All posts by Dr. ESP

Wrestling with Bibi

Politics, Religion

Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel and they should be ashamed of themselves.

~Donald J. Trump/March 18, 2024

What precipitated Trump’s comments during an interview with his former advisor Sebastian Gorka on the latter’s podcast “America First with Sebastian Gorka?”  March 14, 2024 remarks by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.  Schumer’s offense?  According to the Associated Press:

Schumer, the first Jewish majority leader in the Senate and the highest-ranking Jewish official in the U.S., strongly criticized Netanyahu in a 40-minute speech Thursday morning on the Senate floor. Schumer said the prime minister has put himself in a coalition of far-right extremists and “as a result, he has been too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza, which is pushing support for Israel worldwide to historic lows.”

This is one more indication the Trump/MAGA version of the GOP is no longer “your father’s Republican Party.”  Even far-right antisemites cannot figure out which side they are on.  In January 2023, the Anti-Defamation League with assistance from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago (NORC) conducted a year-long research project to explore the roots of the increase in antisemitic rhetoric and incidents in the United States.  The project included interviews with more than 4,000 random individuals conducted in the fall of 2022.  When presented with the statement, “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America,” 39 percent responded this antisemitic trope was either mostly or somewhat true.  Fourteen months later, Donald Trump is now accusing Jewish-Americans of not being loyal enough.

Chuck Schumer does not hate Israel or Judaism.  In fact, his remarks are consistent with long-standing Jewish tradition going back to biblical times.  One would think, Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson and their evangelical supporters who claim the Old Testament is the literal word of God (when it is convenient to do so), would be the first to come to Schumer’s defense.  I am, of course, referring to Genesis 32:25-29 in which Jacob seeks God’s blessing despite having deprived his older brother Esau of his birthright.

25 Jacob was left alone. And a figure wrestled with him until the break of dawn.
26 When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he wrenched Jacob’s hip at its socket, so that the socket of his hip was strained as he wrestled with him.
27 Then he said, “Let me go, for dawn is breaking.” But he answered, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.”
28 Said the other, “What is your name?” He replied, “Jacob.”

29 Said he, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with beings divine and human, and have prevailed.”

The phrase “you have striven with beings divine” led to this biblical passage being referred to as “Jacob wrestling with God,” the central message being even a supreme being does not expect his believers to follow blindly.  One might say, this is God telling his followers, “We are not a cult.  It is okay to challenge me.  You will not be punished.  And on occasion, as did Jacob, you might even prevail.”

Not only did Jacob go unpunished, God reaffirms the commitment he originally made to Abraham that his descendants would become a great nation.  Why then would anyone believe Schumer’s questioning the policies of a mere mortal such as Bibi Netanyahu signals hatred of his religion or Israel? He is acting in accordance with one of God’s earliest directives.  If there is a compassionate God, I have no doubt he would welcome, maybe even applaud, Schumer’s efforts to question whether an Israeli government led by Bibi Netanyahu is acting in the best interest of his “children,” whether Jewish or Muslim.

The only thing missing in this narrative is Michael Buffer and his catchphrase, “Let’s get ready to rumble!!!”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Political Plagiarism

Politics

Merriam-Webster defines “plagiarism” as a transitive verb meaning “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source.”  During my time as a professor at Miami University, I always made a distinction between “words” and “ideas”.  Two people, with similar observations and experiences, can independently come up with similar ideas.  I often joke with my wife, “They must have seen yesterday’s blog,” when a Post or Times editorial or op-ed makes the same point I covered before they did.  However, I know two people independently reaching the same conclusion is not a crime.

That is why I always focused on the second definition.  I expected any student who wrote about entrepreneurship as “creative destruction” to credit Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter with coining the phrase.  Knowledge is built on the shoulders of those who came before us.  We need not agree with everything they said or did, but we have a sole obligation to recognize their contribution.

We now have a new kind of plagiarism under the second definition, political plagiarism, which President Biden pointed out during his State of the Union Address.

And thanks — and thanks to our Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 46,000 new projects have been announced all across your communities.

And, by the way, I noticed some of you who’ve strongly voted against it are there cheering on that money coming in. And I like it. I’m with you. I’m with you.

My congressman Aaron Bean must have been napping at this point because just four days later he issued a press release about a $147 million federal grant to Jacksonville which included the following.

I’m excited to have worked with Congressman Rutherford to help secure over $147 million in direct grant funding to support the City of Jacksonville and Jacksonville Transportation Authority’s master plan to transform 14 historic neighborhoods and downtown into the Emerald Trail.

Where did the money come from?  It was one of 143 projects funded through the Reconnecting Communities Program authorized as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed into law by President Biden on November 15, 2021.  Bean was not elected to Congress until November 2022, so we do not know how he would have voted on House Bill 3684.  But we do know how John Rutherford, our congressman before redistricting, voted.  He was one of the 201 (out of 203) House Republicans who voted “NAY.”

Now Bean could argue, “If I’d been there, I might have voted for the bill.”  But unlikely, since taking office, he has followed the GOP house leadership on virtually every bill and resolution. But that is speculation.  Therefore, if ever asked, he can honestly say, “I did not vote against HB 3684.”  You know, just like President Bone Spurs claimed he would have come to the rescue of students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, “Even if I didn’t have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room (a meeting at the White House) would have done the same.”

But honesty is not only about what we do.  It also takes into account what we do not do, which brings us back to definition #2 of plagiarism.  Let me repeat it.  “Use (another’s production) without crediting the source.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)  As we know, the Biden administration worked tirelessly with both Republicans as well as members of their own party to “produce” a filibuster-proof bill that would eventually pass 69-30 in the Senate.  [NOTE:  Florida’s two senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio were among the 30 nays.]  What better example of two congressmen committing political plagiarism than Bean and Rutherford taking credit for something that would not have happened if they and their colleagues had their way.

If they do not want this to be an issue in the 2024 election, they can file a motion with Judge Aileen Cannon claiming Article I of the Constitution is too vague to allow citizens to chastise members of Congress for taking credit for things which they opposed.  I’m sure she would hold a hearing on their motion sometime in December.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Briefs or Boxers

Politics

Since 1952, beginning with Harry Truman, the president of the United States has authorized security briefings for the nominees of both parties by representatives of the government intelligence community.  This courtesy is intended to create “an even playing field,” particularly on occasions when, as is now the case, one candidate is the incumbent.  I refer to it as a courtesy because the practice is not required by law or by federal courts.

Never in the nation’s history has there been a situation when the potential recipient of these briefings is under indictment on 38 counts related to:

  • willful retention of national defense information,
  • conspiracy to obstruct justice,
  • withholding a document or record
  • corruptly concealing a document or record,
  • concealing a document in a federal investigation, and
  • false statements and representations.

Various Joe Biden advisors and supporters have urged the president to forego this tradition based on Jack Smith’s 44 page indictment which documents Trump’s alleged criminal activity.  Especially following the former president’s hosting of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, they suggest Trump would share the briefing contents with his political allies.  Relax!  Individuals who have participated in preparation of the briefings or conducted them describe the content as no different than that regularly provided to members of Congress.  It is limited to country by country assessments and includes no information related to administration responses, methods or sources.

Trump’s team, of course, argues he is entitled to such briefings (not true under any circumstances) because he has done nothing wrong.  What better time to call his bluff.  Therefore, I suggest the White House send the following letter to the presumptive Republican nominee.

White House Office of Presidential Correspondence - Wikipedia


March 11, 2024

Donald J. Trump
Palm Beach, Florida

Donald:

Congratulations on your showing in the Super Tuesday primaries.  With Nikki Haley  suspending her campaign, I have no doubt you will be the Republican nominee in 2024.  As much as I would like to honor the 70 year tradition of providing intelligence briefings to an opponent, I have a greater responsibility to honor my oath to defend and protect the Constitution.  Therefore, I have decided not to authorize such briefings while you are under indictment.

There is, however, a solution to this conundrum.  If you are correct that you have done nothing wrong, you have always had an opportunity to prove that in court.  I suggest, therefore, that you ask your lawyers to withdraw all their motions to dismiss the case and encourage Judge Cannon to schedule the trial as soon as possible.  If a jury of your peers finds you innocent of the charges in the indictment, I will authorize intelligence briefing immediately.  I make this recommendation knowing that, if you prevail, it will be to my electoral detriment, reinforcing your claims the indictment was a case of election interference.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.  I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
File:Joe Biden Signature.svg - Wikipedia

Trump’s choice is clear.  If he prefer BRIEFS he needs to face a panel of his peers, otherwise known as “Jury-BOXERS”.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

UPDATE/Bad Ad Timing

Random Thoughts

One of the sponsors of NBC’s presentation of the Arnold Palmer Invitational golf tournament was Chubb Insurance.  During the broadcast they ran a spot which included the following:

In this high stakes, high pressure world, we help protect our clients from risk. And always keep our eye on the ball.  Chubb, insurance that protects when it matters most.

If you do not believe them, just ask Donald J. Trump.  On Friday, Trump’s lawyers announced they had secured a bond from an entity called “Federal Insurance Company” for the $83.3 million awarded to E. Jean Carroll in the second defamation trial.  However, New York Daily News journalist Molly Crane-Newman reported:

The entity through which Trump secured the bond is a member of the Chubb Group, a property and casualty insurance giant whose CEO, Evan Greenberg, he tapped to serve on his presidential trade policy advisory committee in 2018.

When reporters asked representatives of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York if they knew the source of the funds for the Chubb bond, they said they were not privy to that information.  For argument’s sake, let’s assume Evan Greenberg used existing Chubb assets to cover the $83.3 million dollars.  In that case, we can be sure Donald Trump did not have what Chubb calls their “Elite V” protection for director and officers liability.  How do I know that.? The 20-page document which explains the policy’s benefits includes the following definition of bail bond costs.

3. Definitions/Subsection 3.2

Bail Bond Costs mean the reasonable premium (not including any collateral) for a bond or other financial instrument to guarantee an Insured Person’s contingent obligation for bail or equivalent in any jurisdiction required by a court in respect of any Claim. The sub-limit of liability for Bail Bond Costs is 10% of the Limit of Liability.

Subsection 3.35 defines Limit of Liability as “the amount stated in Item 3 of the Insurance Policy.”

In other words, Chubb and Trump’s good friend Evan Greenberg violated two corporate rules.  First, they covered the entire bond, not just the “reasonable premium.”  Second, for them to put down $83.3 million, under the rules, Trump must have a policy with a “limit of liability” of (drum roll) $833 million dollars. [NOTE:  There is no truth to the rumor Barack Obama went on Fox News and demanded Trump release his “long-form policy.”]

Will Chubb also buy time during cable coverage of the election interference and business fraud case involving hush money payments to Stormy Daniels?  If so, I suggest, in the interest of truth in advertising, Chubb revise its March 9, 2024 advertisement as follows.

If you are a former U.S. president who appointed our CEO to a White House advisory board, regardless of our internal procedures and regulations, we will bail you out.  And always make sure you can make your morning tee-off time instead of holding a fire sale of your assets.  Chubb, insurance that protects Donald Trump anytime our CEO says so.

Disclaimer: This service is not available to any other policy holder so don’t ask.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

NASCAR SOTU Update

Media

Final Nielsen numbers show that Joe Biden‘s State of the Union address drew 32.3 million viewers, an 18% increase from last year. (Ted Johnson/DEADLINE.COM)

The numbers were reported based on data from 14 broadcast networks and cable channels.  What’s more, my wish came true.  Fox News drew more viewers than any other single outlet with 5.84 million.  As mentioned in the last blog, their commentators promoted the event as though it was going to be “Biden’s Last Stand.”  This was akin to promoting “Oppenheimer” as a comedy.  Unsuspecting viewers did not get what they came to see.

Want more good news.  While Fox News led for a single entity, MSNBC and CNN had a total viewership of 7.06 million (4.43 and 2.63 million respectively).  From a network perspective, Fox Broadcasting drew 1.78 million viewers while their three competitors–ABC, NBC and CBS–pulled in a combined total of 13.8 million.

Does it make a difference when more viewers get their news from sources other than Fox, Newsmax and OANN?  I’ll let Tommy Christopher of MEDIAITE.COM answer that one.

A CNN flash poll shows President Joe Biden (his emphasis) gained massively on a key question asked before and after his State of the Union address: will the president’s policies move the US in the right direction or the wrong direction?

While 64  percent had a positive view of the speech, there was a dramatic swing from before the speech.  On the “right/wrong direction” question, the difference between the pre-speech number on the question — 45 percent “right direction” — and the post-speech number of 62 percent — was a swing of 17 points.

Keep in mind, until Nikki Haley suspended her campaign on Wednesday, the election coverage was largely on the GOP horse race with all the contenders bashing Biden.  It is now mano-a-mano, and if Thursday night viewer metrics are any indication, the reigning champ opened his defense with a first round knock-down.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP