J. Patrick Henry

 
     The head of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (aka, MBS), was given the red carpet treatment by President Trump as he was welcomed to the White House on Tuesday.

  
     Their literal embrace underscores the disturbing fact that both men, not unlike the Murder, Incorporated gangsters of the 1930s, are practitioners of extra-judicial killings.

     MBS is widely known to have ordered the murder and dismemberment of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which was then carried out by his personal guards.

     And Donald Trump has, to date, murdered 80+ alleged drug smugglers in international waters, claiming that they were transporting fentanyl from Venezuela into the United States. 

 

     He has yet to provide any concrete evidence that these dead sailors were actually smugglers, or that they were carrying fentanyl destined for the U.S.  In fact, there is no evidence that Venezuela is involved in the production or transportation of this drug, the vast majority of which comes through the southern border with Mexico.

 

     MBS is a member of the Saudi royal family, a dictator who answers to no one but himself.  Thus, he is free to commit murder at will.

 

     Trump, on the other hand, is required by the laws of the U.S. to follow certain rules when it comes to attacking civilian targets in international waters. His use of the military to kill civilians is clearly unlawful, and could be challenged by Congress and/or the Department of Justice, but both institutions are powerless to stop him—Congress by choice, and the DOJ because it is now led by Trump's personal defense attorneys.
 
     Murder, Inc...Meet...Murder, Inc.

 
     Why is everyone so worked up? I'm doing fine…
  
     Why are so many people in the country upset these days?  When I look around everything looks pretty good to me.
 
     I'm not Hispanic, or have brown skin, so I'm not afraid of walking down the street and getting thrown into an SUV by masked men. 
 
     I'm not worried about health coverage—I have Medicare and my retirement paid health insurance.  So what's the problem with the Big Beautiful Bill?
 
     I'm not a female of child-bearing age, so no chance I'll get raped or face an unplanned pregnancy.  What's the big deal with this Roe v. Wade stuff?

 

     I'm not a sexually abused fourteen year-old girl, so why should I care if a convicted pedophile gets moved to a nicer prison, or pardoned someday? Doesn't everybody deserve a second chance?

 

     I was born in this country, and so were my children, so no one is going to take away their citizenship, or separate us from each other.  What's everyone whining about?
 
     My college days are long past, so I don't care if universities get shut down or told what they can teach.  Big nothing burger, I'd say.
 
     I wasn't a citizen of Afghanistan or Iraq who risked my life to help the US Army fight terrorism, so I don't understand why people are afraid. No one's gonna send me back there to face the music.
 
     I'm pretty old, so there aren't many diseases like measles or tuberculosis hanging around that could hurt me. Why's everyone getting on RFK's case?
 
     I'm not a journalist, so there's no danger that my boss will fire me for writing or saying the wrong thing.  What's the issue here exactly?
 
     I'll never be a scientist trying to discover new technologies or medical cures, so who cares if the government cuts off all the research funds?  Those discoveries would have come too late to affect my life anyway.
 
     I don't live in the West, Southwest, Midwest or Southeast, so growing temperatures, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and once- in-500 year floods can't touch me.  People who live in those places need to calm down, for cripes sake.
 
     I'll never be a Federal judge, so no one's "swatting" me or threatening to kill my family. Judges have great lives and make lots of money. Why all this bitching and moaning?
 
     I'm retired from a government job, so no one can fire me to save a few bucks.  These ungrateful government hacks need to man up—the economy is great and there are plenty of openings at McDonalds and Burger King.
 
     Doesn't matter to me if libraries get rid of books that some people don't like. I buy all mine from Amazon.  Thank god for Jeff Bezoz!
 
     What's wrong with people?  Don't you see how lucky we are to live in the greatest country that ever existed?  And things can only get better now that Alfred…er…Donald Trump is in charge.
 
     Come on, folks. Lighten up!

     I've resisted becoming a member of Facebook (FB) because I didn't want a billionaire monetizing my personal information, as well as information about anyone identified as one of my "friends".  
 
     After reading this book by a former high-level FB executive, I realize that deciding whether or not to engage with FB presents a much more profound ethical question than I'd imagined. And I suspect that anyone who reads Sarah Wynn-Williams' expose' of Zuckerberg and his top management team will find it hard to continue supporting what is clearly a morally corrupt corporation.
 
     The book describes in detail the many instances in which FB had ethical choices to make, and they always took the low road, doing whatever it took to maximize FB's revenue.
 
     From helping advertisers target teenage girls whose posts included key words like "depression" or "body image", to offering China complete control over FB users' data, to ignoring the military junta in Myanmar's use of FB to spread false information, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Muslims, FB's top management repeatedly made the wrong choice.
 
     While the Chinese ultimately declined Zuckerberg's offer and blocked FB, other authoritarian regimes around the world (including the U.S.) gladly accepted FB's help in altering election outcomes.  
 
     In 2016. the Trump campaign paid FB tens of millions for ads that FB employees, embedded in the campaign office, helped design to identify and target independent voters—either to encourage them to vote for him, or to discourage others not to vote at all.
 
     This powerful book also describes instances in which FB management ignored the law and its own policies by allowing sexual harassment within the corporation to go unpunished. One of the highest profile (alleged) perpetrators was Joel Kaplan, who Zuckerberg nonethess appointed as his "President of Global Affairs".
 
     So much for accountability.  
 
     When asked why people continue to support Zuckerberg by sharing their personal information on FB, my friends answer that it is about "connection".
 
     Indeed, when FB first appeared, it was sold as a way to connect with old friends & lovers, and to stay in touch with family, sharing highlights of our lives.
 
     And that was its focus, until Zuckerberg decided that maximizing advertising dollars should be FB's core mission. Every decision made after that change of direction was done at the expense of putting FB members and innocent bystanders at risk of emotional and physical harm. 
 
     Over time, FB changed from a site that connected a user to close friends and family, to one full of "friends" with only nebulous links to them, and that uses an algorithm to push misinformation to its users.
 
     But if "connection" is the reason people continue to stay engaged with a corrupt international corporation, it raises the question of what people did before FB came along.
 
     Easy.
 
     People would pick up the phone, meet for lunch, write letters, travel long distances to connect with close friends and family, and make whatever other efforts necessary to stay in touch with people truly important to them (not just their FB "friends").
 
     These approaches are still feasible, especially when you consider the internet's ability to find and link people with long lost friends & family.
 
     There are also reputable alternatives to FB, the most recent of which, Bluesky, is amassing new members at a rate four times faster than FB.
    
     So, if like me, you find FB's actions at best distasteful, and at worst, criminal, remember that there are many other ways to stay connected with the people you care about. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Following is a recent conversation

between me and the USGA:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     "To Whom It May Concern,

 

     I've been a member and proud supporter of the USGA for 20+ years, but have decided I no longer want to be associated with your organization.

 

     I was profoundly disturbed this morning to read the USGA statement about awarding multiple exemptions into the Open Championship to LIV members.

     

     In doing so, you are aiding and abetting a Saudi regime which brutally murdered and dismembered an American journalist, and which continues to discriminate against women, gays and other minorities.

 

     You have the right to do what you did, but I refuse to be a part of it.

 

     On that basis, I request that you cancel my current membership, and remove me from any and all mailing lists.

   

    Thank you,

  Patrick Henry
  Member # 25189515"

 

 

THEIR RESPONSE:

 

"Dear Patrick,

   

     We understand that the recent exemption announcement has sparked strong reactions, and we appreciate your passion for the game. The U.S. Open has a long history of being the most open championship in golf, where players from all tours and backgrounds can earn their place. Our exemption process ensures that the strongest field is assembled, offering a path to those who we feel have earned it, while maintaining the democratic process our qualifying provides. We hope you can understand that the core principles of the U.S. Open have not changed, and that you'll continue to support us in preserving and growing the game we love."

 

BUT I GET THE LAST WORD:

 

     "Liz

 

     Thanks for the response, but I'm sorry. It just doesn't cut it.

 

     It's one thing to allow LIV members to qualify under the former rules, including via qualifier events. I would never argue that if they qualified like any other golfer they should be banned.

 

     So it isn't the fact that golfers who became rich off of Saudi blood money might be allowed to play in the OPEN that's upsetting, it's that you're singling them out for special treatment.

     And that those exemptions mean other golfers who could have qualified could now lose their spot to LIV golfers.

 

     That special treatment is what makes the USGA complicit in Saudi crimes.

 

     No, I can't continue to support the organization, which makes me sad."

 
"If you have any young friends who aspire to become writers, the second-greatest favor you can do them is to present them with copies of The Elements of Style. The first-greatest, of course, is to shoot them now, while they're happy."
                                                                                                                                        - Dorothy Parker
 
     Not to make light of the serious physical and mental damage done to human beings who serve actual time in solitary, but the above title does accurately reflect the life of a writer.  Writing is generally, but not always, a very solitary affair.
 
     Let me share another "Parkerism" that describes the challenge of writing:
 
                               "I hate writing, I love having written."
 
     Parker is saying that the act of writing—i.e., sitting alone in a room trying to fill a blank page/screen with intelligible and interesting content—isn't much fun, but once it's over, once your "masterpiece" has made it on to paper (or pixels), you receive your reward. 
 
     And the prize is (wait for it)…you don't have to write anymore!
 
     At least not until the next deadline, or until a siren call from your muse interrupts the other, more important things you're doing, like: staring out the window, doing the dishes, storing away your summer clothes to make way for… ah, you get it.
 
     Any task is easier than having to sit down and start writing something new.
 
     I've written before about what motivated me to sit down and face the music…er, the blank page—a health condition that allowed me to do little else. But still, even with that issue in the rear view mirror thanks to a successful lung transplant, I continue to write.  Considering how painful I've painted this endeavor, one might ask why.
 
     The answer could be sheer momentum. Once one achieves some limited success in this work (i.e., people actually read what you write), it becomes a bit intoxicating.  Like a marathon finisher awash in endorphins, it's the love of "having written" Parker described that keeps you coming back.
 
     And so here I sit, staring at the screen.
 
     The past year has been busy, and not much writing got done. In between medical procedures, USGA rating/playing golf courses, and designing and moving into a new house, there hasn't been much free time.
 
     This blog was one outlet I tried to keep up with, though even here entries have been infrequent—less than one a month. The one writing/editing outlet I have been faithful to is AirWays, the Second Wind Lung Transplant Association newsletter.
 
     AirWays is a 12 page, four color publication that comes out every few months, devoted to information regarding lung health and transplantation. I, along with my co-editor, Bonnie Parsons, put each issue together, often writing much of the content ourselves. We also edit submissions received from medical professionals and personal stories from Second Wind members.  It's a rewarding, but still demanding (deadlines!) task.
 
     (If you're interested in a sample, you can click on this link from the Second Wind website: Newsletters)
 
     Now, as the year ends and with winter upon us, things have settled down. Thus, I've used up all of my procrastination rationalizations, and can no longer avoid staring at this blank screen again. 
 
     (Speaking of procrastinating, I ran across a wonderful old Spanish proverb:

 

                    "Tomorrow is often the busiest day of the week.")
 
     And so I'm biting the bullet, taking the bull by the horns, knocking on wood, (insert favorite cliché here) and working on a new, or rather newish, novel. I'm reworking something I'd written years ago, because revising sounded so much easier than starting afresh.
 
     I was wrong.
 
     The original manuscript was three short stories cobbled together that involved overlapping characters. Looking at it with fresh eyes, I now see it's bloated, and the plot so full of holes that if it were a boat I'd be swimming back to shore. I'm doing the hard work of plugging those holes, and trimming away lots of superfluous sub-plots and dialogue.
 
     Despite all the whining, when working at my desk I realize how fortunate I am that I don't have to do this for a living. Because of changes in the marketplace, authors today, with very few exceptions (King, Patterson and the like) spend more time marketing their work than they do creating it.
 
     Even traditional publishers like Random House leave most of the hard work of getting a book in front of readers' eyes to the person who wrote it.  One's expected to have a widespread social media presence, buy advertisements out of one's own pocket, and spend much time hawking your wares at book fairs, libraries, bookstores or any other venue you've managed to beg your way into.
 
     In short, the life of an author, even a published one, is not as glamorous as you might imagine, especially considering how much time we voluntarily choose to spend in "Solitary Confinement".
 

         

 

      Sorry to disappoint you

     Mr. Greenwood, but there have been many times in my life when I was less than proud to be an American. 

 

     Let's look at the top three on the list – in reverse order:

 

    

     3) Henry Kissinger accepts the Noble Peace Prize for negotiating a cease fire in the Viet Nam war after having prolonged said war for years, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.

     2) George W. Bush, after the tragedy of 9/11, uses anti-Muslim sentiment to justify a war against an undersupplied and ill-trained Iraqi Army, one that cost trillions of American dollars and thousands of innocent lives, and that left the Middle East in shambles.

     1) That brings us to now. Pundits will be arguing for weeks about what did or did not go right for the Harris campaign, and how or if Joe Biden's refusal to adhere to his original suggestion that he would be a one term "transitional" President affected her chances. In the end, however, all we can do is look to the majority of Americans who voted for someone morally unfit to hold this or any other office and ask, "Why?".

 

     The best answer I can offer comes from the mouths of two American cultural icons.

 

     First, two quotes from the late H.L. Mencken, columnist with the Baltimore Sun:

     "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

 

     "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
   
     And lastly, from the late P.T. Barnum:
 
     "There's a sucker born every minute."
 
 

 
     Joe Biden's departure from the Presidential campaign, though forced by circumstance was, nonetheless, a courageous act of patriotism, and not to be discounted as anything less.
 
     It brought us a sense of relief and optimism, something we'd lost in the last few months, and set the stage for a new star to rise from the west, someone we knew, but somehow didn't really know.
 
     Kamala Harris was ever present in her role as VP, but barely broke through the consciousness of most of us, even those who understood and supported the significant accomplishments of the Biden Presidency.
 
     Biden managed, despite a divided Congress, to pass legislation that is rebuilding America's infrastructure, while advancing the battle against climate change.
 
     And so it is Kamala, like most citizens a child of immigrants, who now stands before us, asking for the opportunity to serve. And I use that phrase deliberately.
 
     There are many ways of leading, by fiat (as autocrats do), by consensus, by majority rule, by making back room deals, and some, the best, by serving.
 
     A Leader as Servant is a person who does not stand above her followers, but who reaches down and uplifts them, gives them opportunities to succeed, and champions their success when do. Servant leaders focus on creating positive outcomes, not on their reputation, their ego, or the power they legally possess.
 
     I think Kamala Harris is that type of leader, the clear opposite of the former President, whose sense of duty doesn't extend past the end of his own nose.
 
     So, I am both relieved and optimistic for the first time in months. Relieved that Vice President Harris is now the Democratic nominee for President, and optimistic because her performance in that role to date has far exceeded anyone's expectations.
 
     Still, anxiety persists.
 
     Harris is facing an opponent who lacks the barest hint of a moral compass, a man who will do anything—legal or not—to deny her the Presidency, regardless of who the voters have chosen.
 
     He and his cohorts have spent that past three years packing state and county election boards across the country with MAGA devotees who brazenly brag about their intention to break the law by failing to certify the vote whether or not it goes in his favor. Their unstated goal is to delay the counting of electoral votes beyond the legal deadlines so that the race is thrown into the House of Representatives, where Republicans currently hold a significant lead, and are likely to maintain that lead in the new Congress.
 
   How can we, especially those of us New Yorkers, where Harris's electoral victory is assured, make a difference in this battle?
 
    As usual, it comes down to money.
 
     The Harris campaign needs to have enough resources to not only convince American voters to choose her name on the ballot, but more importantly, to pay for the hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers that will be needed to contest the spurious MAGA certification strategy in multiple courts after the election on November 5th.
 
     To help go to KamalaHarris.com and donate to her campaign. It's a simple process.
 
     Fifty, twenty, even ten dollars helps, because millions of small donors supporting the Democratic ticket will help convince independents that these candidates are worthy of support. Give what you can, and share this message with friends who might be willing to help.
 
     Do it now while you're thinking of it.
 
     And remember, there are other ways to help the fight. If you live in a contested Congressional District, support the Democratic candidate.  The more House seats Democrats win, the better chance Harris will have if the election gets thrown into that snake pit.
    
     The battle is being waged on a variety of fronts and we're determined to defeat Trump.
 
                                 JUST DO IT.   

"I read the news today, oh boy…"

-       John Lennon

 

"There's a bad moon risin'"
-       John Fogarty
 
     Can anyone but a full-throated MAGA maniac take joy in the events of the past two weeks?
 
     First the Republican majority in the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) handed down a decision which eviscerated the Federal Government's ability to ensure that we have clean air, water, food, medicines and safe working conditions.  And they did so by overturning another long standing precedent, something they've had no qualms about doing.
 
    Then, in the ultimate act of legislating from the bench, SCOTUS conferred near total immunity on the office of the President for anything that even smells like an official act (and a lot of the past President's official acts smelled to high heaven). In doing so, they abandoned their slavish devotion to "originalism" and "textualism", coming up with a decision that bore no relation to either the wording of the Constitution, or past history and tradition.  Republican Justices focused on the results of their decision (a vague sense that Presidents need the comfort of immunity to act forcibly), something they claim SCOTUS decisions should never be based upon.
 
     Nothing in the Constitution speaks to Presidential immunity, and history shows that no President has ever expected to be immune from criminal prosecution for things he (still no "she" yet) did while in office. In fact, if this decision had been handed down in 1972, Richard Nixon would have finished out his term. But he didn't. He accepted a pardon, indicating that he clearly understood he could have legally been prosecuted for ordering the FBI to halt an investigation that would have shown he was guilty of obstruction of justice.
 
     The second blast of bad news was there for all to see in real time: President Biden's woeful performance in the debate against Trump.
 
     While Trump threw lie after lie out into the airways ("Even Democrats applauded the overturning of Roe v. Wade"  Really?), Joe just stood there.
 
     In addition to appearing physically weak and sometimes unable to finish a coherent sentence, he didn't once call Trump out on his lies.  Trump continued to throw up softballs that Joe could've knocked out of the park, but he remained silent.
 
     Biden campaign staff and supporters continue to spread the argument that, "This was just one debate. Other candidates -- George Bush in 2000 and Obama in 2011--had lousy first debates, but both came back to win."
 
     The only problem with that position is that, neither Bush nor Obama were in their early 80s, and fighting the notion that they were too old, and perhaps to infirm, to serve four more years in Office.
 
     Well before the debate, polling showed that a majority of the general public thought that Biden was too old to serve out a second term.  And his performance on the debate stage only served to confirm their opinion.  So no, this wasn't a matter of just one bad debate.  It went much deeper.
 
     Reports continue to seep out about Biden's lack of mental acuity during staff meetings, and officials from other nations have remarked about what they saw as a  recent decline in Biden's energy and attention span.

     

     I think that evidence has shown that Joe Biden has been the most effective President in this century, and, arguably, since Clinton was in office. His response to the COVID pandemic, actions he took to increase industrial and technological production in America, and strong steps to begin curtailing the effects of climate change, were major accomplishments, not to be taken lightly.
 
     But this election isn't about the last four years, it's about keeping Trump out of the White House, where he would be a danger to the country, and to democracy around the world.
 
     Sorry to say, but it's clear.  I don't think Biden can defeat Trump, and for the sake of the country, he has to step aside for someone younger.
 
 

     Willie Mays, who was, in my and the opinions of many baseball experts, the greatest player of all time, left us on Tuesday at the age of 93.

     It's interesting to note that every headline announcing his demise referenced not only his baseball talents, but his grace, emphasizing the unique personal qualities he displayed while breaking into a sport that, for a hundred years, only white men were allowed to play.

     He faced numerous racist comments and threats on his life as he entered the major leagues in the early 1950s, but still quickly dominated the game.

     Baseball scouts talk of "five tool players", those who can run, throw, hit for average, hit for power and catch anything that comes their way.

 

     Willie was likely the only SIX TOOL player ever to take the field.

 
     He had those five tools, probably in combination never seen before or since, and then, there was that sixth tool: grace.

 

     Willie did everything on the field with ultra-smooth moves and a love for the game that showed in the perpetual smile he wore during even the toughest of times. 

     You can talk about your Babe Ruth, your Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb (what a piece of human dreck he turned out to be), Rogers Hornsby, and even Barry Bonds (meh), but there may never be another player like Willie Mays. 

     Well…Hank Aaron, the only true home run king of all time, comes in a close second, but he didn't have the speed or defensive gifts that Willie did.

     One need only do an internet search on "Willie Mays – Vic Wertz" to see what everyone considers the greatest catch by a center fielder of all time

    Nope, Willie was the GOAT.  No doubt about it.
 

The Bizarre, Billionaire-Bankrolled

Theory of "Originalism-Textualism"
 
     Conservatives have long complained about so-called liberal Supreme Court Justices "legislating from the bench" by interpreting the Constitution based both upon the words and intent of the Founding Fathers, as well as current realities.

 

     More recently, as conservative Justices appointed by Republican Presidents came into the majority, they've begun to use an analysis method known as "Originalism & Textualism".  The theory claims that, in order to be true to the Constitution, one can consider only two things: the words of the document, and historical practices at the time of its enactment.
     

     As retired Justice Stephen Breyer noted in re: the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade, "The majority's reasoning boiled down to one basic proposition: Because the people who ratified the original Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment did not understand the document to protect reproductive rights, the document could not be read, now, as protecting those rights."

 

     In short, conservative justices insisted that we are bound by decisions made hundreds of years ago by wealthy white men, decisions made when women did not have the right to vote or hold property, let alone the right to control their own bodies.

 

     A current example before the Court illuminates the absurdity of this new approach. It involves a challenge to a state law that made it a crime to deface the serial number on a handgun. The "originalists" will now likely argue that, because there were no serial numbers on muskets when the Second Amendment was passed, it would be unconstitutional to now make it unlawful to deface something that didn't exist two hundred years ago.

 

     As one of the Founding Fathers might say if he were alive today and learned of this new theory,

 

     "Poppycock!"

 

     We're likely to face a similar dispute in relation to IVF (in vetro fertilization) procedures. Because such procedures were not in use during the period the constitution was written (how could they have been?), their use now can in no way be protected by any reading of the Constitution or its Amendments.

 

     As Breyer so astutely noted, the authors of the constitution "understood that they were defining a framework intended to endure and adapt to changing circumstances over hundreds of years. This flexible feature of our Constitution has permitted American society, including the courts, to recognize new facets of the right to liberty and equality that the document protects: the right to contraception, to same-sex intimacy, to interracial marriage, to gay marriage."

 

     Those rights are now in danger of being taken away. Justices Thomas and Alito have set their sights on overturning other past precedents similar to Roe v Wade in order to eliminate the right to make decisions about our most private relationships.

     This new Originalism-Textualism approach to reviewing laws subject to the Constitution is now becoming wide-spread at all levels of the Federal judiciary, fostered by conservative billionaires.

 

     Big money has long pursued a strategy to put more conservatives on the Federal bench by funding organizations like the Federal Society, from whose members Trump selected the last three Supreme Court Justices. They have also tried to influence the Court's decisions by bestowing gifts and cash worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on Justices Thomas and Alito.

 

     Their latest gambit is the sponsorship of so-called Legal Education Conferences, in which Federal judges from all levels are invited to a fancy resort for a week. The morning sessions consist of seminars at which the Originalism-Textualism theory is heavily promoted, and the afternoons are free for the judges to enjoy all of the resort's activities. These conferences cost up to $5,000 per person and, needless to say, the judges don't pay a red cent.

 

     Soon we'll have a judiciary that interprets the Constitution based on cherry-picked history, without consideration of the impact of their decisions on the lives of everyday Americans.
     

     And that historical cherry picking just got easier.

 

     These same moneyed conservatives developed a unique, searchable data base, and are making it available for free to all federal judges. These judges can now use key words to search for historical references that bolster their already decided opinions about how the Constitution should be interpreted.

 

     It becomes clearer every day that American citizens are merely subjects of the best Supreme Court that money can buy.

 

     But wait.

 

     We're not powerless. The upcoming Presidential election is an opportunity to ensure that future Supreme Court nominees are selected based on merit, and not on the preferences of conservative billionaires.

 

     Ordinary Americans are the underdogs in this battle, but we do have one weapon we can use: the vote.