young son was home and FDR, who was not yet crippled, ran up the stairs to find him. He was looking out the window in his pajamas. James later wrote that his father hugged him hard enough to almost break his ribs.

7.       “I love women. An awful lot of women have been kind and generous and magnificent company. I spent some time in [Salt Lake City] with the girls along Commercial Street. They were, let’s say, named for the street. We got along well.”

That was the plain spoken Jack Dempsey, B. Roger Kahn’s A Flame of Pure Desire, is one of my favorite sport’s biographies.

8.       “I know that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for anyone, filled with cowardly threats, and hideous cruelty. But I do not fear prison. . . .”

Ummmm. . . they all spent time in prison.  The answer is Castro, C. Toughest one.

9.       “Such an astounding lack of talent was never before united to such pretentiousness.”

This was a fun one (for me, at least). You can easily imagine almost any historic figure speaking thus of a competitor. But, Beethoven loved Bach – called him a God of harmony. Though there were times that Eisenhower seemed ambivalent about his vice president, I have never read anything but that Mamie had a good relationship with Nixon. Maybe there’s something out there to the contrary, but her grandson married Nixon’s daughter, and they maintained a relationship to the end. As for Churchill, famous for his cutting wit, and Eisenhower, I’ve also read nothing indicating that there was anything but friendship between them, despite inevitable quarreling during the war.  The answer was A, Tchaikovsky, speaking of Richard Strauss. Pyotr Ilyich was relatively jealous of other composers and liked to comment about them. Personally, I think Tchaikovsky was by far the greater of the two. And the one survey of modern listeners’ favorite classical composers I've read is in agreement. But, you know, it’s all good. A Strauss concert in Vienna was the first time I ever attended a professional classical music concert and his Also sprach Zarathustra (aka the theme to 2001, A Space Odyssey), a phenomenal work.

10.   “I saw that mathematics was split up into numerous specialties, each of which could absorb the short lifetime granted to us. Consequently I saw myself in the position of Buridan’s ass, which was unable to decide upon any specific bundle of hay. . . .”

Buridan’s ass? How many people would recognize that expression today, or people under 50 anyway.  Buridan was a 14^th century expositor of Aristotle, who I think is the earliest known reciter of the story of the donkey who was placed halfway between a pile of hay and some water.  It’s about free will and determinism, not to get into all that. Anyway, for some reason the story became associated with Buridan, though I’m not sure anyone knows why. Anyway, the answer isn’t Buridan, certainly not Coolidge, nor Turing, though he makes sense. It was Einstein, D.

         And that’s another exciting adventure of – Who said it?

Why the Patriots matter - a social commentary

I added "a social commentary" to the title, because this isn't really about football. For anyone reading here who is in the unfortunate circumstance that everything in life doesn't come second to watching NFL football, the New England Patriots are a team that since 2002 have been in nine, that is, half of the Super Bowls, including the last three, and have won six of them. The coach, Bill Belichick, and Tom Brady, the quarterback, for the entire time, are the sole links that run the arc of their success. Each is considered the GOAT ("greatest of all time), at least of the modern era, by at least a plurality, if not a majority of present fans, and that includes many who absolutely despise them, and also professionals (you can google). As Brady ages, Belichick, whose job does not concern physical prowess, has lately been considered by many to be the more important of the two. Despite my admiration of Brady and belief that he deserves his moniker, which has led some of my less sensitive friends to deem me "Mrs. Brady," I tend to agree. Though Rodgers came into his own considerably too late to be considered for it, I think Peyton Manning, who slightly preceded Brady and Drew Brees, who came slightly afterward, could have filled the QB slot at New England with the same results (I think, but no way to know), but Belicek is probably not replaceable.

But, that's not what this post is about. I think there is a larger - non-football - aspect to the Pats which is worth mentioning. Hence, Why the Pats matter -

"No days off": Hard work matters - There are a number of things that epitomize the Pats' philosophy. One of them is hard work. It may be the predominant factor. After the Super Bowl victory against the Falcons, where the Patriots scored 25 unanswered points to win in the fourth quarter, they celebrated in the traditional parade. Belichick came up with the weirdest celebratory chant I ever heard, so off the charts, it made me laugh. "No days off." It was weird, but it was why they win. Many teammates have testified as to how hard Brady studies, even while everyone else is playing on a bus, for example. He says he has no hobbies. Just football. Belichick's work ethic, always looking for an edge, is also legendary. How many of the GOAT's, whether Brady or Manning, Larry Bird (I leave out Jordan to make a point), Mikaela Schiffrin (I just felt like mentioning the 23 year old phenom, even if most people never heard of her - probably the greatest skiier of all time), Wayne Gretzky, etc., are known for the phenomenal work ethic rather than their superior athleticism.

"Do your job" - "Do your job" was a Belichick slogan even before "No days off." Probably more popular as I've heard players on any number of teams echo it, not to mention the media and people in other fields. What does it mean? I think it means you are responsible for your team, but focus on doing what you are supposed to do and it will all turn out okay. Personal responsibility and focus. Hope parents are listening.

"Thinking matters" - Why are teams scared of the Pats even when they make it to the Super Bowl after not playing so well most of their season. Two big reasons. One, they know that, especially with the defense, game by game, Belichick and his coaching team are working on improving the game little by little. The Detroit Lions, the pitiful Detroit Lions, beat the tar out the Pats' defense early in the season, making them look sloooow. The really pitiful Jaguars scored 31 points against them. But, somehow bit by bit, especially in the playoffs, they improved to the point that they may have had the best defense in the league at that moment - and that includes Chicago and Baltimore - holding one of the most explosive teams in history to 3 points. 3 points! What do they do? One, they find a way to bend without breaking. They do it so often that it can't be an accident. They give up the whole field, but keep the team out of the end zone. It's also understood that they will find a way to take away your strength. And they do that over and over again. How do they do it? Belichick is really smart. And obviously, he can teach too. The NFL coaches all mimic one another. But, they can't seem to mimic him. He's not always right, of course, and there have been mistakes, but so often Belichick seems to out-think and out-coach his rivals, as in this year's Super Bowl, that even his most bitter critics acknowledge his supremacy.

Leadership matters - I've been talking a lot about Belichick's method and brains, but I don't take a thing away from Brady. He says he has no interests except his family and football, so it is hard to say how smart he is, but, when you watch him on the field, he sure seems smart. Like the other great QBs of his era, Manning and Brees, he is legendary for his single-minded focus to study the other teams and know the defenses better than anyone else. His ability to remain utterly calm when behind or in the last seconds, his remonstrance to his team, "let's go" and "we've been in worse positions" - his ability to know when he should go down (well, maybe because he knows he is not Rodgers or Wilson and isn't going to extend the play), is, in my mind, the reason his leadership casts a spell over his teammates. He knows he is going to win and they believe in him. I believe in you too, Tom (this may be why my friends call me Mrs. Brady).

People actually like it when you treat the press with contempt - How do you read Belichick's standoffishness with the press, if not contempt? The NFL makes him talk to them, but even the authoritarian-minded Goodell doesn't try to tell them how to talk to the press (to a point). Belichick knows he isn't going to be asked intelligent questions and often doesn't act like he is doing anything but biding time, unless he's being interviewed by a friend, like Willie Mcginest. This is especially true if they are making inquiries into what happened in past games. You might enjoy this compilation of his greatest press-conference hits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRQnZWbl6k. My personal favorites were his pretty simple reaction when someone asked him if he was re-evaluating Tom Brady and when a reporter sort of inquired into his game plan with Kansas City. "We're onto Cincinnati" is classic too. When you see him with someone he likes or respects, he's a different guy entirely. Even during press talks, he can crack a joke. And, I imagine, if the press upped its game, he'd be a lot more forthcoming. But, most people seem to love the way he handles the press. I do.

Winning and decency beats hate - I'm not going to give another defense here of the INSANE rantings of those who hate the Pats or call them cheaters (like my otherwise intelligent friend, Don) or explain again why in the television age, rooting for the local team doesn't even make sense. The Pats answer the hate by chalking up victory after victory. It makes the haters sound like whiners. But, if I really did think the Pats were cheaters (they cheat less than most teams - in fact, year after year, they are at or very near the top of the least penalized teams in football going back way more than a decade - even in non-game fines they are in the middle). And Brady continues to be one of the most gracious players in football, preferring to give everyone else credit and never seeming to have a bad word for anyone, no matter how hard they criticize him. I don't know what he says privately (I hope he gets it off the chest, at least to his wife and his bearded boychik, Edelman), but, in public, haters gonna hate - the Pats just going to win and be charitable about it. Even Belichick is exceedingly charitable when asked about other teams and players (so long as you do not compare a defensive player to Lawrence Taylor).

Fundamentals - One thing that other commentators note is that the Pats seem to have a knack for taking castoffs or nobodies (e.g., Malcolm Butler, Tom Brady, Wes Welker, Edelman, Amendola, Dion Lewis, James White, the offensive and defensive line just about every year) and making them into stout players. I'm sure there are a number of reasons why this happens, but I think one of the main reasons is fundamentals. As I said, year after year, with very little exception, the Pats get fewer penalties than most (sometimes all) other teams. The same is true of fumbles. The same is true for throwing interceptions (Brady having the third lowest career TD/interception ratio and tied for second in lowest interception ratio - ironically with Kaepernick.) Want to guess which was the least sacked team this year (tied, with Colts, actually), the least fumbles and was tied for second for least penalties?

It's never too late. At least for the Pats - The Pats morph over time. They've been explosive. They've had Randy Moss snag 23 TDs in a season and early on Corey Dillon rushed for over 1600 one year, but the last few years, they beat you with a bend but don't break defense and grinding offense. All this year and for some years before, they were not particularly explosive over the course of a game. What is most amazing about this team is the longevity of their greatness with only Brady and Belichick for the entire time. But, the most amazing thing I've seen them do (other than beat teams in the Super Bowl that seem for the length of the season, better than them) was the victory over the Falcons when they were down by 18 points at the half and by 25 points in the third quarter. They went into the fourth quarter down 19 (which would both be SB records to come back from). Apparently, all over the country, Brady and Pat haters were still worried that they might win. Why? What team can come back from that far - score three tds and hold the other team to nothing with all the pressure the SB entails?  Well, based on the people I watched the game with, it was because of Brady. Not that they liked him. Not that they could even stand him. But, they were sure he would find a way to come back (him - not the other players). And he did come back and tied it up to send it in overtime, where they scored a touchdown to win. He set several records in the game, including most completions, most yards, not to mention doing it as the oldest QB to play. Not that he did it alone. James White was particularly outstanding as a running back, especially as a receiver, setting a record for most catches.

It might be a good idea to take care of your body - Shortest section. Tom Brady. TB12. 41 years old. Other athletes are taking the hint.

It's not personal. It's football. One of the things I love about football is that it is a meritocracy. The Pats are not the only team who gets trade or release players once they can no longer contribute as much or they want to be paid according to their services. But, the Pats do it better than anyone else, and they usually seem to be right. Otherwise, players like Dion Lewis, Amendola and Butler would be eating up the league. How does Belichick know? He just does. Or maybe it's Spidey-Sense. I'm going to hate it if someday that's what happens with Brady. It might. It happened with Manning and Montana and they are up there.

Not being greedy can help.  I hate greedy people. I remember saying around the time of the O.J. trial that I'd rather go to lunch with him than a greedy person. If I could just put out of my mind that he viciously slaughtered two innocent people (I don't think people know or remember that Nicole, his ex, was almost decapitated) I think I meant it. Kind of like when I say, if Hitler made really good pizza and it was cheap and convenient, I'd probably go there - I'm not sure if I really would. Probably not. No, I wouldn't. But, it is kind of funny to say. In any event, how much is the Pats' success due to the fact that Brady doesn't insist on getting paid like a top QB? I don't know, but it has to help free up a lot of money for other players. Another reason he's the GOAT.

What's so bad about sex trafficking? Okay, okay, I didn't say they were perfect or angels. Jumping the gun here and pre-judging guilt of Mr. Kraft, I'll apologize if it turns out to be a Bob Kraft look-alike. They say he visited twice in 24 hours. I have to admit, I'm impressed. But, the girls are oppressed. Sex trafficking is really bad and many Americans, sadly, are very complicit in it by using low-cost prostitutes, who are too often there without a choice. However, I will say that many people seem very ignorant of it. I generally don't think prostitutes or their customers should be made criminals. But, it's not something I'd recommend to anyone either. But, sex traffickers, or those who go to parlors where they know they girls have no choice - they can hang. If that includes Mr. Kraft, screw him too. Really, I don't like to curse on this blog (unlike my real life), but, going to make an exception for sex traffickers. Fuck you. Die, scumbags. Now, for the real question - why is a billionaire going to low-end prostitutes instead of having more than one girlfriend (he has a 39 year old gf, we are told) or going to very high-end call girls, rather than a brothel in a strip mall? I don't know that either. It's weird - like with Hugh Grant.

The big finale. The Pats are unique. They are great. Belichick and Brady are especially so. They matter a lot.

I know upon reading this, some of my friends - if they could easily comment - would just say - "They cheat," or "Cheaters." Why am I so nice to them anyway?

I'm not listening!!! Some comments on the social war between the old and young.

I was going to try to leap into this topic without one of my lengthy preliminary statements. After a few tries, I remember that I’m just not good at it.

I’ve written here recently on topics like identity politics and “civil rights” (8/28/17), the Kavanaugh debacle (10/2/18), the Metoo movement (11/2/18 and 6/12/18), over-sensitivity, the lack of sense of humor, self-victimization and apologies (6/12/18). I don’t want to repeat myself too much, so my approach here will be a little different. My perspective is, not surprisingly, that of a middle-class, middle-age guy raised on Long Island. I’m not sure if being white also figures in, but I think most people assume it does (I’m not sure that most middle-aged, middle-class black and Hispanic men and women don’t agree with me – I don’t know). And I was also raised in a Jewish family and was raised around a lot of Jews. That may figure in too, but I don’t think so because I seem to be on the same page with my Christian raised peers too. That is, almost everyone I know, roughly my age (up to their 80s), feels pretty much the same. To my surprise, the one exception I can think of, the gentleman I usually refer to herein as Eddie or my favorite liberal, actually also agrees on some of these things although I doubt he would express it to other true believers. And though it is a fairly small sample, it is enough that I expect it is probably a large majority of people in the same peer group.

The things people tell me, the things you read about on these topics, just make me shake my head (not alone either) and wonder where we are headed. Just as a few examples from I believe the last six months - the Yale couple who urged students not to lose their head over seeing Halloween costumes that might offend them, but to discuss rather than overreact caused some students to threaten to leave the school unless the couple was terminated (because, I guess, any discussion would mean disagreement was unacceptable?); the astronaut who apologized for quoting Winston Churchill because he must now be seen as only a racist; Tom Brokaw, who had to apologize for having the opinion that Hispanic immigrants should try to assimilate (because it is a bad idea that immigrants assimilate?), the woman who gave free yoga lessons at the U. of Ottawa having her classes canceled because yoga, long practiced in our country, was deemed “cultural appropriation” (cultural appropriation being as dumb a theory as actual racial hatred, in my hallowed opinioned – every culture is an amalgamation of many other cultures and cultural exchange should be encouraged), the Duke professor who had to step down as director of graduate students for urging Chinese students to speak English on campus (even though she was defended by some outraged Chinese students who said she was anything but a racist; I think she was incorrect in thinking that important, but the reaction was ridiculous); the Kentucky students who were libeled and slandered in the media after being harassed by racist members of a black religious group (“Black Hebrew Israelites”?); Oxford U. staff being warned that avoiding eye contact may be deemed racist, that they shouldn’t ask someone where they are from (I ask all the time – it seems to me people love to be respectfully asked about it) or joke about an accent; the poor snook who was fired in (I think Australia) because he said the newest British princess, a former actress, was “not bad,” even though his female co-workers weren’t sanctioned for calling her hot; even the actor Kevin Hart fired from hosting the Oscars because earlier in his career, he made jokes about gays (still common on television shows and in movies) and now admits he’s changed his mind.

You can dismiss these as just a few anecdotes in billions of interactions of people every day, but they are just examples of what I think is going on everywhere. The stories are endless. Maybe it’s not many, but when every young police officer I’ve spoken to has told me that they and their fellow officers try to avoid arresting a black person because of the chance of being called a racist, too many teachers have told me horror stories about how they aren’t allowed to teach their class for fear of litigation by a student they are told they cannot discipline (b/c they are either black or handicapped) or that they are not permitted to use distinctions like boy or girl (and I’ve yet to discuss it with even a liberal who thinks that makes sense), been told by too many people – and that includes women – that their offices have become insane over harassment/discrimination issues, for me to think that the world isn’t rank with this stuff. Feel free to believe it’s not happening.

So, the following is just a discussion of some of the things people in my peer group are thinking and saying to each other:

Intent matters

Nowadays, when someone is offended, it seems to not matter a lick to cultural warriors on the left whether the offender meant to offend anyone or was actually being racist, misogynist, etc. And, there are many in business and professions, terrified about being labeled and they or their company losing money or their jobs, apologizing to beat the band. One absolutely crazy example is the New York Times’ Crossword Puzzle editor who apologized publicly for using the word “beaner.” The clue was about baseball pitchers who pitched at batters’ heads – “Pitch to the head, informally.” A well-known metaphor for head is a bean. There was nothing ethnic at all about it. Not remotely. Didn’t matter, as a Times’ spokesperson stated wrote - “Tuesday’s Crossword puzzle included an entry that was offensive and hurtful. It is simply not acceptable in The New York Times Crossword and we apologize for including it.”

Despite the fact that neither the editor, Will Shortz, or his co-worker had ever heard of a racial slur for Hispanics being “beaner” (nor I), he apologized. 

My family and friends either groan or laugh when I make my stupid joke when someone refers to a “black” car or shirt by saying, “You mean African-American shirt, don’t you?” You can think its racist if you like, but the point of the joke is that sensitivity to racial matters shouldn’t include benign references that sound like something racist, or could be racist in another context. Do you know how many people cringe when the mere word “black” is used when a black person is present, or who look around to make sure there isn’t?

What the hell is wrong with a non-apology apology?

While we are on apologies, they matter. So do fake ones. It seems to me that many apologies publicly made these days are false. It is really about power, that is, the offended group forcing the innocent offender to not just apologize, but to prove they are sincerely apologizing and accede the offended party’s views.

Cam Newton, an NFL QB of whom I’m not a fan (though he is an amazing athlete) apologized last year for making a joke when a female reporter asked him about a wide receiver’s “routes” (i.e., for those who don’t know, the path they run). He heard it from everyone – and, it was a dumb joke, as there have been women reporting on football since at least he was a little kid if not longer. Nevertheless, he was making a joke based on the fact that most women don’t play league football where a receiver would be running routes. He didn’t mean to insult her, however stupid it might be. If you want to see someone really angry lie through his teeth, watch the video of his apology.

I’ve had this discussion many times with people. Apologizing when you don’t mean it because you don’t feel you’ve done anything wrong is an insult to the person you are apologizing too. It actually is okay to give a non-apology apology though – I’m sorry if I’ve upset you, or, I know you feel that way or it makes me sad that you are upset, etc., because that is genuine. I call bologna on this absurd notion that non-apology apologies are wrong when they are actually truthful.

What’s wrong with non-apology apologies? I’ll tell you, they are only wrong if there is no discussion allowed, if the truth doesn’t matter and it’s about power. And, in the cultural wars, that is really what it is about.

What happened to color blind?

I was alive during the ‘60s and ‘70s, when Civil Rights actually meant civil rights and was about justice and equality under the law. I wrote on this subject in Killing the dream - again (8/28/17), concerning how modern so-called civil rights advocates have flipped around MLK’s dream that one day we would judge each other by the content of character rather than skin-color. So, I’ll keep this short, but read these advocates to try to understand their point of view. It is about color. One well known author, Michael Eric Dyson, has even gone so far as to state, and not just metaphorically, that blacks need a country where there are only blacks, in order to heal their wounds and I guess feel better. Not only is that racist, but insults them, stereotypes them and smacks of apartheid. Yet no doubt he and other advocates of victimization and separationism, like Ta-Nehisi Coates are the leaders.

White people listening to black people witness their anger (even if they are millionaires) is not the answer. White people acknowledging their privilege isn’t either. I quote Supreme Court Justice John Roberts a lot – “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race, is to stop discrimination on the basis of race.” I’m not sure that he will stay with that, given political realities concerning the court and his role on it, but even if he took it back, I’d agree.

The idea that there is one set of rules for people of this color or this gender (or whatever identity distinction) and another for others is self-defeating. Those who consider themselves victims based on their identity will never stop feeling like one until they adopt the same principle – morals and ethics should be color-blind.

I certainly don’t apply this only to blacks. It seems like everyone and his brother wants to be an oppressed minority these days (except, generally speaking, the Irish – don’t ask me why). If you can say a word, you aren’t privileged because of your social status to own the use of it, and expect others to use it. If you can tell a joke because you are Jewish, black, Christian, etc., so can others.

The dumbest social warrior position

Which leads me to the dumbest of social warrior positions – cultural appropriation. There are no black lines around cultures, communities and social movements. One culture taking ideas from another – and vice versa, is how the world works. It is how it always worked. It is how languages change and split, it is how we improve and learn things. We should want other cultures to appropriate what we do in terms of the enlightenment principles. We should want other cultures to share our values and even our arts and technology. And we do. No ethnic group owns something like yoga or karate or football (either kind). Is it cultural appropriation when other countries play baseball or football? Of course not.

We do have intellectual property laws, and it is best when they are obeyed. But, not everything is covered. The bottom line is, it’s good when ideas are spread, particularly good ones.

What do those complaining about the professor teaching yoga want? – that only Indians should be allowed to teach yoga? Only the Chinese can make Chinese food or only Hispanics can be Zorro for Halloween? That’s a recipe for stagnation, not growth. Give credit where it is due, if you know. That’s important to me. But, the idea that one culture or community owns something because they are a minority – is regoddamdiculous. And, yeah, I stole that from John Wayne, who I believe was an Anglo-Saxon by heritage. And I heard my friend, Mike, an Italian, quote him first. So what? Personal friend appropriation?

The great irony of it is – the natural counterpart to not appropriating from other cultures, is to stereotype people. So, if I shouldn’t teach yoga because I am not Indian (and not because I am incapable of doing yoga, though that appears true), should I assume that Indians all do yoga? I’m sure I would be castigated for stereotyping. 

The answer to every dispute isn’t to destroy someone’s life

You’re fired. You’re suspended. You can’t play. That’s the result lately when someone says or does something that social warriors don’t like.

The idea that someone who disagrees with you or says something you don’t like should have their life ruined is way too common. It’s almost the “go to” position these days.  A teacher tells her class there’s no Santa. Not, Ms. Smith, go tell your class that that’s just your opinion and to ask their parents – she’s fired. Fired. A principal, trying to follow the stupid rules about not making the winter break just for Christians says, no candy-canes, because the J represents Jesus. They didn’t say, Principal Smith, it’s okay, just tell everyone candy canes are just easy to hang up and its okay to use them, or, thank her for trying to be inclusive – they suspended her. I don’t know what happened to her after that. Rob Gronkowski, a player I usually like just got in hot water for making a sexual innuendo to a woman reporter that he’s made before about his favorite number. I don’t think the NFL will – but there are calls for him not being able to play. If he thinks it is okay to tell a sex joke and they don’t think so – why should he be suspended? Could the NFL do it? Of course, we know they can just because it’s “bad” for football. But, it’s ridiculous. The list of people fired or suspended for opinions that others don’t like is just disturbing. Don’t start me on the guy from Google again.

Try to know the difference between being stumbled over and kicked

I love saying to my favorite liberal, “Congratulations, your team destroyed American’s sense of humor.” It’s not just that kids are so sensitive and so attuned to racial justice that ethnic humor is dead – many examples, go google – but almost any comedian who makes fun of anyone other than straight white males is going to get the boot – sometimes literally. A number of well-known comedians have complained about it or stopped performing on college campuses.

I went to Gettysburg with some friends. When the guide was starting up I asked him to go slow because my friend in the back was Italian. My friend didn’t get insulted. He came back with - and my friend’s Jewish – don’t count on much of a tip. I didn’t get upset either (how could I?) We just all laughed.

When I was growing up we told ethnic jokes all the time. Maybe it is not why everyone laughs, but I did because what was said was outrageous or a ridiculous stereotype. I think it is why most people laugh. Not so much anymore. When people send me jokes now, I ask them if that is on their work phone, because their employer will be happy to look through it if they want to get rid of him.

Back when I was young, we had Don Rickles saying outrageous things on stage to minorities. I really don’t think they were offended. They knew the difference. One of my favorite expressions is . . . even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and kicked. I am not sure if someone would that routine could succeed anymore. Certainly not a white male. Could you even make the movie Blazing Saddles anymore? It was filled with jokes that now would be criticized as horrifically racist.

Sex, flirting, dating, sexual references, liking someone, smiling – isn’t all harassment

I wrote too recently about this too go into a rant, but I recently had a conversation with a young woman (mid-late 20s) that shocked me and everyone I related our conversation to. I know her family (none readers) and she’s a nice girl, someone I think is very intelligent and certainly raised well. But, she has made it clear before that she doesn’t think women are treated fairly at work. I agree to some extent. We were discussing Kavanaugh and metoo type things and she expressed the opinion that no one should be confirmed as a judge (probably other offices) if they have even been accused of harassment. She suggested that I would never put myself in a position where someone could even accuse me of sexual harassment. I immediately said it wasn’t true, that many of my peers discussed with each other, including myself, after metoo took off, what consensual sexual behavior or flirting or joking we engaged in when young could be made out to be harassment now or remembered as such by the women now, years later. And we all knew, that no matter how we squawked it was consensual, mutual, etc., few would believe us or care. I related a couple examples to her. In one of the examples I mentioned that the woman involved, who had a lot of leeway at her job, told me that she had invited me to work there (without even mentioning it to our boss), my first full-time job, because she had a crush on me (and a few times over the years, we spontaneously we kissed). The young woman’s response to that was that I should have reported her for hiring me for that reason. I was stunned. So were the other adults at the table. So is everyone I tell it to. I asked her then, why would I report someone who got me my job? Her response was that it was inappropriate. Again, this doesn’t come from a maniac or someone with a lot of problems, but a nice, normal person who has been raised in a certain mindset foreign to the way that older people were raised. And, it is not just different – it’s worse. What I didn’t tell her was that it would have been pretty hard to report it to my boss – he was sleeping with her.  

I still think metoo is important, but it has jumped the shark. The handful of actual monsters, exaggerated because they are celebrities, pales in comparison with the effect on millions of people. Women knowing they can speak up about harassment or worse is something I’ve been preaching for a long time. But, the excesses of it are not mere occasional happenstance. People are afraid at work, people are chilled at work from having relationships or kidding around. What almost everyone I know says about the metoo movement – that we feel sorry for young people who have to work in that environment.

You can’t treat women the same as men at work if there is a fear of being fired

Something else that came out of that same conversation was her expression that women should be treated the same as men at work, including socially. Well, I agree as far as things like equal pay for equal work, promotions, career opportunities. But, not everything. First, clearly, men can’t say the same things to women that they can say to each other, for fear of being accused of harassment. Moreover, if they can’t ask someone out on a date at work (or they are limited to one rejection, as this young woman told me was the policy at Facebook), how can they ask them out to dinner as they would a man?  Do they have to say magic words, “as friends?” And what are their concerns as to what might be misinterpreted by a woman that would not be by a man?  What means one thing to a women does not seem the same to a man and vice versa. If you don’t believe that, I think you are kidding yourself.

What’s happened, I’m advised by reading articles and also what men have told me, is that as a result of the excesses of metoo, many men do not want to socialize with women they work with outside of work, and many men don’t want to hire women. It’s a shame, but I get it. People want to avoid trouble. Is that wrong? Who among us would not advise this to our friend in our personal lives? If they are having trouble with or were fearful of someone, or some group, wouldn’t we say, - avoid entanglement with them?

I’m not listening!!!

Do you remember the scene in The Princess Bride with Miracle Max (Billy Crystal) and his wife (Carol Kane), where Max is running away from her yelling “I’m not listening!!!!”? If not -

https://tenor.com/view/im-not-listening-princess-bride-miracle-max-billy-crystal-carol-kane-gif-12959051

The point of much of politics, litigation, even arguments between regular folks, is to try to get the third party – the electorate, the judge, friends and family - not to listen to the other side. The reason that it is so important is that it often is much more persuasive than facts or reason. Once people are primed to believe one side and not even listen to the other, the primer has effectively won the argument, even if it is crazy.

This has been accomplished in many ways. Right now, many young people, indoctrinated through school or family (as I was) have a number of strategies where argument or debate becomes almost impossible. Young people, who are more open to new ideas, but also more gullible than older people (a broad generalization, obviously), have accepted that –

- ideas they don’t like are violent and therefore can be stopped by force.

- similarly, ideas they don’t like are hate speech and therefore not protected by the first amendment!

- there should be safety zones in colleges where young people are spared the pain of hearing others’ views.

- ideas you don't like should be met with screeching! I’m not sure exactly what to call it, but screeching will do. I’m only seen this in videos, which sometimes go viral. Usually, these are women, hearing what they don’t want to hear at a public gathering, who then begin screeching with a high pitched and hysterical tone, sometimes accompanied by frenzied arm movement, as if they are terrified or going out of their minds with anguish. The only way to stop the uncomfortable screeching is to stop speaking. It can actually be quite effective, as people often shy away from or avoid people they think are crazed or hysterical. I actually dated someone (for a short while), who employed this technique. It didn’t work, but we weren’t in a public meeting. I even recognized one screecher from a video who came a few years later to be a screecher at the Kavanaugh hearing. I wondered if she hired out for it or if she just went where she wanted.  

- it is okay to drown out disagreeable speakers with noise or even violence. This has become popular when right-wing speakers speak or to stop a congressional hearing.

Who’s left standing like a statue?

In the last few years it has also become popular to demand the removal of statues that offend people, usually based on the claim that they were racist. I’m actually not opposed to their removal by popular demand by those we’ve elected or who they’ve appointed to make these decisions. Statues don’t have to be forever. I’m sure few Americans were concerned either when in revolutions, statues of Lenin and Saddam, for example, were torn down. We are not in a civil war, and self-help here is plain wrong. No vandalism, please. Thank you.

I was in Richmond, Va. a while go, and looking at all the confederate statues thinking, this is weird. Why are they celebrating the people who were defending slavery? I know, it’s about honor and heritage, which I heard a bit when I lived down there. I do get it, but, I can absolutely understand being offended by it. Imagine if you went to Germany and there were statues of Hitler, Goebbels and Goering throughout Berlin? I know it would make me uncomfortable.

That being said, where do we end it? For some people, anything someone said that was discriminatory, any act whatsoever, no matter how far in the past, no matter how they changed or how common the behavior was.

Yes, George Washington participated in slavery. I understand why that upsets some people because he knew it was an abomination, although he was born and raised in the system. Some people in his station (and other founders) rejected it, made amends for it by freeing their slaves and even seeing to their support. But, given the times he lived in, does it cancel out his greatness and importance to us? Abraham Lincoln, by today’s standards, was a virulent racist. So was Teddy Roosevelt. Jefferson’s behavior was repugnant. Do we tear down Mt. Rushmore? Some people want Christopher Columbus forgotten, which given his times, when slavery existed almost everywhere and had since historical times at the least (and we can be sure well before), is just ridiculous. There are people who want to take down Gandhi’s statues because he made some regrettable statements. Gandhi! Imagine. Who’s left? Thoreau, who inspired Gandhi was looked down on women, in general. Jesus accepted slavery. Read your New Testament. Einstein made racist statements (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/albert-einstein-travel-diaries-reveal-racist-and-xenophobic-views/) before decrying racism. Martin Luther King, Jr. used the dreaded “N” word and treated a woman, his wife, poorly, routinely cheating on her.

Time does matter.

One of the other things that seems to be a principle among the young is that no amount of time or apology seems to be sufficient. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, opposed gay marriage and worked against it in the late '90s and early '00s with her dad. She has obviously changed her mind as has a majority of our nation. She's apologized (which she shouldn't have to - but leave that aside). Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage. Are they going to be shunted aside now? I doubt that, but, leave that aside too. That was at least 15 years ago. The governor of Virginia, a Democrat, may (I think he did) have been in blackface or posed as a klansman, for Halloween back in 1984. Obviously, he is not a racist. He'll be, like yours truly, 60 this year. He was probably 25 at the time he did it. Even if it is now an emotional crime to pose on Halloween as something evil or shocking or wrong, which is also nuts, do we no longer give a pass to people who do things when they are young. Assume, for argument's sake, that this was wrong of him. And he was a mean racist. 35 years is not enough time to say, that was then, this is now. 

*

Sure, I could go on, but I usually use the 8th page of a single-spaced Word doc. as an arbitrary end line for the benefit of my beloved readers. 

I will just finish by saying, that I think people just like me were making the same type of complaints I am making here about stuff that we think is just fine, even desirable now, when I was a kid. And perhaps, 50 years from now, my great-grandchild will be thanking this generation too, for this way of thinking. I don't think so. I think Fonzie jumped the shark and that way of thinking is heading towards re-education classes. Already, professionals are being forced to take political classes evincing the principals that they are almost inherently racist and misogynist. What's next. We will see - has become one of my most off-repeated statement.

Wish you could comment anonymously. Feel free to email me a comment at dheisenberg@gmail.com and I will publish it under whatever name you like.