It Is Now We Who Are On Trial

“[The] process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of President will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. … [I]t will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.  [Emphasis Added]”

  • Alexander Hamilton, under the pseudonym, “Publius”; Federalist No. 68

Put aside the ten percent of our (or any nation’s) population who are either crazy or will, tacitly if not explicitly, acknowledge that they are governed by the base instincts to which former President Donald Trump appeals.  Everyone that reads these pages is old enough to remember that before Mr. Trump rode down his escalator – less than ten years ago – it was unthinkable – unthinkable! – that a convicted felon would remain a serious candidate for any high federal office.  Given Mr. Trump’s conviction yesterday on all 34 felony counts brought against him by the New York City Manhattan District Attorney, and notwithstanding the incessant attempt to delegitimize the verdict that has commenced in the alt-right propaganda silo and will continue through Election Day, it is now up to us as Americans – primarily up to the approximately 35% of our citizens, neither crazy nor consciously willing to succumb to their baser impulses, who up to now have indicated a willingness to vote for the former president this November — to decide: 

Do I believe in our judicial system, that any outcome arising from the orderly administration of justice is paramount to any respective substantive policy preferences I may have, and its result should be heeded and respected? 

Do I believe that my fellow American citizens – although they may reside in a very different environment from mine, and have markedly different perspectives on most issues facing our nation than I do – are capable of understanding their solemn responsibility, soberly weighing the evidence placed before them, and rendering an impartial verdict in a criminal trial?

For those of us who have family and friends who support Mr. Trump and hereafter question the impartiality of the New York City jury in our presence, I offer this as a possible response (an obvious trap, but I would submit nonetheless an above-the-belt way to make an important point):  “If Joe Biden was being criminally tried in [your home town], and you were on the jury, would you be able to put aside your dislike of him and impartially look at the evidence?”  If predictably your relative or friend replies in the affirmative — and I believe that the vast majority of our citizens of all political stripes would indeed take their duty seriously — the conclusion is easy: “If you think you could, why don’t you think those New Yorkers did?”

Whether a convicted felon wins the presidency of the United States this fall will say more about us as a people than it will about Mr. Trump.  It is we, not Mr. Trump, who will determine whether, in President Abraham Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg, our “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

As Mr. Trump Faces a Jury of His Peers

Today prosecution and defense counsel will make their respective closing arguments to the jury in former President Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial.  Judge Juan Merchan will then instruct the jurors on the law applicable to the charges that have been levied against Mr. Trump and then dismiss the panel to deliberate and reach a verdict. 

In every jury trial, among the instructions that the Judge includes is the admonition that the jurors must render their verdict based upon the evidence admitted into the trial record and not upon the competing attorneys’ opening statements and closing arguments, which are not evidence.  Yet, as various legal media pundits following the trial have numbingly obsessed over the last several weeks about the potential impact of each piece of evidence upon the jury, I’ve been reminded of a study released at about the time I attended law school in the 1970s – I have no idea whether it was thereafter debunked or confirmed – that indicated that jurors actually make up their minds about a case based upon opposing counsels’ respective opening statements.

Since Jurors are also admonished by the Court not to speak about a case, even among themselves, until all the evidence is in, they themselves probably have no idea what their verdict will be.  Even so, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised – although we’ll never know – if Mr. Trump’s fate hasn’t already been determined.

That said, I was intrigued by an observation made by Attorney Ethan Greenberg in a May 20th Wall Street Journal essay regarding whether the Court would include a jury instruction about “Lesser Included Offenses” (“LIOs”) in Mr. Trump’s case.  As all who care are aware, the charges brought against Mr. Trump for falsification of business records are classified as misdemeanors under New York state law.  Such offenses are only deemed felonies if the jury determines not only that Mr. Trump knowingly falsified his business records, but did so to hide another offense – in this case, a violation of campaign finance laws.  Mr. Greenberg noted in his piece that if no LIO instruction is given, it will be all or nothing for the prosecution and the defense – Mr. Trump will (unless there is a hung jury) either be acquitted or convicted of a felony.  However, if either side requests (or the Court itself elects to include) an LIO instruction, the jury will have an “off ramp” – it will have the ability to find Mr. Trump guilty of the misdemeanor of business record falsification without finding him guilty of the attendant felony of violating campaign finance law [i.e., if it chooses to conclude, for example, that Mr. Trump falsified his business records to hide his payment to Adult Film Actress Stephanie Clifford (a/k/a “Stormy Daniels”) for a non-criminal reason, such as avoiding embarrassment to Ms. Melania Trump].  It takes little discernment to surmise that an LIO instruction increases the odds that the prosecution will secure at least a misdemeanor conviction and avoid an outright acquittal – the latter which Mr. Greenberg called “a prosecutorial disaster” — but likewise increases the odds that the defense will avoid a felony conviction, thus enabling Mr. Trump to proclaim in the court of public opinion – as he did after he avoided being convicted in his second Senate impeachment trial despite the fact that a majority of the Senators had indeed voted to convict him — that the charges against him were a lot of hullaballoo about nothing.  A misdemeanor conviction would still potentially involve a prison sentence, but given the certainty that Mr. Trump will appeal any conviction, the prospect of jail time is probably something that the former president will be willing to worry about later. As this is typed, at least I am not aware whether Mr. Trump’s jury will be given an LIO instruction or not. 

(To state the obvious:  all of these Trump Toadies who were brought down to sit in the courtroom and then spew toxic waste outside afterward weren’t there to intimidate the jury – it takes a lot more than that bunch to intimidate a New Yorker – but to start the delegitimization of any ultimate guilty verdict in the alt-right media silo.)

As to how it will go:  I have had a number of friends express concern to me that although they believe that Mr. Trump is clearly guilty, the trial is so fraught with competing emotions that he will – as some believe was the case when O.J. Simpson was tried for the murder of his wife – ultimately be acquitted.  The requirement that a jury find evidence of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to convict a criminal defendant is, and should be, a very high standard of proof; but prosecutors regularly achieve it.  On more than one occasion, I heard the senior partner in the firm I joined after law school – a renowned trial lawyer, son of a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, then a past president of the Wisconsin Bar Association, now decades-deceased — observe, “Every experienced trial lawyer will tell you that he’s had a case that he won that he should have lost, and a case that he lost that he should have won.” 

No one can tell what a jury will do.

Reflections on Memorial Day

We will celebrate eleven Federal Holidays during 2024.  As we are on the cusp of the Memorial Day Weekend – the unofficial start of summer for at least those of us who live in the northern reaches of the country – ponder whether, of the eleven, Memorial Day is not the most significant.

All of our Holidays have some enduring significance (or, at least virtually all; I suspect that we might take Columbus Day back if we could  😉 ); some are obviously vested with deep meaning. 

We observe the birthdays of three great Americans:  those of Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln on the same day in February and that of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., in January; we recognize service on Labor Day and Veterans’ Day; and we acknowledge the nation’s tragic legacy of slavery and racism on Juneteenth National Independence Day.

New Year’s Day and Christmas Day each fit in their own conceptual categories.  New Year’s seems a required bookkeeping entry; not unimportant as such, but each new year is going to come around whether our nation continues or not.  As for Christmas – one of the holiest days of the year for Christians like me – one might nonetheless question its inclusion as a national holiday in a land with citizens of many faiths and no faith, governed by a Constitution that provides that its legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Thanksgiving Day is probably my favorite national holiday, and celebrates one of the most worthy of human emotions:  gratitude for the gifts one and one’s family and friends have received in this life.  That said, the gift of freedom that we enjoy and for which we give thanks every November had to be earned

Finally, what about the Fourth of July?  The date of our nation’s founding is an understandably hallowed day for all Americans.  Had the Founding Fathers not declared our independence, we’d have no country; the principle of equality upon which our nation is based would never have come into being.  But I would suggest that there are 20 guys in some corner of the world declaring independence from something or other as you read this who, like thousands before them, will never be heard of or from again.  The literal establishment of a nation is, of course, essential to its being; but I would submit that it is the subsequent offering of those who sacrifice to sustain and replenish it that is most worthy of our honor, tribute, and recognition.

Whether or not you agree with my characterization of the relative importance of our Federal Holidays, as we celebrate this Memorial Day, may we each give a moment to remember the sacrifices of the men and women we have marked this day to honor:  those who throughout our history have sacrificed to preserve and protect our freedom – both those who have given, in the words of Mr. Lincoln at Gettysburg, “the last full measure of devotion,” and also those who have ever after borne the physical and emotional scars of their sacrifice.

Enjoy the Holiday.

On Stormy Daniels’ Testimony

We’ve been elsewhere a good bit recently, removed – in some ways, blessedly – from the daily vicissitudes of our time.  We find that – like the first view, 50 years ago, of my sainted mother’s soap opera after a semester away at college — little has changed, with the vital exception of the passage of the Ukraine aid package.  What has prompted this note regarding the May 7 testimony of Adult Film Star Stephanie Clifford (a/k/a “Stormy Daniels”), in the case the New York City Manhattan District Attorney is now prosecuting against former President Donald Trump for falsification of business records, is the debate I heard between a couple of legal commentators as to whether, from the perspective of trial strategy, the prosecution had been wise or foolish to have Ms. Clifford testify regarding her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Mr. Trump in such detail that even Presiding Judge Juan Merchan observed that her account might have been unnecessarily … informative.  I heard one legal pundit opine that what might be argued to be prosecutorial excess could provide grounds for reversal on appeal if Mr. Trump is ultimately convicted.

In law school, they tell you that they’ll train you to “think like a lawyer.”  The debate about trial strategy is the kind of question that intrigues lawyers.  Although I understand the misgivings of the lawyer concerned about the potential consequences of prosecutorial overreach, I think he is missing the main point.

First, for reasons I find inexplicable considering all of the other boundaries of social decorum that Mr. Trump has flouted over the last decade, the former president continues to deny his tryst with Ms. Daniels.  Of course it occurred.  I suspect that even Mr. Trump’s most fervent admirers believe that it happened.  If it had not occurred, there is no reason why Mr. Trump – notoriously cheap with his own money – would have yielded to Ms. Clifford’s demands for payment in the last days of the 2016 campaign, or that Mr. Trump’s attorney and “fixer,” Michael Cohen, would have engaged in the machinations he did to get Ms. Clifford her money.  The only way the jury might have doubts about whether the episode occurred would be if the prosecution didn’t put Ms. Clifford on the stand.

Second, since Mr. Trump is denying that the episode occurred, having Ms. Clifford provide details of the liaison – among the most benign, that Mr. Trump was then using Old Spice — provided credibility to her account.  Having her simply testify, “We had sex,” would have been insufficient.  Recall that Monica Lewinsky’s descriptions of her encounters with former President Bill Clinton were buttressed by her description of a certain generally hidden part of Mr. Clinton’s anatomy later independently confirmed.  Although some aspects of the tryst Ms. Clifford described have been characterized as “salacious,” I would suggest that no participant in any consensual sexual encounter, required to thereafter describe its particulars in an antiseptic courtroom, could do so without sounding salacious.

An aside:  Ms. Clifford was an acknowledged adult film actress when she was invited to have dinner with Mr. Trump in his suite.  For anyone that knew Mr. Trump at all:  What did she think he intended?

All that said, what I consider the main point:  Since it is widely held by Constitutional scholars that Mr. Trump can serve as president even if he is convicted, it doesn’t substantively matter whether the conviction is ultimately overturned on appeal after the 2024 presidential election.  However, if the titillating details Ms. Clifford placed in the record make it more likely that the prosecution will secure a conviction that adversely affects the former president’s 2024 presidential prospects, such is all that counts.  (There is obviously the concern that if Judge Merchan thought that the prosecution was excessive, perhaps members of the jury think so as well, which could redound to Mr. Trump’s benefit.)

By outward appearances, the trial is wearing Mr. Trump down.  At the same time, I continue to have deep concerns about the boost his campaign will receive from either an acquittal or a hung jury.

We’ll see what happens.

The Most Wondrous of Seasons

“The Great Spirit is an omnipresent supreme life force generally conceptualized as a Supreme Being or god. The Great Spirit is a central component in many … indigenous cultures in Canada and the United States.”

  • Wikipedia

Perhaps nature’s greatest affirmation of the Great Spirit is the coming of spring.

“Ramadan is a month in the Islamic calendar – Islam’s holy month, because during it Muhammad received his initial revelation and (ten years later) made his historic Hijrah (Migration) from Mecca to Medina.”

  • The World’s Religions; Huston Smith

“Passover, [in Judaism, commemorates] the Hebrews’ liberation from slavery in Egypt and the ‘passing over’ of the forces of destruction, or the sparing of the firstborn of the Israelites, when the Lord ‘smote the land of Egypt’ on the eve of the Exodus.”

  • Britannica

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that those who believe in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”

  • John 3:16

Whether one sees this season of the year as one to mark the time at which the Almighty established a pact with His people, or liberated His people, or redeemed His people, or simply as one of renewal, it is the most wondrous of our seasons:  the time to appreciate and – if you believe in a loving and merciful God – to give thanks for the Blessing of Life.  

On Freedom and MAGA Anger

In a note recently entered in these pages, I referred to former President Donald Trump’s defeat of former SC Gov. and U.S. U.N. Amb. Nikki Haley in Ms. Haley’s home state of South Carolina, and indicated that I was struck by two findings in CNN’s South Carolina exit polling, the first being that the vast majority of South Carolina Trump voters believe, despite all objective evidence to the contrary, that Mr. Trump won the 2020 presidential election.

The second finding seems of equal concern.  CNN found that 59% of Mr. Trump’s South Carolina voters characterized their mood as, “Angry.”  I’ve pondered:  What makes them so angry?  What gives them leave to be angry?

Are they moved by religious fervor – is it that they consider the liberal and progressive agenda (which advocates for abortion rights, transgender rights, same sex marriage, and the like) a cause for righteous anger, justifying a hellfire response?  Call me a cynic, but the majority of the MAGAs coming out of Trump rallies, bedecked in red MAGA hats with Mr. Trump’s picture on their chests and American flag pants covering their bottoms, don’t look like their next stop is a Christian prayer service.  And for those who are sincerely inflamed by religious zeal:  I would suggest, as a trying but frequently failing Christian  – and here, genuinely respectfully — that no human can truly discern what God wants – save, perhaps, that He (please excuse the use of the male pronoun to refer to a genderless being) doesn’t want His children judging each other in His name.  (“Do not judge, that you may not be judged.” Matthew 7:1.)  I would have the temerity to suggest that those of faith should readily recognize that He can take care of Himself.  He will render His Just Judgement on each of us in His own time, without our help.

Are they driven by cultural antipathy – that their mores, even if not religiously based, can’t abide the urban, multi-ethnic, multi-gender, untraditional, frankly alien and frequently humorless ways and attitudes (and the arrogance and condescension that frequently attends them) that form the center of gravity of the progressive movement and have unquestionably attained ascendance in mainstream American culture?  If so, I would venture here:  MAGAs need to move on.  Their vehemence bespeaks insecurity.  All who know me are aware that I am a curmudgeon, getting worse by the day.  I believe in honorifics.  I liked my phone on the desk or wall, not in my pocket.  I liked the days of limited TV stations (or cable, if one wanted to live extravagantly 😉 ).  I like books in my hand, newspapers delivered to my door.  While long retired, to this day I believe that business people should be wearing business attire every day.  I cringe every time an NFL player carries on after making a great play.  [I fondly recall the great Barry Sanders calmly giving the football to officials after he scored touchdowns.  (“Act like you’ve been there before, and that you’ll be there again.”)]  I find a number of progressive shibboleths irritating overreaction.  It doesn’t matter what I prefer.  Our culture moves on.  One adapts to the extent one must (I do carry a cell phone 🙂 ), while otherwise maintaining the manner of life with which one is most comfortable.  It is, as MAGAs love to proclaim, a free country; if they are secure in their ways, they should simply get on with their lives.

Or is the anger primarily economically based?  If it is, I would submit that such attitude is in diametrical contrast to the spirit of initiative, independence and accountability that has made America, America.  Although I have genuine reservations about whether race-based affirmative action programs, however well-intended, have in sum benefited the African American community over the last 50 years, I don’t think it can credibly be denied that if you’re born black and poor in this country, you have the right to be angry (for purposes of simplicity, I’m ignoring other barriers such as gender, physical handicap and age).  I am less sure that anyone born white and healthy anywhere in this country (save perhaps for the extremely impoverished) is nearly as entitled to be aggrieved.  Not all of us are going to be superstars – recalling a secret agent series from my youth, fictional CIA assassin Matt Helm once observed in Donald Hamilton’s The Betrayers, “[A]nybody who tries to tell me that some people aren’t brighter than others, or better shots, or faster drivers, is wasting his time” – but for the most part, a healthy white American has choices to go to (at least community) college or receive technical training, and to utilize the skills s/he has been given where the opportunities are. 

John Mellencamp has written and sung in “Small Town” that he “was born in a small town” and “can breathe in a small town,” but conceded, “my job is so small town; provides little opportunity.”  Many of Mr. Trump’s supporters who are angered at being economically left behind – the vast majority seemingly white and healthy – appear to be from and consider themselves better able to breathe in a small town like Mr. Mellencamp’s.  That said, between 1940 and 1970, the number of American farms declined by over two thirds (from six to two million); the majority of the profitable farms that remain aren’t family farms, but rather large corporate concerns.  The manufacturing plants affording wages upon which workers could comfortably raise a family that proliferated in our nation’s small towns from the 1940s into the 1970s declined sharply thereafter as American manufacturing businesses turned to outsourcing.  Today, most of our economic opportunity exists amid the congestion and denser air of our more populated areas.    

I suspect that any MAGAs who became acquainted with the biographies of all of our presidents over the last 150 years would find Theodore Roosevelt the most appealing.  A scion of a well-to-do New York City family, the tragic losses of his first wife and mother to illness on the same day caused TR to escape New York in 1884 and spend until 1887 as a cattle rancher in the Badlands, now part of North Dakota.  His account of his years as a rancher, Ranch Life and the Hunting Trail, was published in 1901.  All are aware that throughout his adulthood Mr. Roosevelt was an avid hunter, for scientific research and for sport, but during his years in the Badlands, his and his team’s hunting was more often about survival; he frequently refers to their need for “fresh meat.”  The superabundance of bison and other game in the northwest in the early 1800s had already been severely depleted by the time he reached the Badlands.  The game rarely came to them; although the opportunity to kill game was still there, they couldn’t stand in place and wait for it; to survive they had to seize opportunity, had to seek out the game where it was.      

Some Americans may prefer to pursue occupations for which the psychic awards can be great but the recompense can be small (farming being a prime example).  So be it; but there are countless occupations in our urban areas that would afford many of these Americans a larger and steadier source of remuneration.  Many of Mr. Trump’s supporters clearly prefer to live in small communities; fair enough, but these citizens are choosing not to do what Mr. Roosevelt and his contemporaries did – leave the areas in which they are comfortable and go to where the game is.  [There is obviously also a segment that – as is true of all people of every cultural, ethnic and economic stripe – fails to thrive economically because they choose pursuits for which they’re poorly suited.  (Toiling in the minor leagues, you may be mad that you’re not in The Show, but if you can’t hit the curve ball, it is what it is.)]

Probably every one of us has made choices, either knowingly or unwittingly, that in retrospect weren’t the wisest.  I would submit that the “freedom” that MAGAs loudly proclaim they seek – as recently as this past weekend, I saw a gentleman wearing a sweatshirt bearing an American flag on the sleeve with “FREEDOM” emblazoned on his chest — is not a birthright, but an opportunity, to be seized or squandered. 

From someone scolding those who judge, fairly judgmental?  (At least give me credit for being self-aware  😉 ).  Unduly harsh?  I’m not so sure.  Do I think that if I had been born on a farm in Iowa, or on the Northern Great Plains of Montana, I would have had the foresight and gumption to have seen that I might best make use of the talents that the Almighty gave me by moving to one of our urban centers?  Maybe; maybe not.  Would I, at my now-advanced age, recognize that any choices that I had made that I now rued were, indeed, my responsibility?  I hope I would.  (There’s a good chance I would, since we Irish Catholics revel in guilt. 🙂 )

I am confident that the Godfather of modern conservativism, the late U.S. AZ Sen. Barry Goldwater, would agree that the price of freedom is the commensurate duty to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  Blaming others for one’s misfortune is the least American of all attributes, a desecration of the memory of our forebears who came from all over the world, embracing the right to speak and to practice their religions as they chose, to seize the opportunity of America.

On Nikki Haley:  A Final Postscript: An Addendum

A longtime friend and distinguished psychologist commented on the last post:

“[R]egarding the alarming percentage of people who lack critical thinking, it’s possible that it might be as many as 30 to 40 percent of the population (based on research concerning Jean Piaget’s last stage of cognitive development, aka the stage of formal operational thought). Truly discouraging.”

Her note caused me to consider the relationship of intelligence to the capacity for critical thought.  Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests are reportedly designed to discern the composite of the test taker’s language, mathematical, spatial, memory, reasoning and problem solving capabilities and score the subject’s raw intellectual horsepower relative to the same capabilities in others. Until receiving our friend’s comment, my impression had been that one’s capacity for critical thought roughly aligned with one’s IQ.  Apparently, it does not, at least in many cases. In what was obviously not a scientifically-schooled search, I found a few references making the point set forth by Dr. Heather A. Brown, an Associate Professor of Psychology at California State University, in the article to which a link is provided below.  Dr. Brown writes in part: 

“Though often confused with intelligence, critical thinking is not intelligence. Critical thinking is a collection of cognitive skills that allow us to think rationally in a goal-orientated fashion and a disposition to use those skills when appropriate. Critical thinkers are amiable skeptics. They are flexible thinkers who require evidence to support their beliefs and recognize fallacious attempts to persuade them. Critical thinking means overcoming all kinds of cognitive biases (for instance, hindsight bias or confirmation bias).”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-smart-people-do-foolish-things

Assuming Dr. Piaget’s estimates are a fair reference point for the mental aptitudes of the American citizenry, it would appear tenable that a larger percentage of our citizens than I have earlier suggested lack, rather than refuse to employ, the capacity for critical thought – which presumably makes them ready targets for effective propaganda.  Such is, as our friend indicated, truly discouraging.  That said, we can perhaps hope that a significant-enough segment of our people who either cannot or do not employ the capacity for critical thought are hard-wired to vote for President Joe Biden.   🙂  

On Alexei Navalny

Alexei Navalny has died in a Russian prison. 

As all who care are aware, Mr. Navalny was perhaps the most prominent Russian critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin during Putin’s dictatorship, arguably the most effective voice in rallying a significant segment of the Russian people against the Putin regime during its tenure.  For his efforts Mr. Navalny was imprisoned on a number of occasions, and survived multiple attempts by the Russian government to maim or kill him.  After being poisoned in August, 2020, he was allowed to leave Russia for Germany in order to receive treatment; I assume that Putin expected that Mr. Navalny would die outside Russia, or that if Mr. Navalny did manage to survive, he would remain in exile.  Instead, when Mr. Navalny did survive and was well enough to travel, he returned to Russia, knowing he would immediately be arrested and imprisoned, and undoubtedly anticipating that he would ultimately perish.

Mr. Navalny’s was the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.  May his martyrdom be a stark reminder (although none should be needed) of the brutality of the Putin regime for those being lulled into complaisance about or denial of it.

While I have used this phrase a number of times in these pages to mark the passing of individuals who have made notable contributions to our world, I think if those individuals were alive today (the late U.S. AZ Sen. John McCain particularly comes to mind), they would agree that it has never been nor will it ever be more warranted than it is for Mr. Navalny.

Requiescat in pace.

On Being a Swiftie

When the relationship between Superstar Singer Taylor Swift and Kansas City Chiefs Tight End Travis Kelce first came to my attention, I was among the cynics who felt it was a conspira — well, let’s just say, a narrative 😉 – promoted by the NFL and Ms. Swift’s organization for the mutual commercial benefit of both.  Because of the Swift-Kelce relationship, a significant segment of Ms. Swift’s fans are reportedly now watching NFL games, and NFL fans are presumably buying Ms. Swift’s music in greater volumes.  (Put aside the fact that the NFL and Ms. Swift were both doing okay even before the Swift-Kelce relationship was publicized 🙂 ).  I myself was some evidence of the attention focused on the relationship; before becoming apprised of – or perhaps, more accurately, inundated by news of — it, I literally could not have identified Ms. Swift in a lineup of five popular young female singers.  Now, I can.  (I still cannot identify a Taylor Swift song as a Taylor Swift song, although I understand that I’ve heard plenty of them.)  Since in recent months I have been told that many of Ms. Swift’s songs are about her past failed romances, as the publicity swirl around the relationship ripened into a hurricane I actually began to feel a bit bad for Mr. Kelce, whom I envisioned at some point in the future as sitting on some bench, helmet in hand, shaking his head, wondering how the ride had suddenly ended, where the magic had gone.  (But just a bit bad.  Mr. Kelce is an important, high-profile and undoubtedly extremely-well paid member of a two-time World Champion team; I figured he’d get over it 😉 ).

All of this was benign fluff.  I now understand that condemnation is being heaped upon Ms. Swift in the alt-right media silo — including (yes, really) conspiracy theories that the NFL is orchestrating a Chiefs victory in this Sunday’s Super Bowl against the San Francisco 49ers so that Ms. Swift can go on the field after the game and endorse President Joe Biden – because she has become a vocal opponent of MAGAism.  What has made me take another look at Ms. Swift is an apparently accurate video that drifted through my Twitter feed of Ms. Swift and her parents discussing the risks of her getting involved in politics.  (One grain of salt:  Ms. Swift and her parents had to be aware that their exchange was being recorded.)  The discussion focuses on concerns that by being a public opponent of MAGA U.S. TN Sen. Marsha Blackburn – and, by extension, former President Donald Trump – Ms. Swift could lose a significant segment of her fan base and more importantly, would materially increase the physical danger she already faces by virtue of being such a celebrated performer.  On the clip, Ms. Swift replies, “I don’t care if they write [that Taylor Swift comes out against Donald Trump.]  I’m sad I didn’t [come out against Mr. Trump during the 2020 presidential election], but I can’t change that.  I’m saying right now … that I need to be on the right side of history and if he [presumably, President Joe Biden] doesn’t win … at least I tried.”

Now, that’s a WOW. 

I have heard it reported that adjusting for differences in eras, Ms. Swift now commands a level of devotion among her fans unequaled since a long-ago popular music phenomenon with which I am much more familiar:  Beatlemania.  I well remember the controversy — perhaps beyond the recall of those with shorter memories and certainly of those with shorter lives — that erupted in 1966 when John Lennon was accurately quoted in a magazine article as saying, “Christianity will go.  It will vanish and shrink.  I needn’t argue about that; I know I’m right and will be proved right.  We’re more popular than Jesus now.  I don’t know which will go first – rock & roll or Christianity.  Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary.  It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”

The firestorm that exploded in the southern United States over the comments months after they were first published in the U.K. – after not causing a ripple in the U.K., where the Anglican Church was then under severe criticism and losing adherents by the droves – caused the other Beatles and their manager, Brian Epstein, to persuade Mr. Lennon to do a press conference to clarify his remarks when the band subsequently entered the U.S. on tour because they genuinely feared for the band members’ physical safety. 

Mr. Lennon then declared, “I’m not anti-God, anti-Christ or anti-religion. I wasn’t knocking it.  I was not saying we’re better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is.  … I used the word, ‘Beatles’ as a remote thing – ‘Beatles” like other people see us.  I said they are having more influence on kids and things than anything else, including Jesus.  [The way I expressed these thoughts in the magazine article] was the wrong way.”

Candidly, whether one reviews either Mr. Lennon’s original comments or his clarification, it’s hard to say that he was wrong to the extent he was objectively observing the shift away from Christian faith toward the glitz of popular culture. Even so, it’s also hard not to conclude that despite his later well-earned reputation as a social crusader, he buckled – at least a little — when confronted on this early occasion.

As far as I know, so far Ms. Swift isn’t buckling.  I’m guessing that there isn’t a security professional alive who wouldn’t agree that in the open venues and amid the screaming fans in which she performs, any well-trained crackpot who wants to visit harm upon her might be able to find the means to do so.  She apparently is willing to take the risk.  I can’t help but contrast this young woman’s courage to do what she believes is the right thing against the cowardice being demonstrated daily by those Republicans officeholders whom credible reporters such as U.S. UT Sen. Mitt Romney and former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney advise us have nothing but contempt for Mr. Trump but are afraid to stand up to him out of fear of physical safety or losing their stations. 

The singer’s got guts.  They are despicable.

I virtually never watch football not involving the Green Bay Packers.  Even so, I think it’s likely that I’ll watch some of Sunday’s Super Bowl.  Under normal circumstances and despite the fact that the 49ers eliminated the Packers from the playoffs, the fact that the Chiefs have won two recent Super Bowls, taken together with the Cinderella story of San Francisco “Mr. Irrelevant” Quarterback Brock Purdy, would almost certainly cause me to root for the Niners.  That said, these are not normal times.  The MAGA attempt to demonize Ms. Swift has injected political venom into a heretofore nonpolitical American sports spectacle.  (I truly wonder how many formerly diehard Chiefs fans from two blood-red Republican states, Missouri and Kansas, are now going to root for the team from the Woke Capital of the World against their hometown entry because MAGAs are condemning Ms. Swift’s participation in our political process.)  I’m rooting for the Chiefs.

If the Niners win, some MAGA will undoubtedly proclaim that Jesus, rather than Mr. Purdy, was the 49er quarterback, although I’m not aware of any Gospel passage indicating that among His miracles the Lord ever hit an inside slant or a corner fade.

At the same time, I do have a conspiracy theory that should strike fear into the heart of every MAGA intent on a Kansas City defeat:  the Chiefs may be planning … to start Patrick Mahomes at quarterback.

And if I do tune in on Sunday, I’ll have to concede that in the end, maybe the NFL was right; it did capture one more viewer for its big extravaganza … because he’s become a Swiftie.

A Gentleman in Moscow

I don’t read much fiction, and when I do, it’s most often a return to the stories of my youth – the Bond adventures, the mysteries of Agatha Christie and Rex Stout.  Even so, a while ago a friend gave me A Gentleman in Moscow, a novel by Amor Towles, the account of the life of the Count Alexander Ilyich Rostov, a member of the Russian aristocracy who by happenstance is sentenced to house arrest for life in the most prestigious hotel in Moscow (rather than being shot like the majority of his station) when the Bolsheviks take over Russia.  The Count is one of the most charming fictional characters I’ve ever encountered, a gentleman of taste, tact, and refinement.  If you have the life space, I heartily recommend the book.

This summer, I posted a note, “Honorifics and Beyond,” in which I lamented the Wall Street Journal’s then-recent decision to dispense with honorifics – courtesy titles such as “Mr.” and “Ms.” – in its news pages.  I indicated then and believe now that the Journal’s decision was simply a bow to a cruder culture.

Perhaps our friend provided me the book in part because the Count had sentiments similar to mine as he faced a transition early in his house arrest:

“‘It has been brought to my attention,’ the [hotel] manager continued, if somewhat haltingly, ‘that various members of the staff when speaking to you … have continued to make use of certain … honorifics.’

‘Honorifics?’

‘Yes.  More precisely, I gather they have been addressing you as Your Excellency …’ 

 The Count considered the manager’s assertion for a moment.

‘Well, yes.  I suppose that some of your staff address me in that fashion.’

The manager nodded his head then smiled a little sadly.

‘I’m sure you can see the position that this puts me in.’

In point of fact, the Count could not see the position that this put the manager in.  But given the Count’s unmitigated feelings of sympathy, he decidedly did not want to put him in any position.  So, he listened attentively as [the manager] went on:

‘Naturally, I have little choice but to insist that my staff refrain from using such terms when addressing you.  After all, I think we can agree without exaggeration or fear of contradiction that the times have changed.’

In concluding thus, the manager looked to the Count so hopefully that the Count took immediate pains to reassure him.

‘It is the business of the times to change.  And it is the business of gentlemen to change with them.’

The manager looked to the Count with an expression of profound gratitude – that someone should understand what he had said so perfectly no further explication was required.

Your Excellency, the Count [later] reflected philosophically.  Your Eminence, Your Holiness, Your Highness.  Once upon a time, the use of such terms was a reliable indication that one was in a civilized country …

Here, the Count gave an indefinite twirl of the hand.

‘Well.  It is probably for the best,’ he said.

For the times do, in fact, change.  They change relentlessly.  Inevitably.  Inventively. … [Emphasis in Original].” 

The fictional Count was largely correct; it is the business of gentlemen (and ladies 🙂 ) to change with the times, and the times do change relentlessly, inevitably, and inventively.  I obviously concur with his reflection that the use of honorifics provides a reassuring indicator that one is in a civilized country.  But I would respectfully question his conclusion that change – at least in all instances – is probably for the best.

Thus endeth this pontification  😉 .  May you be able to embrace the Holiday Season upon us.