One of the most infamous politically incorrect jokes of all time, more so in the light of the #metoo and #timesup movement, is the late Sam Kinison’s reflection on domestic violence.  “I don’t condone wife beating, but I understand it.”  I think of Kinison often, especially when I catch myself making a similar observation about some aspect of human behavior when I recognize there is anecdotal evidence supporting an otherwise unjustifiable stereotype.

This week was no exception.  So let me get this off my chest.  I DON’T CONDONE ANTI-SEMITISM, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT.  For me to make such a statement is a clear conflict of interest, having been born a Jew, and one who still considers himself a “member of the tribe” despite skepticism about the presence of a divine being.  Spirituality comes in many forms.

And do not put me in the same category as the self-hating Jews in pre-Hitler German chronicled in Der jüdische Selbsthaß by German-Jewish philospher Theodor Lessing (1872-1933).  I do not hate Jews.  What I do abhor are Jewish individuals whose actions provide fodder to the ignorant and prejudiced who seek affirmation of their bigotry.

This week, the Trump administration delivered a trifecta.  It began with Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and confidant Michael Cohen.  Cohen is the “fixer,” who makes each of Trump’s illegal or immoral actions, whether personal, business or political, disappear.  He puts his loyalty to Trump above his oath before the bar “to support the constitution of the United Sates, and the State of New York, and will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney, according to the best of my ability.”  Whether enabling Trump’s dishonesty, negotiating questionable business deals on his benefactor’s behalf or paying hush money to cover up Trump’s character flaws, Cohen re-defines the term “shyster.”

Second spot in the trifecta is reserved for Sam Nunberg, whose 15 minutes of fame spread across every cable news network Tuesday night, making him the talk of Washington.  He is now the poster boy for anti-Semites who believe Jews have no loyalty to anyone but themselves.  After years of seeking to be part of Trump’s inner circle, Nunberg jumped ship when he was included in a broad subpoena of documents and emails by special counsel Robert Mueller.  Nunberg epitomizes the Talmud’s description of a weasel.  “The weasel lives on dung-heaps and in holes and chinks of walls.  It kills animals larger than itself and even attacks corpses.”

But the coup de grace came when national economic advisor Gary Cohn resigned on Tuesday following Trump’s unexpected announcement he would impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.  I know the following statement is not news and has been reported on every broadcast outlet and in every print newspaper since the announcement of Cohn’s pending departure late yesterday afternoon. But it is worth repeating again and again.  THIS IS THE SAME GARY COHN WHO DID NOT TAKE A STAND WHEN TRUMP DECLARED TIKI-TORCH CARRYING NEO-NAZIS AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS INCLUDED “SOME VERY FINE PEOPLE.”  Cohn stood next to Trump that day and stood next to him during the debate over the tax cut which will prove to be a financial godsend for Cohn and his Goldman Sachs colleagues.  Only when Trump threatened actions which might hurt Cohn’s personal bottom line did he break ranks.  Gary Cohn IS the modern day equivalent of Shylock, the Jewish moneylender and  the principal antagonist in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice.  Except in Cohn’s case, he chose to convert to Trumpism, instead of Christianity.

Let me be clear, my disgust of these three individuals arises from disbelief that thinking adults who were raised in the Jewish tradition of “Tikkun Olam,” which translates to “repair the world,” were so willing to forsake their heritage in search of some gold ring in the service of a man who prefers chaos and discord to harmony and order. But my greater fear is that Trump supporters will now view these men as traitors to the cause.  In case you have not been paying attention, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently reported there was a 59 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in 2017 over the previous year.  As if those with an already existing anti-Jewish disposition needed another excuse to justify actions which have included bomb threats, desecration of cemetaries, harassment of school children and neo-Nazi rallies and marches.

If, on September 15, 2016, before the Economic Club of New York, when Trump said, “I’ll choose the best people for my administration,” he meant the best people to affirm the stereotypical prejudices of anti-Semites, it’s hard to disagree.

[NOTE:  I know.  You may be asking why I did not include Jared Kushner in this post.  He certainly had an equally bad week.  Two reasons.  First, Ivanka chose him originally.  Daddy is just trying to keep her in his good graces.  Second, and more importantly, there seems to be no line he will not cross in order to protect his father-in-law or his business interests.  Stay tuned.  That too may change when Jared’s second term is 15-20 years in the Big House instead of the White House.]

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

In Miller v. California, a 1973 landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme court, the justices redefined obscenity.  Previously, content was deemed to be obscene if characterized as “utterly without socially redeeming value.”  The new standard, sometimes referred to as the Miller Test, is based on whether the content “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”  The decision also gave more deference to community standards as long as “the work as a whole” did not appeal solely to prurient interests.    Pre-1973, films like Caligula (1979) or Natural Born Killers (1994) may never have seen the light of day.

In response to calls for censorship of films like John Water’s Pink Flamingos (1972) the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) created a system of voluntary rating so movie-goers had better information about the salacious or violent nature of a given film.  However one does have to wonder what logic and rationale MPAA’s Classification and Rating Administration (CARA) uses to score a film’s content?  Examples.  The King’s Speech, how British monarch George VI overcame his stuttering to rally his subjects at the outset of World War II, initially received an R rating for language.  To ensure greater distribution and viewership, the producers released an alternative version which garnered a PG-13 rating.

In contrast, the 2008 action thriller Taken received a PG-13 rating.  The protagonist (played by Liam Neeson) uses the skills he honed during his former CIA days to save his daughter who is kidnapped during a trip to Paris.  According to IMDB.com:

CIA operative Bryan Mills racks up an absurd body count in his quest to save his daughter from a sex trafficking ring. At the film’s peak of violence Mills even straps an electric torture device to someone’s testicles which, moral and political issues aside, might be up there in the upper echelon of vicious movie acts.

Which brings us to deliberations by the Florida House of Representatives.  Yesterday, this less than distinguished chamber put itself in CARA’s position, rating the content of our public discourse.  Unlike CARA, there was no ambivalence.  The House gave gun violence a PG rating.  Make it available to everyone, regardless of age.  By a vote of 71-36 with 10 non-voting, the House rejected an attempt by Democrats to bring HB219, a ban on assault weapons, to the floor for debate.  Let me be clear, Republicans were afraid to debate gun violence while classmates of these Parkland students who watched from the gallery actually faced gun violence.

To add insult to injury, the next order of business was consideration of House Resolution 157 titled, “Public Health Risk Created by Pornography.”  The bill summary reads as follows:

Recognizes public health risk created by pornography & acknowledges need for education, prevention, research, & policy change to protect citizens of this state.

Slap on that X rating. Forget the sounds of gunfire and screaming children.  Protect our tender ears from moans and the echos of “Yes! Yes! Yes!”  Forget the fact our sons and daughters now have indelible images of limp, lifeless bodies and streams of blood burned into their memories.  Heaven forbid we be exposed to language which expresses the raw emotions which are part of living.  Don’t dare take away my killing machine when the real danger is Hustler magazine and YouPorn.com.

Just so you understand.  The Florida House of Representatives wants us to know that it is not watching their friends being ripped apart by an AR-15, but the possibility of being “@#%!!ed to death” as a high school student’s worst nightmare.  Maybe we should bring back the pre-Miller v. California definition of obscenity as the 71 members of the Florida House who chose pornography over assault weapons as a threat to our children’s safety most certainly can be described as “utterly without socially redeeming value.”

UPDATE:  The Miami Herald surveyed state legislators following the Parkland shooting on their attitudes toward different measures to address gun violence.  Republican Representative Ross Spano, who sponsored HR157 (the pornography bill) and is running for state attorney general replied:

This is no time for quick thoughts.  I’m not ready to offer a short answer because I want to take the time to seriously consider more comprehensive solutions. My suggestions for comprehensive solutions will be forthcoming within the next few weeks.

[Historical Footnote:  Yesterday, February 20, 2018, was the 56 anniversary of John Glenn’s Mercury orbital flight, paving the way for the moon landing just seven years later.  Americans should have been celebrating a time when our nation was reaching new heights.  Instead, we witnessed a new low.]

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

“Christmas in July” began in Australia so residents in the Southern Hemisphere could enjoy holiday traditions such as sleigh rides and singing carols which included lyrics such as “one-horse open sleigh” and “chestnuts roasting on an open fire.”  To their credit, many Christian organizations around the world picked up on this made-up occasion as a way of reminding all of us the “season of giving” should not be limited to Yuletide.

I’d like to start another tradition, “New Year in February.”  Or when appropriate New Year in any month other than December.  What is it about the New Year?  It is a time in which we look back at the previous twelve months and reflect on major personal and public events which shaped our lives.  And, in this era of superlatives, we seek to sort out and prioritize those people or occasions which had the greatest impact.  One of the most time-honored (pun intended) is the annual unveiling of the “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine.

One thing is clear from the announcement of last year’s winner, “The Silence Breakers.”  Timing matters.  If the Time editorial board had voted any time before October 10, 2017, the date New Yorker Magazine exposed Harvey Weinstein as a sexual predator which became the catalyst for the #metoo movement, the eventual choice would likely have been one of the other candidates on the short list such as Kim Jung Un or The Dreamers.  Barring any late-breaking, earth shattering news or revelations my money is still on Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III being selected as the 2018 recipient.

Which is why, even at this early juncture of the solar cycle, we need to recognize a Person of the Year.  Therefore, I offer the following on behalf of Time Magazine.

Just as The Silence Breakers led a cultural sea change in which sexual harassment and abuse would not longer be tolerated, the survivors of the deadly assault on the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School likewise are teaching us a important lesson.  When our representative form of government (read Congress, state legislatures, governors and the president) fails to address the will of the people, democracy–the voice of the people–still carries the day.  From the mouth of babes.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

When questioned why I spent so much time and effort on potential cases of student misconduct during my time as a college professor, the answer was simple.  If students get away with the small stuff now–cheating on an assignment or lying to a faculty member–there is no reason to believe they will not behave similarly when the stakes are higher than a mere grade.  It was never about the punishment.  Among the faculty, we often reminded each other our students were “adults in training.”  It was about the teaching moment.  Getting young men and women back on the right path.

An event this week reminded me no lesson is permanent.  But the dilemma that has unsettled me is, “What do you do when when one of the ‘good guys’ begins to exhibit behaviors which suggests he is falling prey to influences which may seem insignificant at the time, but have much larger future consequences?”  Let me explain.

On Tuesday, a long-time friend and his wife paid a visit on their way from their Plains State home to a winter rental in the Florida Keys.  After a wonderful dinner in town, we decided to watch a movie.  As we were scrolling through the Netflix options, there was a promo for David Letterman’s new show “My Next Guest…”  My friend is a life-long Republican and we met when we were both directors of community development in our respective states.  Letterman’s first episode featured an interview with Barack Obama.  I jokingly said, “I guess you don’t want to watch this,” knowing he disagreed with many of the former President’s policies, yet I never heard him make any personal attacks against Obama or his family.

But I was wrong.  His response was directed at Letterman.  “I hate anybody who would call a 17-year-old a whore.  And he used that exact word.”

The incident to which my friend was referring was Letterman’s June 10, 2009 monologue in which he told the following joke about Sarah Palin’s family attending a New York Yankees baseball game.  “There was one awkward moment during the seventh-inning stretch when Palin’s daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.”  When you parse the sentence, you realize there are multiple references to current events.  In May 2009 Palin’s 18-year-old daughter Bristol was (some might say ironically) named a “Teen Pregnancy Prevention Ambassador” by the Candies Foundation following the birth of her son Tripp.  At the same time, headlines about the Yankee shortstop’s sexual exploits involving celebrities such as Madonna and Kate Hudson were plastered across every tabloid and gossip magazine.

No one can argue this was not a distasteful and totally inappropriate attempt at humor.  It was made worse by the fact Bristol had not accompanied the family that evening.  Instead, Palin and husband Todd took their younger daughter, then 14-year-old, Willow with them.  Letterman was roundly criticized and eventually apologized on air to the Palin family.  “I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception.”  Even Palin recognized the worse offense was joking about the sexual exploitation of children. In a June 16, 2009 statement, Palin wrote, “On behalf of all young women, like my daughters, who hope men who ‘joke’ about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve.”  And she was absolutely right.

But in this era of tribal political warfare, I wondered if maybe I was wrong.  Maybe there was something else I missed.  So, I Googled, “David Letterman calls Bristol Palin a whore.”  In what may be the first time in Google history, there were NO direct hits containing the words Letterman, Bristol and whore.  No mainstream media outlets.  No alt-right sites.  Not even one conservative blog.

Why did I find this so discomforting?  After all, it was eight and a half years ago.  The effected parties seemed to have put it past them.   Because as I explained earlier, despite differences in party affiliation and ideology, I always considered my friend to be one of the good guys.  An honest broker of an opposing perspective who did not need exaggerations or false claims to make his point.

What had changed?  Where did this “non-fact” come from?  And why was he so susceptible to embracing it?  And more importantly, what does it mean for the future.  I have no idea what Robert Mueller’s final report will reveal.  If it says there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians, I may disagree with his interpretation of the evidence but I will not question the facts he lays out to make his case.  But what if it goes the other way.  This week you had Congressman Devin Nunes, who already tried to “cook the books” with false information about FISA, claiming to have evidence of an FBI plot to stage a coup against Trump, despite Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd warning Nunes the release of such unsubstantiated allegations would be “extraordinarily reckless.”  And Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson then claimed to have an informant telling him there is a cabal of FBI officials holding “secret meetings” to plan Trump’s take-down.  When pressed for evidence of this conspiracy theory, Johnson backed off, saying he had no idea what his “informant” meant by the term “secret society.”  To make matters worse, House Speaker Paul Ryan has refused to step in and stop rogue Republicans from spreading such tripe.  Given a choice between supporting the Justice Department and FBI or the Freedom Caucus, he spinelessly passed on the question.

One more example.  Earlier this week I was walking the dog when I came upon an elderly gentleman wearing an Air Force cap.  I asked him about his service.  Then, without any coaxing from me, he volunteered how upset it was that the Democratic party was holding the military budget hostage over undocumented immigrants.  I asked him, “Were you aware Democratic Senator McCaskill of Missouri, immediately following the failed budget vote Friday night, introduced a resolution to exempt the military from the government shutdown and Mitch McConnell refused to bring her motion to the floor for a vote?”  He replied, “I don’t believe it.”  At which point, I told him, if that’s the case, there’s no reason to continue the conversation and walked away.

As the late U.S. Senator from New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  As was the case with academic misconduct at the university, the Trump administration concept of “alternate facts” also started small, i.e. the crowd size at the inauguration.  But once it becomes the norm, there are no barriers to the use of larger and larger “non-facts” to disrupt and undercut the basic foundations of our government and the Constitution.  The Nation survived Nixon and I still believe we will survive Trump.  Unfortunately, faux patriots like Devin Nunes, Ron Johnson, and increasingly, Paul Ryan are making it much harder.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP