On 9/11

[Not surprisingly, I had originally intended that this post would publish on September 11, 2026, but life’s obligations intruded and the importance of this milestone demanded that any note not be rushed.]

It is the tritest to observe that September 11, 2001, was one of the darkest days in American history. It strikes a visceral chord within all who remember the attack that day on New York City’s World Trade Center (“WTC”) and other sites (collectively, “9/11”). We have relatives in the New York area who knew victims lost in the attack. It is now known that 9/11 has exacted an even greater toll in American lives than the approximately 2,500 who perished that day; recently issued reports indicate that the poor air quality arising from the rubble is almost certainly responsible for tens of thousands developing cancer in the quarter-century since. One can never forget the heroism of the police, firefighters, other first responders and regular citizens who charged into the World Trade Center to save others that day – many themselves falling victim to the buildings’ collapse — and the ordinary Americans who sacrificed themselves to take back control of Flight 93. That said, I would suggest that 9/11 is one of the darkest days in our history not only due to the wanton destruction of life wrought, but in a perhaps less apparent sense that I suspect few if any commemorative speakers across the nation mentioned last week.

9/11 is often conceptually paired with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as the two deadliest foreign attacks on American territory in our history. Each marked a turning point in our existence. I would submit that such is where the comparison ends. Our nation’s respective responses to the attacks placed us on very different paths.

Looking back at Pearl Harbor, we can still feel the deepest sympathy for those, all or virtually all now at rest, who experienced the agonizing pain of losing a loved one in the Japanese assault. In addition to the tragic human loss, the American Pacific Fleet was virtually destroyed. After the attack, President Franklin Roosevelt refrained from publicly describing the true extent of the naval devastation in order to confuse Japanese intelligence and maintain American morale; in fact, the United States then had virtually no remaining defense between Imperial Japan’s formidable navy and our west coast.

And yet, that attack also marked the day that America began its transition from being but an occasional international dabbler to the world’s leading force for democratic order and human rights. Prior to the attack, Mr. Roosevelt recognized the threat the Nazi Wehrmacht would pose to the United States if left unchecked, and understood that the United States’ best hope of maintaining its freedom lay in formally aligning itself with the United Kingdom before it fell to the Nazis. A majority of Americans, believing the oceans lapping our shores insulated us from the outside world’s challenges, remained opposed to our participation. The Pearl Harbor attack – coupled with Germany’s almost immediately subsequent declaration of war on the United States – shattered those illusions. We were in.

William Shirer wrote in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: “[The Pearl Harbor attack] transformed the European war … into a world war, which … would seal [Adolf Hitler’s] fate and that of the Third Reich.” British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote in The Second World War: “[Upon hearing of the Pearl Harbor attack] I knew the United States was in the war …. So we had won after all!”

By contrast, 9/11 found us led by an inexperienced and arguably under-qualified President. When we elected President George W. Bush the preceding year (in this context, put aside all the electoral controversy), it didn’t seem to matter that much whether we selected him or then-Vice President Al Gore (by today’s standards, both were moderates); America’s economy was booming (the cracks we now see between the well-to-do and the impoverished not yet generally apparent), we had a balanced budget, and America’s place as the world’s preeminent superpower was unquestioned.

But it did matter. While 9/11 was indeed an attack on our nation, and it was natural for our leaders to guard against the worst in the first days following 9/11 and to pledge retaliation against those who had attacked us, Al Qaeda was not an imperial nation with a formidable military. Once the earliest shock passed, it was obvious that our democracy was not at risk. We did not need to go on a wartime footing.

But we did. Article 5 of the NATO charter was invoked. We launched an invasion of Afghanistan. Although the invasion was not unreasonable since the Taliban did not deny that it was shielding al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden – the invasion generally enjoyed wide American and domestic international support — we ultimately sustained approximately 2,500 deaths and another over 20,000 wounded in battle. (I don’t believe that these casualty numbers include such as individuals who have succumbed or will succumb to causes such as toxic fume inhalation from open-air burn pits.) The reported cost of the incursion is $2.26 trillion.

Today, the Taliban control Afghanistan.

In March, 2003, America invaded Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein. To quote Google’s “AI Overview” reference to the Council on Foreign Relations: “The administration of President George W. Bush argued that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a threat in the wake of 9/11, though no active WMD programs were ultimately found.” [Emphasis Added] Our allies were markedly less supportive of our Iraq invasion than they had been of our Afghanistan incursion – as it turns out, with good reason. Our international relationships began to fray; trust in American judgement was placed in question. Those of us old enough to remember the buildup that preceded the Iraq invasion well recall the Bush Administration’s juxtaposition of 9/11 with the threat it perceived to be presented by Iraq, certainly creating the impression in some Americans that Saddam had played some part in 9/11. He had not. When no WMDs were found, the object of the mission suddenly transformed from ridding us of a WMD threat to saving the Iraqi people from Saddam, because he was a really bad guy. Well, he was a really bad guy … but there are a lot of other really bad guys in the world.

We finally withdrew from Iraq in December, 2011. It is reported that we sustained approximately 4,500 deaths and another over 32,000 wounded in battle. (Again, I don’t believe that these casualty numbers include such as toxic fume victims.) It has been estimated that we spent $3 trillion on the incursion.

In 2023, Stephen A. Cook of the Council of Foreign Relations wrote, “Iraq is not yet what political scientists might refer to as a ‘consolidated democracy.’” I’ll let you decide, given what has been going on in the Middle East, whether Iraq’s democracy is more “consolidated” today than it was in 2023.

According to the Human Rights Watch: “[During the Middle East conflicts] the Bush administration authorized coercive interrogation practices by the CIA and the military that amounted to torture … Indeed, many were, including Canadian national Maher Arar who described repeated beatings with cables and electrical cords during the 10 months he was held in Syria, where the US sent him in 2002.” Mr. Bush has admitted that he himself authorized waterboarding prisoners of war. While only naïve American would believe that Americans had refrained from such practices in earlier wars, those conflicts seemed long ago and far away. The Bush Administration’s practices made clear that the world’s supposedly foremost advocate of human rights was no better than anybody else.

Although there were undoubtedly earlier indications, for me these military debacles hastened our descent from truth to tribalism. It is now common for pundits to excuse Mr. Bush and his team for the blunder of the Iraq invasion on the ground that they made decisions based upon faulty intelligence. To me, that is and was no excuse. Chief Executive Officers of multi-billion dollar corporations make “bet the company” decisions regularly. These CEOs don’t dream these decisions up – they have an inclination, but finally give approval to major new initiatives based upon the marketing, financial and other projections of their subordinates. When these major decisions turn out to be that wrong, they lose their jobs. That is what I expected to happen when Mr. Bush stood for reelection in 2004, as it had with President Herbert Hoover in 1932, with President Jimmy Carter in 1976, and would have happened with President Lyndon Johnson had he stood for reelection in 1968. Instead, winning became everything; the Bush Campaign employed a war mentality to our political discourse as well as to our foreign policy. Republicans smeared the military service of Democratic Presidential Nominee and decorated Vietnam War veteran U.S. MA Sen. John Kerry while trying to make Mr. Bush (whose flight status was suspended during his military service for failure to appear for a mandatory physical exam) into the next coming of William Tecumseh Sherman and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Would we have reacted in the same way had al Qaida attacked earlier, during President Bill Clinton’s second term? One can only guess, but I genuinely don’t think we would have. Although Messrs. Clinton and Bush were both born in 1946 – and at this point, are personally as close as brothers – they would have been very different men when confronted with the crisis. Mr. Clinton would not only have had markedly more experience a president than Mr. Bush did; he’s a more nuanced thinker and – perhaps most crucially — the two men unquestionably came away from our Vietnam experience with very different impressions of the utility of American military power. Mr. Clinton would have taken aggressive action of some sort – the American people would have demanded it, and Mr. Clinton was extremely sensitive to his people’s views – but he was also a master at managing American opinion and expectations. Afghanistan? Maybe. Torture? Unlikely. Iraq? No. This is, of course, but the sheerest speculation, and which of the parties’ 2000 presidential nominees would have succeeded Mr. Clinton – and what course we would thereafter have taken — would have depended almost entirely upon Americans’ assessment of the Clinton Administration’s response following the attack.

But for me the notion lingers: that in the same way that certain martial arts stress the use of leverage – manners in which smaller, weaker opponents can catch larger, stronger opponents off balance, tip them over, and win a struggle – bin Laden and al Qaida, probably without realizing it, caught us at a time when we were overconfident as a nation, and led by leaders who meant well but ultimately proved to be ill-equipped to deal with the challenge the terrorists placed before them. 9/11 caused us to go in directions, both internationally and domestically, that it is hard to fathom that we would have taken had al Qaida not struck us at just the time it did.

On this past September 11, I heard MSNOW’s Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough scoff at the suggestion that “bin Laden won.” I would offer — notwithstanding and in NO WAY taking away from the heroism and sacrifice of those on 9/11, the heroism and sacrifice of our military and related personnel in two Middle East wars that spanned so many years, ended or marred so many lives, and cost us so much financially, and the Bush Administration’s successful thwarting of many undisclosed terrorist attacks in the years following 9/11 – that bin Laden could not have dreamed when he launched the 9/11 attack that it could have had such a deleterious effect on us, thrown us as far off course, as I believe that it did. Sure, we ultimately killed him. Who can doubt that he would have gladly given his life for the havoc he wreaked?

Be angry with me if you wish. Call me an idiot (you undoubtedly already have and will, with ample justification). I express this with the deepest regret, but cannot escape the belief:

bin Laden won.

Observations from Mount Rushmore

Life has been busy for us lately, and thus you’ve been spared many Noise entries. What is linked below was recently called to my attention, and I cannot resist recording it here, although – viewer discretion advised 😉 – some of the lyrics are significantly cruder than the tone generally intended for these pages. If you’ve already seen it, I suspect that you’ll be happy to spend a minute revisiting it. 😊

https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+singing+mount+rushmore+presidents+he%27s+a+jerk&sca_esv=0599634f104d6e26&sxsrf=APpeQnsC_vL_4zTL8SL9ZdY1GY6CxkwKWA%3A1789226034828&source=hp&ei=Mmylap3iMLLHp84PzqSPEA&iflsig=ABILxe8AAAAAaqV6Qg2gV99KXCkmziVFCc5PxjiBUuKz&ved=0ahUKEwidw-ixqumWAxWy48kDHU7SAwIQ4dUDCBs&uact=5&oq=youtube+singing+mount+rushmore+presidents+he%27s+a+jerk&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:fb68e34c,vid:arlEWzeZMxg,st:0

Fifty Years Ago Today

Today marks TLOML’s and my 50^th wedding anniversary. It’s been easy for me; she has served her time in Purgatory while still on earth. 😉

Our extended families are well aware that of all of the thousands of eloquent descriptions of love and marriage one can find, I consider the best characterization of a successful relationship that which Sylvester Stallone had Rocky offer, when describing Rocky’s relationship with Talia Shire’s Adrian, in the film, Rocky:

“I don’t know … it fills gaps, I guess; she’s got gaps, I got gaps – together, we fill gaps ….”

We have been blessed with a wonderful family of whom we are inordinately proud and with the opportunity to make the most of the talents that the Almighty gave us. Although we were committed to each other a number of years before we finally married, we are obviously not the kids who left the church in a blizzard of rice so many years ago; we’ve been blessed that we’ve grown together, have been able to work together through the challenges we’ve faced. I think that it’s fair to say that over these many years, we have celebrated each other’s strengths, and compensated for each other’s weaknesses (the gaps have been mine). (TLOML is fond of saying, “It takes two sets of eyes.”) Our differences have enriched us rather than constrained us; in difficult times we’ve cherished each other. I vividly recall that within the first couple of years after we were married, when the house we lived in was being deluged by a gushing thunder storm, we realized that the window wells on different sides of the house were overflowing and that water was spilling into the basement; with the stupidity of youth, we decided – with the thunder and lightning continuing LOUD, repeated, and RIGHT overhead — that the most important thing was to stop the basement from flooding. We each ran out with a bucket to a different window well to bail it out. The lightning strikes continued, some seemingly hitting RIGHT in our backyard. Did we go in? Nah. But after every close strike, we would each race to the edge of the house and look to see that the other was okay – and then we’d go back to bailing 😊. We always knew where the other was. Although throughout the decades we have sometimes been engaged in very different aspects of our life endeavor, we have always been working toward the same goal. We’ve not always been in the same place, but we’ve never been apart. Our priorities – what we most valued – have always been aligned. By pure miracle, we turned out to be hand in glove. No one who’s ever been in a successful relationship will forget the thrill of the initial sparks, but it is the enduring flame they ignite that sustains for a lifetime. We are acutely aware how fortunate we are; we well know that many people – good, well-meaning people – have not been as favored as we have been.

It has been my honor to officiate at a number of weddings over the years. Given the importance I place on marriage, I consider these honors to have been among the most important of my life. When officiating, you try, based upon your understanding of the couple, to put together sentiments that will most resonate with them. A passage that I have come across in my reading, that I have rarely quoted during these ceremonies because it doesn’t fit exactly when celebrating the start of a couple’s life adventure, seems most appropriate for us today:

“The man or woman you really love will never grow old to you. Through the wrinkles of time, through the bowed frame of years, you will always see the face, and feel the heart, of your eternal love.”

Even in this politically fraught time in our nation, one’s personal relationships are what matter most. For all of you in love now or in the future, we wish for you what we have – in length if possible, but more importantly, in depth.

Have a wonderful day.

Thomas Jefferson Still Lives

As all are aware, today marks the 250^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, the birthdate of our nation. Its signatories were men of education, means, and standing; they were not a bunch of wild-eyed crazies; they understood that they were all going to be hanged and their assets forfeited if they lost what had already become a military conflict with Great Britain. They were accordingly moved not only to recite the principles upon which they were founding a new nation, but to set forth a bill of particulars – in effect, an indictment – listing more than twenty reasons why they felt it necessary to take the drastic step to renounce the sovereignty of a King. These are a few of its passages, some known to every school child, several, arguably particularly pertinent today, perhaps not as frequently cited:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness …

…

The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

…

He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither …

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice …

…

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

…

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us …

…

We, therefore … solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES …

[W]e mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

When the Second Continental Congress determined that it was time for the United States of America to formally declare their independence from Great Britain, the Committee selected five men to undertake the task: Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. I have seen it reported that Mr. Franklin declined drafting responsibility because he would not write what others might edit (we all have our quirks 😉), and Messrs. Sherman and Livingston delegated their responsibility to Messrs. Adams and Jefferson; Mr. Adams in turn deferred to Mr. Jefferson as the far superior and inspirational writer. Mr. Jefferson, arguably the most broadly-talented man to ever hold the presidency, fulfilling the confidence Mr. Adams had in him, drafted the document in only a few days.

Only three of those whom we most commonly think of as our “Founding Fathers” actually executed the Declaration: Messrs. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson. George Washington was away leading the Continental Army, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were away serving in the Army, John Jay was in New York helping to develop that state’s Constitution, and Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, Common Sense, had been perhaps the most instrumental factor in stirring sentiments of independence among the American colonists, couldn’t sign because he wasn’t a member of the Continental Congress.

Although in the Declaration of Independence Mr. Jefferson penned words that have become as close to immortal as one can achieve in this finite existence – that it was “… self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” today some of our people understandably object to the hallowed place he holds in our history because of his ownership of slaves – making him a perpetuator of the malignant human suffering that we later had to fight a Civil War to exterminate. I understand such views; I recommend Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass if one wishes a firsthand description of the inhumanity of slavery. I will nonetheless assert that the words Mr. Jefferson left us have served as the springboard for the rights and freedoms enjoyed by a billion people living in true democracies today, and capture the aspirations of many billions more. I cannot place qualifiers upon such an achievement.

Messrs. Adams’ and Jefferson’s relationship over many decades was complex and contradictory. Firm compatriots prior to and throughout the Revolutionary War, following the ratification of our current Constitution Mr. Adams, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, became bitterly estranged during the years of George Washington’s presidency. Mr. Adams, our country’s first Vice President, believed that the nation required a strong federal government in order to survive; Mr. Jefferson, our country’s first Secretary of State, believed that the federal government should retain as little power as possible, with the great bulk being left to the states and local entities more closely attuned to the sentiments of the people. Mr. Adams defeated Mr. Jefferson in 1796 in the first contested election for the presidency; Mr. Jefferson defeated Mr. Adams and assumed the presidency four years later. Mr. Adams thereupon retired to private life in Massachusetts.

It took over a decade – several years after Mr. Jefferson had left the White House – for Messrs. Adams and Jefferson to reconcile; they thereafter engaged in warm correspondence throughout the remainder of their lives. Historians frequently note that they both died on July 4, 1826, the 50^th anniversary of the issuance of the Declaration of Independence, 200 years ago today. Newspaper reports after Mr. Adams’ passing indicated that his last words were, “Thomas Jefferson still lives.” Most historians conclude this account by somberly stating that Mr. Adams was wrong – that Mr. Jefferson had died a few hours earlier.

I’m personally not at all sure that these learned scholars have understood Mr. Adams’ meaning. Messrs. Adams and Jefferson knew the other was dying; each of them was striving with the last ounce of his respective will to live to that particular day — July 4, 2026, the 50^th anniversary of the birth of the nation they had helped institute and both had led; and both were aware that Mr. Jefferson’s words, perhaps more than any other factor, had provided the inspiration for the battle for the rights and freedom that they had spawned and won. Both had to have wondered over the preceding 50 years whether a nation founded on the principles of general freedom and equality – a theory espoused by such as John Locke but dismissed as unsustainable from a practical perspective by no less than Plato – a fledgling country threatened by much more militarily powerful European nations, beset by rivalries between American regions, states, and political parties, and challenged (as they saw it) by the indigent populations of the west, could endure.

Given Mr. Adams’ knowledge of Mr. Jefferson’s own failing health and the amount of time it then took correspondence to travel between Mr. Adams’ Massachusetts and Mr. Jefferson’s Virginia, Mr. Adams had to be well aware as he spoke his last that there was some doubt as to whether Mr. Jefferson was then still alive in a corporeal sense – as he indeed was not. Call it fanciful, but I would suggest that Mr. Adams understood full well what he was saying as he expired: that in spite of all the travail that had occurred during the preceding half century, the Founding Fathers’ experiment, in which all people – inspired by and embodied in Mr. Jefferson’s words — could participate equally in their polity, still lived. Today, yet another two centuries later, some of us fear that Mr. Jefferson’s pulse might be beating a bit more faintly, but I would submit that there is nothing that cannot be restored through a little exercise by Americans who believe that all of us of every persuasion – and those who wish to join us lawfully and peacefully — should have an equal opportunity to contribute to and be part of the promise of America.

“Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us.”

Thomas Paine; Common Sense; February 14, 1776

Thomas Jefferson Still Lives.

God Bless America.

Where Do You Draw the Line?

As all who care have now become aware, Graham Platner, an early-40s oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran who is the presumed Democratic Party nominee for Maine’s U.S. Senate Seate to run against U.S. ME Sen. Susan Collins, has in recent weeks run into more than what our British friends would call a small spot of bother. First, Mr. Platner was found to be sporting a tattoo which was apparently a one-time Nazi symbol. I understand that Mr. Platner claimed that he didn’t know it was a Nazi symbol when he got it, and has recently gotten a tattoo over the Nazi symbol to hide it. More recently, there have been reports that after marrying, Mr. Platner exchanged sexually suggestive texts with a number of women. Most recently, the New York Times has run an account that a number of the women Mr. Platner dated in the past have claimed that he was physically aggressive and intimidating in his behavior toward them, one alleging that he left marks on her shoulders.

At the same time, I have heard Mr. Platner – who looks like he could be a model in a MAGA recruitment ad – described by a Republican political operative as an incredible political athlete. I have never heard him speak (save for a few recent clips in which he is defending himself against various allegations lodged against him). Mr. Platner boasts the active support of progressive icons U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. CA Rep. Ro Khanna (the latter’s support seemingly particularly ironic, given his aggressive efforts for disclosure of the Epstein Files), which means he must spout all of the right progressive ideals. I have heard others say that his is a story of redemption.

Those supporting Mr. Platner clearly are doing so because he is (in their view) right on the issues, and is apparently a dynamic candidate. I have heard more than one liberal talking head note that in the current political environment wrought by President Donald Trump, voters care less about a given candidate’s personal characteristics, as long as s/he supports their positions on the issues. I have heard one liberal commentator assert in effect that Maine voters should disregard any skeletons in Mr. Platner’s closet given the demonstrated failings of Mr. Trump.

I don’t think too many Trump supporters read these pages. 😉 It would be accordingly be interesting, if a poll could be taken, to determine the overall sentiments of those who read this note regarding Mr. Platner’s candidacy.

Here is mine.

I truly hope that Mr. Platner is sorry for his past behaviors; he has expressed regret for those to which he admits. I desperately want the Democrats to take control of the Senate in 2027; while their controlling the House of Representatives – assuming for purposes of this note that such comes to pass – will provide a partial check on Mr. Trump’s intent to impose an American Apartheid upon us, their gaining control of both houses of Congress will be a substantially more effective roadblock. Furthermore, in notes posted here over the last year I have come off my high horse on issues such as Democrats’ partisan midcycle redistricting efforts in states such as California and Virginia, indicating that when democracy is at stake, given Republicans’ partisan activities manifestly demonstrating that they are determined to impose their views on America no matter what its majority thinks, one must occasionally become less fastidious.

But apparently, my stomach for whataboutism only goes so far. I think that the comparisons that liberal pundits are trying to draw between Messrs. Trump and Platner in order to rationalize Mr. Platner’s admitted and alleged behaviors fail practically and morally. First, the politically pragmatic: Mr. Platner isn’t running against Mr. Trump. He’s running against Ms. Collins, who looks like everybody’s grandma (she’s younger than I am 😉) and has won – wait for it – in 1996, when President Bill Clinton was winning reelection convincingly; in 2008, when President Barack Obama was first elected at the depth of President George W. Bush’s unpopularity; and in 2020, when President Joe Biden carried Maine by over 8 points. (I realized quite a while ago that Maine is my kind of state – electing Mr. Biden and Ms. Collins in the same election by almost the same margin. Now, that’s independent thinking. 😊) Given Ms. Collins’ impressive electoral record, to win Mr. Platner needed the race to be about Mr. Trump. Now, Ms. Collins will be able to make the race about him.

From a moral perspective, MAJOR CAVEAT: I have not delved into the details of any of the allegations lodged against Mr. Platner. If I were a citizen of Maine, I would feel obligated to examine the allegations against him in detail and determine their substance. As it is, I am currently heavily influenced by the comments of former New York Times Columnist David Brooks on the PBS Newshour of June 5^th. There is no pundit in America whose views I hold in higher esteem. Of Mr. Platner, Mr. Brooks – usually more temperate in his language and tone, and no fan of Mr. Trump — said this:

“[A] moral degenerate. The abuse of women, the sexting, the Nazi tattoo. I don’t even need to say anything beyond his Reddit posts – which are not in the past, by the way; he did that for a long time. Abusing people who might have been raped, diminishing rape in the military, insulting fellow military officers. … It’s a pathetic, empty guy who postures in a way that’s kind of repulsive. There are 330 million Americans, and there are 100 Senators. We can’t have a decent human being in those hundred? We’re gonna settle for this? … The Democrats are supporting Platner for the same reason the Republicans are supporting Trump. … Now, if Democrats side with Platner, I don’t want to hear too much about Trump in the future and his moral degeneracy.”

As I said, if I were a Mainer, and despite my high regard for Mr. Brooks’ views, I’d feel a responsibility to examine the allegations about Mr. Platner myself, and form my own conclusions. However, if my own investigation indicated to me that the totality of the allegations against him had substance, I wouldn’t vote for him. I wouldn’t vote for Ms. Collins. I’d sit it out.

Somewhere in there is where I draw the line.

You may well feel differently; you may well consider me too squeamish, considering the imperiled state of our democracy; such differences of opinion are, as my sainted mother sometimes said, what make horse races. However, I will be disheartened from both ethical and practical perspectives if, as now seems highly likely, Mr. Platner wins the Democratic nomination for the Maine Senate seat.

I think virtually all commentators agree that Democrats must overcome long odds if they are going to take control of the U.S. Senate in 2027. A few months ago, Ms. Collins’ seat looked like the easiest Democratic pickup; she is the only Republican Senator remaining in New England, she’s already been there a long time, and Maine voted not only for Mr. Biden in 2020 but for former Vice President Kamala Harris by almost 7 points in 2024. It’s the Democrats’ year, and I suspect that Ms. Collins’ support even among Maine Republicans has weakened – she’s presumably irritated Trump MAGAs by not supporting the President vehemently enough while offending traditional Republicans by not sufficiently standing up to his excesses. I nevertheless fear that Democrats are about to do what they do best – snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If Maine Democrats do indeed nominate Mr. Platner and he is elected, I hope that he, despite his baggage, thereafter forms part of a Senate bulwark against Mr. Trump’s excesses; but it is hard not to suspect that Ms. Collins will be mounting Mr. Platner’s scalp in her office in 2027 next to the scalps of her previous five Democratic opponents.

We’ll see what happens.

Memo to: Xi Jinping: Part I

[Sometimes, life’s realities intrude upon life’s avocations, and such has been the case for us in recent weeks; what follows is the majority of a hypothetical memo that I had intended to finish before U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met this week. (I wrote both leaders an email asking that they postpone their summit so I could finish this post, but they each declined. 😉) I will post the remainder at some point in the future, but you’ll undoubtedly get the gist – and, will, like Mr. Xi, no matter what you think of the substance, also be grateful for the break. 😊]

Memo to: Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”)

From: Really Low Section Level Civil Servant Zhāng Sān (Chinese equivalent of “John Doe”)

Great One, if this memo has reached you, it means that it has passed through many hands, from my Section Leader up through his Area Leader, and ultimately to a Politburo member who arranged for it to reach your enlightened gaze. If my name is still on it, it means that all of these highly-esteemed Comrades find merit in what I offer, but want to be sure that I am the one who is shot if you are offended by my suggestions. (In deciding my fate, hopefully your most Merciful and Understanding Benevolence will take into account my youthful exuberance and that I sleep with my copy of Xi Jinping Thought under my pillow every night.)

This week, you will be participating in a Summit Meeting with Donald Trump, the President of the United States. It takes no acuity to observe that America is currently exhausted, in chaos, riven by acrimony. Hon. Trump has become increasingly unpopular over his first year and a half in office – somewhat surprisingly, not because of his moral turpitude, his obvious self-aggrandizement in a country that claims to eschew royalty, or his 2021 assault on the American democracy — but because of his mishandling of the American economy and his more recent grossly misguided foray against our ally, Iran. Even so, inexplicably, approximately a third of Americans still support him. It can be predicted that the toxically polarizing divisions now existing in the American electorate will not recede when he departs, because free speech has allowed partisan broadcasters espousing views from both sides of the American political spectrum, motivated by profit, to continue to stir animosity and discord. America is facing the pressures of an aging population while inexplicably forfeiting its appeal to immigrants – a geopolitical advantage we wish we had. America is deeply in debt, propped up by American, China and other international U.S. bond holders because America has been perceived as the safest place to invest. This will change. We can help it change.

I would pose that Hon. Trump’s undeniably erratic behavior has presented the PRC with an unprecedented opportunity to set a new world order over the remaining two and a half years of the Hon. Trump’s term. I set forth here what I see, from my very lowly position, may be the avenues for spreading the China Dream throughout the regions of the world. The regions are listed in terms of immediacy.

The Middle East. It is clear, given Hon. Trump’s mental degradation, brief attention span and the unpopularity of his Iran incursion, that he is looking for a way to extricate America from the quagmire he has created. Hon. Trump has created a mess. He appears to be a puppet of the Israelis, and gives every indication that he will walk away from the conflict with the region must more unstable than it was before he launched is war. If he does so, we have two advantages: the Iranians will listen to us – and no other nation — if we wish them to tamp down hostilities; and America’s heretofore allies in the region will be irate at the manner in which Hon. Trump has abandoned them to greater Iranian terrorism and economic risk than they faced before the war. Credible reporting indicates that Hon. Trump’s apparent half-heartedness in pursing his initiative has already significantly impaired America’s relationships with its allies in the region. America and Hon. Trump have lost face in the region because the Iranian regime has withstood America’s assertion of its military power and as a consequence of Hon. Trump’s inconsistent messages and unfulfilled threats. Hon. Trump’s obvious unwillingness to deploy ground troops – presumably because the inevitable resulting American casualties in an unpopular war will decimate whatever political support he still has – has shown him to be a paper tiger. China, because of its influence with Iran, can replace America as the arbiter of stability in the Middle East. In the meantime, China should continue whatever covert assistance to Iran it is now providing to enable Iran to continue its struggle. During the upcoming summit, Your Uniqueness might consider demanding that America immediately begin to let oil tankers bound for China proceed through the Strait of Hormuz, and, if insufficient American concessions are not forthcoming, threaten to embargo American produce (disproportionately adversely affecting Trump supporters) and its access to our rare earth minerals. (Hon. Trump’s predictable response will be to threaten to increase tariffs on Chinese goods. If he does so, such measures will hurt China temporarily, but will undoubtedly impair America’s ability to maintain its defensive capabilities, alarm global financial markets, and increase America’s inflation rate; Hon. Trump currently can’t politically afford these outcomes.)

Europe, Russia, and Ukraine. Here again, Hon. Trump’s inexplicable disregard for America’s traditional strategic allies has provided us with an unexpected opportunity to expand our global influence. The American president’s trade wars with the European Union, his boorish and imperialistic behavior – his threat to annex Greenland by force will never be forgotten by the other NATO nations — and his willingness to essentially abandon the other NATO nations as they face what they consider a real Russian threat to their own security has created a rift, a distrust between the European nations and America, that many experts have opined will never be entirely repaired. America’s unwarranted Iranian incursion has exacerbated this ill will among Europeans by driving up their energy costs with the likelihood that an extended conflict will materially and significantly damage their economies. Our approach needs to be subtle. I will humbly suggest that despite our intent to maintain solidarity with Russia, with whom you have indicated that we have an unbreakable bond, expansion of Russian political control into western Europe is not in China’s interest. While true democracies provide an image of political freedom which the PRC must effectively counteract in messaging to our people, China needs an economically strong Europe to buy our goods. Without wishing to offend Your Uniqueness with being too candid, Comrade Putin, with whom I am sure you have the warmest relationship, leads the hollow shell of a once-proud nation; besides nuclear weapons — which you have seemingly made it clear to the Comrade that he cannot employ in his struggle against Ukraine – and admittedly sophisticated intelligence capabilities, Russia has limited geopolitical assets and few prospects of generating them. Its army has been embarrassingly exposed by the Ukrainians. While China would of course outwardly applaud a Russian conquest of Ukraine, and China clearly has an interest in covertly assisting Russia because our own prestige will be degraded if Russia is perceived to have been defeated by Ukraine, our interests are arguably best served if the struggle continues in its current status – depleting both Russian and European assets – which will make the former more dependent upon us for military assistance, and the latter more amenable to any trade proposals we will wish to make in the future. We should surreptitiously provide Russia the aid it needs to keep it going, but not enough to enable it to overpower the Ukrainians. In retrospect, Comrade Putin’s Ukraine invasion might be interpreted not only as an effort to reestablish the USSR but also as an attempt to achieve a greater level of parity with China among those nations choosing to be led by enlightened leaders rather than by their people; if so, its abysmal strategic failure has reduced Russia to a position of China’s favored supplicant. If necessary, we should make it absolutely clear to Comrade Putin – similar to the manner in which America asserted its precedence among western democracies by instructing Great Britain and France to cease and desist in their Middle East invasion during the 1956 Suez Crisis — that China does not consider it in China’s interest for Russia to attempt any further reestablishment of the USSR, and that any Russian expansionist designs will HALT at the current NATO border. One may suggest that over the coming decade Europeans will become increasingly desirous of dealing with us economically because they’ll be seeking a counterweight to America – as long as they see China as a check on Russian expansion, and China’s actions do not cause European leaders to view China as a national security threat.

South America and Africa. These continents are obviously somewhat less important geopolitically and each includes too many countries to enable each to be dealt with specifically in this memorandum, but again, Hon. Trump’s obviously racist and one-sided mercenary instincts provide us with opportunities. Hon. Trump’s attempt to maintain a sphere of influence over South America to the exclusion of China – his so called, “Donroe Doctrine” – is a joke. In Brazil, his feud with its leftist leader, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and his willingness to interfere in Brazilian domestic affairs and legal and democratic processes in support of “the Trump of South America,” Brazil’s former rightest president, Juan Bolsanaro, has alienated South America’s largest and most powerful country. I will also suggest that even America’s recent deposition of Venezuela’s leftist president, Nicolás Maduro, will backfire on the Americans. While America’s capture of Sr. Maduro was originally viewed by ordinary Venezuelans as an act of liberation, by Hon. Trump leaving the entire Maduro regime in place – deferring popular elections, turning his back on and thus insulting the opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, after she agreed to share her Nobel Peace Prize with Hon. Trump — in return for Sr. Maduro’s minions’ willingness to provide America access to Venezuelan oil (which Hon. Trump somehow, inexplicably, considers “American oil”) will ultimately turn Venezuelan public opinion against America, making it a fertile ground for us. Likewise, one of the first initiatives of Hon. Trump’s Administration – “DOGE” — cut out aid programs to Africa considered vital to protect Africans’ health, and Hon. Trump’s well-publicized racist reference to African countries as “Shithole Countries” has undoubtedly created sufficient disfavor among African nations that China, through deft diplomacy and economic aid, can establish primacy on the African continent as well.

North America. Since the continent is America’s direct sphere of influence, and the economies of Canada and Mexico rely heavily upon trade with America, there is only so much that can be done within this region, but even here, there are opportunities. Hon. Trump’s imperious approach to Mexico – recall his highly offensive attempt to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the “Gulf of America,” and that not long ago America was accused by the Mexican government of conducting operations against Mexican cartels without the Mexican government’s knowledge – taken together with his offensive trade policies and his disparaging and obviously racist attitudes and references to Latin peoples have alienated Mexico sufficiently that I would suggest that deft Chinese diplomacy may enable us to establish greater economic ties with Mexico, which will be eager to have some counterweight against America. Canada, of course, will be the most difficult. Although Canadian Prime Minister Carney clearly has no use for Hon. Trump, and is seeking to link Canada more closely to the EU and establish even deeper ties for Canada within NATO, the Canadians’ geographic, ethnic, and cultural proximity to America enable Canadians, more than any other people, to conceptually separate Hon. Trump and his administration from “America” and the American people. Even so, Hon. Trump’s offensive calls to make Canada America’s “51^st state” and one-sided trade policies have undoubtedly increased anti-American sentiment among some Canadians, and Canadians have now undoubtedly recognized that a large share of the American electorate is gullible, easily persuaded by demagogues. Their government may well embrace deeper exchanges of commodities with China as a counterweight to future American instability and unreliability. We should encourage these sentiments by granting as favorable a trade status to Canadian products and produce as our own domestic circumstances can afford.

Your Uniqueness, if you have found any merit in what I have placed before you, I will beg your sufferance for my delay in providing you with my additional very low and obviously very uninformed and unworthy views supplementing those I have had the temerity to place before you; if you haven’t, I am confident that I will have no need to further ponder how China might manage the nations with which we share our own immediate sphere of the world, and our runaway province Taiwan. Just keep in mind: You are a Manchester City fan. Amazingly, so am I! Go City!

I Fought the Bot … and the Bot Won

[Even amid the chaos we live in, sometimes one needs a distraction. After being encouraged by friends for quite a while to do so, in recent months I have taken up the New York Times’ online Wordle game. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Wordle, skip this one. For those who proceed, you know the tune. 😊]

Starin’ at the squares and feelin’ dumb
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

I needed ideas ’cause I had none
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

I used my words, and it feels so bad
Guess my race is done
It’s the best guess that I ever had
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

Just prayin’ for a good six run
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

I missed my tries and I lost my run
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

I used my words, and it feels so bad
Guess my race is done
It’s the best guess that I ever had
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot … and the Bot won.

[I hate that snarky Bot – particularly for the clearly patronizing way he congratulates me on the rare occasions when I meet his expectations. 😉]

We obviously have more serious ahead of us. In the meantime, enjoy the coming of spring.

The Grotesque Shambles

Sit back, take a breath, and for a moment try to viscerally soak in the totality of the grotesque shambles that the Crazy Geezer has wrought in less than fifteen months.

Pondering Mr. Trump’s Easter Post

As all who care are aware, on Easter Sunday Morning, Donald Trump – you know, our president – posted the following on his social media account (no “*ing,” since he didn’t use any):

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

This is one of those times that I just can’t resist stating the obvious (the most obvious observation first: Mr. Trump probably wasn’t really sincerely extending praise to Allah 😉):

The Iranian Regime will not be cowed by Mr. Trump’s bluster.
The Iranian Regime hopes that Mr. Trump will carry through on his threat, which could make him a pariah in the international community if he fails to restrict any strike to military-related targets, and could very well turn much of the Iranian populace, which heretofore has opposed the Regime, against America.
Mr. Trump seems to have placed himself in a box; if the Ayatollahs fail to accede to the President’s demands and Mr. Trump fails to follow through with a dramatic strike that corresponds to the emphatic nature of his threat, Mr. Trump’s inevitable future threats will lack all credibility with the Iranian regime.
The tone of the Easter post made clear to the Iranian Regime (as well as to the rest of us) that despite his protestations, Mr. Trump is terrified by what the Iranian Regime’s continuing hold on the Strait of Hormuz will do to the global economy; he is desperate; he wants/needs a quick deal much more than they do.
We have an unstable, capricious, deranged, delusional, diminishing, desperate geezer in the most powerful office in the world.

I’d love the opportunity to ask the author of The Art of the Deal: When you see that the other side is panicking and anxious for a deal, do you back down and give the other side what it wants — or do you exploit your advantage?

Acknowledging that the following inquiry invades the realm of the eminent psychologists whom I am honored sometimes read these notes, it nonetheless does not seem unreasonable for us laypeople to wonder: Is the President of the United States … going looney?

While pundits have been understandably primarily commenting on the ramifications of Mr. Trump’s behaviors for the outcome of the current Iranian conflict, I have heard at least a couple who have made larger observations in different contexts from which one could infer what I, and I perhaps you, have been thinking: For a second, put aside Iran, and even concerns specifically about Mr. Trump’s fascist impulses. How do we get through another almost three years with this guy? And if he somehow leaves the presidency before his term is up, how do we survive J.D. Vance, whom I would suggest would, in many ways, even be worse?

Two Impressions on the Epstein Files

[It has occurred to me, given little NPR’s recent reports that the Trump Regime’s Justice Department has failed to release an Epstein victim’s witness statements allegedly describing that victim’s encounters with President Donald Trump, that the mighty New York Times had to be a bit disgruntled at being scooped. I share a bit of the Times’ chagrin. 😉 What follows was substantially completed before NPR’s recent publication, deferred for other posts. In entering it now, I’m supposing: Better late than never.]

You certainly don’t need a recitation of the facts surrounding the evil perpetrated by the late Jeffrey Epstein and those who collaborated with him. Nor do you need a rundown on the continuing rank hypocrisy and obstructionism – most glaring under the Trump Administration, but certainly not confined to the Trump Administration – of the various law enforcement agencies over many years who have professed sympathy for Epstein’s victims while mostly doing nothing to enable them to obtain justice. Only two impressions.

At the time this is typed, in excess of 3 million of what has been reported to be between 5 and 6 million records in the Trump Regime’s Department of Justice’s investigative files on Epstein have been released, and the Department has announced that it will not release the last 2 million. It’s hard to see how release of these last remaining records can be compelled; Congress could pass a law, but it’s already done that, and the Regime clearly couldn’t care less. I have also seen it reported that President Donald Trump’s name appears in the files over 1000 times. Although it is undisputed that he maintained a relationship with Epstein over quite a span of years, the President has vigorously denied that he ever engaged in any illicit activities with Epstein’s underage female victims (or, let’s call them what they were: girls). At the same time, it’s clear that Mr. Trump’s toadies at the Department of Justice will follow whatever he orders. The crux of it is that Mr. Trump – his own savviest media advisor – knows – he knows – that stonewalling on this issue is terribly politically damaging. If the President was confident that he would not be hurt too badly by the files’ full disclosure, one can tenably surmise based upon his past behavior that the last 2 million records would have been released by now. So I ponder: what is the one thing that a man might fear who has been able to maintain the rabid support of his base despite his audio-taped indication that he could “grab [women] by the p—y,” despite his negligently causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary COVID-related American deaths, despite his inexplicably obsequious relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite his 34 felony convictions, and despite his incitement of an traitorous attack on our nation’s Capitol? What is the one revelation that a man, who has politically survived his undisputed commission of so many detestable actions with his core base intact, might fear would finally turn his rabid supporters against him?

I’ll leave that one to you.

As to the second impression: I never thought I’d say this; anyone who knows me or reads these notes may well understandably consider me oblivious, paranoid, senseless as a goose, or dumber than a rock – or all of the above, plus dozens of other similar apt descriptions — but neither you nor I have probably generally considered me to be … naïve. But I was. All these years, I scoffed at conspiracist groups who maintained that the world was being run by a global cabal of elite pedophiles. The Epstein files that have been released seemingly indicate that there does indeed exist an international group of wealthy business and government elites across the political spectrum who have and do indeed believe that they are entitled to abuse and destroy the lives of the vulnerable for their own pleasure. Although it is still uncertain which of the powerful men coming into Epstein’s orbit exploited the women trafficked by Epstein, it seems clear that given the number of men named and the number of Epstein victims that have come forward, that many, many men were involved. While these conspiracists were clearly wrong with regard to some vital particulars – the pedophilia cabal they warned against obviously does not include all of the globally politically and financial powerful, it is certainly not limited to left wing elites, and (wait for it) Donald Trump is most certainly not the man who is going to bring it to justice for the victims — arguably one must concede that this particular conspiracy theory was not entirely without a grain of reality.

I never believed it. One or two megarich and powerful monsters, sure; we have constant evidence of the evil in the world. But the kind of concerted and broad ring that Mr. Epstein appears to have developed and serviced? I never thought that such could actually exist. I was confident that these conspiracists were entirely wacked out, howling at the moon about global pedophilia rings while standing in a Los Angeles parking lot waiting to prove that the 1969 lunar landing was a hoax or scanning the sky for Italian lasers altering voting machines.

It would appear that their claims of the existence of an international pedophilia ring weren’t entirely wrong, after all.