April 30, 2019--Trump Roast

Trump again Wednesday night absented himself from the White House Correspondents' dinner. The one where presidents traditionally are roasted but then have the last word. The chance to get even with the press and other attendees.

Most of the reporters claim that Trump avoids these affairs because he is still smarting from what Barack Obama said about him in his remarks at the 2011 dinner.

Recall that at the time Trump was still hustling his birther claims. That Obama was not born in the United States, rather in Kenya, and therefore should not have been allowed to run for the presidency. In other words, he was an illegitimate president.

Obama retaliated by mercilessly ripping Trump to pieces in front of the Washington establishment.

Here's a sample--

“I know that Trump’s taken some flack lately, but no one is prouder to put this birth-certificate matter to rest than the Donald. That’s because he can finally get back to the issues that matter, like did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?"

It could well be that Trump doesn't want to open himself to more mockery. But it also could be--and this is my view--that Trump totally lacks a sense of humor. Not just humor at his expense (though with his ego that can't be much fun) but any humor whatsoever.

Can you recall one instance, just one, where he said something funny or laughed heartily at someone else's amusing remark? At most with Trump we see an occasional frozen smile that is more grimace than chuckle.

In contrast, recall how much FDR, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama enjoyed a laugh or two. Even those at their own expense.

Also recall that all of these presidents had dogs. Even humorless Nixon had one. Checkers. 

So Trump has no dog and no sense of humor.

It also may be that Trump's total lack of humor suggests he has Asperger's Syndrome (AS), a developmental disorder characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.

Humor, specifically jokes, involve cognitive capacities that are often challenging for individuals with Asperger's.  According to researchers who have studied the nature of humor, flexible thinking is important to understanding jokes. Punchlines in jokes are funny partly because they are unexpected. Additionally, according to these researchers, big picture thinking is essential in understanding jokes, as it allows the listener to understand how the surprising punchline coheres with the joke's set up. 

As individuals with AS often demonstrate rigid thinking, a desire for sameness, and difficulty with sustained thought, it seems that individuals with Asperger's would have difficulty reacting to and employing even simple forms of humor.

About humor, at the end of Annie Hall, Woody Allen looks directly into the camera and says--

"It reminds me of that old joke--you know, a guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, 'Hey doc, my brother's crazy. He thinks he's a chicken.' Then the doc says, 'Why don't you turn him in?' Then the guy says, 'I would, but we need the eggs.'"

Allen was talking about how no matter how crazy they can be we need relationships.

We also need humor. But when it comes to Trump, I wouldn't expect any eggs.

April 29, 2019--Biden Steps In It

Joe Biden for me is the Democrat most likely to be able to defeat Trump in 2020. Perhaps the only Democrat. 

His announcement Thursday began well with a three minute video posted on line where Biden, announcing his candidacy, powerfully and persuasively said that at stake in 2020 is a struggle for nothing less than the "soul of the nation." And by not-so-subtle implication demonstrated he is best positioned to take on Trump on that issue and win.

But later in the day, without prompting, he revealed he had called Anita Hill to express regret about the way the confirmation hearings he chaired had gone when Clarence Thomas was being considered for a seat on the Supreme Court. He acknowledged that the conversation with her hadn't gone well. 

He really needed to call Anita Hill a couple of weeks ago to, sort of, apologize, after 28 years of silence and inform the public about it on the day he launched his campaign? 

Not that she doesn't deserve an apology for what he, in 1991, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that was conducting confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas allowed his colleague senators to get away with as they trashed her credibility and personal reputation. 

It was one African-American women facing 15 white men, who, among other things, mocked her.  She had stepped forward to courageously accuse Thomas of sexually harassing her when he was her supervisor at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The way Biden allowed her to be mistreated is the worst blot on his record so it is understandable that, as he considered running for the third time for president, he would be thinking about how this would play out for him politically. Perhaps, too, he was thinking about an inner need to try to make heart-felt amends.

He knew it would be perilous to begin his campaign with an "apology tour" that would inevitably be more than about the Thomas hearings--it would also include needing to explain away his support for increasing the mandatory jail time for drug dealers and, more disturbing, why he voted to endorse the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Republicans love beating up on what they perceive to be wimpy liberals' alleged inability to be tough. Apologizing, therefore, is about as bad a thing a Democrat aspiring to be commander-in-chief can do. Girls apologize, real men plow ahead.

So what was Joe up to?

Whatever the range of his intentions and feelings about calling Anita Hill they must have included the hope that she would grant him absolution and, as a result, his problems with women who have long memories about his chauvinism would be one troubling thing he would no longer have to worry about in the middle of the night when he and his goblins are churning.

So what did he wind up with as a result of misunderstanding, miscalculating the depth of Anita Hill's residual issues and feelings? 

Did he think she would casually put aside the meaning of the defining moment of her life to throw him a cheap lifeline? This should have been an easy one--if he were serious, she said, he should have expressed more than "regret" for "what she endured."

What he tried to get away with is the classic non-apology apology. Not that he was sorry for his behavior. Instead he said that he was sorry she felt that way. Putting it off on her while taking responsibility only for how he made her feel. She told him this and refused to say never mind. The time for that for women is over.

So on this special day for Biden, he made one of his famous gaffs. Quite a big one. Friday's New York Times had his announcement as its front page lead--"Biden Joins Race, Invoking Battle for Nation's Soul." But abutting it, stepping all over his launch, was the story, "Biden's 'Regret' for Hill's Pain Fails to Soothe."

None of this is fatal, but being clueless on his first day suggests not just insensitivity but poor strategic thinking. 

More of this kind of behavior, though, could leave moderate Democrats and Independents bereft.

April 26, 2019--Back Monday

I will return early Monday morning.

April 25, 2019--Jack: Running Scared

A number of friends have been asking about Jack. One wrote, "I'm rested and can take a few stories involving him."

So, after a restful nap of my own I sucked it up and called Jack to see what was on his mind.

"You're calling to gloat?" Jack, already edgy, said.

I was but said, "I'm just wanting to know what you thought about the Mueller report."

"No collusion, no obstruction."

"So, you're still drinking the Kool-Aid?"

"Quite the opposite, I'm reading the report carefully. So I can come to my own conclusions."

"With the no-collusion-no-obstruction spin it sounds to me as if you're still on page one."

His not responding confirmed that Jack is not famous for being much of a reader. Like his president.

"If nothing else," I said, "If you do read any of it I recommend looking at volume two, the section about all the things Trump did to, well, obstruct justice. Like demanding that the White House counsel, Don McGahn, fire Mueller. McGahn refused and offered to resign. If he followed those orders that would have been a very big deal and Trump would likely have been indicted."

"I thought a president can't be indicted?"

"This may or may not be true. That policy has never been tested in court. But I didn't call to get into a constitutional debate, which neither of us knows enough about to have."

"So then to what do I owe this call?"

"Just to get your general view of things. Particularly what it means politically." I deliberately didn't mention that quite a few of my friends were asking about him. Talking with him could be unpleasant enough that I didn't need to have to also deal with his vanity. But it is true that a lot of people I know like hearing about him. 

"I think he's running sacred."

"Trump? Really? That doesn't sound like him."

"So why did he send out 50 tweets in 24 hours while he was in Florida this past weekend? That sounds like running scared to me."

"But you said he's feeling exonerated. He even said he's never been happier. So I don't get how he can believe he received a clean bill of health and at the same time be scared. Scared of what?"

"First of all you need to understand how right-wingers experience and respond to reality. We are at our best when we feel victimized. When we think things are unfairly stacked against us even if they aren't. That makes us furious and we act accordingly. That's why if you listen to Fox at night, to the Sean Hannities, or the ultraconservative radio talk show people, they're always in a rage even when winning. One would think they'd sound triumphant with Trump in the White House and until last November having majorities in both houses of Congress. But, no, they still raged as if Hillary was president and Pelosi and Schumer were running Congress. It would also be as if there was no Fox news. Just fake news from the New York Times and Washington Post."

"Interesting."

"Trump talks about winning and even when he does still sounds aggrieved. This is our default mode--frustration, fear, anger, rage."

"This sounds right to me," I said.

"But Trump is no fool. He knows the truth--he can claim vindication by Mueller all he wants, but he saw his poll numbers plummet to all-time lows earlier this week. Down to 35, 37 percent who still claim he's doing a good job. This is the core of his core. He knows with numbers like this even Kirsten Gillibrand or John Hickenlooper could beat him in 2020. So the 50 tweets, so the mobilization of his clown lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and that horror show Kellyanne Conway."

"You too," I said, "are sounding pretty worked up. Who are you feeling good about?"

"At the moment, no one. This includes his son-in-law, who looks to me like a bloodless vampire. He said really stupid things over the weekend--that the Mueller investigation is more dangerous to the United States than the Russians' involvement in the 2016 campaign. That was even hard for someone like me to swallow."

"So, that's it? That's all you have to say?"

"Hardly. Since you were nice enough to call me, I'll let you in on a little inside baseball."

"Shoot."

"Trump has a strategy to get reelected that depends on the Democrats. Like ju jitsu it takes one's enemies' strength and turns it against them. That's what Trump is up to."

"What's the Democrats' strength that he's using to his benefit?"

"Your sense of righteousness and fairness. You aways want to feel you're doing the good and right thing, which doesn't always translate into winning strategies."

"Give me some examples."

"OK. Let's talk about impeachment."

"Do we have to?"

"Only if you want to learn how to be smart."

"Shoot." I was feeling exasperated.

"Trump knows that half the Democrat caucus is obsessed with impeaching him. But they're the ones who represent mainly secure blue districts and won't be punished in 2020 by voters who don't want to see Trump impeached. These politically safe Democrats want to see Trump impeached."

"I agree that that could be true."

"But then there are those Democrats who are not wanting to make impeachment a priority because they are in red or purple districts and could be vulnerable to Republicans in 2020. For them, if the Democrats proceed with impeachment they will likely lose their seats and Nancy maybe her majority and speakership."

"But what about the race for the presidency? How does impeaching Trump help him get reelected? Your ju jitsu analogy?"

"It takes the Dem's eye off the ball. It gets them so worked up about impeachment that they don't talk about things people really care about--health care, preexisting conditions, student debt, women's issues, jobs for working class people, all the things that make Democrats strong. Again, Trump plans to turn this against them. And by doing so--he wins. Keep an eye on how he'll move to bait Democrats into impeaching him. As counterintuitive as it may sound he actually wants to be impeached."

"What a nightmare," I said, "Why did I ever listen to my friends and call you?"

"Aha!" Jack said, "I knew someone put you up to this!"

Cackling, he rushed off the phone.

April 23, 2019--Impeachment

And now the I-word.

It is clear from his report that Robert Mueller did not feel comfortable indicting Trump for obstruction of justice though the case for it in the report is much stronger than the uncertainty about its appropriateness or legality.

There is that Justice Department policy that states that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. It is a policy, not a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Count, a "policy," never challenged in any court. And not an ancient one at that. 

It does not go back to the Founders but rather was written in just 2000 at the end of the Clinton administration. After Watergate and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. After decades of special prosecutors.

In his peport Mueller presents an overwhelming case for obstruction of justice but punts what should be done about the evidence to Congress. In the initial instance to the House of Representatives which has the constitutional authority to initiate impeachments.

It should thus be clear, again from Mueller's mountain of evidence, that the House Judiciary Committee should get right to it.

But then there is politics.

It is evident that Nancy Pelosi is not enthusiastic about the prospect of Democrats taking responsibility for the process. 

She has laid out a number of thresholds that need to be crossed before she would allow that to happen. The one that is an easy deal-breaker is that impeachment hearings should not commence until the prospect for articles of impeachment are bipartisan. This means the Democrats should not move ahead until there is Republican support.

The likelihood of that, as my Aunt Madeline would say, is "zero, less than zero."

Unspoken but evident is the historical evidence that the Republicans, who controlled both the House and Senate in 1998 and moved aggressively to impeach Bill Clinton, lost seats in both and also the speakership when Newt Gingrich, who was held responsible for the debacle, was unceremoniously dumped. 

It is agreed that by taking a partisan approach to impeaching Clinton, Republicans paid a huge price. Pelosi wants to avoid a similar circumstance.

During the impeachment debate and subsequent trial in the Senate Clinton's popularity soared 10 percentage points. He was already quite popular but still his favorability numbers rose to about 70 percent. 

So Speaker Pelosi and the House senior leadership, including Congressman Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, are nervous about moving toward impeachment, fearing that Trump will see a similar bump up in popularity. His people and others will see this as an effort to overthrow the results of the 2016 presidential election and thus Democratic overreach.

To me, though, this is not a sufficient reason to avoid the issue of impeachment.

First, Trump is no Clinton. A majority of voters liked Clinton but fewer than 30 percent feel the same way about Trump. A poll from Monday morning showed Trump's approval numbers falling six points, down to 37 percent after the release of the Mueller report.

Then, though the economy is currently doing well for the top 10 percent, a large majority are not feeling as positively about their well being as they did in Clinton's day where not only were many millions of jobs created but the federal budget deficit was wiped out. In fact, there were annual surpluses.

Yet the concern about losing congressional seats is at the heart of the Democrats' political fears.

Then there are the profiles-in-courage constitutional reasons why it may be important to move to impeach Trump.

Our constitutional system is one where checks and balances define what is unique about our democracy. They are designed to check and balance any attempt by any of the three separate branches of our government to overwhelm and dominate the others.

Our system is designed to limit the power of Congress, the courts, and most potentially concerning the administration, the presidency.

We fought the Revolution to overthrow tyranny and wrote a constitution to marshal forces against that ever happening in the United States of America.

To impeach Trump would be a reminder about what ur Founders intended and what makes us special and kept us strong.

The Mueller report exposes Trump's disregard for constitutional government. It calls for the preeminent branch, Congress, to confront this. It reminds us that ours is a "constitutional system of checks and balances and the principal that no person is about the law." Including, especially, not the president.

I therefore say impeachment must be on the table.

April 22, 2019--From Lynne Roth On Navigating Life

I thought you might like to see Lynne Roth's comments about two of my recent postings (the one about the human kindness I have been experiencing as I grow older in New York City; the other my plea to Nancy Pelosi to come home from her visit to Ireland, feeling we desperately need her leadership now).

Skim over Lynne's comments about me and hopefully agree that what she wrote is well worth reading.

Lynne is a remarkable person who often seems to understand me, the inner me, better than I. 

Steven

We all lament that life is about choices. This is a message from one of your fans. Were you to have a fan club, count me in.  Rona would be president because she does an excellent job of keeping you going. She keeps you wound up and nurtured with her many talents.

Your blogs are guides to navigating life. Your blogs are like peering through windows of the world. Your blogs are stories of life past, present and sometimes the future. 

Yesterday's blog provided insight into the joys of aging. It reassured me that respect and courtesy have not been pounded out of all citizens. While we live through some gloomy times in this divisive era it is nice to learn of those willing to share their kindness. There you stood in a remnant of a business that still manages to provide a single slice of pizza. The woman that snatched your soda and helped you open the can so you could enjoy a slice of the good old days.

As you wandered through the transit system you found some fellow travelers not glued to and glazed over an electronic device. They were still alert enough to provide a space for you to rest and let your body catch up to your mind. You gave me hope.

For too long Trump has received pardon after pardon as the reality show of an American president in training unfolded. He tried to trick us into believing all those people he hired were the best. When he had a tantrum(s) he tweeted to the highest hills "You're fired" but could not go into the next room and tell them they were history.

Then there is another part of history. Could it be possible that  Nancy is busy at a seminar? Listening and learning first  hand from those who fought  and struggled to keep their country from having a "come apart," as they say in the south. I too was annoyed to learn Nancy was out of the country. How could she abandon us at a time like this?  At least she wasn't at ribbon cutting ceremonies of a golf course, department store, or hotel encrusted with her name.  

Perplexed, gazing down at the swamp, watching the reptilians retreat I anxiously hope Congress will pick up the scent, rally the forces and battle those entities trying to shred our Constitution and destroy democracy.

Sacrificing lambs, huddling and praying "this too shall pass" is not a solution.  Neither is attemping to convince a group of believers that the Easter bunny is a hoax.  The landscape is littered with colorful distractions and candidates.

While many are celebrating their religious holidays I hope a plan is developed. There must be some who linger with the strength to survive, corner the obnoxious and defeat those hell bent on destroying the nation. It's either change now or figure out how we hunker down to watch another episode of history repeat itself. 

I really hope Nancy has a scheme to drag us all out of the swamp. Does she have the magic? 

Be well and tell me another story Steven. 

Please.

April 19, 2019--Come Home, Nancy

Congress is on its spring recess. For the next two weeks they will be in Disneyland with their children, back in their home districts raising reelection money, or junketing in South America, Europe, and the Caribbean.

For example, Speaker Pelosi is in Ireland to address parliament. Incidentally, it is a lovely time of year to visit. I assume some of her grandchildren are tagging along.

Sorry to sound cynical, but is this the best thing for her and her colleagues to be doing at the time our republic is being threatened by Russia and Trump's crimes and misdemeanors?

Shouldn't they be in Washington as the Mueller report is being released and discussed, and while Trump's Attorney General is attempting to distort its findings? Especially since the report suggested that it is up to Congress with its impeachment power, not the courts, to deal with its findings?

Doing Trump's bidding. attorney general Barr moved to publish the redacted report just before the holidays so as to cause the smallest splash. With Congress out of town, with most Americans spending time with family and friends, they hoped it would be discussed by the usual media outlets and then after a few days slip from sight while the public will have moved on to something else. Like worrying about North Korea's newest missile.

Congress should be in session right now to debate the report and what to do about it. Very much including keeping it in the headlines.

If no Republicans show up, proceed anyway. This is not time for business as usual.

April 18, 2019--A Lot Of Nice

There's a very good pizza-by-the-slice joint we like on Sixth Avenue and 8th Street.

It's a hole-in-the-wall kind of place that used to be common in New York City until rents soared and small spaces were absorbed by big places to become drug stores and banks.

But this pizzeria hangs on because the rent is still manageable and somehow they are able to survive by charging just a dollar a slice. And so it's packed. Especially midday when mainly blue collar workers show up, leaving their vans double and triple parked, to run in to grab a couple of slices and a can of Coke, also one dollar.

But mainly people crowd in because the pizzas come right out of the oven and they are not just hot but delicious.

We were in there the other day and it wasn't packed, which is unusual. So I was able to squeeze into a place at the counter by the cash register. Rona slipped me a couple of slices and a can of Coke. She waved off a chance to have a spot of her own at the counter, preferring as a true New Yorker, to eat while standing. I no longer have the balance to do that without winding up with mozzarella dripping on my shirt. 

The can of Coke was not opened and I struggled to pop the tab. My PD at times makes this a challenge.

Pressed next to me was a tiny women whose head barely cleared the counter top. 

Without a word, she reached for my soda, which confirmed my suspicion that there was something strange about her. She snatched the Coke from the counter and I decided not to try to get it back and start what I was sure would turn into an argument. Just eat my slices and leave, I thought. I really didn't need the soda. So I turned to concentrate on my slices.

At the same moment I felt her poking my back. When I turned to look at her, really to glare at her for interfering with my eating, she pointed to the can of Coke.

"Drink, drink," she said, smiling, extending the Coke toward me, "Open, open," she said.

I realized, seeing me struggle with it, she had opened it for me. How I missed what she was doing. I felt ashamed not to understand.

Later that day we found ourselves on the number 6 subway. The car was crowded, not a seat available, but without  even looking directly at me a young man jumped from his seat and gestured that I should take it. I waved him off but he insisted. And so I sat.

Next to me was a woman who got up from her seat so Rona could sit next to me. Reluctantly, Rona took it.

Still later we needed to take the Broadway bus from 23rd Street. Again, all seats were taken but this time a middle-age women with three bulging shopping bags got up to give me her seat. I took it only after she allowed me to hold the bags on my lap.

The three of off it turned out got off at the same stop and when I said I'd take her bags for her she insisted she'd prefer to carry them. 

She got off first with Rona following and me trailing.

Standing on the street, encumbered again by her bags, she held the door for me and offered me a hand as I gingerly approached the steps. I took her hand.

Walking to out apartment, I asked Rona what was going on. "New York is a gruff place, not known for acts of kindness."

"Maybe as you're getting older you're looking a bit fragile," Rona said, smiling. "Or it could be at this less than compassionate time people are pushing back by being especially nice."

"Could be," I said, "But maybe it's more because I am getting visibly older."

"Could be," Rona said. 

She put her arm around me as we walked slowly up the street.

April 16, 2019--Mayor Pete

It has been quipped than when it comes to supporting presidential candidates Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line.

I worry that the current surge in enthusiasm for Democratic candidate, South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, might be an example of this.

People in the progressive media on Monday were gaga about Mayor Pete's Sunday announcement speech (delayed at least two hours since his people wisely realized that viewers were tuned into another historic event--Tiger Woods' victory at the Masters and would not switch away to watch Buttigieg's declaration).

It was a good speech and well delivered but should we already be advising him about what curtains to order for the Oval Office?

I'd recommend being a little careful about getting ahead of things, not allowing infatuation to get in the way of cold calculation. That calculation has all to do with Democrats nominating the person who has the best chance to defeat Trump. For me, this time around, all I am obsessed about is voting Trump out of office. I'll worry about policy issues after that gets taken care of.

The mayor is obviously very smart and, if true that he wrote his announcement speech, that too is impressive. I like the idea that he is beginning his run for the nomination by introducing himself to voters before burying us in dozens of policy papers about everything from the climate to education to animal rights.

And I very much like his idea that this is not just about winning in 2020 but about "wining the era." It is time for his generation to take responsibility for the fate of our system and our role in global affairs. The current generation of leaders made a mess and new ideas and youthful energy are essential if we are to have a chance to rescue ourselves.

There is enough time between now and the Iowa caucuses (which I think he has a good chance of winning) to take the time to roll things out thoughtfully. He should take advantage of the current enthusiasm, but be careful not to become overexposed and thereby flame out, relegated to political flavor-of-the-month status. We've seen that before.

But we have to be equally careful to scrutinize his capacity to win and, of course, consider what kind of president he would make if elected.

I am concerned that though in many ways his youth (he is "only" 37) is an asset to many it might also be viewed as a liability.

How assuring is it to imagine Buttigieg seated at the head of the conference table in the Situation Room when a major crisis is underway? Say, North Korea launching missiles that may or may not be headed toward Japan? Or California?

He might benefit politically that a majority of Americans may fear that Trump might stumble into this kind of crisis, but does Mayor Pete pass the commander-in-chief test or the three-o'clock-in-the-morning telephone call test?

Further there is the gravitas challenge. How does he do on that one? Again, better than Trump. But better than all other Democratic candidates?

Also, as a Democrat, to be elected it is imperative that he is able to appeal to a wide coalition of voters, especially people of color. It did not appear that there were many African Americans at his Sunday announcement rally. Being practical, we would be wise to pay attention to this.

Finally, how does Buttigieg stack up when it comes to these electability concerns when compared to, say, Biden? Biden, who has all sorts of his own problems might still do better.

Bottom line--feeling enthusiastic, we also need to be smart about how we think our way though this. He may turn out to be the real deal (I think he in fact will) but it is way to soon to consider consummating our relationship.

April 15, 2019--Post Privacy

On Sunday, the New York Times devoted all of the Sunday Review to the effective end of privacy. Here is my take, written some months ago--

More than usual people are concerned about privacy. This the result of the news that Facebook did not prevent the sharing of very personal information about 87 million of us. In fact, they sold it to Cambridge Analytica, which, in turn may or may not have used that data in shady ways to support Donald Trump's run for the presidency.

What did people addicted to Facebook (me included) think they were doing with all the data about our intimate selves we so casually handed over to them? 

Facebook makes billions every month but doesn't charge users to use their "platform." What was Facebook's business model that yielded so much money? If we had paused for a minute to think about how Instagram's and Google's and Snapchat's and YouTube's and Twitter's business models make a fortune but do not charge users we would have realized they made their money by selling us out to marketers and political consultants. 

So all the outrage directed toward Facebook sounds a little self-serving and inauthentic. My bet is that hardly anyone will as a result stop using Facebook or the others.

And, it seems to me, that very few people care profoundly about this. I want my Facebook; I don't want to pay to use it; and I don't care very much, perhaps not at all, about losing my privacy.

After all, don't the social network platforms depend upon us eagerly wanting to surrender our privacy? Aren't they ultimately narcissistic-enabling vehicles for us to let it all, or much of it, hang out for "friends" and friends of friends and friends of friends' friends? Isn't the dream of much of this to have one's postings widely shared, go viral? How else can that happen unless we put it all out there to be probed and passed around?

Years ago I had early glimpses of how people were moving to sacrifice privacy for the sake of convenience, expediency, and fun. Though at the time I really didn't get it.

About two decades ago I was "online at Citibank" (not on-line, but on-line) waiting to deposit a check. This in the days before there were ATMs. Ahead of me were two women who were talking at full volume. One was worried about her daughter, "I'm afraid she's becoming addicted to cocaine," she said loud enough for everyone on line to hear. "I don't know what to do with her. I can't afford to pay for a recovery program. I suppose I just have to hope for the best."  

Her friend put an arm around her and, changing the subject, began to talk, equally audibly, about her boyfriend, "He punched me the other day. We were having an argument and he got violent. Slapped my face hard enough that I think he loosened a couple of my molars." She opened her mouth wide and showed her friend the two teeth that were effected. Her friend leaned closer to examine her molars.

Thankfully, they soon got to the head of the line and were summoned by one of the tellers. The memory is still vivid for me.

A few years later, walking home on Broadway, there was a young woman who appeared to be talking to herself in a very loud voice. Another crazy person, I thought. So young to be talking to herself, I thought. But as I moved quickly to pass her, I realized she was speaking to someone on her cell phone, talking into the wire attached to the phone on which there was a small microphone. Again, without needing to strain to pay attention I could hear every word she said. They were talking about meeting that evening at a local restaurant. All very benign, but evidence that the culture was shifting. I realized we would soon have no need for those phone booths with accordion doors that were still common on urban streets.

Some time after that I was in Washington for a meeting with Alaska Senator Ted ("Uncle Ted") Stevens. He was the chairman of the all-powerful Appropriations Committee and I was, I confess, seeking his support for a $20 million earmark for a promising public school reform project that, to lubricate the process of seeking his help, we were more than willing to bring to his state.

He was about to be term-limited out of the chairmanship so the timing was urgent. 

We spoke about the project (which he later arranged to be funded) and then told me that as a consolation for losing the Appropriations chair, he was to become the hear of the Senate Commerce Committee. He wasn't, to tell the truth, happy about this. It was a much less powerful position.

"One thing I'm concerned about," he said, "is the responsibility for protecting internet security. Really, privacy. And to be honest with you, I'm 82 years old, and don't know anything about the internet or, for the matter, computers."

"So, what are you going to do?" I asked.

"I'll tell you what I already did," he said, smiling, "I asked my youngest staffers to do a little looking around and see what they could learn about me on the internet. You know, when and where I was born, where I live, who I'm married to. Things of that sort. I told them to get back to me in a week or so and they said no problem."

"I think I know where this is going," I said.

"Well, later in the day, the same day, they appeared in my doorway holding stacks and stakes of paper. 'What's all that?' I asked them. They told me it was what they had already come up with on the internet. You wouldn't believe what they found in just a few hours."

"I would," I whispered. He was on a roll and I didn't want to interrupt him.

"You know I have six kids. Well, not only did they find out everything about Cathy-Ann and me but also about them. Where they were born, how old they are, where they went to school, what they studied, and what they did after college. Also, where they live, and if they owned a house how much they paid for it. They even knew about their student loans and the mortgages on their properties."

He shrugged his shoulders, "And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's enough to say that everything's out there to be found by anyone who knows how to do that. And my staffers told me how easy that is. From what they explained to me I understood why it only took a couple of hours to gather all that information."

"This is terrible," I said, "And so as the about-to-be chair of the Commerce Committee what are you thinking about doing?"

He stared off into space, "Probably nothing."

"Nothing?" I was incredulous. Remember, it was years ago. For most of us knowing about the power of the internet was rather new.

"It's too late," he said, "No one in Congress cares anything about this. They think it's good for business. No one gives a rat's ass about privacy. As I said, it's all over."

This was 2005 and from an 82-year-old senator from Alaska who never turned on a computer. He was still able to see the future.

"It's over. It's all over," he said as I thanked him and turned to leave.

April 12, 2019--Go For It, Charlie!

I did not know what to expect about college life when my parents dropped me off for orientation week at Columbia. 

My father's final words were not about being careful to choose an appropriate major or how to think about the future. Rather, his advice was, "But be sure to go out for crew." The rowing team, which was best known for going season after season without winning a race.

Most of my classmates and I were more brainy than athletic and I knew less about port and starboard than differential equations. 

As a Jewish kid from Brooklyn who grew up in an immigrant family where Yiddish was the first language, when it came to participatory sports I knew only about street games such as ringolevio and stick ball. Crew? That was for the goyim. They were headed for board rooms and European vacations, my friends and I, if the quotas weren't filled, for medical or dental school.

Orientation was designed to inculcate in us Columbia and Ivy League lore. Like our fight song (assuming our forlorn football team knew anything about fighting), Roar, Lion, Roar. And, more alluringly, in a sex education workshop, how to prevent girlfriends we might get to know from becoming pregnant, and how, as much as possible, to avoid excessive masturbation. I made notes about the former but not the latter. In regard to that I came pre-oriented. 

During the first year all my courses were required--Humanities, Contemporary Civilization, Art and Music History, Quantitative Reasoning, foreign language (for me French), science (for me chemistry), and Freshman Comp.

The one I knew least about was Comp, but when classes commenced I came to quickly learn that it would be my most challenging subject. I had gone to a technical high school where reading literature and writing about it was not emphasized and so I was not surprised (though deeply anxious about my tottering status) 
when my first paper was returned to me emblazoned with red ink corrections, criticisms, and a boldly circled F.

But two months into the semester everyone in the class became obsessed with something other than declarative writing--without a preamble of notification one night our Comp instructor appeared on TV as the star contestant on 21, America's most popular quiz show.

It was on once a week and contestants were asked to decide each time if they wanted to continue to compete for more money or stop and pocket what they had won during previous weeks.

So every Wednesday, the day before the show aired, we would arrive at the classroom early and fill the blackboard with our advice, and, projected into the situation, our longings for distinction--

GO FOR IT CHARLIE!!! GO FOR IT!!!

Our instructor was the son of America's leading literary family, Charles Van Doren who died at 93 earlier this week.

He would smile when he erased the board, but during the months he was on the show he never mentioned it and in that hierarchical era there was no likelihood that any of us would feel it appropriate to mention it or his soaring good fortune. Even when he appeared on the cover of Time magazine, nothing was said or shared. Just fantasies about rising in the world by using one's wits.

For us it was enough to bask in his success and growing fame. Things that on a different scale I craved but was incapable of allowing myself even to openly imagine.

But then when 21 and other quiz shows were exposed as frauds, including Charlie, who was briefed in advance about the evening's questions, what remained of my innocence was shattered.

His rise and then his precipitous fall became fully part of how I begin to understand and experience the world.

But I was taking my own advice and going for it.

April 11, 2019--Yale for Sale

Tuesday, in Boston, federal prosecutors threw the book at more than a dozen parents who refused to cooperate or plead guilty to illegal activities they engaged in to assure their children were admitted undeservedly to some of America's most selective colleges.

By adding fraud and money laundering to the initial cluster of charges prosecutors significantly upped the ante so that, if convicted, the accused could spend 40 years in the slammer. Though 10 years for first-time offenders is more likely that's still a lot of hard time.

Among Tuesday's defendants was Hollywood actress, Lori Loughlin who must have mistaken the court appearance for a Red Carpet event as she appeared all glammed up, smiling as she shook hands with the prosecutors and worked the courtroom, posing while signing autographs for some of those observing the hearing.

Orange jumpsuits, then, may turn out to be the new black.

Thinking more about the admissions game, I have a few heretical thoughts--

Though I love lacrosse and field hockey I do not see why students who engage in these and other sports, when applying for admission, are given a leg up. Including, if they qualify for the varsity team, full scholarships. With tuition at many of these elite places totaling more than $50,000 a year, this is quite a deal. 

And, as we are learning, this arrangement presents opportunities for corrupt coaches with admission vouchers to make a fortune in bribes.

Rather than admission by coaches' prerogative (sport-by-sport they are given x number of dedicated places in each incoming freshman class) in addition to the old fashioned way of seeking admission (doing well on the SATs and in high school course work, evidence of a commitment to public service, writing a persuasive personal statement, and securing and submitting strong letters of recommendation), why not put a few dozen slots aside for the highest applicant cash bidders? Doing it unabashedly and with full transparency?

For example, a few million dollars contributed to the scholarship fund that focuses on low-income students, or to the development of a new major in, say, computer science, or to upgrade the library, or to build a new dorm "buys" your child a coveted place in the incoming class.

Additionally, the $500,000 of under-the-table payoffs Loughlin and her husband allegedly made available so their daughter (who incidentally on Facebook says she has no interest in going to college) would be admitted to USC, the beneficiary of the bribing is just their daughter and her parents who would have bragging rights about their child's "achievement." 

But, by my scheme, buying one's way into, say, Yale, would benefit many students and could be viewed as an act of generosity. It also would be tax deductible!

We might as well cynically but truthfully admit that the rich have many more lifelong advantages than people with fewer assets. Including all sorts of benefits they can afford to provide when it comes to their children preparing for and, one way or another, seeking admission to college.

My suggestion, which I am liking more-and-more as I think about it, at least goes some way to level the playing field. Pun intended.

April 10, 2019--My Roy Cohn

As so many things have continued to close in on Trump, it is no surprise that he might be pining for, as he put it, "his" Roy Cohn.

Cohn, as you likely recall, is best known for having been Senator Joseph McCarthy's chief counsel during the years McCarthy had Washington and the rest of the country in thrall as he pursued, by mainly nefarious means, communists who, without verifiable evidence, the senator claimed had infiltrated the highest echelons of our government. 

Communists who did so, he alleged, included the Secretary of State as well as President Truman and even the beloved Republican President Eisenhower. They were suspicious and in this unhinged way McCarthy was decidedly bipartisan--communists and their sympathizers were everywhere. 

As difficult as it may be to imagine more than 60 years later, considering the preposterousness of the senator's claims, McCarthy was trusted by nearly half the population and some feel, if he had run for president, might very well have been elected.

Roy Cohn was McCarthy's go-to person when it came to engaging in the most slanderous of activities. He was McCarthy's enabler, pressing him to up the ante, to probe deeper into the government, to make things up if that were necessary, which it generally was since the hundreds, perhaps thousands McCarthy maligned and whose lives were shattered were innocent, including one of my uncles who was purged from his teaching job at Weequahic High School in Newark because his parents were Russian immigrants.

After McCarthy fell, drinking himself to death, Cohn returned to New York City where he became the fixer for many prominent and wealthy New Yorkers, particularly members of the high-end real estate community.

This included the young and flamboyant Donald J. Trump, who was engaged at the time in so many nefarious activities, including being in bed with members of the Mafia, that he needed a virtual full-time lawyer to defend him from literally hundreds of lawsuits.

When hauled before the court, Cohn famously advised Trump that rather than play defense or cop a plea, he should turn things on their head, and relentlessly, in return, attack, attack, attack. And when he wanted something, he should relentlessly sue everyone and everything that could be included in the litigation. 

It is difficult to quantify just how many times Trump was sued and in return countersued, but surely over the years it has been thousands of times.  

Any of this sounding familiar?

What we are seeing today comes right out of the Roy Cohn playbook. But with Cohn no longer around, he died of AIDS in 1986, we can understand, considering the many-faceted pressures Trump is experiencing, that he would plaintively ask, "Where is my Roy Cohn?"

But, with Cohn gone he has little choice but to rely on the increasingly ridiculous Rudy Giuliani to represent him to the media, and, for help with strategic thinking, such as it is, his youthful policy aide, Stephen Miller. 

A Roy Cohn clone, even in appearance, if ever there was one.

Trump and Miller share one policy obsession--immigration. And so when he learned of Miler's views about the borders, it was love at first sight since building the  wall that Mexico would pay for was essentially what Trump's 2016 campaign was all about. 

Before coming to the White House, Miller was Senator Jeff Sessions' chief of staff and while working for the Alabaman, who saw nothing but evil in all forms of immigration--legal as well as illegal--Trump realized he was just the person, after all else failed (including declaring a national emergency which is currently stalled in the courts), to turn the mess over to.

Miller also represents what is dearest to Trump: his views about the limitlessness of presidential power.

Disturbingly, in February 2017, Miller said, "The powers of the president will not be questioned." 

Note the totalitarian syntax. The only thing missing is a German accent.

In Miller, Trump has finally found his Roy Cohn.

April 8, 2019--The Art of the Audit

It was about ten years ago when Rona and I were audited by the IRS. This was not my ideal way to spend a morning in lower Manhattan. I would have much preferred to be there in search of the best dim sum lunch in Chinatown.

While waiting to meet with the auditor, as is my wont in stressful situations, I anxiously ran down all the scenarios my feverous brain could conger from a slap on the wrist with the admonition not to in the future over-deduct business expenses (we had a house we were renting) to being led out of the office in handcuffs to the Tombs, a prison for the accused awaiting trial, which was in the neighborhood but did not serve to felons wonton soup nor shrimp with lobster sauce.

At issue, I knew, was a major donation of paintings we had gifted to the University of Virginia's Art Museum. Nearly 40 works that my ex-wife and I had collected and which subsequent wife, Rona, understandably wanted off our walls and out of sight. 

Rona on her own had appeared at the initial audit and I joined her at the followup meeting as the auditor had a number of questions, including about how much the appraiser had determined the paintings to be worth and thus how much we could claim as a charitable deduction.

He had said, "Paintings are like cars. You buy one for $20,000 dollars (This was some years ago) and when you drive it out of the showroom as soon as it hits the street it immediately depreciates by at least $5,000."

Rona had said, "This doesn't make sense for art works. You mean if I buy a Picasso for $3.0 million [she was speaking theoretically] when you take it home from the gallery it depreciates and is worth only $2.0 million?"

For this he didn't have a good answer and so it was decided that she and I should come back to make an appeal to the IRS's art expert.

The art specialist saw the logic of Rona's argument and let us off the hook. 

After he left we remained with the initial auditor.

I noticed him looking at me more intently than seemed appropriate. Was he trying to peer deep within me to ferret out any other things I had lied about on our return? I tried to anticipate what I might have to be prepared to confess.

"I know you from somewhere," he said.

That calmed me. "Maybe we went to the same college or summer camp." 

"I don't think so," he said, "I never went to camp."

"Neither did I," I said, "I was only trying to . . ."

"Let me take a look at you." He got up out of his chair to get closer to me and adjusted the gooseneck desk lamp to shine more light directly on my face, which made me think this might be the beginning of the third degree.

"Where did you go to high school?"

"Brooklyn Tech. Why?"

"I went there too. In the late 50s."

"That could be it," I said, "Nice to meet you Mister . . .?"

"Brown. Stan Brown. I was on the math team."

"Me too," I said. "That must explain it. Nice to see you again. We have to go." I began to get up.

"What's your rush?" he asked.

"We have another meeting to get to," I said.

"Not really," Rona said. She is a truth teller. "Only to go for lunch."

Under my breath I muttered, "Unless we have to go to the Tombs."

"What's that?" he asked. I didn't respond. "Look," he said, "You can avoid audits if you bring your questions to us when you're working on your returns. Including about charitable deductions. In fact, as a Tech alum, you can call me with any questions you have. Here's my card with my private number."

"I have a question," I said. "Not about my returns for next year but about these audits."

"Sure," he said.

"Why go after small fry like us when in New York City there are so many rich people who I assume routinely cheat on their taxes? From people like us you might find a small underpayment that won't even cover the IRS's expenses? Including the cost of your time." Smiling, not wanting to make trouble for us, I added, "I of course don't mean this personally."

He waved me off. "Frankly, we don't have the capacity to go after the wealthy who have more and better lawyers than we do. So we go  after people like you and your wife. We concentrate on people with less income who can't afford fancy lawyers. Don't quote me of course."

"This is very sad," I said. "So unfair."

He shrugged. "Take Donald Trump, for example. [He actually mentioned him] He is being audited as we speak. Not him in person, of course, he's got a team of lawyers here representing him."

"That's good to hear," I said, "I mean that he's being audited. I assume he's among the biggest crooks."

My classmate shrugged and smiled. "What do you think we'll find?" he asked then answered his own question. "Probably nothing. His people know all the angles. They used to work for the IRS where they spent a few years learning all our methods and tricks and then leave to make a killing representing people like Trump, helping him and their other clients figure out how to go right to the edge of what's allowed by doing things that are so subtle and hidden that there's no way we at the IRS, with our limited capacity, can ever corner him, can ever make him pay what he might actually owe."

"You guys must have a Trump team that examines his books 365 days a year."

"Hardly," he said, "We call him in--again I mean his lawyers--every year and spend a few weeks trying to fire shots across his bow. To limit what he tries to get away with. But for most of the time he carries on unfettered. He complains in the press that he's always being audited but that's totally untrue. You'd be surprised how little scrutiny he's under by the IRS. He basically does what he wants and gets away with it."

"You're depressing me," Rona said.

"I lost my appetite," I said, "No more dim sum for me."