Monthly Archives: July 2019

Chutzpah

(Chutzpah)…that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

~Leo Rosten/The Joys of Yiddish

I have been pretty tough on white evangelicals the past few weeks.  And with good reason as most recently evidenced by the latest Pew Research Center survey on attitudes toward refugees in which 68 percent of white evangelicals do not believe the United States has a responsibility to accept refugees.  Which makes you wonder if they are channeling Bill Clinton when citing the sermon on the mount. “It depends on what the meaning of ‘welcome the stranger into your house’ is.”

However, it is unfair to single out one group when there are equally hypocritical representatives of all the major religions and among the unaffiliated.  Today, my focus is the domination of which I am most familiar.  Although my adherence to religious practice associated with Judaism becomes more distant daily, I still consider myself a “member of the tribe,” with deep historical and cultural ties.  Among the latter is the concept of “Tikkun Olam” which roughly translates into “heal the world.”  The concept first appears in Orthodox Judaic commentaries as a call to eschew all forms of idolatry.  In “Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought and Law (1997)”, the four authors write, “In the modern era, this concept calls for Jews to bear responsibility not only for our own moral, spiritual and material welfare, but also for the welfare of society at large.”

Sadly, there are anecdotal instances in which individuals raised in Jewish households–e.g. Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Epstein–by virtue of their greed and perversity result in disgrace and embarrassment and, most unfortunately, affirm the stereotypes of those who hate and have persecuted Jews throughout history.  Don’t believe me?  Readers’ comments on The Daily Stormer website in response to coverage of the Epstein story include, “Jews do not fear wrongdoing…they fear getting caught and exposed for who they are…jews.”  Or, “If it wasn’t Epstein, it would be another Jew.” It is unconscionable this kind of bigotry is given cover in Donald Trump’s America.

So, how do you fight prejudice?  With role models.  John F. Kennedy’s election forever debunked the fear a Catholic president would be more beholden to the Vatican than the Constitution.  And Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House demonstrated that a black man with power did not have to be angry a la Putney Swope who, in the 1969 movie of the same name, said, “I’m not going to rock the boat.  I’m going to sink the f***ing ship!”  Equally important, the Obama family stood in stark contrast to many of the images we see of the African-American experience on the news and in popular culture.  My favorite commentary on inauguration day 2017 accompanied a picture of Obama and Trump on the White House steps before heading to the Capitol.  “Guess which man has five children by three different women?”

Which brings me back to Judaism.  Would the election of the first Jewish president affirm or refute the prejudicial memes spouted by those who believe in the international Zionist conspiracy?  An “N” of zero makes any empirical analysis impossible.  But we do have data on Jewish-Americans in or near positions of national power.  And the reviews have been less than glowing.  For example, Abe Fortas was nominated by Lyndon Johnson to become the first Jewish chief justice of the Supreme Court.  His confirmation was derailed when Judiciary Committee chairman James Eastland (yes, the same James Eastland Joe Biden referenced last month) opposed Fortas’ promotion from justice to chief justice.

Unfortunately, Fortas brought his own nails to seal his coffin when it was revealed he had accepted speaking fees from business interests presenting a conflict of interest if and when these interests had cases before the court.  By today’s standards, this indiscretion would barely make the news.  But opponents used it to suggest Fortas could be controlled by moneyed interests.  And eventually Johnson withdrew the nomination.

Then there is the case of Joe Lieberman who came within a hanging chad of becoming vice-president.  Instead of continuing to support the Democratic agenda, Lieberman became an independent and supported John McCain in 2008.  I understand they had become close compadres while serving together in the Senate.  But that does not explain Lieberman’s endorsement of Sarah Palin, saying, “She is the leader we can count on to help John shake up Washington.”  As we now know, his affinity for McCain was more than support for a personal friend.  In 2016, he tossed aside years of progressive ideology and backed Trump amid rumors he might become the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.  Can you spell “opportunist?”  I knew you could.

And now, although not elected, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are perhaps in the highest position of national influence than any Jewish couple in the nation’s history.  And how would they use that influence?  In May 2017, Jodi Kantor, Rachel Abrams and Maggie Haberman wrote the following in a New York Times article titled, “Ivanka Trump Has the President’s Ear. Here’s Her Agenda.”

In interviews last week, she said she intended to act as a moderating force in an administration swept into office by nationalist sentiment. Other officials added that she had weighed in on topics including climate, deportation, education and refugee policy.

I know, Ivanka was not born into Judaism.  She converted when she married Kushner.  However, it is said that converts often become stronger believers of their chosen theology than those who come to a religious denomination by birth. And based on the 2017 Times report, Ms. Trump would seem to support the principle of “Tikkun Olam.”  But like her father, selective amnesia runs deep.

  • Where was she when daddy decided to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords?
  • What happened to the “moderating force” when Trump demonizes refugees and authorizes raids to deport immigrants whose only crime is wanting a better life for themselves and their families?
  • When has she ever spoken out against Betsy Devos’ proposals to slash funding for public education, deregulate predatory for-profit colleges or weaken protections against sexual assault and harassment under Title IX of the education act?

Not to be outdone by his wife, Kushner, a modern-day Shylock, is more than willing to use his connection to his father-in-law to grease his own financial position.

You have to appreciate the irony.  I, born and raised as Jewish, find myself wondering if, based on the attitudes and behaviors of some at the doorstep of national influence, there is a kernel of truth in the negative stereotypes of my people promoted by the alt-right.  Equally ironic, Jared and Ivanka are Jews only a white supremacist or neo-Nazi could love.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Who’s At Vault?

You know, if one person, just one person, does it, they may think he’s really sick and they won’t take him.


And if two people do it, in harmony, they may think they’re both faggots and they won’t take either of them.

And if three people do it! Can you imagine three people walkin’ in, singin’ a bar of “Alice’s Restaurant” and walkin’ out? They may think it’s an organization!

~Arlo Guthrie, Alice’s Restaurant

Related imageAt the height of the Vietnam conflict, music was a catalyst for the anti-war movement, including Guthrie’s shaggy dog tale of his effort to avoid the draft. Makes one wonder if he should have paid more attention to Ringo Starr on the Beatles’ White Album.  Are “blisters on my fingers” equivalent to “bone spurs?”  [Historical Footnote:  Many people believe John Lennon or George Harrison contributed this ad lib at the end of the “Helter Skelter” track.  Starr later acknowledged his exaggerated drumming during this particular recording resulted in the digital malady.]

The above excerpt from Guthrie’s 1967 performance came to mind as I read reports on the FBI raid on Jeffrey Epstein’s New York residence.  According to the Washington Examiner, “A detention memo filed by the prosecution further alleges ‘an extraordinary volume of photographs of nude and partially-nude young women or girls’ were seized in the raid on Epstein’s New York City home.” Of particular import was recovery of compact discs from a safe, one of which was labelled “Young [name redacted] + [name redacted].”  In other words, there are photos of at least one of the victims with someone other than Epstein.  You have to ask, “Why would a convicted sexual predator keep evidence of his guilt, especially if it included people who had also taken advantage of these girls?”  This question is easier to answer than, “Who is buried in Grant’s tomb?”

Something about the press reports seemed much too familiar.  Didn’t Donald Trump’s friend David Pecker, CEO of the National Enquirer parent company America Media, Inc., have a safe filled with files associated with “catch and kill” stories about Trump detractors and challengers?  And then there was Michael Cohen, who admits he kept hundreds of taped conversations under lock and key.  Anyone want to guess why he did that?  And finally, there is Russian President Vladimir Putin. If only Geraldo Rivera would put the same investigative effort into discovering what’s in that collection housed somewhere in the bowels of the Kremlin as he did with Al Capone’s Chicago vault.

I try not to promote conspiracy theories.  But it is fair to ask questions when circumstances warrant such inquiries.  For example, how many now known sexual deviants played some role in Trump’s capturing of the Republican nomination and eventual occupancy of the Oval Office?  Take NBC Today Show host, Matt Lauer, please.  During the campaign, Lauer emceed a “presidential forum on foreign policy” with the two major party candidates.  It was a Trump love-fest (Lauer did not interrupt or fact check any of Trump’s false statements) and a Clinton hit-job with the majority of his time with her devoted to the email server despite her efforts to share thoughts on the U.S role in the world.

As Bill Maher often says, “I don’t know it for a fact; I just know it’s true.” What are the odds Matt Lauer’s phone number is in one of Jeffrey Espstein’s black books or there is a a file labeled “ML” in David Pecker’s safe. And you have to ask, “Which of these ‘safe-keepers’–Epstein, Pecker, Cohen, Putin or ones yet to be identified–have something on Jerry Falwell, Jr?  Lindsay Graham?  Or even William Barr?”

So, let me posit the Dr. ESP corollary to the Arlo Guthrie theory of how movements evolve.

When one person does it, it’s an anomaly.

When two people do it, it’s a coincidence.

And if three people do it.  Can you imagine three people doing the same nefarious thing for the same reason, it’s  a conspiracy.  And folks, that’s what it was.  The friends of Donald Trump entire massacre conspiracy!

Instead of worrying about Democrats energizing the “black vote” in 2020, the media should be more focused on the “blackmail generated vote.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Acosta Living Adjustment

 

An open letter to Robert Mueller.

Director Mueller:

I know what you said.  You are reluctant to testify before Congress.  You think your report speaks for itself.  And no one can accuse you of a 180 degree reversal in behavior (as is the case with attorney general William Barr).  Leading up to your date with the House Judiciary Committee next Wednesday, several news outlets have produced decades of your past testimony on Capitol Hill and consistent is an understatement. You are the real-life Joe Friday of your generation.  “Just the facts, ma’am.” (Historical Footnote: Actor Jack Webb never once uttered those exact words.)

And that may have made sense, UNTIL yesterday.  If you did not watch Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s press conference in response to media coverage of his sweetheart deal with known pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, you need to do so before next week.  Why?  Because history is the ultimate judge of the choices we make in the present.  With all due respect, if you choose not to:

  • elaborate on your team’s findings and Barr’s inaccurate interpretation,
  • affirm 140 contacts by Trump operatives with Russians during a presidential election cycle constitute any common sense (if not legal) definition of collusion and coordination,
  • identify specific instances where potential witnesses, particularly those who were critical to a potential charge of conspiracy, refused to testify in person or claimed protection against self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, and
  • share any instances where White House or Department of Justice officials made it more difficult for your office to get to the truth about Russian interference in the 2016 election,

you should not be surprised when, sometime in the future, an enterprising journalist like Julie K. Brown at the Miami Herald takes a second look at your actions.  And you feel the need to justify the indefensible just as Acosta did yesterday.

In fact, it might as well have been you on that podium yesterday.  Just as Acosta wrongly claimed there was insufficient evidence to make a solid case against Epstein, reporters  will remind you, “YOU were the one in charge.  YOU could decide to continue the investigation if necessary. If a journalist could make the case, why couldn’t YOU?”

And don’t you dare suggest the journalists uncovered new evidence.  Nothing presented in their exposé happened outside the same time-frame of your investigation.  It was all there, ready for harvesting if you had shown the determination and will to follow the leads to their logical conclusion.

And, as did Acosta, you too have claimed you were ham strung.  By whom and by what?  An acting attorney general Matt Whitaker whom you could have challenged on principle and eviscerated before any judge?   William Barr, a Roy Cohn doppelganger who committed perjury before a Congressional committee?  A departmental memo affirmed by two Republican administrations to protect the incumbent from legitimate law suits? For someone with a classic poker face, you do not seem to know when you have a winning hand.

And finally, you need to come up with a better excuse than the labor secretary why you did not take a different tack.  “It was the best deal I could cut at the time,” Acosta’s bottom line, does not hold water.  “The best deal’ is not enough whether the stakes include the protection of “girls” (not young women) from sex trafficking or the future of the on-going American experiment in democratic governance.  Acosta allowed a serial pedophile, who we know to this day maintained his collection of child pornography, if not worse, to reenter society as though nothing had happened.  Likewise, you gave Donald Trump a similar slap on the wrist, and allowed him to continue to shred the Constitution and place himself above the rule of law.

Next Wednesday morning, take a good look in the mirror before you head over to Capitol Hill.  And ask yourself the question you will surely be asked one day, “In hindsight, could you have done better?”  Wednesday is your chance to avoid having to answer that question.

Respectfully,
Dr. ESP

 

Redo Threedux

Call 2019 the “Year of the Redo.”  The term “redo” is now omnipresent in the national dialogue.  Donald Trump accuses Democrats of wanting a “redo” of the 2016 election. He also falsely asserts Nancy Pelosi and the House Judiciary Committees want a “redo” of the Mueller report although its principal author clearly states Congressional consideration is the appropriate next step in the Trump/Russia saga.  Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyers will surely argue his recent indictment on sex trafficking charges by the Southern District of New York is a “redo” of his 2007 plea agreement.

But what do you call it when you get, not one, but two chances to reverse the course of events.  As with sports championships, a “three-peat?”  A “threedo?”  The “third grail?” Regardless of the nomenclature, on an immediate issue of national importance, we watched as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) became the enabler-in-chief to the cry-baby in the White House who is all too eager, when it serves his purposes, to scream, “Do-over! Do-over!”

Image result for us census bureauOn June 27, by a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS refused to green light the Trump administration’s effort to include a question related to citizenship on the 2020 census.  But in what must be a balancing act that would put the Flying Wallendas to shame, Chief Justice John Roberts did not shut the door either.  Acknowledging the rationale argued by Department of Commerce lawyers was “contrived,” he wrote:

An agency must offer genuine justification for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public…If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered in this case.

How did the Court know the administration’s argument that the addition was not designed to protect Hispanic voters under the Voting Rights Act?  Perhaps it was language contained in a memorandum authored by the late Thomas Hofeller, a GOP advisor, to the Commerce Secretary, which demonstrated how the citizenship question would be advantageous to “white Republicans” and disadvantageous to Democrats.  So much for voting rights protection.

Case closed?  Hardly.  Even though the White House begged for fast-track consideration by SCOTUS, claiming the task of printing the forms MUST begin by July 1, Roberts refused to hold them to this deadline.  Even though he suggested the government had been less than truthful.  “Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary (Wilbur Ross) gave for his decision.”  But instead of ordering Commerce to “start the presses,” since its deadline was a mere 72 hours away, Roberts remanded the case back to the District Court in New York.  Translation?  “See if you can come up with a LESS contrived rationale.”

Redo #1 has also failed.  With the deadline before them, Commerce attorneys announced there was no justifiable reason to go back to the District Court.  The fight was over.  Silly lawyers.  They forgot who was their ultimate boss.  And when Trump ordered them to go back to court, they refused (knowing their personal integrity before the bar might be jeopardized) and were replaced with a legal team from the consumer protection division with little or no experience in matters related to the census.  But District Judge Jesse Furman rejected the maneuver.  He used the government’s own sense of urgency to deny the request, noting Commerce had “previously pushed for the matter to be moved along quickly.”

Redo #2. It is rumored Trump will issue an executive order sometime today to begin printing the 2020 census survey including the citizenship question.  Unless Justice Roberts issues an immediate injunction pending judicial review, or better, declares the government has failed to respond to the Court’s previous ruling, we can add Article III (i.e. authority of federal courts) to the Constitutional scrap heap accumulating on the South Lawn of the White House.

Now this may be bad for the nation, but look on the bright side.  There is now legal precedent average citizens can cite when when they bump up against the law.  Consider the following conversation between a police officer and a driver having been pulled over for speeding.

Officer:  You were going 90 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone.

Driver:  Can’t be.  I had speed control set at 57.

Officer:  You expect me to believe such a contrived explanation?  I have this “snapshot” device.  I can plug it into your car and it will tell me how fast you were going and if the speed control was engaged.

Driver.  Okay.  But according to the Supreme Court in New York v. Department of Commerce, I have the right to come up with a less contrived explanation.  Maybe if I switch cars and you clock me again, you’ll see I wasn’t speeding.

Officer:  The District Court in New York says you have to stick with the car that brought you. Sorry.

Driver:  Okay.  Give me the ticket.  But don’t expect me to pay it.  I’ll issue a personal executive order that says I can ignore it.

Officer:  (Laughing)  Who do you think you are?  Donald Trump?

We were taught in civics class, “Justice is blind.”  Now it appears to also be deaf and dumb. But I am sure not SO deaf, dumb and blind as pinball wizard Tommy that the next time any of us request a legal do-over based on Supreme Court precedent in New York v. Department of Commerce, we will be laughed out of the courtroom.  As well we should.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Boy Who Cried Lone Wolf

If America is to win in the new global competition, we need to begin telling one another a new story in which companies compete by drawing on the talent and creativity of all their employees, not just a few maverick inventors and dynamic CEOs.

~Robert Reich
Entrepreneurship Reconsidered: The Team as Hero

After having read the transcript of the second Democratic candidates debate on June 27, I did not know what raised my blood pressure more, the MSNBC commentators’ stupid questions or the respondents’ willingness to play along.  The following exchange is the best example why fill in the blank responses (or dependence on sound bites) has nothing to do with choosing the next chief executive and commander-in-chief.  (NOTE: I have cut some of the chatter between Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow to focus on each candidate’s response to Todd’s question.)

TODD: President Obama, in his first year, wanted to address both healthcare and climate and he could only get one signature issue accomplished. It was, obviously, healthcare. He didn’t get to do climate change. You may only get one shot and your first issue that you’re going to push–you get one shot that it may be the only thing you get passed, what is that first issue for your presidency?

ERIC SWALWELL: For Parkland, for Orlando, for every community effected by gun violence, ending gun violence.

MICHAEL BENNET: Climate change and the lack of economic mobility Bernie talks about.

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND: Passing a family bill of rights that includes a national paid leave plan, universal Pre-K, affordable daycare and making sure that women and families can thrive in the workplace no matter who they are.

KAMALA HARRIS: Passing a middle class and working families tax cut.

JOE BIDEN: I think you’ve so underestimated what Barack Obama did. He’s the first man to bring together the entire world, 196 nations to commit to deal with climate change immediately. I don’t–I don’t buy that. The first–the first thing I would do is make sure that we defeat Donald Trump.

PETE BUTTIGIEG: We’ve got to fix our democracy before it’s too late. Get that right and climate, immigration, taxes and every other issue gets better.

JOHN HICKENLOOPER: I would do a collaborative approach to climate change and I would pronounce it well before the election to make sure we don’t reelect the worst president in American history.

MARIANNE WILLIAMSON: My first call is to Prime Minister of New Zealand who said that her role is to make New Zealand the place where it’s the best place in the world for a child to grow up. And I would tell her, girlfriend, you are so wrong because the United States of America is going to be the best place–

TODD: Thank you.

Only Sanders, before giving his answer, questioned the premise “that there’s only one or two issues out there.”  But even he failed to see the answer that lay right in front of him.  How do you built the capacity so you can walk and chew gum at the same time?

Donald Trump’s policies in response to pressing issues are, in most cases, appalling, but his belief “he alone can fix it” says more about his misunderstanding of the job he holds than anything else.  Any candidate for president who wishes to differentiate himself or herself from the incumbent had only one right answer to Todd’s query.

My first and only priority is to fill every position in my cabinet and subject to presidential appointments with the most competent and knowledgeable people I can find.  Then we do not have to trade off one priority for another.  As president, I can then establish direction in each area that requires immediate attention and rely on my team to recommend a specific course of action, work with Congress to obtain the necessary legislative authority and funding and oversee administration of the solution.  That’s how the successful CEO of a major enterprise governs, and the federal government is exactly that, a large and complex enterprise, not a family business.

Yesterday marked the 243rd anniversary of the beginning of one of the great experiments in disruptive government.  Disruption is the central theme associated with every major business success story in the last 30 years from Southwest Airlines to Apple to Amazon. At a time when many corporate CEOs talk with their shareholders and employees about “returning to our entrepreneurial roots,” America needs to do the same.  And its leadership needs to follow Reich’s model of “the team as hero,” not the myth of the “lone wolf” who does it all.

POSTSCRIPT:  Today’s entry is dedicated to a friend and colleague who is celebrating his 81st birthday as I write this.  He is also a mentor who introduced me to Reich’s article, quoted above.

For all it’s worth.
Dr. ESP