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.

May Each of Us Be the One

“And it came to pass as he was going to Jerusalem, that he was passing between Samaria and Galilee. And as he was entering a certain village, there met him ten lepers who stood afar off and lifted up their voice, crying, ‘Jesus, Master, have pity on us.’ And when he saw them he said, ‘Go, show yourselves to the priests.’ And it came to pass as they were on their way, that they were made clean. But one of them, seeing that he was made clean, returned, with a loud voice glorifying God, and he fell on his face at [Jesus’] feet, giving thanks; and he was a Samaritan.

But Jesus answered and said, ‘Were not the ten made clean? But where are the nine? Has no one been found to return and give glory to God except this foreigner?’ And he said to him, ‘Arise, go thy way, for thy faith has saved thee.’”

The Gospel of Luke, 17: 11 – 16

As we approach this national day of Thanksgiving, we are in turmoil within our borders and across the world. One cannot dispute that many within our human race – victims of war, persecution, hate, natural disaster, accident, famine, poverty, homelessness, disease, loneliness – might see little to feel thankful for. At the same time, I would respectfully submit that most of those who read these pages have much for which to give thanks. It is, regrettably, human nature to focus on the difficult, to take the good for granted — to be among the nine. Something happened recently that underscored for me that one should never lose sight of how precious and yet fleeting the gift of life can be, that one should never take his/her blessings for granted. On our national day of Thanksgiving, may each of us … be the one. May we pause to be thankful for all of our gifts, and hug all of the loved ones whose company we are blessed to share this Holiday.

Happy Thanksgiving.

An Admittedly Conflicted View on Civilian Casualties in War

My father enlisted in the Marines right after Pearl Harbor, was a participant in the Battles of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima, was promoted for his service to his country and decorated for bravery. The Marines were then and are now rightly celebrated in American lore for their courage and esprit de corps. He, along with millions of others, left the American military for good in 1946. Anybody who knows a Marine won’t be a bit surprised to hear that although I never served in the military, part of my rearing included an imprinting that all branches of the military are to be respected, but at bottom, there are the Marines … and then there’s everybody else.

Even so, but for a couple of humorous stories – mostly about brawls in bars between Marines and sailors while on leave – he never talked about the war. Never. Except once.

I recall him standing in front of our black-and-white TV, watching the network coverage of what is now known as the My Lai Massacre, a March, 1968, incident in which American soldiers commanded by Platoon Leader Lt. William Calley, who had been ordered to undertake a search and destroy mission, killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese men, women, and children in the village of My Lai.

As my father stood watching the coverage of the prosecution of Lt. Calley, he was shaking his head in disbelief – I realized not at what had been done to the villagers, but at the Lieutenant’s prosecution. He said in an even tone – not soft, not loud; I think more to himself than to me – “When you’re ordered to clear an area out, you clear the area out.”

Infer from that – and consider whatever you infer from that – as you will. Having never been near a battlefield, I don’t consider my own reflections worth much. During the Second World War, the Marines were engaged in a death struggle against an unyielding enemy to defend freedom. War is messy; there is little time for deliberation; events spin. Were all actions undertaken in that just cause warranted – or at least defensible — or not?

Almost always when I publish a note in these pages, I have concluded – wisely or misguidedly – where I stand on an issue. When it comes to the justification for inflicting civilian casualties as part of a war effort, I am uncertain.

Hamas’ attack on Israeli civilians on October 7 was horrific. (As shocking to me have been the breadth of overt anti-Semitic and Islamophobic sentiments and violent incidents it unleashed around the western world; the attack ripped off a thin veneer of tolerance, exposing a depth of widespread religious bigotry in the democracies that I — clearly living in my own oblivious Ivory Tower — had not recognized.) Hamas must be condemned in the most unequivocal terms; it is a Palestinian terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel, has done little to help civilian Palestinians during its almost two-decade control of the Gaza Strip, and employs Palestinian civilians and humanitarian facilities as shields in its assaults on Israel. Israel has a right to defend its existence and its citizens – which now appears to mean destroying Hamas — and given Hamas’ modus operandi, such Israeli efforts are necessarily going to result in civilian Palestinian casualties. At the same time, Israel has significantly expanded its control over the last 70 years into land intended by the international community to be inhabited and controlled by Palestinians when Israel was founded. Although much of this expansion occurred not because Israel attacked, but because it was attacked, it has maintained its de facto grip over Palestinian lands because … it can, and such has suited Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu’s political purposes. Before the current conflict, human rights groups had been referring to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank as apartheid. It is not anti-Semitism to suggest — using the Biden Administration, a clear friend of Israel, as the arbiter — that in its assaults, Israel has not been particularly discriminating about protecting Palestinian civilians.

Our acquiescence to civilian casualties may be determined by our view of the virtue of the cause in which they are inflicted and their necessity to achieve victory. Such does not expunge the fact that cruel and unfair consequences can be inflicted upon noncombatants even in the pursuit of a just cause. Christianity, and likely many other faiths, holds that protection of the innocent is paramount. The reality of the flawed human condition makes clear that always prioritizing compassion would lead to subjugation of more peoples by the malignant – ultimately resulting in the maltreatment of a wider set of victims.

Union General William Tecumseh Sherman’s 1864 “scorched earth” march to the sea was a major part of subduing the South and thus preserving the Union and abolishing slavery. At the same time:

“Sherman had terrorized the countryside; his men had destroyed all sources of food and forage and had left behind a hungry and demoralized people. … Sherman … burned or captured all the food stores that Georgians had saved for the winter months. As a result of the hardships on women and children, desertions increased in Robert E. Lee’s army in Virginia. Sherman believed his campaign against civilians would shorten the war by breaking the Confederate will to fight ….”

Anne Bailey, “Sherman’s March to the Sea,” New Georgia Encyclopedia

Despite Gen. Sherman’s fearsome deeds and reputation, he understood the malign nature of war, but clearly felt that some causes were worth the devastation needed to bring them about.

“War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it … You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it …”

Gen. Sherman, in a letter to James M. Calhoun, Mayor, E.E. Rawson, S.C. Wells, representing City Council of Atlanta, September 12, 1864.

If there has been a more monstrous atrocity in human history than the Nazis’ systematic slaughter of the Jews, I’m not aware of it. Allied forces were obviously justified in contesting the Nazis and their allies with all of their strength and means. At the same time, a young friend recently reminded me of the American and British bombing of the German city of Dresden in February, 1945, that killed tens of thousands of civilians in a manufacturing city whose resources the Allies believed – in retrospect, apparently erroneously — that the Third Reich could effectively employ to mount a counteroffensive against our D-Day invasion. Were the Allies’ efforts excusable? I would say yes. Were the civilian casualties wrought commendable? Obviously not.

The U.S. military estimated in the late 1940s that over 100,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions. Others place the total of dead closer to 200,000. A significant number of these were necessarily civilian. At the same time, President Truman indicated in a letter in January, 1953, that Gen. George Marshall told him prior to dropping the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima “that such an invasion would cost at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone.” Faced with that kind of an estimate, if advising the President I would have supported using the Bomb. Others would vehemently disagree, then and now.

We condemn the slaughter of Ukrainians civilians in Russia’s war of aggression. At the same time, would we denounce Ukrainian operations against Russian civilians if such losses seemed likely to turn Russian public opinion against Putin’s war? I’ll leave that one to you.

Increasing civilian casualties are a fact of modern war and technological weaponry. They are not going to stop. It is for one to ponder whether — and if so, when, and to what extent — these human tragedies are worth what is gained. Americans should be more aware than they appear to be that they have the luxury – at least at present — of considering such philosophical issues from their armchairs. Much of the world is not so fortunate. It is those fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, and sisters and brothers whose lives are collateral sacrifice to the designs of others.

“Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you destroy the good with the wicked? If there be fifty just men in the city, will you then destroy the place and not spare it for the sake of the fifty just men within it?’ … And the Lord said, ‘If I find that there are fifty just men in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.’”

The Book of Genesis, 18: 24, 26. It is little noted when this passage and the subsequent exchanges between Abraham and the Almighty are read in Christian churches that although the Lord God did allow the just Lot, his wife and daughters to escape, He ultimately did destroy the city and its inhabitants.

There is obviously no ray of enlightenment in this note.

“All cats are grey in the dark.”

Musing by the fictional James Bond; Ian Fleming, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service