Netanyahu and the Legitimacy of the State of Israel

This paragraph led off a story from The Times of Israel a few days ago:

Responding to the ICJ [International Court of Justice] ruling that found Israeli presence in the territories to be illegal, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says: “The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land—not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, not in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria.”

The Netanyahu quote illustrates a common conception regarding the legitimacy of the State of Israel: Jews were given the land by God and have a perpetual claim on it. This charming nonsense should mean nothing in the twenty-first century, but Jews have done a fine job of selling this particular bill of goods.

Were it a principle of global politics that a people, however defined, have a perpetual claim on a piece of real estate, the Americas would now be governed by natives who inhabited the Western Hemisphere long before any Europeans landed on its shores. Likewise, the Aborigines of Australia would be governing that land. I hesitate to think who should be in power in Europe, Asia, and Africa. In short, the application of Israel’s principle of possession would lead to a very different twenty-first-century world. But Israel does not deserve unique treatment because its government claims that its god gave it the land.

Apologists for Israel indeed believe that Israel’s land should extend “from the River (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) Sea,” though this phrase is usually associated with Palestinian partisans. This includes territory that has never been acknowledged as belonging to the State of Israel by the community of nations. Calling territory by ancient names (Judea and Samaria) is just so much propaganda.

Before the modern State of Israel was formed in 1948, none of the so-called Holy Land had been governed by Jews for two millennia. Jewish rule began centuries before, though that rule was not continuous. Moreover, the Israelites conquered people who already lived there. Should not the descendants of Philistines, Amalekites, and Canaanites govern the land now called the State of Israel?

Israel came into existence through the indulgence of existing nations, particularly the United Kingdom, for their own purposes. and by force of arms. Were prior occupation to confer legitimacy, the more recent occupation by Palestinians would seem more compelling than a Jewish occupation of two thousand years ago that, in any case, was overthrown by the power of Rome.

Given the long history of Jewish persecution, culminating in the atrocities of the Nazi regime, one can appreciate the Zionist dream of a Jewish state. But a state free of Jewish persecution does not demand a state ruled by Jews, let alone one that indulges in persecutions of its own supposedly sanctioned by God. If a Jewish state was somehow necessary, it could, in principle, be anywhere. If the State of Israel is a legitimate nation, it is so by virtue of conquest by the sword. Netanyahu should leave God and history out of it. The rest of the world doesn’t give a damn about his mythology.

Kamala for President

I was driving from Clifton Springs to Geneva yesterday when I heard on the radio that President Biden had decided to end his re-election bid and endorse Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential candidate. Although I had been uncertain whether Biden should stay in the race, I found myself immediately relieved by the news. Subsequently heard commentary suggested that Harris was almost certain to replace Biden on the ticket. Interest quickly turned to who would become Harris’s running mate. No challenger for the top spot has emerged or is likely to do so, though there was a suggestion that Joe Manchin would like to replace Harris. (Manchin, an ex-Democrat, won’t get the nod even after hell freezes over.)

I was a supporter of Harris when she ran for the Democratic nomination in 2020. I was impressed by her prosecutor background and her sharp questioning in a Senate committee. She dropped out of the contest early, however, as she had difficulty distinguishing herself from her Democratic rivals. Her lack of success in 2020 seems of little relevance in 2024. I am eager to see her insightful and aggressive questioning directed at Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.

I don’t discard political buttons unless I have an excess supply of them. Today, I dug out my single KAMALA button, which I intend to wear today and perhaps every day until I obtain a Kamala-whoever button.

The Second Biden Post-Debate Test

President Biden held a news conference tonight at the conclusion of the NATO meeting in Washington, D.C. He faced reporters for about an hour without benefit of a teleprompter and without having been given the questions in advance. So, how did he do, and did he allay fears about his ability to win the election over Donald Trump?

In fact, his performance was better than his recent ABC interview and was orders of magnitude better than his debate performance against Trump. Has he allayed the fears of Democrats that Biden will not only lose but will also take many Democrats down with him? I don’t know.

Biden certainly made some gaffes, and his responses to questions were not always crisp. That said, he seemed like the Biden we’ve gotten used to, rather than the incoherent, bumbling old man of the recent presidential debate. Biden’s propensity for making verbal flubs is legendary. He was no more error-prone tonight than he has been over the many decades of his political career.

The president offered some opening remarks about the need for a strong NATO, and he attacked Trump on his willingness to abandon support for Ukraine. He cited recent good economic news and criticized Trump for his 10% tariff plan. He noted that fewer people are crossing our southern border. He touted his proposed framework to end the Gaza war.

Not surprisingly, several questions concerned Biden’s remaining on the top of the Democratic ticket. He admitted that there are other Democrats who would be strong candidates. Although he might have expected to be a one-term president, he decided to run for a second term because he’s had many successes but wanted to “complete the job.” (I have some Biden-Harris buttons that say “FINISH THE JOB.” We haven’t seen that message emphasized much yet, and I doubt that’s the best the campaign can do.) Biden made a few positive remarks about Vice President Harris, whom he would never have chosen if he had not thought she could handle the presidency. He suggested that convention deputies are free to vote for whomever they choose. (They aren’t at the moment.) He said that he was willing to take a neurological exam if a neurologist says that he needs one. As he has before, Biden expressed skepticism of polling, but he said that he would step down if polls definitively indicated that Democrats would lose if he did not.

Much of the news conference time was concerned with foreign policy issues. This was where Biden’s brilliance and experience shined. Trump could never put on such a display. He was asked about Ukraine, about relations with China, and about the Gaza war. His answers were thoughtful and occasionally surprising. When challenged about the use of American-supplied weapons against Russian territory, he asserted that his policy is based on recommendations by the military and intelligence communities. It wouldn’t make sense, he said, to attack Moscow. (That’s probably true, though it would be satisfying!) He gave a very long answer concerning Sino-American relations and the problem of China’s effective support of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Again, Donald Trump would only spout nonsense in response to the questions thrown at Trump. (Reporters should actually ask Trump some of those questions.)

Biden managed to throw in a few zingers related to domestic matters here and there. One of these: “Corporate greed is still at large.” Also, “when unions do better, we all do better.” He talked about Trump’s filling out his scorecard before he plays the hole. He took a swipe at the Supreme Court and at Project 2025. He cited favorably the button logo “Control guns, not girls.”

Generally, Joe Biden acquitted himself well tonight. I wrote this on Facebook earlier, however: “The question isn’t what Biden has done or will do but whether he can be an aggressive and effective campaigner.” I don’t know if Biden can pull that off. Personally, I am less concerned about Biden’s being a great president for another four years. I know that electing Donald Trump would be a disaster for the Republic.

Sunset in Clifton Springs

The picture above was taken at sunset from the solarium of the Spa Apartments. I have taken to going upstairs as the sun sets to enjoy the evening sky. The cloud in the picture hung over Clifton Springs suggesting how the Hindenburg might have looked had it overflew the village. The photograph is almost perfect, though it is marred by a reflection from the window on an adjacent wall. I didn’t notice the reflection when I took the picture.

The First Biden Post-Debate Test

 President Biden was interviewed earlier today by George Stephanopoulos, and the 22-minute unedited interchange was broadcast on ABC Television this evening. As I noted yesterday, this was an important test for Biden. Donald Trump declined to participate in a similar interview. He could afford to do so.

I think it fair to say that the president did not pass this crucial test with flying colors. I am reluctant to say he failed miserably, but I’m tempted.

We don’t expect the exuberance of Donald Trump from Joe Biden, of course, but Trump’s animation suggests a vigor that Biden’s performance did not.

At the beginning of the interview, Stephanopoulos asked about Biden’s debate performance. The president admitted that he had a bad night, that he was sick with a cold, and that he was distracted by Trump’s speaking after his opponent’s mic was shut off. Incredibly, Biden admitted that he has not watched video of the debate!

Stephanopoulos asked if Biden would take a cognitive test to reassure us of his mental competence. He responded that he is tested every day, by which he meant by his daily work as president. He gave no direct answer to Stephanopoulos’s question.

The president repeatedly spoke of his accomplishments in office and suggested briefly a few objectives for a second term—better health care and child care as well as tax reform, but his fundamental pitch was:

1. “I’m still in good shape.”
2. I know how to get things done.
3. Donald Trump is a pathological liar.
4. I beat Trump once; I’ll beat him again.

George Stephanopoulos asked Biden about his low poll numbers. Biden apparently doesn’t believe them. When asked what he would do if Democratic leaders came to him saying that he must step down. His response: that won’t happen.

Biden simply did not look like someone who would make a good president. His record is admirable, but he did not inspire confidence in his ability to continue executing the job of chief executive. He seems determined not to step down, however. When asked how he would feel if he lost and Democrats lost control of Congress. He said that he would feel that he did his best.

The question now: which two people should be on the 2024 Democratic ticket?

Thoughts on the Biden Candidacy

In light of Joe Biden’s appalling performance in the June 27 debate, Democrats are struggling with whether Biden should remain the party’s standard bearer. Although he is insisting publicly that he intends to continue his campaign, he has been somewhat less certain in private.

Donald Trump was leading in polls before the debate, and his lead has only increased after it. Although Kamala Harris does better than Biden against Trump in recent polling, she also trails the former president. She is, however, the most likely replacement should Biden bow out of the race. In that case, a new vice-presidential candidate would be needed.

As a Democrat who believes the survival of the Republic demands a Democratic victory in November, I am, as I am sure many or even most Democrats are, uncertain as to what Democrats should do at this critical juncture.

The problem, of course, is that it has become difficult to have confidence in Biden’s ability to do the job he is seeking. Even if you believe he has done a remarkable job in his first term and would have been even more successful had Republicans been willing to participate in effective governance, concern about Biden’s age, which has been his greatest liability, was only intensified by his dismal debate performance. Even if that performance was a fluke, it is impossible not to suspect that it presages sub-par performance in office.

In the 2020 campaign opposing a second Trump victory, Biden stepped forward as a seasoned, steady hand, albeit an elderly one. Many thought he would be—should be—a one-term president. It is rare, however, for a president, even a relatively unsuccessful one, to abjure another run for the nation’s highest office. Biden has not proved an exception to the rule.

If Biden does continue as a presidential candidate, he must shore up support among Democratic politicians, and he must reassure the public at large. He is working on the former task, spending more time with Democratic officeholders. Ultimately, the latter task is the more critical. Biden needs to display his competence in public. Presidential events are helpful—he bestowed two posthumous Medals of Honor on Union soldiers yesterday—but of greatest importance is displaying a command of issues in unscripted settings, settings analogous to a presidential debate. Tomorrow he is to be interviewed by ABC News. That will be important. But he also needs to hold press conferences where he must respond satisfactorily to spontaneous questions without the benefit of teleprompters.

I am not at all certain that Biden has the time to reassure the voting public or, in fact, whether he is competent to do so.

Given the rules of the party and the delegates pledged to the president, Biden can be replaced only if he chooses to step aside. His doing so remains unlikely, but may be becoming less unlikely.

Were Biden to bow out of the race, we would likely see an event not seen in America in years: a party convention whose outcome is not known in advance. That would assuredly add excitement to a campaign sorely in need of it. This assumes, of course, that an open convention would be a well-run, civil affair and not a donnybrook.

Should the Democrats change their ticket, what might it look like? As I noted earlier, Kamala Harris is a likely presidential candidate, though it must be said that her own run in 2020 was lackluster. (One hopes she has learned lessons and skills in her present position since then.) Moreover, the last Democratic woman to run lost to Donald Trump. If Harris doesn’t advance to the top of the ticket, should she remain the vice-presidential candidate, or would two fresh faces fire more interest and enthusiasm among both Democrats and the population at large?

I am committed to the Democratic ticket, whatever it is. I have to admit, though, that I find it difficult to work up enthusiasm for the Biden-Harris ticket, though my hatred of Donald Trump is unbridled. A new ticket would surely inspire greater passion.

Democrats are not without credible replacement candidates, but they seem to lack obvious ones. Democratic governors are the most likely candidates. I’m sure readers can name the most likely ones. My favorite of the lot is Gretchen Whitmer, though she is female and should likely not be paired with another woman. I have long thought that Adam Schiff would make a fine candidate, though he has shown no conspicuous interest. He certainly knows Trump’s weaknesses!

In the end, I don’t know what Democrats should do, though they have to make the right decision and make it soon. God help us!

What Biden Should Do

Given the Supreme Court’s immunity decision today, it looks as though Biden can have a Seal Team assassinate Donald Trump. As long as the plan is set in motion in the White House, it would appear that Biden would be immune from prosecution.

Note: I tried to post a version of this comment on Facebook and was warned that it appeared to violate community standards. Facebook does not understand irony.

Poem 27 of A “Trump Alphabet”

I have added the sonnet below to my 26 poems of A Trump Alphabet.

And there you have the ABCs
Of an American political offender,
A felon exposing a civic disease:
Support for a pernicious contender.
Donald Trump isn’t competent, caring, or nice;
He’s selfish, rapacious, and cold.
Having chosen him once, we cannot choose him twice.
He is dangerous, wicked, and old.
The Republic has stood for many a year
And survived many crises and war.
But now we must face trepidation and fear:
Can democracy endure anymore?
We have to act boldly our nation to save
Lest the flag of surrender be ours to wave.

A Trump Alphabet

For a long time, I have been working on a project called “A Trump Alphabet,” a collection of 26 poems based on properties of the former president. I invite you to read the poems and pass them along to others who might appreciate them.

As a teaser, here is a sample poem:

Happy Reading!

“W” is for Womanizer For Trump, all women are toys for his pleasure, And marriage never inhibits his ways Of seeking, between comely legs, the treasure Of those who fall victim to his lecherous gaze.

Chinese Food Comes to Clifton Springs (Sort Of)

Clifton Springs, New York, has too few restaurants. Before I moved here in 2022, there was a Chinese restaurant on Main Street, a short walk from my apartment. It had closed before I arrived. I have been craving Chinese food but have not yet left the village to find any. Friends have recommended Chinese restaurants elsewhere, however, and I found one online that none of my friends seemed to know about.

I was very excited yesterday when a menu for a new Chinese restaurant turned up downstairs. Hong Kong Chinese Kitchen is opening where the old Chinese restaurant used to be. I don’t know if the old restaurant is being resurrected or whether Hong Kong is brand new. Last evening, I took a short walk to the place to check it out. I had already eaten dinner, but I thought I might have lunch there today. There was a sign on the door apologizing for not being open and referring patrons to the restaurant’s Facebook page for information about its opening. I was unable to find the restaurant on Facebook, so I telephoned one of the numbers on the menu. As I suspected, callers hear a recorded message. The restaurant needs to install a new sprinkler system, I was informed, and the projected opening date is now August 1.

Sigh.

New Hat

For a long time, I was pictured on my blog in a cream-colored hat I liked very much. I discovered that my friends associated that hat with me. Somewhere along the line, I lost the hat, probably having left it somewhere I didn’t remember. I’ve missed that hat.

For Father’s Day, my son took me to a new hat shop in Geneva and let me pick out a new hat. I found one only slightly different from my “famous” one. This hat is linen and a bit whiter—definitely a summer hat. See what you think.

Alleged Suspect

News organizations are careful to avoid suggesting the guilt of persons not convicted in a court of law. Thus, news reports often refer to “alleged” miscreants.

ABC News ran a video story on its Web site yesterday over the headline “13-year-old girl sexually assaulted at knifepoint in NYC park: Police.” The story made it clear that the police and the girl involved asserted that certain things happened. On ABC’s nightly newscast today, ABC reported that police were searching for the “alleged assault suspect.” My initial reaction to this phrase was that the use of “alleged” is unnecessary. A suspect is, after all, only someone thought to have possibly committed a crime. Police are seeking an actual assault suspect, not someone alleged to be an actual assault suspect. (Alleged by whom?) One is either a suspect or not. Being a suspect does not imply guilt.

On reflection, I began to question whether I had parsed “alleged assault suspect” properly, Perhaps, the police are looking for a suspect in an alleged assault, not assuming that the reported assault actually happened. This is a reasonable interpretation but likely not the correct one, as earlier reports suggested that the police have taken as fact that an assault actually occurred. The New York Times also framed its story by what the police asserted. Details of the story suggest, however, that the police may have physical evidence that has led them to conclude that the story told by the girl is substantially true.

I may be thinking about the phrasing used by ABC more that its reporters and editors did. Probably, “alleged” was unnecessary. It may have been added just to be safe, however.

How To Write Better Gun Laws

A far-right Supreme Court today invalidated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives rule against bump stocks. The rule had been promulgated during Donald Trump’s presidency in response to the 2017 massacre in Las Vagas that was facilitated by the use of bump stocks.

The argument in favor of the ATF ban was that a bump stock converts a rifle into what is virtually a machine gun, the sale of which has long been severely restricted.

NPR, commenting on the court decision noted that, “Justice Thomas, speaking for the majority, said the bump stock doesn’t change the internal firing mechanism, so it can’t be classified as an illegal machine gun.”

Like so many decisions of this court, this ruling turns on minor, seemingly unimportant details.

The reason that lawmakers have had such a hard time framing gun laws is that they go about it in the wrong way. In today’s case, for example, we shouldn’t care about the gun’s trigger or its internal mechanism. What is important is (1) how fast the gun can fire a projectile and (2) how much energy is carried by that projective as it leaves the muzzle. A machine gun is a gun that can fire rounds above some specified rate carrying energy above a certain threshold. I don’t know what those parameters should be. and I doubt that muzzle velocity need be considered, as energy increases with velocity. If a gun performs like a machine gun, it is a machine gun, whatever its internal workings.

Defining firearms using what I suggest are the relevant parameters means that manufacturers cannot get around regulations using various technicalities. This is a much better way of describing what guns are illegal than, for example, listing them by model number or some other incidental characteristic. A ban on assault weapons, if we ever we enact another one, should be based on effective characteristics, not on model number, etc.

In the short term, Congress should pass a law banning bump stocks. Of course, the law must define a bump stock by what it facilitates, not by the means by which it does so. Unfortunately, in our current political climate, this won’t happen.

How Many Palestinians Is an Israeli Worth?

The big news from the Gaza war is that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have freed four hostages presumed to be held by Hamas. That operation is said to have wounded 700 Palestinians and killed nearly 200, many of them women and children. (The number of casualties has been variously reported, but it has clearly been substantial.) Israelis are jubilant. Presidents Biden and Macron praised the operation at a Saturday press conference in Paris.

Does no one see anything wrong with this picture? Are scores of deaths of innocents a moral price to pay for each Israeli rescued? Israeli leaders and citizens seem to think so. Israelis are dancing in the streets over the latest war news.

Israel, of course, was traumatized by the October 7 Hamas attack, which captured scores of hostages, of whom 120 or so are still unaccounted for. The passionate desire to repatriate those victims is understandable. But comparing IDF tactics to those of United States forces is instructive. When attempting to free hostages or to kill or capture high-value terrorist targets, the U.S. tries to avoid collateral damage, even aborting an operation likely to kill civilians. In light of this humane policy, it is distressing that President Biden seemed to give the IDF operation his unequivocal approval.

One may quibble as to whether Israel has established apartheid in the Middle East or whether the conduct of the current war amounts to genocide. Historically, however, Israelis have shown little respect or concern for their Palestinian neighbors either in war or in peacetime. Significantly, whenever there has been a prisoner exchange, dozens of Palestinians are exchanged for each Israeli released. This is possible because Israel collects Palestinian prisoners like tokens to be used as necessary and because Zionists view Palestinians more as vermins than as people deserving simple human dignity and respect.

I don’t know how many Palestinians constitute the moral equivalent of one Israeli in the Israeli mind. Whatever that number is, it is large, and that ethical calculus is a moral outrage. NPR quoted Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant as saying, “This morning not only did we have a successful operation but also an opportunity to fulfill the goals of this war.” A goal of the war appears to be to kill as many Palestinians as possible.

Concern for the hostages has become a justification for no-holds-barred aggression in Gaza. It is embarrassing that U.S. policy insists that hostages need to be returned but not that the killing of innocent women and children needs to stop immediately.

Why Is There a Refrigerator in My Bedroom?

The photo on the left was taken from my bed yesterday (Wednesday). It shows a refrigerator parked just inside the door of my bedroom. Therein lies a story.

I noticed recently that the freezer compartment of my refrigerator was collecting frost all around. At the same time, the compartment below seemed warmer than usual.

My Monday lunch consisted of a sandwich and some leftover potato salad. The potato salad, which was about a week old, tasted spoiled. I threw it away after one bite. Since the refrigerator seemed warmer than usual, I increased the temperature control to its maximum setting.

By Tuesday—in retrospect, I was slow on the uptake—after trying to measure the refrigerator’s temperature, I concluded that there was something seriously wrong. I reported the problem to the building’s maintenance man, Kyle, who suggested that my refrigerator had a bad fan. We went immediately to my apartment with a replacement fan in hand.

After emptying the freezer—this was an obnoxious operation—we learned that ice was blocking the passage of cold air into the compartment below. The reason for this was unclear, but the freezer was quite filled and the weather had been very humid. My adjusting the refrigerator temperature upward had only made matters worse.

At this point, it became clear that living in an apartment building has advantages I had overlooked. Kyle offered to deliver a refrigerator as a temporary replacement. Happily, he had one available that was empty but operative, so it was already cold. The plan was to transfer my food to the temporary refrigerator and defrost my own refrigerator overnight.

The matter of where to put the temporary unit was tricky. Many of my outlets were in use, and I couldn’t find an extension cord on short notice. The solution we hit upon was to unplug my portable vacuum and put the refrigerator just inside my bedroom. The placement allowed me to get in and out of the bedroom, but I couldn’t easily get to one side of the bed to make it up. This explains the unmade bed in the above photograph.

Once Kyle left, I began transferring food from one refrigerator to the other. I then cleaned the sides of my refrigerator and the floor area that had been underneath it. Mercifully, only a modest quantity of water accumulated on the floor.

On Wednesday, Kyle came back to put my refrigerator back together—he had removed a panel at the rear of the freezer—and to return it to its proper place. I cleaned the interior and, once it had cooled down, I moved food from the temporary refrigerator to my own. This gave me the opportunity to do a degree of triage, discarding old or seemingly useless leftovers. It also allowed me to better organize my refrigerator, both top and bottom. 

Today (Thursday), Kyle returned to retrieve the lent refrigerator. Having put my refrigerator back together, I now have to put my apartment back together. 

Nikki Haley Shows Her True Colors

There has long been uncertainty as to how much integrity we should attribute to erstwhile U.N. ambassador and presidential primary candidate Nikki Haley.

During her run for the Republican nomination, Haley repeatedly told everyone what a horrible candidate Donald Trump is. After dropping out of the race, she did not discourage people from voting for her in the remaining primaries—as many did—and there was hope in some circles that she might, at the very least, not support Trump’s run for the White House.

Nikki Haley
  Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0
via Wikimedia Commons

The question of Haley’s integrity, however, has now been resolved. She has revealed herself to be, in the worst sense, a politician and neither a statesperson nor a patriot. Although she has yet to endorse the former president, in the sense of telling others to vote for him, she has declared that she will do so in the contest with Joe Biden.

In a historic understatement, Haley admitted in a recent interview that Trump “has not been perfect” on policies she considers important. Those policies include reducing government debt—something Trump massively increased when he was in office—and supporting freedom—something that Trump proudly took away from American women. Remarkably, Haley declared, “But Biden has been a catastrophe.” 

No doubt, many voters who watch Fox News or Newsmax or other right-wing pseudo-news outlets find Haley’s characterization of President Biden unremarkable. In driving from Clifton Springs to Geneva, I regularly pass a house displaying a sign declaring “Biden Sucks.” And I often see Trump supporters interviewed on television attributing characteristics, policies, and actions to Biden that are provably false. One might have hoped, however, that an intelligent politician who has clearly recognized Donald Trump’s multitudinous faults would be able to acknowledge at least some virtues in a fellow politician who is virtually the opposite of Donald Trump.

What is the nature of the Biden “catastrophe”? Although Trump initiated the quest for a COVID vaccine, it was Biden who orchestrated its successful rollout that halted the mounting death toll. Is saving people from dying a catastrophe?

Infrastructure Week had become a standing joke during the Trump presidency. Under Biden, the country is finally addressing the deferred maintenance of its extensive infrastructure. A catastrophe?

Trump either doesn’t believe in climate change or doesn’t care about it. Under Biden, however, the country is taking steps—possibly small ones—but steps to counter climate change. Well, Haley might find this catastrophic. The environment be damned!

Haley wants a president who will “have the backs of our allies.” Well, Biden is supporting Ukraine as it faces Russian aggression. It has been difficult, however, as Trump wants to sue for peace and, most likely, cede Ukrainian land to Putin. He tried to prevent Congress from supporting Ukraine. Isn’t what Biden has done supporting our allies? Isn’t this opposite to Trump’s inclinations? More catastrophe, I suppose. Biden has supported longtime ally Israel. Is supporting Israel’s defense while trying to restrain Netanyahu a catastrophe?

Haley wants a president who will “secure the border.” But when the Senate reached a bipartisan agreement to do exactly that last February—an agreement Biden was ready to sign— Trump made it clear that Republican legislators needed to kill that initiative so it could be used as a Republican fund-raiser and campaign issue. Another catastrophe on Biden’s watch?

Haley wants a president who will support “capitalism.” Biden has raised tariffs to protect, for example, the electric vehicle industry. Under Biden, the government is subsidizing the revitalization of the computer chip industry. Another catastrophe, I suppose. Better that we have a president who is only interested in enriching himself and his billionaire friends. But surely that would not be a catastrophe! 

Under Biden, inflation and unemployment are down. Another catastrophe, I suppose!

Alas, like so many Republicans, Haley has turned out to be a total hypocrite. Haley’s real catastrophe is that Democrats, not Republicans, are in power. Policy really isn’t the issue. If her favored candidate wins a second term, however, we will see what a real catastrophe looks like.

A Bad Culinary Week

Things have not gone well in the cooking department this week. Two days ago I was baking banana bread for yesterday’s coffee hour at the Clifton Springs Library. I poured the batter into three small (2 × 5 × 2¼ in.) silicone pans and placed the pans in the oven on one of the wire racks. Since baking was to take about an hour, I then went into the bathroom to take a shower.

As I was drying off from my shower, I detected a burning smell, which was not how my banana bread was supposed to smell. When I opened the oven, I discovered that the soft-sided pans had listed to the side and disgorged some of their contents. I quickly decided to write off my baking project, removed the silicone pans, and assessed the damage. Some of the batter clung to the oven racks—this was cleaned up easily enough—and some of it fell to the bottom of the oven. Unfortunately, the oven floor has wide slits on either side, and some of the batter fell into one of them. I turned off the oven and, when it cooled, removed whatever semi-baked batter was visible. Later, after regaining my composure, I got out my nut driver, removed the oven floor, and cleaned up the mess under it. I put the oven back together and attended coffee hour the next day empty-handed.

Today, I had another cooking project. I had agreed to make potato salad for the Memorial Day picnic for my apartment building. As the potatoes were boiling and later cooling, I collected the other ingredients for the dish, chopping as necessary. One of my recipe’s ingredients is chopped parsley. I have been told that this is unusual, but I haven’t researched the matter. Certainly, parsley doesn’t make my potato salad seem strange. (The apple cider vinegar is another matter, but I like the recipe.) I was midway through chopping parsley and adding it to a bowl of chopped hard-boiled egg when I realized that I wasn’t chopping parsley at all. I had mistakenly bought cilantro, an ingredient of which I am not at all fond.

Realizing that not everyone has the same aversion to cilantro that I do, I stopped chopping and substituted dried parsley for the remaining “parsley” that hadn’t yet been added to the chopped egg. The resulting potato salad tastes different from my usual effort—one can definitely taste cilantro—but my hope is that people will still find it acceptable.

I’m planning to cook as little as possible this weekend.

The Ten Commandments in Louisiana

Louisiana is about to enact a law mandating that the Ten Commandments—a specified version of them—be posted in every Louisiana school classroom. The proposed law even specifies a minimum size for the Ten Commandments classroom posters.

It should be obvious to any thinking American citizen that the proposed legislation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Louisiana lawmakers argue that recent Supreme Court decisions have so weakened the wall of separation between church and state that their latest legislative fiat may survive judicial scrutiny. They have a point, but I hope they’re wrong. Surely, the proposed law is one “respecting an establishment of religion,” as the Ten Commandments are taken directly from a text sacred to Judaism and Christianity.

Dodie Horton, a representative from District 19 in northwest Louisiana argues: “Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. In fact, without them, a lot of our laws would not exist.” This, of course, is pure poppycock. Our laws are no more based on the Ten Commandments than on Aesop’s Fables.

It is worth considering the Ten Commandments in light of our actual laws. The first four commandments are purely religious and therefore inappropriate in light of the Establishment Clause. They command that you should (1) have no god before the God of Israel, (2) not worship idols, (3) not curse using God’s name, and (4) keep the Sabbath holy. No U.S. laws are based upon these injunctions, nor should they be. Only the Fourth Commandment comes close. Though blue laws privileged Sunday, not the Jewish Sabbath, they are largely a thing of the past and have little support for their reintroduction.

Four commandments involve behavior about which the law is silent. Number 5 requires the honoring of one’s parents. Numbers 7, 9, and 10 enjoin abjuring adultery, bearing false witness against a neighbor, and coveting the property of others. Of course, bearing false witness is illicit in particular legal contexts but not in ordinary discourse.

In fact, only two commandments have any significant relation to American law at all. Number 6 prohibits murder, and number 8 prohibits theft. Such provisions have been part of virtually every legal and moral system for millennia and probably did not originate among the Israelites anyway.

Louisiana legislators argue that the Ten Commandments offer moral guidance, though guidance unlikely to be appreciated by atheist, Muslim, Sikhi, Jain, or other student religionists. And it may be tricky to explain idol worship or adultery to first graders or why non-Jews seem not to care about the Sabbath.

The Louisiana initiative is ill-conceived and, I pray to God, is destined to be struck down by the Supreme Court. If it is not, this country will be in even more trouble.

The proposed legislation follows a 2023 Louisiana law requiring “In God We Trust” to be displayed in every classroom. (Classrooms may run out of wall space if the legislature continues what is becoming a trend.) I have written about the motto elsewhere and will merely say here that the sentiment that has become our nation’s official motto is, at best, hypocritical.

One final aside: If I were allowed to post Christian propaganda in school classrooms, it would be Jesus’s admonition to love God and one’s neighbor. Or, on second thought, just

Movements in My Lifetime

I’ve lived through the Civil Rights movement and the Women’s movement, each of which achieved successes though neither achieved all its goals.

The recent Reactionary movement was suppressed by the election of Joe Biden. That movement is attempting a resurgence, threatening to usher in a Totalitarian movement.

Your vote is important to preserve the Republic.

Will We Get Better Presidential Debates This Year?

President Biden has challenged Donald Trump to participate in presidential debates this year, and the former president has accepted. Given that Mr. Trump has avoided debating his Republican challengers, it has not been clear that he would agree to debate Mr. Biden. Today’s news is therefore encouraging. Details of any debates will need to be negotiated. Neither side has been satisfied in the past with decisions made by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which apparently will have no part in structuring the 2024 presidential debates.

The Biden team has articulated its desired ground rules:

• Two debates: in June and September. This is apparently acceptable to Team Trump, but Mr. Trump has expressed a desire for more debates.
• There should be no live audience. Mr. Trump has spoken of wanting a large venue, presumable with a large audience.
• The only participants are to be the Republican and Democratic candidates.
• Only broadcast networks that have hosted recent debates (CNN, ABC News, Telemundo, and CBS News) should be eligible to host the first debate. Apparently, the same restriction has not been proposed for the second debate. It likely should be.
• The moderator should be chosen from a network’s “regular personnel.”
• There should be firm time limits on candidate responses, and the candidates should be allotted equal time.
• A candidate’s microphone should only be live when it is his turn to speak.

We may get more effective and useful presidential debates this year, but, when the presidential camps get down to serious negotiations, that goal may prove elusive. Donald Trump would certainly like a large, preferably partisan, audience, and may not take kindly to the concept of losing his microphone for any reason. That Mr. Trump has said he would like more debates is a bit surprising—he is not good at actual debate—but this may be a negotiating position to facilitate horse trading involving other matters.

I have long advocated some of the ground rules Mr. Biden is promoting—widely available debates, no audience, and time limits enforced by controlling candidate microphones. (See my October 29, 2015, post “Suggestions for Presidential Debates.”) The presence of an audience is particularly problematic. Historically, audiences told to keep quiet do not, in fact, do so. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to assemble a non-partisan audience in which everyone exercises the same level of self-control. The debates are for the American people, not for a selected debate audience.

Most important, and most likely to be fought by the Trump camp, is the idea of time-limited speech enforced by administratively controlled microphones. The former president exhibits limited self-control in general and virtually none in past debates. Clearly, the Biden campaign wants to avoid Mr. Trump’s garrulousness and his obnoxious habit of interrupting other participants. I discussed this issue in the aforementioned essay. I revisited the issue in “A Suggested Tool for Debate Moderators.”)

It has often been noted that debating skill, or whatever skill is needed for the so-called presidential debates, is not a particularly important capability needed by the President of the United States. Readers may be interested in a very different debate format I once proposed in “A Different Kind of Presidential Candidate Debate.” That essay was oriented toward debates leading up to the selection of a presidential candidate, but some of the ideas could usefully inform the contests between actual candidates.

Perhaps, we will get better presidential debates this year. But perhaps not.

Outside Agitators

The news has recently been dominated by reports of demonstrations supportive of Palestinians at U.S. colleges and universities. It is distressing that many seemingly peaceful protests have been shut down by police at the invitation of school administrators. In some cases, civil authorities have in part justified police action by asserting that “outside agitators” were among the demonstrators. Often, the “agitators” have been quite literally outside, which is to say not on campus at all.

I am greatly distressed by the term “outside agitators.” I remember this term as one used by racist Southerners to identify the brave souls from northern states who risked their lives to take a stand against Jim Crow. The present “outside agitators” may be non-students, but we have seen no evidence that they are “agitators” rather than citizens in sympathy with the goals of student demonstrators. Among this group may in fact be a few agents provocateurs with disreputable motives—not an established fact—but damning every non-student as an “outside agitator” is unfair.

As for the student demonstrators generally, I think they may be seeking the wrong objective. Imploring their institutions to disinvest in Israeli enterprises is an obvious goal, but it is difficult for the schools to implement and an objective with considerably less than universal appeal. It means to punish Israel but will not be particularly helpful to the Palestinians about whom the students purport to be concerned.

Unfortunately, President Biden seems incapable of taking any action that might discourage bad behavior by Benjamin Netanyahu. The students should adopt a more useful objective: insist that the United States cease providing any and all military and financial support to the state of Israel pending resolution of the current war against Hamas, a war that seems increasingly like a war against the Palestinian people. A less extreme objective might be to obtain an immediate ceasefire by all combatants.

Students have missed an opportunity here and, as of tonight, Israel seems to be proceeding with its military plans against Hamas and the inhabitants of Gaza.

The Out-of-Control Supreme Court

During my time in junior high school, I remember the complaints of Republicans that the Supreme Court was in the disreputable habit of “legislating from the bench.” Of course, their problem was not with “legislating” but with handing down decisions they just didn’t like, however legally justified they might be. Most especially, they railed against Brown v. Board of Education, the famous desegregation case. The court found that the Constitution logically did not permit racial segregation in conspicuously unequal public schools. Ironically, although the Warren court declared unconstitutional the long-held notion of “separate but equal”—the equal part never seemed to be achieved in practice—it failed to “legislate,” in the sense of declaring what was to be done to eliminate the unequal treatment of Negro students in Topeka schools.

Whereas the basic task of the Supreme Court is to decide what is legal and what is not, even a relatively liberal court is not about defining its own fix for what it believes is illegal. In Roe v. Wade, for example, the court need not have invented its own trimester scheme for determining when abortion is permissible. Having ascertained that the Constitution does not allow an outright abortion ban, the court could have left many details to the legislative branch.

Today, Republicans are delighted that the radically “conservative” Supreme Court engineered by Donald Trump gleefully legislates from the bench when it suites the proclivities of the most reactionary justices. In Trump v. Anderson, the court was asked whether Colorado could remove Donald Trump from a Republican primary ballot based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that is, did Trump’s involvement in an insurrection prevent him from holding public office. Unsurprisingly, the court held that an individual state cannot use the Fourteenth Amendment to disqualify a candidate for federal office. The court further held, however, that only Congress, not the courts, could apply Section 3. The practical effect was to invalidate that section of the Constitution for the foreseeable future.

Now the Supreme Court is considering whether Donald Trump, a former president, can be held legally accountable for actual crimes committed while in office. That the court even granted certiorari for this case is outrageous; the president is not a king, and the Constitution establishes a republic, not a monarchy. Whereas it is unlikely that even this Republican-dominated court will agree with the Trump legal team that a president may even murder his political rivals with impunity, the justices are trying hard to delay a decision (and therefore a trial). The justices failed to put the trial on a fast track, seemed almost indifferent in oral arguments to the matter actually before them, and is worried about crafting a judgment “for the ages.” That the nation is facing the question at issue for the first time in more than two and a quarter centuries suggests that a decision “for the ages” is not an urgent need. But the court is happy to legislate, particularly if it is helpful to their political consigliere Donald Trump.

It is past time to reform the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas refuses to recuse himself on a case involving the January 6 insurrection, even though his wife was a cheerleader for that mutiny. Both Thomas and Justice Alito have received substantial gifts from wealthy Republicans who applaud and benefit from the rightward movement of the court. Although President Biden requested a commission report on court reform, nothing came of the report. It is perfectly clear that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate that the direction of the country would be set not by Congress and the president, but by the Supreme Court. It is time to fix the court and, therefore, the Republic.

Jury Duty

 I was subpoenaed for jury duty today. As I sat during the jury selection process, I was composing an essay in my mind about my experience as a juror. As it happened, I was not chosen for the jury, and I’m unsure whether to be happy or disappointed about that. I was not happy that I had to rise earlier than usual to be in court by 8 am. However, I was able to leave for home by about 10:30.

When I arrived at the courthouse, I filled out a form requiring mostly demographic information. (This was somewhat difficult for me, as I had mistakenly left my reading glasses at home.) Potential jurors were shown a brief film about implicit bias, and the judge gave a lecture about being a juror. He also told us that the trial involved the sexual abuse of a minor and would likely last two days. Then a dozen of us—there were about 30 subpoenaed folks in the room—were seated separately to be questioned by a prosecutor and the defense attorney. Many of the questions we were asked were probing our ability to be objective. We learned during this process that several of the women had been molested as children, that one man had a religious objection to judging anybody under any circumstances, and that one man wearing a brace after knee surgery had difficulty sitting for long periods. Some of the questions by the defense attorney involved the credibility of teenagers. Apparently, one of the prosecution witnesses was to be a teenage girl. Oddly, I noticed that the defendant was better dressed than his attorney. Perhaps the lawyer was trying to look folksy.

When the questioning was over, the dozen potential jurors were given a break while the principals left to consult about who of our number would be on the jury. We had been told that the charges were only misdemeanor charges—felony charges are adjudicated in county, not municipal, courts—and the jury would consist of six regular jurors and one alternate. I thought it likely that the jury, or most of it, would be chosen from our group. I was wrong. Only three were selected; the rest were dismissed.

I was surprised by the courtroom procedure. From fictional dramas and actual trials I’d seen on television, I expected that those in the jury pool would be questioned individually by the prosecution and defense, after which they would immediately be selected for service or not. That procedure is surely more stressful for potential jurors than what I experienced today. Of course, I cannot know what transpired among judge, prosecutors—there were two—defense attorney, and defendant while they were out of the courtroom.

This was the third time I’ve been called for jury duty. The first time, I was excused because I was about to travel to a computer conference. The second time, I was asked many specific questions and made an initial cut, but not the final one. I suspect that our group today was selected based on the questions we answered on paper, so I likely made the first cut again.

I would like to know why I have never been selected. I may never serve on a jury, though I have always thought I would make a good juror because I am used to doing logical analysis. It was clear today, though, that the only evidence in the trial would be witness testimony, and jurors would need to evaluate the credibility of those witnesses. I’m not sure how good I am at that task.

Facebook Idiocy

For the second time in the past few weeks, I received this warning—reproduced here exactly—when trying to make a post on Facebook:

Your post may go against our Community Standards on violence and incitement

Your post looks similar to content that we’ve removed for going against our Community Standards. You can delete it now to avoid potential account restrictions.

What I was trying to post was this:

U.S. to Israel: Kill all the Palestinians you like, but you must feed the survivors.

Any reasonable person would understand this as ordinary political commentary, slightly exaggerated perhaps, but a normal observation about current U.S. and Israeli policy nevertheless. It certainly does not incite violence; implicitly, it deplores it.

What “community standards” does this violate? A standard about saying anything not a verifiable fact? I can cite Trump supporters who never post anything that’s true! Are any words related to violence forbidden? Would a phrase like “kill him with kindness” be flagged as inappropriate by Facebook?

I assume that an algorithm was behind my warning. If a person was, that person is an idiot. (I probably couldn’t say that on Facebook.)

The last time I received such a warning on Facebook, I said I wanted to strangle some public figure. I don’t remember who that was, but it was probably someone like Marjorie Taylor Green or Kari Lake. That wasn’t an actual threat, of course, but I see how it could be taken the wrong way is seen out of context. Facebook doesn’t appreciate irony.

Anyway, I decided not to post either comment but to write this commentary instead.

More Curve-Stitch Designs

Some readers may know of my longstanding interest in curve stitching, creating designs using only straight lines. Curve stitching began using physical objects, string and cardstock. I was introduced to such designs in junior high school, but I never employed the traditional materials. Instead, I, first drew designs with pencil and paper, then with drafting paper and India ink. The tedium of creating complex figures by hand led me to follow other pursuits for decades.

Eventually, I discovered that I could produce curve-stitch designs on my computer. I did so by programming in PostScript and began posting my work on my Web site, Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. More recently, I have converted PostScript files into Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) images that can be viewed at any level of magnification without loss of fidelity. (Earlier designs were posted as JPG or PNG files.)

The section of my Web site discussing and displaying my curve-stitch designs can be found here. In the past month or so, I have added four new pages of curve-stitch designs:

• Another Family of Designs—a group of designs based on many-sided polygons
• Some Accidental Designs—design inspired by programming mistakes
• Mystic Rose and Other Designs—various circular designs
• Millington-Inspired Designs—designs copied from or inspired by Jon Millington’s landmark book on  curve stitching

I invite readers to check out the new pages or the entire section of my Web site on curve stitching.

Sample design from “Millington-Inspired Designs”

Republican Malfeasance

In happier times, the two political parties worked together to make life better in America. Compromise was often necessary, but useful legislation actually got passed. Now, however, Republicans do not want to pass any legislation, no matter how necessary, if there is a danger that Democrats might get any credit for it. In particular, Republicans do not want to pass any popular legislation while a Democrat is in the White House.

The most blatant example of Republican malfeasance is Donald Trump’s directing his minions in Congress to reject the compromise border bill worked out in the Senate. To facilitate the passage of aid to Ukraine that is desperately needed, Democrats compromised on longstanding positions on immigration, adopting Republican policy preferences the GOP had no reason to think would ever be achieved. But Donald Trump instructed his minions in Congress to torpedo the compromise, lest President Biden get credit for passing a bill giving Republicans what they have always wanted. Being able to criticize Democrats in the upcoming presidential campaign for failing to deal with the “border crisis” was more important to Republicans than solving the reputed crisis. 

Republicans are no longer motivated by helping Americans. They are only interested in achieving and wielding political power. If we want beneficent and effective governing, we need to elect Democrats.
 

Thoughts on the Key Bridge Collapse

I awoke this morning to the news that the main span of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge was struck by a container ship and plunged into the Patapsco River. Dramatic video was already on the Web showing the accident. The ship, the Dali, apparently experienced a power failure and drifted into the south pier of the central span. Unsurprisingly, a collapse followed immediately. Apparently, the ship sent out a mayday message, and police were able to divert traffic before the I-695 bridge was hit. News reports this afternoon were raising questions about the bridge design.

The span in question was a continuous truss opened in 1977. There is no indication that the bridge was in any way defective.  It is difficult to imagine any that 1200-foot long bridge could survive a significant strike of a main support. Since the bridge was built, cargo ships have gotten much larger. The Dali is nearly a thousand feet long. Such a ship, even at low speed, carries enormous momentum. The bridge could perhaps have been protected by a fender or wall to protect the main piers. But any such protective obstacle would need to be massive indeed given the size of current cargo ships.

The immediate question is what a replacement for the bridge should look like. One attractive alternative would be replacing the bridge with a tunnel. This would be an expensive, time-consuming, and disruptive option. I suspect a new bridge will be built instead. Although the main span of the Key Bridge was a continuous truss, its approaches were carried by a series of simple beam bridges built into the river. The most obvious and secure way to protect a new bridge from out-of-control vessels is to increase the span of the bridge, perhaps even putting its piers on dry land. This would require that the much longer bridge would need to be a suspension bridge. Not only would such a bridge be better protected from accidental damage but also it would allow for construction with hardly any negative impact on traffic in what is a vital shipping channel.

Today, I heard replacement of the Francis Scott Key bridge compared to the rapid bridge replacements effected recently in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Such comparisons are absurd. The task faced in Baltimore is enormous and will, in any case, take years.

We will have to wait to see what sort of replacement roadway is ultimately chosen. Neither a cheap nor a fast replacement is possible.

Solar Eclipse

There is much excitement in Clifton Springs, N.Y., and nearby communities about the total eclipse of the sun that will be visible here on April 8. How visible is yet to be determined. April 8 is often cloudy, though an eclipse is an extraordinary and rare event even on an overcast day. Many organizations are planning viewing and celebratory events. I plan to attend the day-long program sponsored by the Clifton Springs Library in the park across the street from the library and a block from my apartment. The program ends with dinner and dancing.

The other day, I walked a block down Main Street to visit Main Street Arts, whose current exhibition is called “Path of Totality.” Although I wasn’t looking for inspiration, the exhibition perhaps had me thinking about the eclipse as I worked on some new curve-stitch designs for my Web site. I don’t normally name my designs, but I decided that the image below should be called “Solar Eclipse.” The design was one of a family of related images I was treating as simple abstractions. When I saw this design, however, it was impossible not to think of the coming eclipse. I thought readers would like to see it.

Solar Eclipse

A scalable version of “Solar Eclipse” can be seen here. I considered several similar designs, by the way, which had a smaller dark center. I could change my mind, but the image here is my current favorite.

The Supreme Court Deprecates the Fourteenth Amendment

To the suprise of few Supreme Court watchers, the high court ruled on March 4 in Trump v. Anderson that Colorado did not have the power to remove Donald Trump from the Republican primary ballot on the basis of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court did not consider whether Trump “having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” The court declared that “responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States.”

Upholding Colorado’s right to remove Trump’s name from the primary ballot would, according to Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson “create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles.” In separate concurring opinions, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson; and Justice Barrett complain that the court should have gone no further than overturning the Colorado action. Instead, the majority decided matters not at issue in the case and insisted that only Congress can disqualify a candidate under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As an aside, I offer my own view of what the court should have done. It should have observed that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the Colorado case, as the matter at hand was Trump’s seeking his party’s nomination, not his ascension to federal office. It should have further observed that an actual candidate cannot run for an office he or she cannot hold or, at the very least, cannot hold the office sought irrespective of the election outcome. In a perfect world, this would discourage the Republican Party, by whatever mechanism, from making Trump its nominee. In our imperfect world, such a decision would likely kick the can down the road. If Trump became the GOP nominee, some federal decision would need to be made that he could not run. This decision, which would surely be challenged in court, could be made by the Attorney General. Ultimately, the real question would then have to be dealt with, likely by the Supreme Court: was Donald Trump indeed an oathbreaking insurrectionist.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appears to have made it virtually impossible to derail Trump’s attempt to again become president on the basis of the Constitution. It is inconceivable that the current Congress will disqualify Trump if only Congress can disqualify him under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not require an act of Congress to disqualify a presidential candidate not born in the United States or under the age of 35. Why should it require an act of Congress to disqualify an oathbreaking insurrectionist?

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson point out the ludicrousness of the court’s requiring Congress to determine disqualification based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation.

I fear that the hope that the Fourteenth Amendment can save us from a second Trump term has been dashed. Whether Donald Trump or the Supreme Court is the greater threat to the Republic is an open question.

Republicans Are Not Conservatives

I am tired of the media characterizing the Republican Party or Republican politicians as conservative. The party is not interested in conserving anything other than white supremacy and the unconstrained ability of corporations and billionaires to act as they see fit. It would be more proper to characterize Republicanism as anti-woke rather than conservative, where woke entails freedom of speech, freedom to read, freedom to demonstrate, freedom to vote, freedom over one’s own body, equal justice under law, nondiscriminatory treatment regarding race, creed, sex, or sexual identity, and the ability of the government to seek the common good.

Reporters should insist that nearly all Republicans are not conservatives, but reactionaries or regressives. Moreover, Republicans who are not the most radical of right-wingers—Nikki Haley comes most readily to mind—are not moderates. They, too, are reactionaries. Being a conservative, leaving things as they are, is a moderate position. Wanting to dismantle recent innovations and return to earlier times is reactionary. Wanting to change society to increase personal liberty and protect citizens from misfortune and the rapaciousness of their fellow citizens is a liberal position. Conservatives can be found in both parties, but, in 2024, are rare in each. Republicans are by-and-large reactions, and Democrats are by-and-large liberals.

Vote for liberals, or, if you must, for moderates. That means voting for Democrats to restore sanity to the Republic.

Government Inefficiency

As I wrote on February 8, I found my misplaced passport and immediately realized it had expired. The next day, I had a new passport photo taken and filled out an application on line for a renewal. The Web site for filing my application was well-designed, but it took me a couple of tries to enter all the information correctly. (I made the mistake of declaring that I was done, printed the application, and caught my errors when I looked it over. My fault!) When I finally had a proper application in hand, I mailed it, along with my old passport that afternoon, at 3:54 pm, February 9, to be exact. That was on a Friday. The Postal Service indicated that my envelope was delivered to the addressed post office box on Sunday. I didn’t expect to see a new passport anytime soon.

Imagine my surprise and delight when I received my new passport in this morning’s mail. The passport, with impressive new security features, is valid through February 25, 2034. The last time I renewed my passport, my old one was returned to me voided. Apparently, that practice has been discontinued.

Much has been said about government delay and inefficiency—don’t get me started about the Supreme Court—but both the Postal Service and State Department far exceeded my expectations. My application was turned around in just over two weeks. The horror stories I had been hearing about how long it takes to get a passport were apparently overblown. Now if only American justice could be as efficient!

Alabama and Frozen Embryo Personhood

The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that an embryo created via in vitro fertilization (IVF) is a person, a child, and its destruction can result in a wrongful-death lawsuit under Alabama law. The court seems to have been either ignorant or indifferent to the consequences of this decision, which was clearly influenced by the “Christian” anti-abortion movement. Predictably, IVF in Alabama has come to an immediate standstill, as everyone is trying to figure out the implications of the Supreme Court decision.

IVF is most often used by couples who have had difficulty achieving a pregnancy in the usual fashion. IVF can be unpleasant, expensive, and frustrating. Those who embark on their IVF journey must be highly motivated to have a child. Using drugs and minor surgery, multiple eggs are typically harvested from the woman. They are then fertilized by sperm in the laboratory and are allowed to grow briefly into embryos. The embryos can be screened for genetic abnormalities at this point. An immediate attempt can be made to implant an embryo to produce a pregnancy, or embryos can be frozen for future use. Implantation is often unsuccessful, so having multiple embryos in reserve provides a necessary backup. It is not uncommon for several implantations to fail before a pregnancy is achieved. Unused embryos are either dedicated to research or discarded.

The Alabama case involved the accidental destruction of embryos. In a “normal” state—a state not controlled by far-right Republicans—a couple owning unused embryos destroyed by another party without permission would have a cause of action against that party, but not one involving wrongful death. Notice, however, since Alabama now views a frozen embryo as a person, the couple cannot be said to own it. Of greater concern, also growing out of the person status of the embryo, is the question of whether a prosecutor could indict the destroying party for murder. I see no reason why not! This is a serious concern for IVF providers who are repeatedly responsible for destroying embryos.

If a couple using IVF has no further use for their (see above) frozen embryos, it would seem that those embryos need to be preserved forever, since the state disapproves of killing children. This is, I suggest, insane. Can the embryos be taken out of state and disposed of? Who knows? The state of Alabama may assert that killing your children out of state is the same as killing them in Alabama.

Until these issues are clarified (or the state of Alabama comes to its senses), IVF in Alabama is pretty much impossible. Couples wanting to employ IVF may have to move to another state.

There may be other consequences of embryos becoming people. Will embryos result in tax deductions or gain other government benefits because of their personhood?

Anti-abortion militants have applauded the Alabama decision. There is at least some irony here. The militants pretend to want to protect children, yet the decision will prevent highly motivated couples from having children to begin with. Well, those couples can love their embryos, who neither requite their love nor ever develop into real human beings, only into a perpetual obligations.

Thoughts on Mardi Gras Parades

Today is Mardi Gras. Both Sunday and today (Tuesday, of course), I’ve watched New Orleans Mardi Gras parades on the Web. I have not been in New Orleans for Mardi Gras for a very long time, but, in many ways, parades have not changed all that much.

There certainly have been improvements over the years. There are more krewes (and correspondingly more parades), and membership in a krewe is no longer limited to the New Orleans elite. Night parades are lit by electric lights rather than by the slightly scary flambeaux. (A flambeau was once dropped on the ground in front of me. Fortunately, I was old enough that the incident didn’t leave me with a permanent emotional scar.) Throws have become more varied and interesting. In addition to the classic strings of beads, there are sunglasses, neck pillows, illuminated caps, socks unique to particular floats, and other imaginative trinkets.

Some changes would be welcome. Parade units—floats, bands, mounted riders, etc.—tend to become separated from one another, often producing long delays between the arrival of units at a given location. In an era of easy wireless communication, there is no excuse for all units not halting or moving in unison.

The other aspect of parades that has remained unchanged for as long as I can remember is having floats pulled by tractors. Floats in the Rose Parade are self-propelled, a more complex but more visually attractive technology. A positive innovation is the arrival of tandem floats, essentially trains of two or more wagons pulled by a single tractor.

I got to see the Zulu parade for the first time today. Zulu has an all-black krewe. Whereas riders on the floats of most parades are masked, most riders in Zulu appear in blackface. Zulu has always been known for its unique throws—hand-painted small coconuts. 

I also saw members of the Half-Fast Walking Club, a group founded by the late clarinetist Pete Fountain. The walkers are part of no parade.

As a former Army bandsman, I pay particular attention to bands in the parades. High school, college, and military bands march during the Mardi Gras season. Even without identifying banners, the three types of bands are easily distinguished. Military bands, for example, march in perfectly straight ranks and are led by drum majors who know how to use a mace to telegraph smartly everything the band needs to know.

Near all high school bands do a poor job of keeping their lines straight. They often have multiple drum majors, none of whom seem to understand what can be done with a mace other than dance around with it. I suspect that high school band directors are reluctant to designate a single drum major and teach him—it always seems to be a him—how to do his job in high style. Drummers, who used to provide a straightforward cadence for marching, now seem to have become bands of their own, often providing more interesting music than the full band. On the other hand, I would not like to march to them. Oh, and band members need to know that marching is not just walking.

College bands, the largest groups, tend to be more disciplined than high school bands but less regimented than military bands. Among college bands, I saw coördinated movements of band members—I’m tempted to call them dance movements—that were not my cup of tea, but which were well-executed.

Finally, I have to say that I would have liked to see more military bands. And I would have liked to have heard more classic military marches (by Sousa, Alford, Fillmore, etc.) played by any of the bands.

Who Owns the Train?

I have recently heard several radio stories relating to rail safety. The stories were mostly occasioned by the anniversary of the Norfolk Southern freight train derailment at East Palestine, Ohio, on February 3, 2023. More often than not, these stories identify the train involved in the accident as being owned by Norfolk Southern.

Seldom is any train owned by a single railroad in the sense that the locomotive(s) and all the railcars of the train belong to the same railroad, and the train is operated by employees of that railroad. More commonly, a train is operated and dispatched by employees of a given railroad. The locomotives may be owned by that railroad and may be running on that railroad’s tracks, but the railcars making up the train are generally owned by a variety of railroads and other entities, shippers and car lessors. There are many variations on this arrangement—motive power may be supplied by locomotives from multiple railroads, for example—but one railroad is responsible for operating the train, and the cars behind the locomotives have a variety of owners.

The train involved in the East Palestine accident was a Norfolk Southern train, but the train was not owned by Norfolk Southern. Alternatively, it can be said that it was Norfolk Southern’s train or was a train operated by Norfolk Southern. Journalists, take note.

Moving Woes

All kinds of things can go wrong when moving to a new home. Belongings can get lost, broken, or misplaced. You can also move things you wish you had left behind or fail to move things you want to use. In many ways, my move from Indiana, Pa., to Clifton Springs, N.Y., went smoothly. Since I was moving to a one-bedroom apartment, many of my belongings, particularly furniture, could not come along with me. I was fortunate in having an auctioneer (Mike Charnego) who would sell off manny of those left-behind objects for me. This didn’t earn me a boatload of money, but it simplified my move and helped me avoid extra work and anxiety.

My movers (McNaughton Moving and Storage, agent for Allied Van Lines) did a fine job. I did some packing but left the hard packing to them. (I didn’t touch the kitchen, for example.) The movers had to make three stops in Indiana, one in Geneva, N.Y., and one in Clifton Springs. Everything happened on schedule and without loss or damage.

It wasn’t long after my move that I realized that I was missing the pendulum of my Howard-Miller wall clock. The clock, weights, and pendulum had been packed separately when the clock was stored. Not only had Howard-Miller been unhelpful in my attempt to replace the pendulum, but it even denied any knowledge of my clock’s model. Howard-Miller did, however, give me the name of a clockmaker (No-Time Clock Service) in nearby Penn-Yan. No-Time assured me that the pendulum could be replaced and put me on a waiting list for complete clock service. Eventually, I was contacted by Mr. Charnego, who questioned why he was in possession of a clock pendulum. This solved the mystery of the missing component, and he agreed to send the pendulum to me.

My clock was on the waiting list for service for about a year, but I took it to Penn-Yan a couple of weeks ago. I’m waiting to hear when servicing the clock will have been completed. The clock problem, in principle, is on the way to being solved.

I have an extensive library, but I was to have limited shelf space in the new apartment. I discarded many books, particularly computer science textbooks. My railroading and church-related books were slated to come to Clifton Springs, along with a miscellaneous collection of books on other topics. The remaining books went to my son’s garage in Geneva. (The house contains many bookshelves, all of which are pretty much filled.) Every so often I find that I want to see one of the books in the garage, but, to date, I have not begun to examine those books systematically.

I have experienced a good deal of anxiety about not having found my passport. I used to keep it in the top drawer of a chest of drawers. My long-expired passport is there, but my most recent one is not. I have looked all over for the passport to no avail. I simply could not think where it might be. I was sure that it had arrived in Clifton Springs, as I had taken it to the Department of Motor Vehicles in Canandaigua when I registered my car and applied for my New York driver’s license shortly after my move. I’m not planning to do a lot of foreign travel, but I am now close to Canada and may again want to visit some Ontario wineries, a trip that will require a passport.

Last night, either asleep or awake, I remembered that had taken both my Honda file folder and my Army records file folder to the DMV. I had already looked in the Honda folder without finding the passport. This morning, however, I found the passport in the Army records folder. Apparently, I brought the folder home with the passport inside and put the folder into my file cabinet without removing the passport.

The good news is that my passport has at last been found. The bad news is that it expired last month. Now I have to renew it. 

The Passport