Author Archives: shiningseausa

Another Major News Entity That Needs Editors

1 Reply

The Internet has brought us many new and useful tools, but one of the glaring downsides is that it has undermined journalism in multiple ways. One response of the media has apparently been to either eliminate editing or significantly diminish its role in vetting articles before they are posted. Examples continue to multiple.

The latest glaring example comes from ABCNews.com that published a story about two US Navy sailors accused to spying for China. https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-us-navy-sailors-arrested-allegedly-spying-china/story?id=101990144  While the content of the story is important and interesting, there is no obvious reason why it had to be rushed to “print” without competent checking of the writing.

Examples:

  • Jinchao “Patrick” Wei, a 22-year-old petty officer 2nd class, was arrested Wednesday and charged with espionage — more specifically, conspiracy to and committing the communication of defense information to aid a foreign government.

Conspiracy to committing?  Conspiracy to the communication?

  • Petty Officer Wenheng Zhao, of Monterey Park, California, was also arrested Wednesday, by FBI and NCIS agents, and is charged with conspiracy and receipt of a bribe by a public official, officials said, according to Zhao’s indictment.

“According to Zhao’s indictment” does not belong at the end of the sentence. It should be placed at the beginning.

  • Zhao, 26, worked at the Naval Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme and had an active U.S. security clearance who had access to classified information, officials said.

As written, that sentence says that it was the “security clearance,” as a “who” rather than a “what,” that “had access to classified information.” I am reasonably certain that the sentence was intended to say that Zhao had the security clearance that gave him access to classified information.

  • His indictment states he had access to material classified as secret, as did Wei, who was born in China and became a U.S. citizen in 2022 as he was allegedly also sending information to his handler.

I’m not sure what to say about that sentence. The concluding phrase, “as he was allegedly also sending information to his handler,” is lost in space. With slight changes, it probably belongs after “secret.” The sentence would be improved by creating two sentences from it, one about the indictment and one about Wei’s background. Sigh.

  • “The alleged conduct also represents a violation of the solemn obligation of members of our military to defend our country to safeguard our secrets and to protect their fellow service members.”

What happened to the punctuation? Properly written, that sentence would read this way: “”The alleged conduct also represents a violation of the solemn obligation of members of our military to defend our country, to safeguard our secrets, and to protect their fellow service members.”

  • It was not immediately clear if either Wei or Zhao had retained attorneys who could comment on their behalf.”

I admit I am nitpicking a bit here, but wouldn’t that sentence read better this way: “It was not clear whether Wei or Zhao had retained attorneys who could comment on their behalf.” OR, even better, “It was not clear whether Wei or Zhao had retained an attorney who could comment on his behalf.”

  • Wei is alleged to have passed along imagery of the USS Essex, provided the locations of various Navy ships and provided dozens of technical and manual for systems aboard his ship and other Navy ships.

Open your blue books and answer this question: How many manual or manuals was Wei claimed to have shared?

  • “The case against Mr. Zhao is part of a larger national strategy to combat criminal efforts from nation state actors to steal our nation sensitive military information,” Estrada said.

Obviously, “nation” should have been “nation’s,” the singular possessive form. I suppose it’s possible that Estrada misspoke and said only “nation” but, if so, the authors should have inserted “[sic]” after the word to indicate their awareness of the mistake.

There are other problems with the piece but eight is enough to make the point. A final note: the article lists five contributors to the piece. Remarkably, none of the five apparently saw or raised any of the issues I have identified. If they did, they were ignored, which may be worse

Lest I be accused of picking on ABC, I hasten to assure you that problems like these are evident throughout Internet-published journalism.

Examples: click-bait titles are rampant.

Blue Jays Acquire Angels’ Star Shohei Ohtani In Blockbuster Trade Proposal That Would Instantly Shake Up The MLB

Maybe I’m being unfair, but I believe that headline in https://www.totalprosports.com/mlb/shohei-ohtani-angels-blue-jays-trade-rumor/ was written to lead the reader to believe that the Los Angeles Angels had agreed to trade Shohei Ohtani to the Blue Jays, which is about as likely as my being recruited as a pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers. In fact, the article makes clear that the acquisition of Ohtani was merely a proposal from the Blue Jays.

Another example of failed/missing proofreading:

The bomb squad “determined that the small grenade was insert,” according to a sheriff’s office update. [Miami Herald, July 11]

I have many more examples but, frankly, they are buried in my emails. In preparing to write this post, I realized that I have more than 9,150 emails in my Inbox. Many are routine items (“Your Amazon order has shipped”) and there are hundreds, possibly thousands, related to Donald Trump and his many crimes against the Constitution, the law, and humanity. One of these days I “plan” to find time to review them all and either act on them or delete them. One fine day.

Meanwhile, c’mon ABC and the rest. Do better.

The Hunter Biden Circus – Bring in the Clowns

Leave a reply

Disclaimer: Since my earliest days as a lawyer, when I was assigned a few times by judges in the District of Columbia to perform pro bono (free) defense services for indigent criminal defendants, I am not, and have never been, a criminal defense attorney. But I do know a few things. Believe. Or not.

The circus surrounding the charges against Hunter Biden has its roots in the fact that he is the President’s son and Republicans are desperate to undermine the President who appears, for the present, destined to obliterate the criminal traitor Donald Trump on whom the Republican Party has pinned its hopes for 2024. Otherwise, Hunter Biden’s alcohol and drug-fueled misbehavior would be just another relatively small and unimportant criminal case against a person who, sadly and despite having all the advantages of being the son of a prominent politician, could not control himself. Addiction will do that. A Nobel Prize awaits the person who figures out how addiction works and how its deadly work can be derailed. But until then, it’s clear that the interest in the Hunter Biden case stems from one source.

Hunter Biden has been under investigation for years when the Trump administration was in charge and Trump’s personal lackeys were in charge of the Department of Justice, the FBI and more. In the ordinary boring course of such investigations, absent the connection to Joe Biden, the charges brought would most likely resemble those in the present case and a plea bargain would have emerged. Something went terribly wrong in Hunter Biden’s case and there is plenty of blame and reason for suspicion to go around.

Reports indicate that “whistleblowers” who formerly worked at DOJ have claimed their attempts to tie Hunter to the President were stymied. Yet, the man in charge of the process at DOJ says otherwise. He, like the judge assigned to Hunter Biden’s case, was appointed by Donald Trump (odd how that keeps happening). US Attorney David Weiss led the entire investigation and has been clear that there were no restraints on him from any source.

Little clarity surrounds the “restraints” claimed by the “whistleblowers” who arguably are carrying water for Rep. Jim Jordan and other MAGA Republicans whose main goal is not “justice for Hunter Biden” but pinning a corruption charge on President Biden. David Weiss has offered to testify before Jordan’s House committee but only in public and not behind closed doors as, curiously, the Republicans desire. Jordan’s approach would, of course, enable Republicans to make irrefutable claims about Weiss’s testimony, a ploy that he, despite presumed loyalty to Trump, is wise to.

The other major and possibly unique circumstance surrounding the plea deal and sentencing hearing is that the MAGA Republicans filed their own brief on Hunter Biden’s sentencing, urging the judge to reject it. And she did. Not, ostensibly, because of the claims of political interference by Biden loyalists at DOJ, but because of a serious oddity: an asserted concern raised by the judge on her own initiative, ostensibly, about the constitutionality of the plea deal’s secondary issue: Hunter Biden’s purchase of a gun when, as an admitted drug addict, he was forbidden from doing so.

Then, under probing from the judge about possible other charges against Hunter for illegal foreign lobbying under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, it was revealed that the Biden defense team and the prosecutors had different understandings of Hunter’s future exposure to such charges. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the remarkable, astounding fact that is apparently at the root of the plea deal’s rejection, at least for now, by the judge.

If the judge’s questioning was motivated only by her appropriate interest is assuring that the parties had a complete meeting of the minds on the plea agreement, without regard to the political pressure brought to bear by the Republican Congressmen calling for rejection, the judge cannot be faulted. On the other hand, she is a Trump appointee and the issue of possible unconstitutionality of the plea deal as structured seems a bit of a stretch. We’ll likely never know.

I am personally very troubled, deeply, at the idea that a Congressional committee of partisan politicians injected itself into a criminal proceeding. I would be equally troubled if a committee of Democrats intervened in a criminal proceeding involving a Republican. We’ll never know what influenced the judge who reportedly said she had not digested the entire brief from the Congressional committee but signaled her intention to consider it.

One report characterized the judge’s concerns this way:

Noreika expressed frustration that the two sides structured the tax and gun plea deals in a way where she would need to approve the gun deal but had no powers to approve or reject the tax agreement.

The diversion agreement – which isn’t often submitted to a judge – has a provision that says if there is a dispute over whether Hunter Biden breached the terms of the deal, it would go to the judge for fact-finding. Noreika questioned why it would “plop” her in the middle of a deal she didn’t have a say in, and potentially block the Justice Department from bringing charges, a function of the executive branch.

[https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/26/politics/takeaways-hunter-biden-plea-hearing/index.html] I don’t understand the judge’s attributed remark that she had no say in the deal when the deal was before her for acceptance or rejection.

Beyond the judge, however, it is clear to me that one of counsel’s most important functions in a case like this is to suss out every possible issue that could come up, every possible thing that could do awry. This is as true of the prosecutor as it is of the defense counsel. Here, apparently, both failed in this critical responsibility. They made a deal that was incomplete, and the omitted factor was, I believe, obvious. A plea deal is a settlement and a central issue in every settlement is the question of its completeness. Does it resolve all issues? In civil settlements, it is typical to include the broadest possible language showing that all issues between the parties arising out of the dispute are resolved. No less is this to be expected in a criminal plea bargain.

Yet, in Hunter Biden’s case, the parties did not, apparently, consider the issue of future charges for other offenses even though the potential of such charges was known to and should have been obvious to both sides.

The end result is that there is no end result. Hunter Biden ended up pleading “not guilty” to the current charges while the judge considers her options. Presumably, the defense and prosecution will reconvene to negotiate further. Time will tell.

So, who was responsible for this mess? I don’t know and decline to speculate. As with the charges that appear to be imminent against Donald Trump and his many co-conspirators for the January 6 insurrection, the false electors gambit and the fully documented attempts to overturn the election in Georgia, we will have to remain patient for a while longer. Serious and expert observers of this case share your, and my, amazement that this issue was not resolved before the plea hearing. https://www.rawstory.com/hunter-biden-2662485694/

A final observation: one issue that has been raised in the press is whether the agreed charges against Hunter Biden are inappropriately “light” given the offenses involved. One’s views of this question are most heavily influenced by one’s political partisanship. I caution only this: plea deals are just that. Each side assesses the strengths and weaknesses of its case, and each side gives something to achieve settlement.

Sentencing is inherently difficult and often results in terms that seem sharply disparate. The most prominent examples lately are the various impositions on January 6 insurrectionists who were found guilty, by trial or plea in the face of overwhelming evidence. There are many reasons for this. If you are really interested in how this happens, read Noise, by behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman (Nobel Prize-winning author of Thinking, Fast and Slow), Olivier Sibony and Cass Sunstein where the variability of judgments by judges, doctors and others is analyzed in shocking detail.

Stopping by Gardens on a Summer Day

Leave a reply

If he were alive, Robert Frost would forgive me, I think, for paraphrasing his famous poem, one of my all-time favorites, in the interest of sharing beauty.

This past Sunday, in an effort to beat the heat (failed), we set out early (for us) to visit Brookside Gardens in Montgomery County, Maryland. Brookside is comprised of 50-acres within Wheaton Regional Park. By the time of our arrival late morning, temperatures were approaching 90 with comparable humidity. We therefore shortened our stay and walked only a few areas close to the Visitors Center, including the conservatories. It’s free!

The overwhelming impression one gets in a place like this has two elements: the astounding array of brilliant, surreal colors of the flowers, and the equally astounding diversity of the flower forms that evolution (and artificial selection) has produced.

Words can’t add much to those, so I will spare you, and simply show you some of what we saw. BTW, in the pond shot, the color comes from algae that covered almost all of the ponds this day. Finally, who  among us does not love a chipmunk?

I hope seeing such stunning beauty brightens your day.

A Visit to the Apple Store

2 Replies

If you keep your iPhone long enough, it will eventually need a new battery. We bought our iPhone 11s in very late 2019, so they are in their fourth year. The nearest Apple Store to us in in the Fashion Centre at Pentagon City.

Note: For the uninitiated, Pentagon City is neither a pentagon nor a city. It is a neighborhood in Arlington, VA. The Fashion Centre (note the “tre” at the end, very fashionable) is actually, well, a mall. A big one. One hundred sixty-four stores, to be precise. Most of them, by my rough count, cater primarily or exclusively to women, which seems fair.

In any case, we recently learned that both our phones needed new batteries. Since this happened two days ago, I do not remember how we discovered this troublesome fact. But I do recall that it was projected to cost $89 to replace the battery in each phone at the Apple Genius Bar. Such is the genius of the Apple business model.

So, we made an appointment for, Saturday, today, to have my phone’s battery replaced. When you do this, you are advised to back up the phone to iCloud lest all your data be erased. It took me so long to accomplish the backup (the phone is set to automatically back up but who trusts that?) that when I went to make a second appointment for my wife’s phone, the next appointment was in September (lie: but it was many hours later). We decided to wing it.

So, this morning arrived sunny and, unusually, with non-life-threatening air quality and off we went to the Fashion Centre at Pentagon Mall for my 10:30 am appointment.

To my surprise, and somewhat to my dismay, the mall was practically deserted. Many stores weren’t open yet and few visitors were present. Even the Apply Store, usually a beehive of activity, was quiet, with way more attending Apple staff than customers. We were early, usually a good omen.

A pleasant young man greeted us. I pushed my Apple Wallet app into his face, showing the QR code for my appointment. He pushed a larger square electronic pad device my way and asked, “you’re Paul?” “Yes,” I replied. He said his name was also Paul. Very pleasant. Punching many buttons on my phone and on his square electronic pad thing, he confirmed everything. We then broached the question of getting my wife’s phone attended to as well (I sheepishly explained why we couldn’t get her a separate appointment). More buttons pushed and, voila! he takes both phones. Mine will be ready at 11:45, hers at noon. I am shocked that a battery replacement could take this long, but they have you by the iPhone so what are you going to do? We head out into the mall, carrying our now-empty phone cases.

When my wife peels off into Nordstrom’s (“just to look around”), I realize for the first time that without our phones, we have no means of finding each other if we are separated. Since one of my wife’s many skills is shape-shifting whereby she can completely disappear in a store, even one organized into straight rows, I realize we must remain together at all costs.

You know where this is going. Victoria’s Secret, it happens, is having a sale. VicSec is a store I have no interest in visiting so I pace outside for what seems like a half-hour while my wife saves money. I pretend I am mall security in disguise. Time passes, slowly, very slowly. The store has three entrances along mall corridor. I can’t see my wife in any of them. She has shape-shifted into women’s undergarments.

Eventually, she emerges proudly holding up here pink bag (everything is pink now – Barbie, you know) with her goodies. It’s all fine. Through the magic of shopping mathematics, we have less money than before, but we have saved money.

So it goes. We wander the mall, stopping in stores because they’re there, killing time. I learn that Macy’s does not sell John Varvatos cologne, but the nice young lady persuades me to let her blast my forearm with Montblanc something. It’s not bad. How much? She tells me it comes with some other Montblanc product and includes a gift bag. I don’t want a gift bag. How much without the “package?” Same price. How much? $115. For how many bottles? One.

Er, I‘ll need to think about that. She’s, obviously conditioned to rejection, is fine with that. [Note: three hours later, my forearm still reeks of Montblanc]

Finally, after about a mile of walking, we re-enter the Apple Store, greeted again by Paul who reminds us we’re early. We know. I tell him we came back early to sit and look sad in hopes that it would speed up the return of our phones. He laughs. I tell him that I know he’s too young to remember a time when people like me left home with no phone and had to carry exact change to use a “public phone” in case an emergency arose. I tell him we used to be away all day without every using a phone or even thinking about one. He laughs, nods, laughs. I imagine at day’s end Paul going home to report to his mother and/or roommate, “you won’t believe what I had to put up with today.”

I tell Paul that I have not been away from my phone this long since 1983 and that I am going to need therapy. He laughs harder. We wait.

While we’re waiting, I engage a pleasant young woman in an Apple staff shirt about a question I have about iCloud: why I was told to back up my phone to the Cloud when I had once been told by AppleCare that, contrary to my belief, my computer was not backed up to iCloud, that iCloud was merely a device for synching your Apple devices and that backing up should be done with a separate device (Apple will see you one) using Time Machine. I tell her I have such a device that is backing up my iMac to Time Machine.

She explains about how I can have both an iCloud Drive and a separate set of document files that are in the Cloud but are not in the Cloud. And because the phone has less capacity than the iMac, well, you can see why …. I tell her I took metaphysics in college and this sound a lot like that. She laughs. She and Paul laugh a lot. They are very adept at concealing what must be their abiding sense of superiority over my generation. We part amiably as Paul interrupts to report that our phones are coming out.

My wife notes that her phone’s battery life is minimal and that her plastic screen protector is gone. Paul explains that, yes, we don’t provide fully charged batteries and, yes, your protector didn’t fit properly anyway. He also reports that the Apple Store does not have any iPhone 11 screen protectors. That will be $89 per phone plus tax, sign here (on the square thing’s screen with your finger and, no, don’t even think about reading the 15,000-word agreement) and thanks for being part of the digital world. And, yes, the new phones start at $999 …. Y’all come back now, ya’ heyah.

For sure, we will be back.

Hubris and the Junk Heap of History – Part 2

Leave a reply

Let’s review what has happened most recently.

  • 6-8-23 Trump is indicted. Finally. Thirty-seven counts. Felonies. Trump is accused of harboring hundreds of classified documents dealing with, defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.
  • Classified documents were stored in multiple unsecured locations at Mar-a-Lago;
  • On at least two occasions, Trump showed classified documents to persons not cleared to see them;
  • Trump obstructed the grand jury investigation by:
  • suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • directing co-defendant Waltine Nauta to move boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump’s attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury;
  • suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena, while claiming that he was cooperating fully; and
  • causing a false certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury representing that all documents called for by the grand jury subpoena had been produced while knowing that, in fact, not all such documents had been produced;
  • Trump was personally involved in causing boxes containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transportedfrom the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club;
  • Trump directed the move of some classified documents to non-secure locations at his Bedminster Club;
  • Despite public statements to the contrary, Trump was fully aware that he had not declassified the documents while he was president;
  • Trump and his co-defendant withheld key information from Trump’s attorneys regarding the location and number of document boxes at Mar-a-Lago;
  • Trump knowingly procured a false certification by one of his attorneys regarding the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago;
  • As a result, Trump was charged with:

Willful Retention of National Defense Information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § (e)

 Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512(k)

Withholding a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2

Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(l), 2

Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2

Scheme to Conceal in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ lO0l(a)(l), 2

 False Statements and Representations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2

 All the allegations are supported by documents, testimony, photographs, and recordings.

TRUMP’S “DEFENSES” [Or “What, Are You, Nuts?]

[Warning: Do not eat or drink while reading this next part]

The willful ignorance of Republican politicians brings to mind Sam Cooke’s anthem song with the perverse (in current circumstances) title of Wonderful World:

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book

Don’t know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me, too
What a wonderful world this would be ….

One person who loves Trump is the Republican Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, who just hours after the unsealing of Trump’s 37-count felony indictment threatened the U.S. Attorney General, stating that House Republicans “are not going to stand for” the criminal prosecution of the ex-president. McCarthy, in keeping with the observations above, claims Trump is being treated differently than others, even though no one in modern times has committed the treasonous acts for which the evidence against Trump is overwhelming. No one.

The Republican idea of “equal justice” is to treat Trump better than everyone else. Trump had numerous chances to get true equal treatment; all he had to do was return the documents and, if, and it’s a massive ‘if,’ he had a claim to them, pursue it through legal channels. Instead, he chose self-help and then engaged in a coverup. By grossly misstating the legal processes by which the Trump indictment was issued, McCarthy proved he is just as dishonest as Trump himself, a believer in what Kellyanne Conway, acting as counselor to Trump, cynically called “alternative facts.”

McCarthy’s sycophancy is not peculiar to him. In his usual manner of double-talking between law, politics and delusion, Alan Dershowitz produced this preposterous standard for judging Trump’s conduct: “the Richard Nixon test.”https://tinyurl.com/5y6zz4yv (Fox Business. Where else?):

“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can’t support you,” Dershowitz said Friday on “Mornings with Maria.” “I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment,” the professor continued.

Translated to simple English, Dershowitz thinks the proper legal test for Trump’s document crimes is whether Republicans approve of his being indicted. Wow. How the mighty have lost their way. Dershowitz had more to say:

American citizens, Dershowitz argued, should be able to cast their votes for those candidates who align with their social, economic or foreign policy views as opposed to “who’s more criminal.”

The professor argued there “has to be equal justice” served as he pointed out Republicans will likely speed up their investigation into Hunter Biden and the Biden family foreign business dealings.

“If I were a Republican leader, what I would do is draft a potential indictment against Biden and his son based on the information that’s now available, and present that in the court of public opinion in juxtaposition with the indictment that will come down on Tuesday,” Dershowitz said, “and let the public judge.

Dershowitz apparently believes that the reality and nature of Trump’s crimes is simply irrelevant to whether he should be president again.

Dershowitz seems to have forgotten about the long history of the Trump family’s foreign entanglements, including massive infusions of cash from Saudi Arabia. But I am for “equal justice” too. If there is evidence of corruption in the Biden family that relates to the president doing his job, bring it.  So far, nothing but phantasmagorical claims based on missing or criminally indicted “witnesses.” It looks a lot like the claims of election fraud that Trump and his cronies repeatedly asserted without evidence. Republicans are the reincarnation of the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.

Meanwhile, otherwise responsible media continues to bemoan the fact that a former president is being charged. The Washington Post Editorial Board wrote on June 9 that,

No one should celebrate Thursday’s indictment of Donald Trump in a case involving classified documents improperly stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Something has gone deeply wrong when, in a historic first, federal prosecutors reach the point of filing criminal charges against a former and possibly future president. Yet, in this matter, the defendant appears to have left them little choice.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/]

On the contrary, all patriotic Americans should applaud the fact that “equal justice” means what it says and that one’s political status does not confer privileges to violate the law that applies to others. The Post finds the allegations against Trump “disturbing” as if they related to shoplifting a shirt at Macy’s. And USAToday continues to publish click-bait pieces like this one: Donald Trump was indicted over classified documents. Why aren’t Joe Biden and Mike Pence? https://tinyurl.com/5xv63mjh

Concerns have justifiably arisen about the bizarre fact that the Trump-appointed judge in the documents case is the same judge that was reversed in dramatic terms by the 11th Circuit for gross errors of law and bias toward Trump. Jack Smith is unlikely to tolerate much funny business from her but there are clearly risks in her overseeing a criminal trial like this, given her lack of experience and apparent lack of judgment. Time will tell.

Trump is in serious trouble as his standard stratagems of delay and obfuscation are, one by one, falling apart. He appears to be destined for trial in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and for new indictments related to the January 6 fake-electors scheme and the January 6 insurrection. These cannot come soon enough, particularly since, reports already indicate that Judge Cannon is falling all over herself to stall the case against Trump. https://tinyurl.com/yck42wbt  She should be removed from the case before it’s too late.

If fair-minded juries are chosen and the trials are fairly administered, Trump will surely be convicted of multiple felonies, along with, hopefully, many of his co-conspirators.

Trump will then go down in history – down being the correct word here – as what he is: the worst criminal ever to occupy the White House. He will join the legions of failed putative dictators and other men that fortune falsely anointed as “great men” but whose ignorance and greed undid them. Trump loves to do his form of “dance” at rallies to the YMCA song to show that he’s young, virile, and cool, but his real song should be Send in the Clowns to distract from the reality that his day of reckoning may finally, at long last, be approaching.

Hubris and the Junk Heap of History – Part 1

Leave a reply

Watching the descent of Donald Trump from indecent, corrupt, selfish, ignorant, and foolish to deliberate gross criminality that put the national security of his country at risk raises yet again the question of how someone with his alleged wealth, claimed high level of education and all the opportunities for success imaginable falls to such a state. And it’s not just Trump and his constantly grifting family to whom the question fairly applies.

The elected leaders of one of the two major political parties continue to support a candidate for leader of the country and commander-in-chief of the armed forces who has been twice-impeached (the party refused to hear the overwhelming evidence of his guilt) and now twice-indicted for multiple felonies, including threats to national security and against whom the evidence is, yet again, overwhelming. And more felony indictments are virtually certain regarding Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021, and remain in power despite his defeat in the 2020 election. Such is the reality of the Republican Party today that has aided and abetted many of his most criminal and dangerous behaviors.

MAGA Republicans, it seems, can keep multiple inconsistent ideas in their “minds” simultaneously without experiencing disabling cognitive dissonance. They can, for example, treat as “equal” situations that are plainly not “equal.” Examples of this behavior abound. They are masters of deflection: whatever Trump may have done (“who cares anyway”), someone else did something worse and was not punished so Trump should not be held accountable either. And on and on.

Interestingly, none of Trump’s most ardent supporters claim, “he didn’t do it.” Rather, they argue that he should not be punished under the law for what he did because,

            It’s a witch hunt;

            Others are more guilty of something or other;

            The investigations are “politically motivated”;

            Trump did “nothing wrong”;

            It was all antifa and Black Lives Matter

            Or it was the “deep state” out to get Trump

            Trump was framed [my personal favorite].

All very familiar Trump tropes.

Recall that Donald Trump said this: “I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” And Trump thinks he is still the president.

As I have ruminated on what is happening here and why, I have, tentatively, come to some new conclusions. While I have never known anyone wholly like Trump, I have over my long life and career encountered many “successful” Type A people, almost all men, who share many characteristics with Trump.

I now believe, tentatively, that most men like Trump began their lives with various advantages that made them “successful standouts” at an early age. This phenomenon may go all the way back to grammar school, when the first genuine socialization behaviors are displayed. These are the boys who, regardless of actual talents, are always deferred to when teams are picked at recess or after school for pick-up sports. They are selected by default to pick the players they want on their side. The selection process is merciless and is repeated over and over day after day.

These same boys tend to be socially popular with both boys and girls. They exude confidence that is reinforced constantly at home and everywhere else. They are molded into dominant figures, accustomed to having their way, to being favored, to being successful in virtually everything they do. Often, they are rewarded in areas in which they do not excel because of their perceived status in other areas.

This reinforcement continues through high school and beyond. These men are the anointed “leaders” whose merit and status are rarely if ever questioned. They are, to paraphrase a line from the movie, Barry Lyndon, not the smartest, the quickest, the bravest, the most talented. They are, simply, the “best people.” And because they are so regarded, they are beyond reproach even when their behavior would otherwise warrant and even require condemnation and sanction.

Emergent from this process is a sense of self-worth, of self-regard that distorts their understanding of reality. Other men, and many women, are impressed by their self-confidence, their “authority,” that is evident in how they present themselves, independent of any objective reality as to their actual talents or worth.

The end of this process is, however, at least in my experience, almost always the same. Donald Trump is the purest manifestation of it. The hubris that develops blinds these men to the truth of their situation. They see themselves as untouchable, not subject to the same rules that govern everyone else.

How could they not? U.S. Senators and Congressmen (and now women) are fawned over, treated as special in every way, sought after socially, given power unrelated to their intelligence or actual skills. They are, after all, the “best people.” It’s just who they are. Or so they believe. American culture tends to venerate and elevate these men (mostly men).

The same is true of many “successful” businessmen. They may be dolts. They may be corrupt. Doesn’t matter. They are who they are – the winners, the top dogs. Media fawn over their every word, adding to the illusion of their superiority. These men attract money, followers, devotees – passionate supporters who need to share the penumbra of their worthiness.

Until they aren’t worthy. Until the sheen of invincibility is shattered by revelations of the lack of merit that has been concealed for so long beneath the veneer.  Examples are everywhere. Take the Cuomo brothers, Andrew and Chris. The sons of Mario Cuomo, the three-term governor of New York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Cuomo Mario Cuomo came from the humblest of circumstances – the family ran a grocery store in Queens. But he was highly intelligent and very ambitious. A powerful, dominating figure.

So too his sons. Yet, both have fallen from their pedestals, for different but related reasons. Then there is Rudy Giuliani, once called America’s Mayor for his post-9/11 “leadership.” By all accounts, he was highly intelligent and ambitious but, he too, fell from grace when he embraced Donald Trump’s brand of “truth.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

Consider the actor Will Smith. Highly talented and successful until he decided, and make no mistake it was a decision, to attack the Oscars’ host on live television for making a tasteless joke about his wife. Smith may recover. The Cuomo brothers and Giuliani may not.

Let’s not forget this: Trump Will Not Apologize for Calling for Death Penalty Over Central Park Five. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyregion/central-park-five-trump.html Presaging his views on the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017, involving alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and far-right “militias:  “You have people on both sides of that,” the president said when asked about the wrongly convicted defendants.”

So it goes. Over and over again. A seemingly endless progression of “great men” brought down by their own hubris – defined in dictionaries as ‘excessive pride or self-confidence.’ They come to believe they are untouchable, beyond reproach regardless of what they do. And in some sense their perception is correct, demonstrated by Trump himself in the way he has managed to not only survive but prevail, despite multiple obvious crimes, despite business mismanagement and multiple bankruptcies, and despite multiple credible allegations of sexual abuse and assault.

[to be continued in Part 2]

Moments Later – ABC News Again

Leave a reply

Almost immediately after posting the previous post, I came across this from ABC News:

Once again, the video with the story is about Donald Trump and promotes the idea that he is innocent. The story is about the tragedy of the sinking of the tour boat with loss of life. SHAME on ABC for using this to promote Donald Trump.

ABC News appears to be taking over where CNN left off.

ABCNews — What is Going On Here?

Leave a reply

The headline and story is about a fire and the collapse of the roadway on I-95, the major north-south interstate between, among many others, Washington, Philadelphia and New York. The video is Donald Trump declaring his innocence!

How can this be explained?  What is ABC News doing?

An Appalling Failure of a Great City

2 Replies

I just posted New York City is Back! https://shiningseausa.com/2023/06/03/new-york-city-is-back/ And it is.

But I remain astonished and appalled that New York City, whose history is bound so closely to the subway system used by millions of people to get around the vast city every year, has failed to address the problem of access for the elderly and physically limited traveler in any meaningful way after all these years.

The passenger-use data tells an interesting story – the subway system consists of more than 6,455 cars that collectively traveled about 331,000,000 miles in 2021 through 472 stations on 665 miles of track. https://tinyurl.com/muksdukt Too big to comprehend but not too big to fail. In 2021, the first year of post-pandemic recovery, about 760,000,000 people rode the rails. While that is an amazing figure, it is less than half the volume that rode in 2016 (nearly 1.8 billion)!

I was forcefully reminded of this on our Memorial Day weekend trip, when, already worn out, we approached the 30thStreet Station in Astoria to find an elevated platform. The only observable means of getting to the train platform was to climb not one but two flights of stairs. I did it but I cannot imagine that many people my age or with other physical limitations could do so.

The 30th Street Station in Astoria is not the only such problem site. Only 98 of the 472 stations (covering all boroughs but not counting the Staten Island Railway) are ADA-accessible. https://new.mta.info/document/25961 Many stations counted as ADA-accessible meet that test in only one direction, or only for some subway lines or only at some times of day.

I understand that adding escalators and elevators would be very costly and, given the physical constraints, could result in reducing stairwell access in some cases. Given the substantial reduction in ridership since 2016, there is no better time to fix this problem than now. I am astounded that the people of New York City put up with this situation for so long and that New York politicians have been able to escape accountability for their failure to require the MTA to act.

I have read that a Judge Approves MTA Deal to Make Subways 95% ADA-Compliant by 2055 as part of a class action settlement [https://tinyurl.com/yc5398d2] but, seriously, by 2055? No doubt this was a victory of sorts, but that deadline, even if met, is 32 years away. The number of New York City residents with some form of disability is close to one million and more than 15 percent are 65 or over. It is unconscionable that their transportation needs have been ignored for so long and still are.

No Way to Run a Railroad

Leave a reply

Disclosure: Despite what follows, there is no way I would travel to New York City from Washington, DC except by railroad. Yet, Amtrak remains an extraordinarily unreliable organization.

We booked our Memorial Day travel on the Acela train from Washington, DC Union Station to New York’s “new” Moynihan Penn Station terminal on January 22, 2023, a full four months before the trip. Having had enough of listening to people yelling into their cell phones, oblivious to the disclosure of their personal and business information, we were determined to get into the Quiet Car and to sit next to each other in regular seats, not at a table with two strangers.

Thus, we (my wife actually) booked Acela 2170 departing Washington on May 26, 2023, at 3:00 PM and arriving in New York City at 5:49 PM, enough time to make it to a dinner engagement and then to a jazz show at Dizzy’s Club. The confirmation returned by Amtrak took us out of the Quiet Car. After several changes online, consuming some hours, we received a fourth confirmation showing we were in the Quiet Car and, we thought, not seated at a shared table. We had the same seats assigned in both directions. The return train (Amtrak 2155) was scheduled to depart New York City at 11:00 am on Monday, May 29 as we had seen in the schedules on the Amtrak app.

Perfect.

For reasons that defy understanding, Amtrak sent us a new confirmation on January 27, changing our seats on the return trip to DC to 8A and 8C. The message sending the PDF of the ticket simply said:

Thank you for choosing Amtrak.
Your travel documents are attached. Please print and bring them with valid identification to show the conductor aboard the train.

Concerned about the implications of this unexplained change, I tried to locate a seat map to be sure we were not seated at a table on the return trip. I could not find a seat map on Amtrak.com which was not recognizing our reservation number, so I engaged the Amtrak “chat” feature to be sure we had the seats we wanted. There ensued a 779-word “chat” with “Desiree.” I will spare you the details of this agony of miscommunication. Suffice to say that Desiree assured us that our new return seats were not at a table and were still in the Quiet Car. Exhausted, I accepted her assurance.

On February 16, my wife, but not me, received an UPDATED confirmation from Amtrak indicating a “modified” reservation, but in fact the details were the same as we had previously received. Puzzlement.

On April 5, we received another Amtrak unexplained email (labeled Change Summary), showing an issue time of 7:09 am PT, changing our return train to a different train number, later departure (11:20 instead of 11:00) and …  and … changing our seat assignments to two different cars!!!!

Car 2 Quiet Car – Seat 4D

Car 3 – Seat 10A

No explanation provided.

We called Amtrak yet again and succeeded in getting reassigned to adjacent seats in the Quiet Car:

Car 2 Quiet Car – Seats 4F, 4D

The confirmation, labeled Sales Receipt with PDF ticket attached, issued on April 5 and, curiously, also at 7:09 am PT.

Also, on April 5 at 7:09 am PT, Amtrak issued yet another email moving us out of the Quiet Car on the return trip:

Car 3 – Seats 10A, 10C

Followed by another email also at 7:09 am:

Car 2 Quiet Car – Seats 4F, 4D

I am not making this up.

In the chaos, I failed to record the change of train number and departure time. My bad. But not just me. How can Amtrak explain this turn of events? Wait.

As reported in my previous post, we had a truly remarkable weekend in New York City. We departed our hotel in plenty of time to make what we thought was our 11:00 am train to DC.

When we arrived at the Red Cap station in the Moynihan terminal, we noticed our train number (the original number on which we had been confirmed) was not listed on the departure board. I inquired.

We were informed that we had the wrong train number and that we were not in the Quiet Car and not seated together!!!!! Neither of us had any record of this change. Fortunately, the Red Cap was very polite and helpful and in a few seconds, using the Amtrak app in my cell phone, was able to change our car assignment to the Quiet Car in adjacent seats.

So, all’s well that ends well, right?

True enough, I suppose, but how can the above sequence of events be explained or justified? Amtrak’s technology and “self-awareness” of what it is doing seem to be mythologically screwed up. This is not the first time our trains and seats have been changed without being told. It happened on a previous New York trip and, when discovered at the last minute, could not be changed. We ended up traveling in different cars, each seated adjacent to a stranger and not in the Quiet Car.

Amtrak is the only feasible alternative to flying to New York, especially on a holiday weekend when the roads are packed with cars and huge delays are commonplace. Surely this is not the best Amtrak can do. In a real sense Amtrak is a monopoly – at least in the sense that it is the only way to travel to NYC by train. Obviously, there are options – driving, the dreaded airlines (one to two hours taxi/Uber/Lyft ride into the city) but for many of us there is no real choice. Knowing its position in the hearts of many travelers, we would hope Amtrak would be better at its job. It’s not. A mystery.