On the National Guardsmen Shooting and Its Aftermath

[Note:  “Guardsmen” is considered a gender-neutral term by the military, and will be so used here.]

With all of the recent controversy regarding the Trump Administration’s repeated striking of an allegedly drug-running boat in the South Caribbean Sea on September 2, the shootings of National Guardsmen U.S. Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, in Washington, D.C. on the day before Thanksgiving have more or less dropped off the news feeds I see.  All are aware that Specialist Beckstrom has died.  As this is typed, Sgt. Wolfe is reportedly improving despite grievous wounds. 

I haven’t forgotten.  These shootings continue to resonate with me with a force that I now generally only feel as deeply – a sad reflection of the desensitization seeping into me in our violence-riven society — when hearing of school shootings.

But I’m not only heartbroken.  I’m livid.

Because it was so unnecessary.  Guardsmen Beckstrom and Wolfe didn’t have to be there.  They could have been home celebrating Thanksgiving with their families.

I consider two men responsible for their deaths:  Afghani Refugee Rahmanullah Lakanwal; and President Donald Trump.

Make no mistake:  Mr. Lakanwal – given the apparently indisputable evidence that he was the perpetrator — pulled the trigger.  It makes no difference that he may have saved American lives through his service in Afghanistan, or that he and some similarly-situated Afghanis may not have received as much federal assimilation assistance upon arrival here as might have been preferable, or that he fell prey to radicalization after arriving in this country, or noting any other explanation some rationalizer might attempt to dream up.  He killed Specialist Beckstrom.  He irrevocably altered Sgt. Wolfe’s life.  Assuming that he is found guilty of the shootings after a fair trial according him all the rights to which he is entitled under the United States Constitution, Mr. Lakanwal deserves whatever sentence he receives; if the death penalty is legally rendered, I won’t lose any sleep over it.

That said, I was surprised to see Administration officials so quickly embrace the phrase, “targeted shooting,” to describe Mr. Lakanwal’s act – not because it wasn’t accurate, but because it so clearly was – and as such, a damning indictment of Mr. Trump.  Under any reasonable assessment, National Guardsmen – tragically for them, in the persons of Ms. Beckstrom and Mr. Wolfe – were Mr. Lakanwal’s targets.  Given the President’s ballyhooed deployment of National Guard to our nation’s capital, media reports of the areas they patrolled, and some simple reconnaissance, any unbalanced individual with much less than Mr. Lakanwal’s military background could easily project when and where Guardsmen would be.  These two Guardsmen, walking at midday on a highly-traveled city street blocks from the White House with no indication of imminent danger, were no match for someone with Mr. Lakanwal’s training and experience. 

Mr. Lakanwal simply shot the targets set up for him by Donald Trump.       

Too harsh, you say?  Consider the untaken alternatives:  Mr. Lakanwal undoubtedly had hundreds of people in sight between the time he set out that day and the time he opened fire on the Guardsmen.  One might surmise that at some point before the incident he had one or more D.C. police officers within easy range, who would have been no more prepared for his sudden assault than the Guardsmen were.  He passed them all up to target members of the American military — who were only on that street because they were ordered to take part in what the Trump Administration has called “a crackdown on crime” – i.e., to participate in a quintessentially local law enforcement activity outside their traditional mission as part of an Administration public relations stunt which obviously has as its primary purposes the intimidation of its political opponents and scoring propaganda points with its gullible MAGA base.

So, what of this sacrifice of these two young people who had volunteered to serve their country?

Well, that’s Show Biz.

I would wager that in stationing Guardsmen in “Blue Cities” – largely against the wishes of local officials — Mr. Trump has been hoping for an incident in which cameras caught protestors behaving aggressively toward Guardsmen.  I do not believe that he wanted or intended as tragic a result as has occurred – any more than a tavern patron who has had too many drinks wants or intends any automobile accident deaths that s/he ultimately causes – but anyone with the sense God gave a goose could anticipate that what did happen, might happen.  In fact, on November 26th, the New York Times quoted a California National Guardsman indicating, “he and his commanders worried that [their assignment to patrol Los Angeles] ‘increased our risk of us shooting civilians or civilians taking shots at us.’”  In the same piece, the Times recorded that last August, Guard commanders involved in its Capital deployments issued communications “… warn[ng] that troops were in a ‘heightened threat environment’ … that ‘nefarious threat actors engaging in grievance based violence, and those inspired by foreign terrorist organizations’ might view the mission ‘as a target of opportunity’ … and that the mission ‘presents an opportunity for criminals, violent extremists, issue motivated groups and lone actors to advance their interests.’”  The inherent risk was blatantly obvious.  The President and his cohort just didn’t, and don’t, give a damn.

In the days after the incident, I saw reports indicating:

Item:  Trump Administration claimed that Mr. Lakanwal was never vetted by the Biden Administration before being allowed to enter the country.  This has now been debunked by so many sources – including sources that indicate that Mr. Lakanwal’s latest clearance came this spring, from the Trump Administration – that I don’t know if the Regime is still spouting this; of course, anything is possible from an organization that loudly continued to repeat a uniformly-debunked lie about Springfield, OH, Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs.

Item:  The Trump Administration has halted the processing of immigration requests from anyone from Afghanistan.  It’s not unreasonable to assume that many of these applicants are seeking refuge after aiding our efforts against the Taliban.  I have seen reports that since returning to power, the Taliban has brutally persecuted those Afghanis suspected of assisting us.  The Trump Administration halt is a monstrous overreaction to the evil act of one radicalized Afghani, which could well have fatal consequences for thousands of our Afghani associates ultimately abandoned as an outcome of a wrongheaded withdrawal agreement negotiated by the first Trump Administration.     

Item:  The Trump administration vowed to conduct a sweeping re-examination of “every Green Card” held not only by all Afghanis already admitted to our country but also those held by nationals from almost a score of other Middle Eastern, African and South American countries which the Regime has subjected to a travel ban.  I know – I’m wasting my typing and your eyesight to point out that there is no logical link between a tragically-radicalized Afghani and thousands of other immigrants from across the world legally here under other programs.  Given the “Ready, Fire, Aim,” Nazi Sturmabteilung approach the Regime has taken to immigration enforcement, perhaps thousands of unquestionably innocent people will be caught up in this surge.  To state the obvious:  if it proceeds with such an examination, the Regime will simply have used this incident as a pretext for indulging its racial, religious, and political biases.

Item:  That the Trump Administration is looking into the possibility of deporting Mr. Lakanwal’s family.  (Any competent criminal investigation will certainly explore whether others were aware of or complicit in Mr. Lakanwal’s act.  If there is evidence of others’ culpability, either within or outside Mr. Lakanwal’s family, those whose guilt can be established should be criminally tried and appropriately sentenced, not deported.)  Absent sufficient evidence of culpability of specific members of Mr. Lakanwal’s family members, deporting the innocents as a consequence of this incident is every bit as conceptually constitutionally sound as, say … holding Mr. Trump’s wife and children liable for the $88 million he owes E. Jean Carroll for sexual assault and defamation.

These measures, if carried out, smack of fascism – demonizing “others” for political gain with literally no factual foundation.

Are we done?  Not quite yet.  Let’s consider a potentially even more dire consequence of the assault upon Guardsmen Beckstrom and Wolfe:  that patrolling Guardsmen begin to view those walking around them as potential enemies – an approach necessary in foreign war zones, but frighteningly fraught on American soil (while at the same time seemingly becoming understandable).  (If you were a Guardsman, wouldn’t this incident make you view those moving around you with greater suspicion?)  Recall that the Times piece cited above quoted a Guardsman observing that the deployments increased the “risk of us shooting civilians.”     

Let’s end this overly-long rant with the most idiotic irony:  Mr. Trump’s announcement that given the shooting, he intends to deploy an additional 500 National Guardsmen to D.C.  One just has to sit back, pause, and blink before continuing.  As noted above, the pretext for this Administration grandstand is a “crackdown” on what let’s call, for purposes of this note, “commonplace” crime in D.C.  If the shooting of Guardsmen Beckstrom and Wolfe was indeed a shooting targeted at U.S. military – a rare point of agreement between the Noise and the Regime – it wasn’t even the type of “crime” that the deployment was intended to address.  Not only that:  I have seen reports that prior to embarking on his mission, Mr. Lakanwal was living in Washington state, not D.C. – so he could not conceivably even have been among the D.C. criminal element that Mr. Trump was intending to confront through the deployment.  If Guardsmen hadn’t been in D.C., there certainly wouldn’t have been as many or arguably as vulnerable military targets in the city as Mr. Trump’s order provided to Mr. Lakanwal.  Because of the President’s order, Guardsmen Beckstrom and Wolfe were in place to be shot while taking part in maneuvers beyond the proper military purview by a malign operator who wasn’t covered by the Regime’s expressed mission.  So, explain to me the logic of adding 500 additional targets to an already target-rich environment for deranged individuals in our gun-obsessed environment because of a heinous incident that wasn’t within the mission’s scope committed by somebody who wasn’t from D.C.

On the day they were shot, Ms. Beckstrom and Mr. Wolfe’s ages averaged to 22 – which, in turn, is only half of the average age of our three children.  These two young victims enlisted to serve their country – something I never did.  They had their whole lives in front of them.  They deserved a Commander in Chief worthy of them.  Theirs, and perhaps the lives of thousands of innocent immigrants, have been irrevocably altered — in sacrifice to a propaganda stunt. 

There is an episode of The West Wing in which Martin Sheen’s fictional President Bartlet makes a wrong decision, and a number of U.S. service members are killed as a result.  The episode – among the most poignant in a series that all who read these notes know that I consider the best television program in history – ends with Mr. Sheen’s Bartlet standing on the tarmac at the military airport where the deceased service members’ bodies have been flown back to the states.  Mr. Sheen is a great actor, and even without seeing the episode one can imagine the agony he shows as Bartlet as the caskets, draped in flags, are solemnly marched, one by one, by pristinely-uniformed, white-gloved honor guards, from the aircraft to where the President stands, with a brief pause in front of him, and then moved to a waiting inner chamber.

Mr. Trump is a father.  I wonder:  Does he ever think about the damage and destruction he has done to so many lives and careers with his deranged, malicious, shock-jock, made-for-TV machinations?  In what is probably the most awful suggestion I have ever made about Mr. Trump in all the years I have been posting in these pages:  He doesn’t.      

I pray that Specialist Beckstrom can rest in peace.

On American Kindness: Redux

[While there is currently so much in our national and global situation to concern us, it seems fitting at this Holiday to republish a note I posted some years ago about the help TLOML and I received on a dangerously cold night in Milwaukee — from an elderly African American gentleman who was, demographically, probably a traditional Democrat and from young Caucasian auto mechanics, at least one of whom, demographically, probably voted for President Donald Trump – as a reminder that most of our people have good in them.  May you and your loved ones have a warm and healthy Thanksgiving.]

Over the weekend, we were in Milwaukee for a family gathering, and our fairly new Prius was struck, opening a gash on the left rear side that we were pretty sure when we discovered it was at an angle such that wind shear would cause some of the rear fender to rip off if we tried to drive back to Madison without having it attended to.  (No note was left.)  From an engine standpoint, the car was completely drivable.  We were able to make an appointment at a nearby service center (more on the shop below), and at a few minutes past 5 on a Friday night, set off to drive about 4 miles in significant winds and bitter, bitter cold with the dark coming on.

We didn’t make it.  About half way to the shop, we heard a bang and realized that part of the fender had flipped back due to the wind.  We pulled over in the now almost-dark to retrieve what had come loose, cars moving around us, fairly concerned about what we were going to do.

A van slowly pulled up behind us and stopped.  Its motor kept running, its headlights stayed on, and its emergency flashers came on.  An African-American gentleman, in his mid-50’s – warm, friendly, reassuring — got out of the van, came up, and — with cars continuously going by us and in temperatures and wind cold enough to numb your bare hands in a couple of minutes — helped us put the pieces temporarily back in place, and with duct tape he provided, we got the fender patched sufficiently so we could finish the drive.  Then we exchanged names, we thanked him – I don’t think it was possible for us to thank him profusely enough – shook hands, and … he bid us good night, and went on his way.

Got to the service center.  The shop is for engine repair, not body work, but the rep and a couple of the technicians came over and when they heard that our goal was simply to make the car secure enough to get back to Madison, they said they thought they could attach a couple of fasteners that would hold the left rear together, and told us to go to dinner (we had family with us in another car) and come back in about an hour. 

When we got back, the car looked like it had a few stitches, and was clearly sturdy enough for us to get it home.  We asked what we owed; we heard:  One of the guys had some time.  No charge.  Glad we could help.

For those of us that tend to focus on the seemingly paralyzing political acrimony we have at home and the serious issues we face here and internationally, it’s good to recall:  There exists, as there always has, a good will, a kindness, a generosity of deed and spirit in America.

Disparate Impressions

First, something I should have added to the recent post relating to the passing of former Wall Street Journal Personal Financial Columnist Jonathan Clements:  although Vanguard founder John Bogle, legendary investor Warren Buffett, and Mr. Clements all believe/ed that the American stock market would rise and individuals would reap satisfactory returns over the long run by investing in no-load, low-cost index funds tracking the markets, Mr. Buffett has famously said that he has no idea what the stock market will do tomorrow, and Messrs. Bogle and Clements would have undoubtedly agreed.  Accordingly, any funds one requires for an impending purchase should be safely harbored until spent in a federally-insured cash account.  There – my Irish Catholic conscience is clear (at least on this score 😉).       

It appears that President Donald Trump is brokering an end to the Israeli-Hamas conflict.  Whether any settlement will last – at the time this is typed, the shooting reportedly continues, and Middle Easterners have been warring for as close to forever as you can get in this finite existence – Mr. Trump may be achieving what I consider the most important immediate priority relating to the conflict:  ending the brutal slaughter of Palestinians, particularly children.  Although Israel’s activities were obviously precipitated by the Hamas attack, its response has been savagely disproportionate.  This is no reflection on the Israeli people, but on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who should be in an international jail for life.  Although I am not the first to say this, I acknowledge that Mr. Trump’s intervention was pivotal.  The “only Nixon could go to China” analogy is grossly overused, but it is accurate here.  The leaders of the cooperating Arab nations trust him because he thinks like they do.  Although the objective terms of the announced pact overwhelmingly favor Israel, Mr. Netanyahu could have suspended his military operation in Gaza long ago had he wished to do so.  When Mr. Trump pressured Mr. Netanyahu, as he reportedly did, to cease his military assault, Mr. Netanyahu was undoubtedly mindful that Mr. Trump was the only American president since the founding of Israel who could if he chose cut off aid to Israel and get away with it politically.      

Putting aside the moral dimensions and looking at the assassination of MAGA Activist Charlie Kirk in cold political terms, it is arguable that the only things that the deranged young man who assassinated Mr. Kirk achieved through his heinous act was to drive all reference to Mr. Trump’s relationship with convicted Child Trafficker Jeffrey Epstein – the one area in which Mr. Trump had seemingly been vulnerable with his MAGA base – out of the media consciousness, and to provide Mr. Trump and his MAGA minions a pretext upon which to more aggressively harass and stifle the free speech of Mr. Trump’s critics.

With the return of the NFL season, I have been spending more time with sports media.  This may just now be registering with me, but growing up in a family plagued by addiction – albeit a different one — I am appalled at the emphasis placed on gambling in these telecasts.  I have noted repeated ads by FanDuel, by DraftKings, by BetMGM, am aware that there are many other online betting organizations, and hear plenty of betting talk among the commentators.  So let’s take a bunch of immature, unmoored, desperate, mostly impecunious, mostly male young Americans and constantly wave the temptation to bet in their faces, make it easy to bet, make it look easy to win, and see what happens.  I have not read the 2018 Supreme Court decision that enabled widespread online sports gambling and concede that this decision is not the most injurious to the American way of life that the Court has or will issue, but that doesn’t mean that easy-does-it online sports betting hasn’t and won’t lead to the ruination of quite a few (disproportionately young) lives.

I am disgusted with justifications frequently put forth to defend those Congressional Republicans who allegedly deplore Mr. Trump’s policies – and him – behind closed doors, but through their subservience enable Administration activities.  Those seeking to rationalize these Republicans’ behaviors note that these officeholders fear being “primaried” by other MAGAs professing greater fealty to Mr. Trump, and/or that they fear literal physical retribution against themselves or their families if they don’t adhere to the MAGA line.  I don’t buy it.  These Republicans — if such do exist — are in the Congress of the United States.  Nobody made them run for Congress.  Under the Constitution, they each get a vote as to whether the United States should declare war on another nation – and if they so vote, thousands of military families, whether or not they agree with the declaration, will find loved ones in harm’s way.  So these gutless Republicans fear losing a seat in Congress?  As to the fear of physical retribution, they should, given the responsibility they have voluntarily chosen, be placing their own physical safety below that which they consider good for the nation and their constituents.  While all can sympathize with a member’s concern for the wellbeing of his/her family, my reaction here is:  send your family to live where they cannot be easily located by MAGA zealots while you finish out your term, announce that you are stepping down at the end of your term, and then do what you believe is right during the remainder of your term.  If you can’t do that, take the simpler approach, and resign right now.  Grow a … er … spine.  You’re not in high school, the frat, or the sorority any more.

Enough impressions for one note.  Nationwide NO KINGS rallies are scheduled for Saturday, October 18.  Judging by the national website, there will be one near you, no matter where you are.  If you plan to participate, anticipate that ICE or other Administration agents will establish a presence.  STAY PEACEFUL.  NEITHER PROVOKE, NOR BE PROVOKED.  In the meantime, enjoy the fall weekend upon us.

On the Passing of Jonathan Clements

I suspect that all who read these notes have been approached at some time or other – and likely multiple times – by persons or organizations wishing to serve as their financial advisors.  I have invariably responded to these inquires over the years with the reply, “I already have the two best financial advisors one could ask for – John Bogle and Warren Buffett.”

We’ll get to how Mr. Buffett figures into our personal financial equation at the end of this note; the late Mr. Bogle, less well known to the American public, founded Vanguard, was perhaps the first advocate of index investing and certainly the most influential:  the premise that if one believed that American Business, taken as a whole, would succeed over the long run, the results of low-cost index funds that tracked the financial markets’ performance would over time exceed the performance of virtually all managers of actively traded mutual funds and financial advisors.  (Vanguard’s S&P 500 Index Fund remains the organization’s flagship fund.) 

Messrs. Bogle and Buffett weren’t our original financial advisors.  Around 1990, feeling out of our depth and aware that we needed to begin investing, we employed a financial advisor recommended to us by friends.  However, by 1995, I had decided that although our advisor certainly wished us to prosper, he was necessarily seeking to serve two masters – his financial services organization [which offered actively-managed mutual funds with front-end loads (sales charges)] and us.  [Many of us will recall the Lord’s observation that no one can serve two masters (Matt 6:24), although He was admittedly speaking in a somewhat different context. 😉]  I decided to take the time to learn the barebones of the investment field so I could better assess our advisor’s performance.  Once I started concentrating on it, the overwhelmingly most practical and understandable advice I received in those formative years was provided by Wall Street Journal Personal Finance Columnist Jonathan Clements.  For years I kept a notebook filled with Mr. Clements’ late 1990s “Getting Going” columns.  It was through his reporting that I became acquainted with the efforts and theories of Mr. Bogle.  In pieces that ran during the years I was most actively developing my investment notions, Mr. Clements cited statistics demonstrating that Mr. Bogle’s theories were correct:  (1) active fund managers’ and active individual investors’ costs were consistently significantly higher than index funds while at the same time they consistently trailed the index funds’ performance; and (2) that if one was willing to devote the effort, one could effectively “do it yourself” through a big fund house like Vanguard (Vanguard was not the only option), which provided excellent service, indexing acumen, and a wide variety of no-load, low-operating cost index funds.  Mr. Clements also noted data that refuted active fund managers’ claim that their efforts better mitigated losses in “down markets” than index funds.  He preached (this, again, was the 1990s) that medical statistics were beginning to indicate that one should plan on living longer than retirement analysts were then projecting and that one should spend, if not sparingly, at least not profligately – and invest the savings.

I was hooked.  Here was a simple approach, apparently statistically sound, that an untutored guy like me could use to seek financial security over the long run while keeping his costs down:  embracing the notion that one would never “win big” in the market by picking an individual stock like Amazon but, if one believed in the long term success of American Business, facilitate reasonable financial growth while hopefully limiting the chances of “losing big” by spreading one’s risk over hundreds or thousands of stocks.  It is an approach that we have generally maintained over the last three decades – through the “Dot.Com Bust,” the Great Recession, and the brief but precipitous COVID crash — while in the initial years gently weaning ourselves from our advisor and the actively-managed funds in which we had been invested.

Sadly, Mr. Clements himself didn’t get the long life he advised his readers to plan for.  He died of cancer on September 21st at the age of 62.  (When reading his columns, I intuitively sensed he was a young man, but didn’t realize that he was then in his early 30s, a full decade younger than we were.)  Because of the impact he had on our financial life, I felt a true pang at his passing, and consider it appropriate to mark it in these pages. 

So where does Mr. Buffett come in?  He was a close friend of Mr. Bogle’s and is, of course, the world’s most accomplished and acclaimed investor – whom I am sure Mr. Bogle would have acknowledged was the exception to Mr. Bogle’s rule.  (If there was an unstated core to Messrs. Bogle’s and Clements’ advice, it was:  “There is only one Warren Buffett, and you ain’t him.”)  Even so, in his 2014 letter to his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Mr. Buffett, given his record and renown, provided perhaps the best endorsement for the approach espoused by Messrs. Bogle and Clements, I suspect then sending shockwaves through the financial advising community:

“If wise, [most investors] will conclude that they do not know enough about specific businesses to predict their future earning power.  I have good news for these non-professionals.  … [Their] goal … should not be to pick winners – neither [the individual investor] nor his helpers can do that – but should rather be to own a cross-section of businesses that in aggregate are bound to do well.  A low-cost S&P 500 index fund will achieve this goal. …  [B]oth individuals and institutions will constantly be urged to be active by those who profit from giving advice or effecting transactions. … So ignore the chatter, keep your costs minimal, and invest in stocks as you would in a farm.  My money, I should add, is where my mouth is:  What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. … My advice to the trustee could not be more simple:  Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund.  (I suggest Vanguard’s.)  I believe that the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors – whether pension funds, institutions or individuals – who employ high-fee managers.”

Many of those who follow these pages are either in or close to retirement, and their investment approaches are probably already pretty well cast.  However, for those at the beginning or middle of their careers, I recommend buying one of Mr. Clements’ books and absorbing his insights.  (Since I read Mr. Clements “real time,” I never bought any of his books; in a recent quick internet search, I did note one title, The Best of Jonathan Clements, that I might first consider if intending to buy one of his volumes.)  Even if one is more comfortable maintaining a relationship with a financial advisor, Mr. Clements’ notions might offer you another perspective that will better enable you to assess your financial advisor’s approach and performance.

In reflecting on Mr. Clements’ passing, I have come to realize that my laconic response to financial advisors’ inquiries over the years has been grossly derelict.  When I am next approached by a financial organization or advisor seeking to provide me with investment advice (“when,” not “if,” I am approached – such organizations and advisors are ubiquitous), I will and forever after amend my response to indicate that I already have the best advisors that anyone could ask for:  John Bogle, Warren Buffett … and Jonathan Clements.

Jimmy Kimmel

You can write this post; you don’t need me.  A couple of observations to support yours:

First, consider again ABC Late Night Host Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on Monday night regarding the assassination of MAGA Activist Charlie Kirk – comments I understand that Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr thereafter called the “sickest possible,” and suggested could cause the FCC to revoke ABC affiliate licenses — which seemingly resulted in Mr. Kimmel’s suspension:

“The MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.  In between the finger pointing, there was grieving.”

Any humor there?  No.  Arguably in poor taste?  Sure.  But as political commentary, Mr. Kimmel’s remarks seem to me remarkably benign.  The first half of his first sentence — if that’s all there was — has all the earmarks of having been torturously approved by an angst-ridden lawyer (who, if so, may well have also lost his/her job), and doesn’t allege that Mr. Kirk’s murderer was a MAGA adherent.  The remainder of Mr. Kimmel’s comments — given what we’ve seen spewed from President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller since Mr. Kirk’s murder – is certainly tenable.

Second, not to be overlooked in the hubbub, is a social media post by Mr. Trump after Mr. Kimmel’s suspension, which declared in part:

“Kimmel has ZERO talent and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible.  That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC.  Their ratings are also horrible.  Do it NBC!!!  President DJT” [Capitalization of ZERO by Mr. Trump; italics added].

I could remark on the obviously ominous relentless nature of that declaration, but won’t.  After all, you’re writing this one.

Sticking It to the Man by Getting Stuck

We’ll get to the main point of this note in a minute. 

First, I’m old enough to actually remember U.S. NY Senator, former U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.  His life has been chronicled hundreds of times:  at 5’9” or 5’10”, he was the shortest of the four Kennedy brothers – Joe, Jack, and Ted were all six foot tall or more – but the most feisty; the ramrod manager of his brother’s successful campaign for the presidency; as the Right Hand of the Man, the Kennedy Administration lightning rod tough guy who nonetheless provided the sagest advice during the Cuban Missile Crisis (because of his relationship with his brother, he could psychologically safely counsel a softer approach than the more warlike measures urged by the majority of President Kennedy’s Crisis ExComm team); a more passionate, empathetic figure than his brother – who was coolly intellectual behind closed doors – he had his Justice Department provide quiet assistance to the Civil Rights Movement, and in the years following his brother’s assassination was the most powerful advocate for Civil Rights in America.  (Dr. Martin Luther King was the movement’s leader, but never had the influence with White America commanded of Mr. Kennedy, the closest link the grieving country had to its charismatic martyred president.)  I doubt that any white American politician will ever again have the passionate allegiance of the black community that Robert Kennedy had the day he was assassinated.  Not as gifted a speaker as his brother, he nonetheless inspired millions.  He might or might not have made a great president of the United States; our great presidents have relished being president, while Mr. Kennedy was more comfortable being “the guy who stands next to the guy,” and only assumed a role at the forefront due to his outrage at the mistreatment of Black America and President Lyndon Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War (he and Mr. Johnson hated each other).  But Robert F. Kennedy was without doubt in the top tier of the most important non-presidents America had in the second half of the last century.  Immediately below is a link to Edward Kennedy’s eulogy at his brother’s funeral; it is worth listening to not only for Edward’s Kennedy’s description of his brother but for Robert Kennedy’s own words, which his brother quoted at length in the middle of his remembrance.  Listening to these, I think one can assume that Robert Kennedy would be unspeakably saddened at how we have handled the more than half-century since his passing. 

To state the obvious:  I just took your time with the last paragraph because it aggravates me that for the rest of their lives most Americans younger than septuagenarians will primarily associate the name, “Robert F. Kennedy,” with the Senator’s namesake son, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is, of course, an idiot supported by pinheads misleading the gullible.  Yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee’s meeting featuring Mr. Kennedy, Jr. allowed Senators of  both parties to sound off but did nothing to protect public health or the scientific integrity of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

We have a significant number of different pharmaceutical outlets in our Madison area, and have a number of friends over 65 who are desirous of receiving the latest version of the COVID vaccination despite the quackery being spouted by Mr. Kennedy, Jr. and his clown menagerie.  You’d think that even under the unduly restrictive guidelines recently spewed by Mr. Kennedy, Jr.’s CDC, it would be relatively straightforward for anyone over 65 in the Madison area wishing a COVID vaccination to get one.  But seemingly not so, at least not yet.  Seniors compare notes of their experiences.  As of earlier this week,  one regional chain had yet to receive the new vaccination; a representative of another, larger, organization indicated that it was reluctant to proceed with vaccinations because it wasn’t sure of the new rules; another, yet more established pharmacy, told a friend of ours that it required a prescription to administer the vaccination, which our friend understood applied to all ages; but we found another – which, at least as of earlier this week, would administer the new COVID vaccination if simply provided with identification, age, and the same consent forms as have been required with past inoculations. 

We scurried over.  I don’t know how our request for a vaccination would have been received had we been under 65, but this was one instance where being of Medicare age was a true plus.  We got our COVID shots.

The depth of emotion I felt as I got my shot made me recall my emotion when I received my first COVID vaccination in 2021.  Then, it was immense relief: there seemed a way forward from the danger that had literally plagued us and cost millions of lives during the preceding year.  This time, my depth of emotion was similar, but the sentiment was different; it was intense – no, savage – satisfaction at having thwarted, at least in this one case by this one old American, the  buffoonery and confusion being foisted upon us by an Administration equal parts autocratic and moronic.

Get some perspective, you say:  this week Chinese President Xi Jinping rallied the world’s primary autocracies against democracies that are currently in disarray due to President Donald Trump’s own dictatorial inclinations and incompetence, Mr. Trump currently appears intent on consolidating his American Apartheid, and getting the vaccination wasn’t that big a deal for me since Mr. Kennedy, Jr.’s CDC has authorized those 65 and older to get the COVID shot if they want it.  True enough.  However, I can’t do anything about the first, and can only protest and blog about the second; as to the last, even if Mr. Kennedy, Jr. is saying that I can get the shot – at least this year – we both know that he didn’t want me to.

We stuck it to The Man by getting stuck.  It was … priceless. 

The Standing of Labor

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.  Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.  Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration.  Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.  Nor is denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits.  The error is in assuming that the whole labor community exists within that relation. …

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages for awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires a new beginner to help him.  This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all – gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all.  No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty — none less inclined to take, or touch, aught which they have not honestly earned.  Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.”

  • Abraham Lincoln; Excerpt from the President’s Annual Message to Congress; December 3, 1861

Although many, including me, decry our seeming current descent toward autocracy, it is too easy to overlook that desperation spawns desperate measures, including the placement of hope in false Messiahs.  I fear we have fallen into the trap that Mr. Lincoln warned about over 150 years ago.  While there are obviously a number of factors that have contributed to our present dysfunctional political state, it is undeniable that almost a half century of policies encouraging greed over community have contributed mightily to where we find ourselves today.  Former President Ronald Reagan started this transition.  I consider Mr. Reagan a good man who truly believed that men, less regulated and less taxed, would do the right thing to ensure the betterment of all.  He was wrong.  I sincerely question whether our current president cares about the struggling millions, somehow blinded by calls of “freedom,” who follow him so ardently.  May we see the adoption – under the next president, if not this one – of policies that will start to remedy the inequities that have so sullied the American experience.  Let each of us take a moment during the coming weekend to remember and celebrate the efforts of those — both Americans and those from other lands — who toil, or yearn to toil, to make America stronger.

Enjoy the Holiday.

On Lady Liberty

We have recently returned from an east coast trip that created a series of cherished memories.  However, one is particularly worthy of note here:  our 8-year-old grandson was on his first adventure to New York, and he specifically asked to see the Statue of Liberty.

Given my New York roots and regular visits with family on the east coast while raising our own kids, before this latest trip we had been to the Statue quite a number of times.  For those who haven’t made the journey, it is a ferry circuit during which visitors stop at both the Statue and Ellis Island – now a museum — through which approximately 12 million immigrants speaking at least 30 different languages were processed between 1892 and 1954.

I recall admiring the Statue in past visits, but being more interested in Ellis Island Museum’s exhibits and artifacts. 

This time was different. 

It wasn’t that Ellis Island had any less meaning – given the assault on our immigration heritage now being wrought by President Donald Trump and his minions, it perhaps had more – but I noticed that as our ferry approached the Statue, a hush fell over the crowd.  Nobody – and there were a lot of people on this boat – said anything.  I expected to be primarily focused on our grandson’s reactions, but was surprised to find that I was just as much taken up by my own.  We all looked up with reverence, with wonder.

We have been to a lot of federal parks and monuments.   While for me a couple stand out — one cannot visit Gettysburg National Military Park without feeling that you tread upon sacred ground, nor visit the Lincoln Memorial without viscerally experiencing the somber and ponderous weight one man bore upon his shoulders to preserve our union – each of these commemorate our past.  The Statue of Liberty is about our future – the promise, the dream of America.

As I gazed upward I realized that Lady Liberty symbolizes the American dream not only for the “tired … poor … huddled masses … wretched refuse” from other shores that Emma Lazarus described in her 1883 poem, but for all of us, no matter how many generations of our forebears may have been here, who are “yearning to breathe free.”

Let us persevere so that she is never reduced to an ironic mockery.  May God Bless America.

Focusing My Antipathy

It might appear from your side of the screen that I have contributed little to these pages in recent months, but not from this side.  My document store is cluttered with any number of posts begun but abandoned. My reticence has arisen from the realization that my antipathy for Mr. Trump’s behavior has so colored my perspective on our political dynamic that figuratively standing back a bit to attempt to maintain a broader perspective has been the appropriate approach for me.  I literally fast forward by his comments and those of his spokespeople whenever they come up on TV.  I don’t believe a word they have to say.

To what do I attribute my deep emotions regarding the President’s actions?  It is not his policy choices.  Make no mistake:  I consider Mr. Trump’s and his MAGA Administration’s approaches on taxes, tariffs, Medicaid, the budget deficit and the federal debt, the environment, science, education, NATO, Ukraine/Russia specifically, immigration — and probably ten other issues we could name if we took a minute — to be substantively idiotic.  But perhaps because of my legal training, I don’t take substantive differences to heart, so Mr. Trump’s substantive positions, as sad and counterproductive to our nation’s long-term wellbeing as they are, warrant vigorous debate but don’t strike a visceral cord within me.

What I find distressing is that Mr. Trump’s abhorrent past actions are seemingly fading from the collective American consciousness – like they never happened.  He’s lied them away.

They haven’t faded for me. 

I trace my visceral feelings about his behaviors to these instances:

His traitorous behavior.  He lied, and continues to deny, his loss in the 2020 presidential election.  With millions of dollars at his disposal, he lost about 60 lawsuits in swing states challenging former President Joe Biden’s victory.  That election was unquestionably close; but to use a trite sports analogy, during the World Series they have about six cameras covering first base from every angle.  If the 2020 election is imagined as Mr. Trump running down the first base line, all six cameras would have shown that the ball hit the first baseman’s glove just before Mr. Trump’s foot hit the bag.  He was out.  It was close, but he was out.  His unwillingness to admit it to this day has groundlessly and execrably undermined the Americans’ confidence in our voting processes, the foundation of our system of government.  The fact that anybody with a lick of sense should have been able to see through his lies – and millions haven’t – doesn’t excuse his behavior.

His incitement of an insurrection.  You saw his speech on January 6, 2021.  You saw the result.  Calling it a lovefest doesn’t make it one.  The attack on the Capitol was an insurrection – an attempted coup – which came within a hair’s breadth of succeeding.  Mr. Trump should be in jail, not in the White House.  Ditto the comment above regarding anybody with a lick of sense.

His dictatorial behavior.  Some of our most renowned presidents have exercised broad presidential power, some skating to or over the limits of presidential power drawn in the Constitution.  That said, as far as I’m aware, of our presidents only Mr. Trump – save perhaps President Abraham Lincoln, who had ample reason to call out southern secessionists – has referred to other Americans as “Enemies of the People” – a phrase used by Nazi Propagandist Joseph Goebbels against the Jews, Russian Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin during his Great Purge, and Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong during his Cultural Revolution.

His demonization of immigrants – at least immigrants of color.  It obviously started with his 2015 trip down the escalator, calling Latin Americans “murders and rapists,” continued throughout his first term, further continued during the 2024 campaign with his reference to them as “vermin” – an epithet Adolf Hitler used about those he considered undesirable – and now with his Administration’s indiscriminate, terrorizing deportation activities.  Undocumented immigrants are indeed criminals – they have entered the country in violation of our immigration laws, no matter how law abiding they’ve been since crossing our border — and what we do about them is a policy issue.  But dehumanizing them for doing what anyone with courage should be willing to do if necessary to ensure a better life for his/her family — in practical terms what the forebears of every American citizen save Native Americans and those brought here in chains did do — is a malign act.

His bullying, self-dealing, and dividing Americans – in some cases, dividing families — for his own political gain.  His actions in these regards are so well settled that, as lawyers sometimes say, they need no citation.

You could add others; I have limited my list to actions for which there is no reasonable doubt. 

All that said, I have come to view Mr. Trump as a personal spiritual as well as temporal challenge.  Throughout this note, I’ve referred to my antipathy for Mr. Trump’s actions.  The very word, “antipathy,” is obviously a softer, ten-cent synonym for more provocative alternatives. In my faith, and I suspect in many faiths, we are taught that one can “hate the sin, not the sinner”; every day, millions of Christians ask the Almighty to “forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” — which one could argue amounts to those of less forgiving nature rotely giving a merciful God license to judge them more harshly than He (excuse the male pronoun for a genderless being) otherwise might.  I don’t believe that I can wish ill upon another.  Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, a fellow Catholic, has said that she prays for Mr. Trump; he has mocked her for it.  (I must sheepishly admit that Ms. Pelosi has greater faith than I do; although all things are possible with God, unless we can get Mr. Trump on a horse on the road to Damascus, I see little prospect that he will change his ways.  😉 )  I can’t claim to have said many prayers for the President, but I am focusing my antipathy on his behaviors. 

For the sake of my soul, as I fast forward by his lies, rants and inanities, I hope I’m succeeding.

We’ll soon get back to regular programming. Stay well. 🙂