Esther & Handsome women

Esther and other ‘handsome’ women

Dedicated to the many ‘Esthers’ of this world who’ve passed my way

Ever see somebody and think,“that person’s name fits them”? In the never ending panorama of doctors being interviewed about the world’s most popular virus came a doctor named Esther Choo. The name Esther just fitted her. She just looked like an Esther (for you non-biblical scholars, the original Esther has her own book in the Old Testament).

 

It is my old habit, derived from writing too many words for too many years to find out the too many things I’m thinking, but found myself looking for one word to describe her. The word which occurred to me is of very archaic usage, always used as a high complement, and now seen only in old western movies: Dr. Esther is a ‘handsome’ woman.

‘Handsome’ is rarely used today as a feminine description, and it doesn’t necessarily refer to what in America we commonly call “beauty”. Rather, it denotes one’s observation of a woman with visible strength of character, determination, self-assurance. A woman who thinks highly enough of herself to take the effort to appear ‘special’. One might politely observe ‘handsome’ encompasses a certain number of years, a degree of experience with life, and an innate ability to know when to reveal one’s wisdom and when to demur.

Naturally my “thinking” led to an attempt to remember the ‘handsome’ women I’ve known. These are the few whom ‘off top of my head’ I remembered:

Of those met since we came to Indiana in 1996 two stick out in my business dealings, Lynne Llewellyn and Jeanne Burris, both from The Brazil Times.

Mostly, though, are the women of Christ Community Church. Kay and I used to have a thing between us, one or the other pointing out women who fit the ‘handsome’ description. Over the years our ‘list’ included Laura Carter, Julia Fine, Kathy Deal, Karen Webb, Sarah Russell, Julie Thistle, Beth Hines, Jennifer Ripple, ‘adopted niece’ Cathy Seward, and ‘fill-in as needed daughter’ Rachel Jones.

Yes, there are many others whose names do not leap readily to an old man’s memory, but these stand out as I ‘think’ this through. For most it would also be quite proper to call them ‘beautiful Christian women’. That, however, is a thought for a coming day.

Mary Trump Book

Latest Tell-All Trump book of the month hits fan

According to widely distributed pre-publication excerpts, President Trump's niece wrote in her new book that "it would be the end of American Democracy" if her uncle were to be re-elected in November. (AP)

The latest truth-about-trump book is out, “Too Much And Never Enough – How My Family Created The World’s Most Dangerous Man”. It was written by family member and living witness Mary Trump, PhD, a licensed Clinical Psychologist. It should certainly be must read for all MAGA types, who are the most unlikely to do so. As White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany was seen saying on July 7, 2020, “I’ve not seen the book, but it’s full of falsehoods”. [see Note at end]

This is certainly not the first, and probably not the last, insider book exposing ‘the real Donald Trump’ and his regime. Any one of them could contain error, they cannot all be false when they all basically agree.

For a number of reasons it is unlikely I will read it. Excerpts and reviews will be salacious enough for me. For starters:

“Mary Trump levels scathing criticism of the President in her forthcoming book, accusing him of ‘hubris and willful ignorance’ dating back to his early days.”

Other selected quotes from her book include:

“..the cruelty serves as a way to distract both from us and himself.”

“The lies may become true in his mind as soon as he utters them, but they are still lies. They are just another way to see what he can get away with; and so far he’s gotten away with everything.”

From what I now understand the book is an exposé of the life and secrets of the Trump family dating back to the real entrepreneur of the clan, Fred Trump. Growing up in such a family, Mary Trump says, created the person known as Donald John Trump. From all reports, and any detached observation, both input into and outcome of the subject of the book for any actual President is “unprecedented”.

One reason I will not read the book is that much about the corruption of the family and incompetence of ‘the Donald’ is already publicly known. As said, this is just one more in a long list of tell-all books and reports on the reality behind the facade of Donald J Trump. At least two books by reputable psychiatrists have preceded this one. Mary Trump promises merely to ‘put flesh on the bones’. For example:

“We must dispense with the idea of Donald being a strategically brilliant person, understanding media and politics. He doesn’t have a strategy, he never had. It was a fluke he won the election. He never thought he was going to win.”

Main reason I wouldn’t read it is that I probably wouldn’t understand the dynamics of such a family. My childhood influences were the opposite of his. If my parents ever disagreed about anything I do not to this day know what it would have been. I don’t suppose such a childhood environment serves well as preparation for the world of Too Much and Never Enough.

Note: As this blog is written Mary Trump is being sued for violation of 20-year old Non-Disclosure Agreement and thereby embargoed from public statements. However, there is no public record of which I am aware of any claim content of book contains “falsehoods” or suits for libel. The court has ordered that publication cannot be constrained. Publisher has completely fact-checked [the best example being specific naming of man who took SAT for Trump] and “stands by” content.

A more complete review can be found on the Chicago Times website:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-nyt-cb-mary-trump-book-highlights-20200707-gw3jcv5sl5ayxcadrhn5i7w4he-story.html

Supreme Court Decision on Trump

Yesterday, July 9, 2020 – A Day Which Will Live In History

“...but when the President does it, it’s not illegal.” President Richard Nixon, 1977 BBC interview.

On July 8 1979, forty-one years ago this week, the Supreme Court took up the case of The United States of America vs. Richard M Nixon. At that time it was the most significant judgment rendered by the Court involving a sitting President. In spite of what Nixon told the BBC, the Court ruled unanimously no President is above the law.

Like it or not, care or not, what came out of the Supreme Court the Ninth day July in this year of our Lord 2020 is the most important Presidential court decision since Richard Milhous Nixon died.

Solely based on this observation, these seem to be the issues involved:

     House of Representatives argued there is both specific legal grounds and established precedent for subpoena of tax and financial records for “legislative purposes”. A specific part of this was the law stating without qualification the Treasury Department “shall” turn over tax returns upon request from Congress. Trump attorneys argued, in essence, Congress exceeded it’s authority and was on a “witch hunt” with their multiple demands for a broad base of documents.

     A second case involved New York State investigation into tax evasion and bank fraud by Trump and the Trump businesses. That is, a charge of underlying crime for which evidence exist sufficient a court of competent jurisdiction issued a legal subpoena. This was instigated by the New York Attorney General following sworn testimony of long-time Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen. Additional emphasis was given by the exposé of the Trump family tax evasion over many years. These allegations based on tax and legal documents obtained by a New York newspaper and made available to the State. The Trump attorneys argued, in essence, the sitting President is above the law and cannot be ‘bothered’ with legal entanglements (that is, he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not be stopped). This was the Nixon-Barr legal theory of “Presidential Absolute Immunity”.

So, now we have decisions on the two matters before the court. According to my non-lawyer, as heard on TV summation, this is what I hear the Court saying:

United States vs. Donald J Trump, et al;

Court votes 7-2 to send back to lower courts with clarifying instructions

The Court confirmed Congress does have oversight with subpoena authority; but, that power “implicates special concerns regarding Presidential powers”. Lower court must test for legitimate, pertinent, and clear legislative purposes (that is, no, Congress can’t just “go fishing”).

Court votes 9-0 President does not have ‘absolute immunity’ as claimed

The most historic part of these decisions for some future generation: The President is not above the law. That is, he can’t, as was argued by the Solicitor General, “stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not get arrested.” The Court confirmed prescient that, as would any resident of the United States, the President must obey legitimate subpoenas and laws.

Left unclear to this observer, what is status of law requiring tax return “shall be provided”? Best guess is it got lost in the ‘over-broad’ approach by Democrats.

State of New York vs. Donald J Trump, et al.:

Court voted 7-2 favoring New York, to be sent back to lower courts

As with any lawfully issued subpoena, any state’s subpoena of the President must be honored. However,Trump does have option of going back to District court, which issued subpoena, and present an entirely new case based on arguments any non-President could make. So, it appears New York’s subpoena will be executed, maybe, sooner or later. Even if/when it is, any documentation would be privy solely of Grand Jury, not for public dispersion. Only if this whole mess goes to trial would any evidence gathered be made public. The Attorney General of New York has already announced the investigation, delayed by these trials, will resume immediately.

No One Knows What’s Next – It will certainly be weeks, months, even years before all this shakes out.

Questions which must be asked for some future generation:

Can Trump avoid New York state criminal conviction by forcing re-trials in Court, appealing again to Supreme Court, etc.? In short, can he ‘run out the clock’ while hoping for re-election or expiration of Statues of Limitation?

Why This Fight? Why not just hand over the tax returns as he promised repeatedly to do in order to get elected? The court doesn’t say he can’t, just that he must obey a subpoena. Is it just that once again he’s ‘painted himself into a corner’ and cannot admit he’s wrong? Do the guilty still “flee when no man pursue”?

Crimes Are Alleged to have been committed against the state of New York and the American people. Crimes which would have already been prosecuted if they had not involved a sitting President with personal fortune and dictatorial command. Given our history of delay in getting justice for the wealthy, will he even live long enough to be prosecuted for such crimes, much less be punished?

If He Is Indicted, can a sitting President be tried by state courts as would be any other defendant? A Constitutional question I can’t wait to hear debated.

Will He ‘Win With His Base’ no matter what? He has already fallen back on his tried-n-true tweets; blaming “the media” and Democrats; complaining he is not being treated ‘nice’. Would getting his devotees to not care a twit what the courts say be seen as a great victory for and by Trump?

Whatever TV Networks say pro or con – in 2020 what is acceptable in our political leaders? Subject for another time and tirade.

If Trump Defies the Supreme Court (as both Jackson and Lincoln had done), will America continue as a democratic Republic; or will we, as history portends, follow down the road of anarchy leading inevitably to an oligarchy controlled autocracy?

In the end it comes down to the next day which will live in history, November 3 2020.

Epilogue – yet another conspiracy theory

A legal matter I’ve been following since 2016, not a factor in the current cases, demonstrates the continuing pattern of criminal activity known to federal and state investigators:

     In 2015 an investigation of the Trump organization for money laundering, bank fraud, and tax evasion is ‘alleged’ to have been underway by SDNY division of the Justice Department. It is neither a state secret nor “fake news” the Feds were on to Trump and the connections to Russia money, they had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, and were close to going to a Federal Grand Jury. If I knew of it sitting in Brazil Indiana, surely the Trump people knew it. In an interview for “Dark Towers” author David Enrich was told by Deutsche personnel they had gathered the requested documents, but no one came for them. As of date of that interview documents were still in bank’s vault.

     Apparently by direction of the Obama administration, this investigation (being of non-violent, which-collar crimes) was suspended in deference to Trump campaign. To my knowledge no action has been publicly announced concerning this investigation after January 20 2016, and believe status of any subpoenas also remains unannounced.

     It is my personal theory, not confirmed by any source available to me, that the investigation and convictions of Michael Cohen were by-products of these SDNY investigations into the Trump businesses. As of today he has been remanded to prison while reporters were waiting outside for an anticipated statement from him on above reference Court rulings. More on this to come when he’s served his time, or a new administration wants to hear what else Mike knows.

Andrew Cuomo expectation

Cuomo, Trump, and Reasonable Expectation

When the pandemic began I could not have named the governor of New York. If I’d heard the name Cuomo, at best I might have remembered his father. Was a bit surprised to learn the old man was dead.

First time I noticed Gov. Cuomo was one of those televised press conferences. Only watched because all three cable networks were covering him and there was nothing better on TV. These conference, I learned, had been organized so the governor could speak directly and daily to the New York reporters. The cable networks picked up the broadcast primarily because the nation was desperate at that moment for informed, calm, decisive leadership. Leadership which we were unlikely to get from the White House just then.

When the virus came to New York, he admitted, he didn’t know much about it. But, he sat down and learned what he’d need to know. He surrounded himself with qualified advisors, listened, found a consensus as to what had to be done, and made a decision. He spoke as spokesman for the state and yielded to experts as appropriate. He did not need to contradict them, because they were in agreement before they went before the cameras.

Cuomo dealt with massive problems caused by the pandemic. Problems for which there was no road map. He did so with insufficient backup from the federal government, sometimes even interference and opposition. He did the only thing any citizen may ask, lead. He told how bad it was going to get, what New York would be called upon to do, and encouraged with what hope there was.

A lot has been made by detractors of some mistakes he made in the process. Other than Jesus of Nazareth I defy anyone to find a man who has made no mistake.

Faced with failures Cuomo did the only thing voters can ask: Took personal responsibility for all the choices he made, any harm done, and the unforeseen problems it caused by conditions he could not control.

Now Trump has ‘ordered’ all the schools in America get back to school stuff. I don’t know if he is right or wrong, and am not sure I care. I have never asked him to be right, only to lead. Can he?

All Americans can ask of a President is to make a decision, be honest about the good and bad ahead, and follow through. Then take responsibility if all goes wrong, or if some goes right and much goes wrong because of people who will not follow or conditions he cannot control. That’s what real Presidents do. That, in this observation is a reasonable expectation.

Trump’s track record on being honest and taking responsibility is not good. If he yet proves to have leadership in him, we won’t need Andrew Cuomo to kick around anymore.

Fireworks

I HATE FIREWORKS!

On Sunday morning following a Saturday night Fourth of July I find myself reminded why I’ve always hated fireworks!

The Chinese, we are reliably informed, invented fireworks about 2000 BCE when some unknown cook accidentally created an entree he called “chef’s surprise.” Apparently the Chinese also invented paper, guerrilla warfare, and Internet piracy. But my concern here is only with the fireworks.

I have never been particularly a devotee of exploding gunpowder wrapped in easily burned paper in order to make a loud noise in a more-or-less controlled explosion. I’ve been watching this happen for quite a while now and there doesn’t seem to really be anything new or different from when I was a kid. About the only change is the amount of money which is wasted in the endeavor. It is beyond me why, exactly, someone would want to burn up in one second what could easily have been used to buy a gallon of gas. At least the gas would have taken my old van 4 or 5 minutes to burn off.

The tradition of firing off controlled dynamite to celebrate major occasions apparently came to us from the British – who may have picked up fireworks in China while shopping for tea. The “explosion” (pardon the pun) of usage in our country is traced to President Nixon’s opening up China for trade with the United States. This made fireworks cheap and plentiful (along with just about everything else).

When we moved to Indiana in 1996 I was surprised to learn there were not many restrictions on buying or shooting off fireworks. You have to be 18 to buy them (16 if they are not too deadly). And there are some noise restrictions as to when they can be set off – which seem to be ignored the weeks before and after the 4^th of July. When we first came to Indiana you had to “register” to make a purchase. Now all you need is cash or credit card.

This is a big change from my days growing up in the ‘Big City’. Back then people actually acted as if it was in the public interest to protect folks from themselves. At least that was what was politically correct to say -- some nonsense about not wanting to overload the ER’s. As I recall, setting off of fireworks was illegal within St. Louis city limits (although you could buy them in the city); and it was legal to set them off in the county (where you could not legally purchase same). It may have been the other way around, but you get the point – politician made themselves look good without actually doing anything (so, what else is new?).

If you still have any left unexploded, remember the old Brooklyn Dodgers’ motto: “wait ‘till next year!”

Reprinted from my Brazil Times blog of May 26, 2008, with some updating for continuity.