The U.S. Should Play Hardball with Israel

Israel has long given the U.S. government reasons to be unhappy with its actions (in the West Bank, for instance). President Biden is clearly unhappy with Israel’s current war in Gaza, and his quiet diplomacy is having no discernable effect.

The reality is that the Israeli military cannot continue its prosecution of the Gaza war without American support and weaponry. Isn’t it time to play hardball? We should tell Benjamin Netanyahu that the U.S. will suspend all aid to Israel until his war on Gaza stops. If we fail to do that, living conditions in Gaza will continue to deteriorate for whoever the IDF has failed to kill, and the desire of Palestinians to wipe Israel off the map will only intensify.

U.S. tough love applied to Israel will not only benefit Palestinians but will also be in Israel’s interest. It may not, however, be in Netanyahu’s interest, who needs to remain in power to avoid legal jeopardy in his own country for his evident corruption. That, of course, is not America’s problem,.

All Comments Are Welcome

A reader complained recently about being unable to leave a comment on this blog because a Google account was necessary to do so. As it happens, I had mistakenly configured the blog to require a Google account to comment. This was a mistake that has now been corrected. Anyone can leave a comment.

I expect those commenting to use a name, preferably their own, but it is OK to make up a name. The main reason for this is to associate all the comments from a given person. In general, I do not allow anonymous comments, although I have on occasion allowed an anonymous post when I have thought the comment important enough.

All comments are subject to approval. Comments containing profanity or links to sites with irrelevant content are instantly rejected.

I apologize for past inconveniences.

These days, most visitors arrive here from Facebook. It is tempting to comment on a post on Lionel Deimel’s Web Log on Facebook. My preference, however, is that you comment here, where the comment will forever be associated with the essay that elicited it. You can, of course, send me e-mail.

Thanks for reading.

Why Trump Followers Follow Trump

Every day brings a new essay attempting to explain the popularity of Donald Trump. There is no single reason why citizens not only approve of this faux real-estate tycoon turned politician but support him with a passion both perplexing and alarming. Alas, pundits have yet to identify an intervention likely to rescue the misbegotten from the clutches of the Trump cult. Certainly, I don’t know how to eliminate or even diminish the influence of Donald Trump, but I want to offer my own thoughts about his popularity.

The United States, almost more than any other country, has a strong tradition of freedom of speech, albeit a tradition being challenged by certain Republican governors of late. We have embraced the theory that bad or evil speech can be countered by good or righteous speech. The theory seemed validated at a time when this country hosted myriad newspapers, magazines, and newsletters of every imaginable stripe. That time, however, has largely passed. All too many Americans rely on social media and Fox News for their view of the larger world. If someone is always watching Fox News and other far-right “news” outlets, they are unlikely to be watching MSNBC, CNN, or even NBC, ABC, or CBS. Nor are they reading The New York Times or The Washington Post. These people are constantly exposed to Trump and far-right propaganda. Opposing speech has no way to reach them. Consumers of more mainstream media, on the other hand, get a fair taste of right-wing ideas even though they are being reported secondhand. Even if the Trump media world does not grow larger, its acolytes of the Trump “base” daily grow more zealous.

Although this is surely not true of all Trump supporters, many followers like Trump because they are like and identify with him. This is probably even more distressing than the disjoint media universes in which citizens find themselves. Trump is a detestable human being, possessing a combination of traits traditionally viewed negatively, particularly by major religions. He is mean, boastful, self-centered, dishonest, mendacious, vulgar, hateful, litigious, racist, misogynistic, hypocritical, and ignorant. And he appeals to people who share many of these traits, particularly those who are misogynistic racists. Such supporters will not abandon Trump as long as they are not themselves reformed. Democrats can write off this group.

Some support Trump because they mistake braggadocio for strength and competence. These people believe the country needs a strongman to take hold of the reins of government. They were not paying attention during civics class or had no civics education at all. They love their country for all the wrong reasons. And they may believe, mistakenly, that the country is best run by a “businessman.” The government is not a business, however, and cannot afford to be run like one. Moreover, Trump is an excellent con man but a poor businessman, who has been plagued by bankruptcies and lawsuits. He is not a good businessman, even though he has played one on TV.

No doubt, some voters, unhappy with their lives or their view of the government, are taken in by Trump’s assertion that “I am your retribution.” Trump does not give a damn about such people. The only retribution of interest to him is his own. And he has an elaborate plan for extracting that retribution from his opponents should he again be elected president.

It is often overlooked that a Trump speech is surprisingly short on policy ideas. (Significantly, the GOP didn’t even bother to offer a platform in the 2000 election.) Trump may talk about his wall, of course, but most of his speeches are devoted to ad hominem attacks on the government or on Joe Biden. His speeches are all about how wonderful he is and how terrible everyone else is. In a sense, this is a clever strategy. It is difficult to criticize his policy positions, as they are almost nonexistent. Instead, his followers can read into a Trump speech whatever they like. Thus, Trump can appeal to an audience holding a variety of grievances. The lack of true substance is obscured by Trump’s folksy, repetitious style.

One hopes that, should Trump become the GOP nominee, he will be unable to appeal successfully to a general electorate by avoiding taking a stand on anything other than the qualification of Joe Biden. Democrats will have a hard time pinning down Trump on anything and will, in any case, find it difficult to persuade the Trump faithful to abandon their cult leader. Instead, this election is likely to depend principally on turnout. We probably cannot throw Trump into prison fast enough to be able to argue that governing from federal prison is a bad idea.

There Really Is a Border Crisis

I admit that I was dismissive, contemptuous even, of President Trump’s animosity toward immigrants. His opposition to immigration seemed a cynical campaign issue and his border wall a boondoggle. Ironically, both Democrats and Republicans have declared our immigration system dysfunctional, but for years, they have been unable to agree on a reform of it. Republicans have been especially reluctant to tackle the issue in a way likely to produce legislative agreement, as it has proven such an effective campaign issue.

Although the phrase “border crisis” has been thrown about a lot in the past few years, we do indeed seem to be experiencing a border crisis in 2024. Border cities are being overwhelmed by immigrants from the south and now, with those immigrants being shipped north by Republican politicians, northern cities are likewise seeing their resources taxed by the new arrivals. And people allowed to stay in the United States with an asylum claim are told that their case will be adjudicated years from now. Not only is this situation untenable, but it represents a serious cloud over the re-election prospects of President Biden. Democrats need to improve this situation, at least somewhat, soon. Republicans, on the other hand, have an incentive to ensure that doesn’t happen.

I wish I knew what the Biden administration could do in the short term to address what really is a border crisis. What is most needed is money for more judges to handle not only new asylum claims but also the backlog of such claims. We likely also need more agents patrolling the border, which also costs money. At the very least, the administration needs to acknowledge that border problems are not simply a figment of Republican imagination. It also needs to declare a willingness to address it.

At the moment, of course, House Republicans are demanding border concessions from the administration in exchange for aid to Ukraine. Although I fear what the administration might give up in response to this blackmail, it is important to note that any concessions could be modified in the future. No likely concessions will “solve” the border crisis. If, on the other hand, Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, the victory will not only be more or less permanent for our ally but will threaten all of Western Europe. 

Lacking immediate solutions to the border crisis, I can at least offer what I hope are useful observations. The first of these is that immigration has always been and continues to be useful. We seem to have a neverending supply of jobs that are unattractive to current citizens. We are producing fewer babies that will become future workers, and our population is becoming older, with increasing numbers of retirees. It is unclear whether increased border security and prompt adjudication of asylum claims could reduce the flood of humanity seeking to enter this country to a level adequate to meet employment needs without undue increases in social spending or depression of the overall wage level. (This latter concern is beloved of Republicans but largely dismissed by economists.)

Why, we must ask, are so many people seeking to enter the United States? Obviously, one’s prospects for a good life are better in the U.S. than, say Panama or Mexico. Asylum seekers are assumed to be fleeing untenable conditions in their home country, yet they typically pass through several countries assuredly capable of offering better living conditions than those in the ones they are fleeing. Why do they not seek asylum in those countries? The answer is twofold. First, if you are going to risk your life for a better existence, why settle for a marginally better life? Why not reach for the gold ring of an American lifestyle? Second, countries such as Mexico, for whatever reason, are not interested in adding migrants headed to the U.S. to their own populations.

We tend to think of asylum as designed for individuals and their families facing persecution from their government or hostility from criminals or criminal groups. Unfortunately, whole countries can become terrible places to live, thereby sending hoards of immigrants toward the United States. We have to recognize, however, that we cannot accommodate every persecuted person in the world, which would entail almost entire populations of certain countries. In our own defense, we must be discriminating about who we can allow to enter the country.

Finally, it is worth noting that walls, historically, have been of limited use in keeping foreigners at bay, a lesson recently learned by Israel. Whereas walls may be of some use on our southern border, they create problems not always obvious to legislators. In particular, a southern border wall can prevent the movement of animals across the border, which may be necessary for their livelihood.

To Joe Biden and his administration, all I can say is “good luck!”

Trump and the Fourteenth Amendment

The Supreme Court has chosen to consider Donald Trump’s appeal from the Colorado decision that his name should not appear on the Republican primary ballot. There is much speculation about what the court will do in this case. Many would argue that Trump is indeed ineligible to again hold the office of president under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although that philosophy has been applied with a healthy dose of hypocrisy, the court’s embrace of originalism would seem to incline it to ratify the Colorado decision, possibly leading to Trump’s being removed from all ballots involving federal office.

The consensus seems to be that the court will not do that, partly because a third of the justices owe their appointment to a President Trump and because such a decision would upset Trump supporters and lead to civil unrest. The former argument is illegitimate and the latter argument seems weak, given that the Dobbs decision suggests that the justices do not give a damn about public reaction to their rulings. It is probably fair to say, however, that there will be significant public disgust resulting from whatever the court decides.

It is widely believed that the court will somehow duck the issue at hand. Many tactics for doing this have been suggested, most of which seem farfetched. I do think the court has an out that, at the very least, buys time for the country and the court. The court could simply say that the Constitution only suggests that Trump cannot be president but says nothing about his running for president. Winning the Colorado primary, after all, only advances Trump’s chances of becoming a candidate for office. The court could therefore rule that Trump cannot be barred from running in presidential primaries.

If the court adopts this strategy, it is only likely to be forced to allow or not allow Trump to seek the presidency if Trump actually wins the Republican nomination. Alas, that situation seems likely.

A New Lullaby

For whatever reason, I haven’t written much poetry lately. Since I moved to Clifton Springs, however, I have had opportunities to read some of my poems, and this is providing some incentive to become more productive. The 5/18/2023 birth of my grandson has also provided inspiration. I wrote an acrostic poem based on his name “Tobias,” but the poem requires too much explanation to make posting it worthwhile.

I’m a big fan of The Seekers, and their song “Morningtown Ride” gave me the idea of writing a lullaby for Tobias René Deimel Flum Wagner. Two opening lines occurred to me walking home from church last Sunday, and, in a few days, I had both lyrics and music. My lullaby, cleverly titled “Lullaby,” lacks the clever imagery of the Seekers song—this seems to be a common feature of so many lullabies—and it can reasonably be song to any infant, not only my grandson. The lines are very short, which presented difficulties in devising a tune for the lyrics. You can read my effort and listen to my first and second try at finding a tune here.

Terri Schiavo, Revisited

Anyone in the habit of recording one’s thoughts risks future embarrassment when those remarks are revisited years later. For a time when I was a young professor, I wrote short essays every morning and posted them on my office door. Some of those efforts I would not write today.

These thoughts were occasioned by my having watched the MSNBC documentary Between Life & Death: Terri Schiavo’s Story last night. The film caused me to reread my own commentary on the Terri Schiavo episode on my Web site. Happily, I found that “What’s It All About, Terri?” fairly describes the Schiavo affair and offers a viewpoint I can continue to support today. The facts presented in Between Life & Death are consistent with what I wrote nearly two decades ago.

If you are not familiar with the Terri Schiavo affair, you should know that this woman, in a persistent vegetative state, became the focus of a long-running contest between her husband, who wanted to remove her feeding tube and let her die, and her parents, who seemingly wanted to keep her alive indefinitely in the irrational hope that she could eventually recover. Schiavo’s brain, however, had essentially turned to mush. A court ultimately allowed the feeding tube to be removed, but the case became a national cause célèbre engaging myriad advocacy groups and self-serving politicians. Congress even passed a law signed by President Bush to address Schiavo’s situation.

Terri suffered cardiac arrest in 1990 and, without ever regaining consciousness, was allowed to die 15 years later.

Fisk Jubilee Singers

I attended a concert of the Fisk Jubilee Singers at the Smith Opera House in Geneva, New York, last Saturday night. The concert was something of a homecoming, as the singers had once before performed at the Smith. That performance was in 1895, when the Smith was less than a year old. As the performance was marvelous, we can hope that the singing group does not wait another 128 years to perform in the Finger Lakes.

 I was not quite sure what to expect, though I knew that the group sang Negro spirituals. In fact, there were 15 black Fisk students singing acapella. There was no director and no risers. The students came from across the country, but only one was from the South. (That one was from Austin.) I found this surprising. Many, though not all, were music majors.

Fisk was established after the Civil War to provide a liberal arts education to the recently emancipated. In 1871, it was on the verge of bankruptcy but was saved by sending a chorus around the country singing slave songs that were not well-known within the general population. The Fisk Jubilee Singers sang at the White House, toured Europe, and sang for Queen Victoria.

The group sang what are referred to as concert spirituals. I expected the usual, somewhat raucous, gospel music I associate with the black church. Instead, I was treated to the velvety smooth sound of sophisticated arrangements of mostly familial gospel tunes delivered at a leisurely pace. The house was nearly full, and the audience was enthusiastic.

If you have a chance to hear this group, do take advantage of the opportunity.

No Eclipse

 The last time I experienced a partial eclipse of the sun was August 21, 2017. Although my track record for seeing astronomical phenomena unobscured by clouds is poor, I actually saw a diminished sun on that date.

I had hoped to see a bit of an eclipse today. In my neck of the woods, only 20 or 30 percent of the sun was to be obscured, but any eclipse is worth seeing. Unfortunately, in my move to Clifton Springs, I seem to have lost or misplaced my eclipse glasses, but I had a backup plan involving a white surface and a large magnifier.

I was outside at the appointed time, but the day was so overcast—it was raining, in fact—that I couldn’t even tell in what direction the sun was, much less see it. Nevertheless, I thought I might see everything get darker. Well, I didn’t. Had I not known that an eclipse was taking place, I would have been blissfully unaware of it.

I’ll be in the path of a total eclipse next April. I’m hoping for better weather.

Terrible Customer Support: Nu Skin Edition

At the suggestion of my former eye doctor, I have been taking Pharmanex LifePak anti-aging packets, each of which contains four capsules. The packets come in a box of 60—essentially a two month’s supply—sent to me every two months by Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. My most recent shipment was on August 21. When that shipment arrived, I still had nearly a month’s worth of packets left. I wasn’t sure how shipments and usage had gotten out of sync, but I put the package in the pantry and thought no more about it.

On September 16, I received e-mail indicating that my next shipment would be on September 21. This was clearly inappropriate, and I telephoned Nu Skin today with the intention of changing the shipment date to November 21. The call did not go well. First, I dialed the telephone number listed on the September 16 message. This resulted in my hearing a recorded message to the effect that the Nu Skin number had been changed as of August 1.

I then called the new number. (Happily, there was a number to call, and my call was answered after a brief delay.) I explained my consternation over the September 16 message. I was told that, in fact, my next shipment would be on October 21. I received no explanation for the message that occasioned the call. October 21 was actually the expected shipping date given that the last shipment was on August 21. I explained, however, that I had not yet opened my last package, and I asked for the next shipment to be on November 21.

Incredibly, I was told that the computer system did not allow that change to be made today. To make the change, I would have to call back after October 1. I remarked on the failures of the IT department, noting also the outdated telephone number on the September 16 message. I was told that changing references to the former telephone number was in progress. I somehow managed not to scream at the agent, something I could do after the call. Instead, I asked that my standing order be canceled, so that I would never receive another shipment. I was assured that this would be done.

After the call, I was asked to complete a four-question survey about my telephone experience. I indicated that the call did not resolve my problem and that I was unhappy with the outcome. A few minutes later, I received an e-mail message confirming the cancellation. Rather than screaming after concluding the telephone call, I decided to write this essay.

Complaints about poor customer service are legion. Often, it is difficult even to figure out how to contact a representative of a company. (I have often failed to find a telephone number on a company Web site but found one through a Google search. I highly recommend this strategy.) Nu Skin deserves credit for publishing a customer service number and actually answering the number promptly. I’m not sure if the representative was a native speaker of English, but she spoke well enough that I had no trouble understanding her.

That said, what Nu Skin did was unforgivable. Why did I get the apparently erroneous September 16 message? Why did a message carry an outdated telephone number a month and a half after the number was changed? Why is the Nu Skin order tracking software so inflexible? Why did the agent make no effort to save an account from being canceled over such a simple problem?

There is no excuse for customer service such as I experienced today. I have a standing order for cat food from Chewy, Inc. Changing a shipping date for that order has been a snap. Perhaps Nu Skin can figure out how to operate as competently as Chewy.

Digital Invariants Discussion Revised

My treatment of PPDIs/Armstrong numbers on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago has been checked and revised. I have added a new theorem and revised a corollary that it affects. Although it remains to be proven that all bases above 2 contain non-trivial PPDIs, I can now confidently assert that {302}{1208}₅₁₃₀ is a PPDI. I’m sure my readers were eager to learn this. The discussion on my Web site begins here.

 

A Meditation on Donald Trump and Juries

 That Donald Trump may soon find himself in a courtroom at the defendant’s table has led me to think about juries generally and juries that may stand in judgment of the former president in particular.

I have never served on a jury, although I once came close to being selected. (I made a first cut, but was not included in the final selection.) Conventional wisdom declares that the more education one has the less likely you are to be chosen to be on a jury. My chance of ever being on a jury is likely slight.

It is sometimes argued that jury selection is the most critical aspect of a trial. Attorneys on each side want to select jurors likely to favor their side of the case. The task is difficult, as conspicuous indicators of bias regularly result in the dismissal of potential jurors. If the defendant is accused of killing a policeman, for example, relatives of police officers will surely be excluded from the jury pool.

In a criminal case, prosecutors look for people likely to possess strong law-and-order sentiments. Defense attorneys, on the other hand, seek sympathetic souls, particularly if the defense’s case is weak. An empathetic juror who doesn’t have the fortitude to stand up for his or her opinion, however, will likely be ineffective as an advocate for the defendant.

In principle, a jury should be objective and unbiased. Our adversarial judicial system, however, does not directly seek such a jury, instead relying on the interests of competing parties to select a panel likely to render a just verdict. This system works surprisingly well. Juries make news when they render verdicts widely thought to be incorrect, but such news is uncommon. Nevertheless, the time a jury spends deliberating is a time of great anxiety for all concerned.

Again in principle, the ideal juror should be capable of understanding both the law and the evidence and be able to relate one to the other. Potential jurors are typically given a questionnaire to rule out certain disqualifying characteristics. They are then questioned by attorneys on both sides. This process attempts to weed out the prejudiced and mentally unsuitable.

What potential jurors are not generally filtered for is logical thinking. It is easy for jurors to be led astray by emotion or to reach conclusions that do not strictly follow from the evidence, the law, and the charge of the judge. Being a juror is unlike nearly every other role one is likely to experience in life. One must take into account material presented in the courtroom and exclude from consideration everything else. Jurors are expected to use their common sense yet introduce into consideration no knowledge obtained outside the courtroom. This is, in a sense, contradictory, but it usually seems to work out in practice. For instance, a juror may appeal to his or her own experience but cannot introduce something heard on a television newscast about the defendant. It is difficult to know how strictly logical jury deliberations are in practice.

Because I have a doctorate in computer science with a minor in mathematics, I believe I can reason about evidence and the law particularly well. I believe this would make me an excellent juror, but attorneys on either side might consider me either unpredictable or an actual threat.

This brings us to the matter of Donald Trump. Although I believe that, as a juror in almost any criminal case, I could logically reach an objective, proper verdict, I am less certain in any case involving the former president. I would almost certainly believe Trump to be guilty going into the trial, whatever the charge. I think I could weigh the evidence fairly. If, however, I found the evidence wanting, I just might be tempted to vote guilty for the sake of the country. Although I doubt that situation would arise, I could become, legally speaking, a loose cannon. Defense attorneys will try to filter out anyone with proclivities such as mine. I wonder how hard that will be to do. How my Americans would, given the right circumstances, be tempted to engage in jury nullification?

Observations on the Recent GOP Debate

The GOP debate of presidential hopefuls on August 23 was mildly useful, though it illustrated again that the mechanics of these events are all wrong. 

Candidates at August 23, 2023 GOP Debate

First, let me offer a few quick observations.

The most animated participant, Vivek Ramaswamy, was insufferable and pretty much acted as a stand-in for the former president. He was born into a Hindu Brahmin family and appears to think that this automatically makes him a member of the highest caste in the United States. He is a businessman, and we have ample reason to believe that is a disastrous qualification for high office. Besides, he is barely old enough to be president. He will not go far, at least anytime soon.

Ron DeSantis, the personality-challenged Florida governor was unimpressive. Enough said.

The remaining candidates, except for Nikki Haley, were unremarkable. The former U.N. ambassador displayed a realization that the policy positions needed to obtain the GOP nomination are the same ones that will doom the standard bearer in the general election. She is clearly the strongest candidate and will therefore fail to be nominated.

Now, as to the debate mechanics. I should begin by saying that the moderators, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum of Fox News, largely asked reasonable and relevant questions. (The UFO question asked of Chris Christie was the exception.) They were hampered by two ongoing problems: the presence of an audience, and the lack of an adequate mechanism to enforce the agreed-upon rules of engagement.

I don’t know how the audience was selected, but it clearly favored the Republican Party in general and Donald Trump in particular.  Reactions of the local audience cannot but influence the remote audience and perhaps even the candidates themselves. Moreover, the audience interrupted the debate. It was unsurprising that Bret Baier felt the need to turn around and admonish the crowd, which was becoming unruly. (In my more mischievous moments, I’ve thought that it would be interesting to have a Democratic audience for a Republican debate.)

Disruptive audience reaction is not a new problem but is one that is easily ameliorated: eliminate the audience. Put them in another room with a remote feed, but remove them as a factor in debates. I suspect that getting a ticket to a debate is a perk offered by the network or the candidates. (As I said, I don’t know how the audience is selected.) Fine, give them a comfortable auditorium with a big TV screen and generous hors d’oeuvres. They can cheer and boo to their hearts’ content. Meanwhile, the debate can be held in a much smaller venue, perhaps in a television studio.

Then there is the matter of controlling the candidates themselves. It is clear that the rules for who can speak and in what circumstances are not self-enforcing. The moderators ringing a bell to indicate that a speaker’s time has expired was conspicuously useless in shutting anyone up. If candidates perceive that they can gain a rhetorical advantage by flouting the rules, they will do so. This has been shown to be true time and time again. The solution to uncontrolled debate is also simple: mute the microphone as soon as a candidate speaks beyond his or her allotted time. No one will be able to speak out of turn if an active microphone is not available. If a speaker is in the middle of a sentence, it may be appropriate to allow a three-second grace period before a microphone is cut off. This more aggressive timekeeping is probably best done by a technician. Not only do moderators already have enough to think about, but it is best not to give a candidate reason to be angry with a moderator, either during the debate or later.

My suggestions are not rocket science, and I surely am not the first person to think of them. Why haven’t they been implemented? As long as a debate is staged by a television network, there is an incentive to make the event as entertaining as possible. Audience reactions—to a point, anyway—and verbal fireworks among the participants are audience magnets, at least among those more interested in entertainment than politics. Nothing leads to changing the channel faster than a boring discussion. I suspect that even participants appreciate a certain anarchy in political debates. They are not above stealing more time than they deserve, and they want to display their passion or machismo. (Can a woman show machismo or is there another non-sexist word I could use?)

Of course, my suggestions will not be implemented. None of the participants seems to have an incentive to participate in a thoughtful, polite discussion.

Lock Him Up!

This evening, Rachel Maddow and Hillary Clinton are having a discussion as we await information about the just-issued indictment in Georgia. One of the matters they have spoken about is a proper sentence for Donald Trump. Clinton seems reluctant to say that Trump should go to prison.

I don’t remember when first I said I wanted to see Trump in prison, but it was a long time ago. I feel even stronger about the matter today. There are two reasons for desiring that result. First, it is important to make it clear that the undermining of the Republic that was the program of Donald Trump must never happen again and that the punishment for such behavior is sure and harsh. In addition, however, putting Trump in prison is a way to shut him up, to remove his poisonous influence from the body politic.

A say, as I have said before, “Lock him up!”

Meteor Hunting

This past weekend, I went meteor hunting. August, of course, is the month in which the Perseid Meteor Shower can be seen, and the celestial show was supposed to be at its zenith Saturday and Sunday. I have fond memories of my first encounter with the Perseids. I was attending family camp at Sheldon Calvary Camp, an Episcopal Church retreat on Lake Erie. I lay on the grass and watched one meteor after another one memorable night. I have been trying to duplicate that evening of wonder ever since.

To view the Perseids, one needs three things: the right timing, darkness, and a clear sky. I could generally get the timing right, but finding a place away from urban lights has always been a problem. And clear skies always seemed a big problem in southwestern Pennsylvania. Last year, on the condominium deck in a dimly lit development, I did see a handful of meteors, one of which was dramatic.

Having lived in Clifton Springs, New York, for less than a year, I wasn’t sure where I might find a good spot to view meteors. According to The New York Times, the best time to see meteors is between midnight and dawn. I am not such an astrology freak that I was willing to lose a major chunk of sleep to view the sky at the ideal hour. I thought I might have a fair shot of finding darkness at an earlier hour, and I hoped that the weather would coöperate.

Saturday afternoon had seen showers—the watery kind—and I wasn’t sure whether the cloud cover would prevent me from seeing anything in the sky. Nonetheless, I set out after 10 o’clock to have a look. There are two parks a block from my apartment, and I suspected that in one of those, it would be dark enough for meteor viewing. What I discovered is that this small village has a lot of illumination at night. There are streetlamps on Spring Street, lights from the apartments on Main Street, and, much to my surprise, bright lighting at the large pavilion in one of the parks. Nevertheless, I lay down on a paved path in the park near the pavilion and looked up at the sky. I saw some sky, but, mostly, I saw clouds. After 20 minutes or so, I gave up my search.

I decided to try my luck on Sunday. After 10 o’clock, I set out with water bottle and exercise mat. I walked around a bit looking for a dark spot and ended up on a pickleball court in the other park. I decided this position was dark enough. Moreover, lying on my exercise mat was considerably more comfortable than lying on concrete, as I had the night before. I lay on the pickleball court for about an hour. The sky was mostly clear, although some clouds drifted by from time to time.

I am happy to report that I did see meteors. I saw one really good one. There were others that I think I saw but cannot be sure about. They were faint, were not where I had been looking, and were visible for but a brief moment. Watching the sky was like an eye test I’ve been subjected to in which I had to press a button when I saw a flash but was often unsure whether I had seen something or not.

Although I had not duplicated my experience of 30 years earlier, I returned home. At least I had seen some meteors. Perhaps I will be more ambitious and lucky next year.

A Delightful Organ Concert

Organ in its present home,
the former Methodist Episcopal Church

On August 6, I attended an organ concert in Lodi, New York, some 36 miles from where I now live. A friend had made me aware of the concert; my usual sources of event information were silent on the matter. I am a fan of organs generally, but what attracted me to the recent concert was that the instrument being played was an 1852 instrument made by E. & G. G. Hook. (The instrument is Hook Opus 140. The Hook firm built more than 2500 organs over its lifetime.) The concert was sponsored by the Lodi Historical Society. The Historical Society owns the former church in which the organ is installed. Opus 140 was erected originally in Canandaigua, New York. The organ remains substantially as built, though the decoration on the visible pipes is a later addition.

The musicians are all members of the Sears family. Both Father David F. Sears and daughter Rebecca A. Sears hold doctoral degrees. Mother Permelia S. Sears has a master’s degree in organ performance. The entire program involved the organ. David played organ and piano; Permelia played organ and viola; and Rebecca played violin and piano. The concert was the only organ concert I can remember that included no music from any member of the Bach family. The music was from the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. The Sears family is apparently dedicated to playing old tracker-action organs, and they do a fine job of it.

The organ is a two-manual affair of 14 ranks. I am told it is tuned to a pitch of A=444 Hz using unequal temperament. Since it lacks the ability to choose a desired collection of ranks at the push of a button, the organ was often being played by one person while two other people were pulling and pushing stops. The 
Searses were resourceful in playing music intended for a larger instrument. There were occasionally two people at the console and, in a transcription of the Grand March from Aida, Rebecca played on the grand piano to compensate for the fact that the organ’s 16-foot pedal stop has only 13 pipes. The Aida March was surprisingly effective.

If you ever have an opportunity to hear these musicians in concert, be sure to avail yourself of it.

Organ and instrumentalists before concert
L to R: David, Permelia, Rebecca

“Yo”

I occasionally write a comment in response to an opinion piece from The New York Times. My thoughts may have little influence, but it is satisfying to express a strong opinion or point out a fact or idea not considered in the original essay.

I was frustrated today that, after reading “Is ‘Yo’ the Gender-Neutral Pronoun We’re Looking For?” by linguistics professor John McWhorter, I was not given the opportunity to leave a comment. Was the essay so controversial that the Times didn’t want to encourage a fight among its readers? Is Professor McWhorter too busy to be bothered with reader feedback? I’m not sure how often opinion pieces in the Times do not support reader comments, but never before have I wanted to write a response but was not given the opportunity to do so.

McWhorter correctly notes that the lack of a gender-neutral personal pronoun in English creates problems and that various neologisms have been offered to solve the problem. None has caught on. Actually, I don’t think “yo” is the solution. (Is there a declension for “yo” or is it the same in every case and number?) Actually, English has a gender-neutral pronoun: “it.” No one seems comfortable using that pronoun to refer to people, however. (There is no distinctive plural of “it,” of course, so this might be considered a problem.) I have often thought that we should refer to God as “It” if we truly believe that the deity is sexless. One could make a case for “They” to refer to the Trinity. But I digress.

McWhorter mentions the use of “they” as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun, suggesting that this usage might have a bright future. Frankly, it drives me crazy. I have often encountered such a “they” without a trigger warning that it is intended to refer to a single person. I then search the preceding text to figure out who are the persons “they” refers to.

Well, the Times hasn’t let me rant, but there are other venues for comment.

CDs from the Library

Since I arrived in Clifton Springs, New York, I have been borrowing CDs from the local library. The collection is not great—there are hardly any classical recordings, and the collection has not been updated in quite a while—but I have been able to find recordings of artists I already like and have listened to CDs of other artists about which I knew little.

I am especially fond of library collections of recorded music. When I was young, I borrowed LPs from the New Orleans Public Library. At the time, my knowledge of classical music was pretty much limited to that found in the 1940 Walt Disney film Fantasia. I may also have been familiar with Peter and the Wolf. I don’t remember if Peter led me to check out a recording of the Prokofiev Second Piano Concerto or whether I chose a recording of it at random. In any case, I listened to the concerto over and over and fell in love with Prokofiev’s music. I now own an extensive collection of Prokofiev recordings, sheet music, and biographies.

Perhaps you now understand why I was investigating the Clifton Springs Library CD collection as soon as I got a library card.

I can report on some of my experiences from doing so. My happiest discovery was the singing of Diana Krall. I may have encountered her once before on YouTube, but that hadn’t really registered. I plan to hear more of Ms. Krall. I borrowed a CD of Britney Spears to see what she is all about. I could not finish listening to it. I plan never to hear from her again. I took out a Taylor Swift CD. I actually listened to this several times without coming to hate her. She clearly has talent, but if I never hear her sing again, I will not regret it. 

I have checked out many recordings of singers I already knew and liked, among them Gordon Lightfoot, Carly Simon, James Taylor, and Willie Nelson.

The jewel case and liner notes—do people still use that term—for Taylor Swift’s Red is on my desk right now. I like the fact that the lyrics for all the tracks appear in the accompanying booklet. It is introduced by a “PROLOGUE” written by the artist. I am somewhat mystified by that booklet, however. To begin with, all the body text is set in red 8-point sans serif font. It is very hard to read. Lyrics, rather than being presented in the usual fashion, is run in with virgules separating the lines. This increases the reading difficulty. But the really strange feature of the text is the occasional substitution of a capital letter for what should be a lowercase one. (See the image below of a sample page of the booklet.) What is this all about? Was the text input by an incompetent typist? Is there some hidden message here only understood by Swifties? Who knows?

I will not become a Swifty myself. Swift’s music and subject matter don’t appeal to me, though Ms. Swift is easy on the eyes.

Well, it’s time to go back to the library for a new set of disks.

An Independence Day Meditation

Today, we celebrate what we view as the birth of the United States of America. Colonists on these shores declared their independence from Great Britain on this day two hundred forty-seven years ago. Having asserted their independence as a country, they needed to fight a war to secure it and thirteen years—how poetically appropriate!—to craft the outlines of a viable system of governance. The history-making Constitution of 1789 was soon amended by the Bill of Rights in 1791. Thirteen years later two additional perfecting amendments had been added to the Constitution.

That Constitution of 1804 and its interpretation by the Supreme Court remained the law of the land until the unresolved issue of slavery led to civil war. The victory of Union forces over the insurrectionist slave-holding states in 1865 was followed by the adoption of Amendments Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen, which ushered in a more democratic American government. Additional amendments have been made to the Constitution to expand democracy or to improve governmental operations. (Amendments Eighteen and Twenty-one are exceptions, of course, representing a fit of insanity and a national recovery therefrom.)

This brings us to today, when we would like to celebrate the nation’s two-hundred-forty-seven-year run without ambivalence. There will, of course, be ceremonies, speeches, concerts, fireworks, and picnics this July Fourth. But the thoughtful among us cannot but see the United States of America as being at an inflection point. Whereas some are celebrating expanded rights for themselves and similarly situated citizens obtained at the expense of others, many view the historic expansion of American liberty as facing a decline that may be difficult to reverse.

Although it seems especially intense in 2023, the nation is no stranger to conflict. Fortunately, conflict only once led to organized armed conflict. In the best of times, we have managed to compromise and move forward, sometimes in very small steps. There have been reverses—one thinks of the paroxysms of McCarthyism, for example—but the country has tended to recover from its ill-conceived excesses. Now, however, compromise is often viewed as surrender, and we all too often approach public policy decisions with a take-no-prisoners attitude. In a country once known for citizens’ propensity to band together in organizations formed for the improvement of society, we now find organizations of whatever ilk, including those of government itself, viewed with suspicion, if not outright hatred.

Addressing the nation in a Labor Day poem I wrote more than a decade ago, I penned the line “Where oh where did you go wrong?” There is no single answer to my question. We went wrong when Milton Friedman asserted that the corporation’s only obligation is to its shareholders. We went wrong when Ronald Reagan declared war on public-sector unions. We went wrong when Phyllis Schlafy almost single-handedly torpedoed the Equal Rights Amendment. We went wrong when Christian pastors chose to pursue political power rather than spiritual power. We went wrong when we stopped using antitrust legislation to curtail corporate power. We went wrong when Rupert Murdoch created a “news” channel that belied its name. We went wrong when the Federalist Society was created to capture the judiciary for corporate America. We went wrong when Evangelicals were convinced that abortion was evil in order to win their political allegiance to a wider agenda not in their best interest. We went wrong when Bill Clinton abandoned the downtrodden for legislation supported by their enemies. We went wrong when we fought wars with vague objectives and poor prospects for success. We went wrong when we let a Republican senator deny a Supreme Court nomination to a Democratic president. We went wrong when we elected a sociopath as president and unleashed the worst impulses that had lay dormant in the populace. We went wrong when we confused our own rights with our ability to curtail the rights of others. We continue to go wrong in believing that the effects of racism are no longer with us, even as racism persists.

One could build a long list of societal changes that would move our country toward the ideals we used to espouse—freedom of speech, freedom of worship, respect for all human beings, freedom to use one’s body as one sees fit, valuing public education to benefit not only individuals but also society at large, freedom from want, decent housing for all, and freedom from oppression by the rich and powerful. That list could be expanded. Generally, we need a newfound concern for society and a more modest concern for the individual.

Fortunately, the laundry list of projects that might seem to imply need not dismay us. What is needed, on one hand, is our support of institutions and organizations that make positive contributions to society. We need to offer our money and our help in any way we can. Second, we need to support the Democratic Party, as the Republican Party has become an instrument of destruction of what is best about America. Vote Democrat. Support Democrats. Argue for Democrats. If possible, run for public office yourself. The elected school board member of today can become the member of Congress in future years. So much of the change needed in this country can only be effected by Democratic legislators in sufficient numbers that their legislative agenda cannot be blocked by Republicans. We can hope that Democratic success will either result in reform of the Republican Party or in its replacement by a new party committed to traditional American values.

Some will find my analysis here obscenely partisan. I offer it without embarrassment. The Republican Party, financed as it is by billionaires who hide behind innocuous-sounding lobbying groups, is the greatest threat to our democracy.

The Great Seal proclaims the United States to be a new order of the ages (Novus ordo seclorum). We should be proud of that aspiration, even though we sometimes seem to fall prey to the vices of other societies in other times. Let us celebrate this day what our nation has already accomplished and pledge to help it “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Happy Independence Day.

Discrimination and the Student Loan Forgiveness Program

I have mixed feelings about the Supreme Court’s having struck down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program in Biden v. Nebraska two days ago. Indeed, there were strong arguments both for and against the program. Democrats were especially disappointed because it fulfilled a campaign promise made to a small but important group of voters, and it was expected to have a positive effect on the economy. Nevertheless, it was not supported broadly, and the process by which the administration sought to forgive student loans was questionable.

One of the arguments advanced against the program, however, deserves special comment. It was asserted that the plan discriminated against people who didn’t go to college or didn’t have student loans. This complaint misunderstands how the government works. The Fourteenth Amendment assures that people in similar circumstances must be treated equally. It does not assure that everything the government does benefits everyone equally.

Arguing that the loan forgiveness program was discriminatory has interesting, though pernicious implications. By this reasoning, I should be able to question the legitimacy of government subsidies to agriculture, the fossil fuel industry, and big sugar. After all, since I do not grow corn, process petroleum, or refine sugar, I am being discriminated against, since I am not a beneficiary of those subsidies. I consider those subsidies unwise and undemocratic, but an argument that they discriminate against me personally is simply ludicrous.