Don’t Believe Ridiculous Ideas

“Did you get your coffee at the espresso cafe next door?” I asked my hair stylist. Seemed like an innocent question, but she leaned down and whispered that she got her drink at Starbucks. “Is that a bad thing?” I asked? “Well, you know, Israel,” she replied. 

Now I was confused. What did Starbucks have to do with Israel? Do they have cafes in Israel? I know they have cafes in Saudi Arabia, and I suspect they have cafes in other Arab countries, though perhaps not Yemen. Perhaps they source something from Israel, though what would that be? 

Well, in any event, my hairdresser fits in well in Olympia. “Free Palestine” signs are everywhere. Every other woke cause is represented as well. I could switch hairdressers, but how far would I have to drive to find one who’d be even neutral on Israel? Maybe if the price of gas comes down? 

So mostly I keep my mouth shut unless there’s a chance of a real conversation, which usually there isn’t. But I do search for opportunities for genuine conversation. Which led me to our Senior Center. It’s just two blocks away and has a conversation group once a week. The group’s leader has a set routine: first, the word of the day, its history, its evolution; then, what’s happened on this date in history; and then current issues. 

Most of the current issues lately are Trump-related, and there’s a lot of grumbling. Today, we talked about the recent chemical spill at a Longview pulp and paper mill in which 11 people died. One member of our group had worked there during summers when he was in college. As bad as the incident was, it was an implosion of a tank instead of an explosion, which could have been much worse. It’s horrible to say that an event in which eleven people died could have been worse, but the environmental impact could have been much worse. In any event, no one had anything cheerful to say about that bit of news.

Discussion then turned to the war in Iran, which led to Hezbollah, which led to Israel. Turns out there’s another weekly event at the Senior Center, a history class that some attend. I haven’t attended that because it’s hard for me to do one regular activity a week, much less two. In any event, I won’t be going to the history class because in the discussion of Iran, Hezbollah, and Israel, people who do attend the history class claimed that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is analogous to American history with Indians. Israelis are settler-colonialists, they starve the Palestinians, they bomb hospitals, and yes, if the New York Times says that Israelis train dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, then it must be true. Genocide? True. Apartheid? True. Even Jews say all the bad things are true. So, it must all be true?

Jews are free to disagree with each other. Are Palestinians free to disagree with each other? No. They will get killed for saying things comparable to what Israelis say about their country. So the fact that some Jews say one thing and some say another proves nothing to me. Listen to all sides, please, before you take up arms.

Sorry, (not sorry) but I’m finished with that group. One new person said she taught Middle-East history at Baylor, so she knows what she’s talking about. Yeah, and every woke professor knows the truth about everything. So, no, I really don’t need to hear any more from these folks about Israel. 

If you have any room in your head for another point of view, consider reading this recent article from Quillette (Quillette has saved my sanity since it’s first appearance online with thoughtful journalism.) You can subscribe for free, but pay for a subscription if you can.

Anti-Zionism as Redemptive Racism by Shalom Lappin

Get Me Out of the Doldrums!

Waiting, waiting, waiting. Activity occurs, but nothing is resolved. I have this wretched feeling of impending doom, but doom is never finalized. I could be a sailboat near the equator waiting for a wind strong enough to get me out of the doldrums in one direction or the other. Please, can we just move somewhere, anywhere, let’s get this settled. Either the US is finished or we can salvage our Constitution and use it to make some needed changes. 

Our Constitution has been amended and, theoretically, could be amended again. Some simple tweaks are being proposed, and I’m of the opinion that only very simple tweaks could possibly survive the ratification process. One tweak that I support has been proposed by David French. He’s a conservative NYT columnist. He’s also a graduate of Harvard Law and host with Sarah Isgur of the popular “Advisory Opinion” legal podcast sponsored by The Dispatch, a libertarian media organization. Despite my reservations about the NYT, I often learn things by reading and listening to French. 

Please read French’s column here (NYT) or this Daily KOS article here explaining his reasoning for this proposal. Essentially he wants to reinforce the original expectation that Congress should be the pre-eminent brach of government. He suggests replacing the first sentence of Article II in order to accomplish this. “Instead of declaring, ‘The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America,’ it should read, ‘A president of the United States of America shall execute laws passed by Congress.’” There. That’s it. 

No more would a president be able to declare that he “can do anything he wants.” Yes, it’s hard to imagine that any tweak of the Constitution could address the myriad issues of our day, but I have to agree with French that clarifying the supremacy of Congress over the Executive Branch would be a welcome attempt to rebalance things. “No Kings!” No, I don’t love the current Congress, but perhaps if there was more clarity about the importance of their role in the great scheme of things, a few of them might get a spine. 

I think such an amendment could shake things up enough to generate some activity in Congress which is moribund currently. And despite the many attempts to secure a permanent majority, it might some day be possible to elect people willing to think and act – as opposed to just grandstanding – once they get to DC. In any event we wouldn’t have a king. 

Your thoughts?

Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein

Wait, what? I’m supposed to forget about Jeffrey Epstein and start thinking about locking up Barack Obama? That’s how Trump is going to dodge the news about his close ties to a creepy pedophile? Well, Donald, it’s not working with me.

Whatever you and I might think about Barack Obama’s policies, and there is room for disagreement about some of them, I just don’t think even Donalds’ incompetent batch of legal advisers can find reason to lock up Obama. If I were The Donald, I wouldn’t invite any sort of comparison to Obama. Just my humble opinion.

Humpty Trumpty Sat on a Wall. Humpty Trumpty . . .

Of all the craziness emanating from the White House this year, the one thing that has truly surprised me is the executive orders relating to big law firms. Trump has stripped security clearances from several firms, restricted their access to federal buildings, and ordered that no federal agency can do business with them. All of this because these targeted firms have worked on behalf of Democrats or others who have challenged Trump’s actions. 

Surely this is illegal? Isn’t it? I guess we will find out. Some of the firms have buckled under the pressure and made deals, generally involving a lot of pro bono work for clients Trump cares about. Frankly, I’m shocked that any law firm would hesitate to sue Trump. But I guess that if competitive firms and circling your partners and employees like vultures checking to see if they can pick off some of your best and brightest, if your treasured clients are hesitant to do business with you in the Trump era, then the illegality may not be your top concern.

Or maybe this isn’t illegal. Surely, everyone deserves a lawyer if you find yourself in court, but perhaps you’re not entitled to very high priced lawyers. And, honestly, how could I feel sorry for the most expensive lawyers in the country? Actually, I don’t. It’s just that if Trump can target these big, pricy law firms and get away with it, then why would any lawyer defend clients on any issue that might offend Trump? 

Many of Trump’s actions have prompted legal challenges; some challenges have merited restraining orders; some are on appeal. But it will take a while (months? years?) before we get final words of wisdom. Meanwhile, we live in a waiting game, just as we do with tariffs. Yes, tariffs have been announced, but not all have gone into effect. For many items, the impact will only be felt when new shipments of whatever arrive on our shores. Again with the waiting game. 

Trump’s decisive actions have not led to immediate changes except with regard to layoffs of federal employees. The people losing their jobs will feel the effect immediately. But again, when research contracts are terminated, only those in the midst of clinical trials will feel anything. I can’t imagine being part of a clinical trial and having it terminated just because The Doge said so! The rest of us will never know which research was never completed. 

My question: Will the effects of Trump 2.0 be felt convincingly by 2026 and 2028 so that we can vote our way out of this chaos?