Disclaimer:  Today’s post includes a discussion of two writers.  Myself and Salman Rushdie.  Therefore, let me remind everyone, I know Dr. ESP.  I collaborate with Dr. ESP.  Dr. ESP, you are no Salman Rushdie.

Anyone who writes historical fiction knows, by labeling it “fiction,” writers give themselves license to create situations and dialogue to which no one except the principals have first-hand knowledge.  In many cases, the non-documented passages are needed to address unanswered questions.  As I drafted In the National Interest, there were two issues for which the public record provided no definitive explanation.  What was Lee Harvey Oswald’s motive for killing John F. Kennedy?  And was Oswald’s employment at the Texas School Book Depository, weeks before the motorcade route became public, coincidence or due to manipulation?

I was reminded of this aspect of my book while watching Jon Stewart’s interview of Salman Rushdie last night on “The Daily Show.”  In his book Knife, an account of being attacked during an August 2022 lecture at the Chautauqua Institute and the aftermath, Rushdie admits he still knows nothing about his attacker Hadi Matar’s motive other than his support for the Islamic Revolution on social media.  And despite standing outside the Chautauqua prison where Matar is being held pending trial when, while writing his book, Rushdie returned to “the scene of the crime,” he chose not to confront his attacker.  Instead, he created a Socratic dialogue which included his idea of what Matar’s legal counsel might provide as a defense in his forthcoming trial.

Again, I felt a personal kinship with Rushdie as this was the same technique I used to create both sides of the moot court arguments as my protagonist Jonathan Sheppard explores the decision to release or withhold the journal he inherited.  My self pat on the back was, however, short lived as Rushdie explained his purpose in forging this imaginary conversation with this young man who “came out of the crowd” 34 years after an Irani Ayatollah ordered a fatwa against Rushdie, following the 1988 publication of The Satanic Verses, a satirical account of the alienation and eventual assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Britain.

I had used my creative process at best to tie up loose ends in my narrative, but mostly for its entertainment value.  Rushdie had used his to try and understand why someone who was not even born at the time of the fatwa would commit a crime that would likely incarcerate him for the rest of his life.  His was a far more noble endeavor, looking for some rationale for the irrational.  Which made me rethink the value of a fictional Socratic dialogue as a means of exploring options in complex situations, especially when the actual response, in hindsight, proved unproductive.

And, being the first night of Passover, my thoughts centered on the current status of the Israel/Hamas conflict and its impact on college campuses in the United States.  On the day after the terrorist attack, international sympathy, for the most part, was clearly with the Israelis despite lingering concerns about policies affecting Palestinians promoted by the Netanyahu government. 

History tells us any nation subject to a terrorist attack has options, including, but not limited to:

• Diplomacy
• A targeted military response.
• An unlimited military response.
• Focus on internal security to prevent future attacks.
• Establishing an anti-terror alliance to universally condemn such attacks.
• Some combination of the above.

Only one of these six options had the potential of inverting post-October 7 sentiment towards Israel from victim to villain.  Likewise, it was Muslim students, not their Jewish classmates, who felt unsafe on college campuses in the immediate days after the vicious and inhumane Hamas attack.    As was also the case for almost unanimous Congressional support for military assistance to Israel.  Again, only one choice could dramatically change those dynamics. And yet that is the one Netanyahu and his war cabinet chose.

When Jon Stewart asked Rushdie, “How are you doing,” he told his host he feels better now than he did before the attack.  And when queried if he was apprehensive about Matar’s forthcoming trial and the possibility of being called to testify, Rushdie replied he is only a fact witness and feels no need to confront his attacker.  He then referred back to standing in the “car park” (British for parking lot) outside the Chautauqua prison.  “I am a free man outside; he is locked up inside.”

I cannot help but wonder if the Israeli government had conducted a similar Socratic process before launching their version of “shock and awe” on Gaza, would they have avoided a situation where both sides are hopelessly and indefinitely “locked up inside” prisons of their own making.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

This century has not been kind to the American system of justice.  It has been accused of being two-tiered.  At times, it defies logic, as in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.  Yesterday, we learned that “law and order” is not the only American value which is applied depending on who you are, not what you do.

Case in point, Senator Tom Cotton (MAGA-Arkansas).  On May 10, 2023, Cotton introduced the Campus Free Speech Restoration Act, which according to his accompanying press release, “protects the First Amendment rights of students at public universities from unconstitutional speech codes and so-called free speech zones.”  Among the provisions of the proposed legislation are (again from his press release):

• Prohibit public colleges from restricting free speech and expression on campus.
• Create a cause of action in federal court for the Attorney General or other parties to challenge restrictions on speech and expression on campus.
• Make sure the requirements of the Act do not apply to colleges and universities controlled by religious institutions.

Okay, the First Amendment promotes free expression.  And anyone violating another’s right to free expression should be subject to due process for alleged violations.  But seriously Senator, if a student at Notre Dame University accuses the head football coach of being an overpaid incompetent, you’re okay if the Board of Trustees determines such blasphemy is punishable by suspension or expulsion.  But religious exemptions for rules that apply to everyone else is a matter for a different day.

Why?  Because yesterday the distinguished gentleman* from Arkansas took a quite different approach when it came to protesters in four U.S. cities who blocked highways to express their disapproval of what they believe is a disproportionate Israeli response to October 7 and support for a Palestinian State.

You have to get to these criminals early.  If something like this happened in Arkansas on a bridge there, let’s say there would be an awful lot of wet criminals tossed overboard, not by law enforcement, but by people whose road they were blocking.  If they glued their hands to car or pavement, well, pretty painful to have their skin ripped off, but I think that’s the way we would handle it in Arkansas.  And I’d encourage people anywhere, who get stuck behind criminals like this who are trying to block traffic, to take matters into their own hands.  It’s time to put an end to this nonsense.

Now I understand people might get upset when a protest inconveniences them.  But in the MAGA universe, peaceful protesters are “criminals,” and violent protesters on January 6th are “patriots” and “hostages.”  And where was Tom Cotton when New Jersey authorities shut down the George Washington Bridge to punish Fort Lee mayor Mike Sokolich for not supporting Governor Chris Christie’s bid for reelection?  Or when neo-Nazis blocked downtown streets in Nashville?  Or when “The People’s Convoy” blocked access to Washington, D.C. to protest COVID-19 restrictions? In other words, when Tom Cotton encourages people to attack protesters, he makes a clear distinction between “my people” and “you people.”

And so much for due process.  Cotton might as well have been one of the faux federales in John Huston’s  1927 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, “We don’t need no stinking charges.  Or stinking trials. Or stinking judges and juries.”  Just imagine if pro-Israel Christian nationalists were blocking a roadway in Dearborn, Michigan preventing the city’s large Muslim population from access to their mosque.  Does anyone believe Cotton would approve of Muslim vigilantes tossing them over the Miller-Rotunda Bridge?

All of this aside, I once again was struck by an observation by Joe Scarborough.  He prefaced his comment by acknowledging his personal friendship with Tom Cotton’s parents before adding, “I know they did not raise him to be like this.”  Based on that information, it is highly unlikely the senator’s warped perspective on American justice is attributable to familial DNA.  Which brings me back to the title of today’s post.  How many Americans, who 10 years ago would be appalled by Cotton’s call for vigilante violence, now support his message and might even participate in the equivalent of modern day lynchings?

This November was already a choice between clear alternatives.  Democracy v. Autocracy.  Allegiance to the Constitution v. Personality Cult.  National Security through Global Alliances v. Isolationism.  As someone who believes in the adage, “Children are not born with hate; someone teaches us to hate,” I now attribute a propensity toward political violence as largely a question of environment, an environment normalized by the MAGA Party.  So add one more item to the list of choices.  Due Process v. Vigilantism.  One presidential candidate calls for retribution and beating the hell out of people.  The other tells us, “We can be better than that.”

Given the choice between “Rip their skin off” or “That’s not who we are,”  I trust most Americans will eventually opt to be members of Team Better Than That.

*”Distinguished gentleman” is Congressional parlance for “son of a bitch.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

A former president of the United States daily rants about being the victim of a two-tiered system of justice and selective prosecution.  There is one way to find out whether there is any truth to his claim.  Employ the “Sesame Street” learning technique, “Which one is not like the other?”  Here are the options.

• On August 27, 2018, a jury found comedian Bill Cosby guilty of drugging and molesting Andrea Constand.  The former University of Arizona basketball star was represented by Gloria Allred, known for a series of high profile cases, many of which involved protection of women’s rights.
• On January 26, 2024, a jury ordered Donald Trump to pay journalist and former Vanity Fair advice columnist E. Jean Carroll $88.3 million for continuing to call her a liar after another jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation.  Carroll was represented by the New York firm of Kaplan Hecker & Fink.  Lead counsel Roberta Kaplan is described by the Washington Post as “a brash and original strategist, with neither a gift for patience nor silence, a crusader for underdogs who has won almost every legal accolade imaginable.”
• On October 15, 2018, U.S. District Judge James Otero dismissed a defamation suit against Trump by adult film star Stormy Daniels.  On April 4, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Daniels to reimburse Trump for $121,000 in legal fees associated with the 2018 case.  In 2018, Daniels was represented by Michael Avenatti who is currently serving a 14-year prison sentence for fraud and embezzlement involving clients including Daniels and Nike.

If you guessed the outlier was the case involving Stormy Daniels you would be correct.  Carroll and Constand had the best legal counsel money could buy.  In contrast, as Daniels testified in Avenatti’s federal fraud trial she hired him because “other lawyers were afraid. I was out of options.”  There is one other difference.  Cosby was accused of criminal behavior.  The Carroll and Daniels cases involved only liability and civil penalties.  Therefore, we need to review the basis on which these two outcomes diverged in order to understand how Daniels was also the victim of “naked bias.”

In her closing argument on behalf of Carroll, Kaplan include the following:

Donald Trump is prepared to use his wealth and power to defame people whenever he wants. He ignored the last verdict as if it had never happened.  While Donald Trump may not care about the law, while he certainly doesn’t care about the truth, he does care about money.  [A large punitive award] is the only way to give Ms. Carroll a chance at a normal life again where she is not regularly bullied and humiliated by one of the most powerful men on the planet.

In Daniels’ case, U.S. District Judge James Otero dismissed the charge that Trump defamed Daniels when he tweeted she had lied in 2011 about being threatened not to go public with the story of her sexual encounter with the future president.  In his ruling, Otero referred to the Tweet as “rhetorical hyperbole normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States.”  He called the lawsuit “a fishing expedition” and declared that Daniels had “failed to show that Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.”

Following Otero’s ruling, Avenatti tweeted, “Trump’s contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance.”  Clever, but not the fact based-response one would imagine if Roberta Kaplan or Gloria Allred were representing his client.

Much of the discussion about a two-tiered system of justice centers on money and power.  In this case, I believe it rests largely on the profession of the plaintiff.  Carroll was a respected journalist.  Constand, at the time of her assault, was director of operations for the Temple University women’s basketball team.  Stormy Daniels was a porn star.  That should not make a difference.  Of the three plaintiffs, Daniels may have paid the highest price.  Because she feared for the safety of her young daughter, she gave full custody to her ex-husband.  That fear was based largely on the threat she reported in 2011 in which the stranger who approached her car warned her, “Oh it’s a beautiful little girl, would be a shame if something happened to her mom. Forget about this story, leave Mr. Trump alone.”  Which is more credible?  The threat never happened.  Or a mother was willing to give up rights to her only child because she was honestly afraid and did not want her daughter to be collateral damage if someone tried to permanently silence her.

My question.  Beginning April 15, Donald Trump will face a jury of his peers who will decide if, in fact, he had a sexual encounter with Daniels and paid her to keep it quiet.  If he is found guilty, will the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals apologize to Daniels and reverse the 2023 order for her to pay Trump’s legal expenses.  Contrary to Judge Otero’s finding, it would be clear Trump “…acted with malice [AND] with reckless disregard for the truth.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The ghost of Yogi Berra spoke to me this morning.  “It’s déjà vu all over again,”  he said.  He was referring to the student protests on college campuses in support of a ceasefire in the Israel/Hamas war.  He continued, “I’m surprised, you of all people, have not made this connection.  You were there.”

Berra was, of course, reminding me of the student protests against the war in Vietnam at my alma mater, the University of Virginia.  Not only was I there, I was an active participant.  My fraternity brother Jeffrey Kirsch summed it up best in a 50th anniversary retrospective in Virginia Magazine. “It was like a cultural train running through the University.  There was this awaking and outpouring of emotions and progressive instincts.”

The early days of the anti-movement at UVA were peaceful.  They consisted of teach-ins and student gathering, including a concert in the Old Cabell Hall lecture room, the same 850 seat auditorium where I attended Economics 101.  I helped organized the concert and even performed, choosing two songs I hoped would generate dialogue about a misguided policy in Southeast Asia.  “The Age of Aquarius” from the musical Hair and Simon and Garfunkel’s “A Poem on the Underground Wall.”

Protest movements are never  monolithic.  For every Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Council there is a Bobby Seale and the Black Panthers.  In 1969, UVA students who favored a more militant approach to opposing the war formed the Radical Student Union.  In hopes of stemming a shift he feared might become more extreme and even violent, another one of my fraternity brothers Robert Rosen led what became known as the Student Coalition, bringing together liberals, antiwar radicals and fraternity leaders.  A third fraternity brother Joel Gardner, who today is among the most conservative advocates of the free speech movement at UVA, writes in his memoir about the effort to keep the more extreme elements of the antiwar movement from hi-jacking growing sentiment against the war and other progressive causes including the lack of racial diversity on campus.

The key was to forcefully demonstrate that the forthcoming actions of the coalition did not represent the ideas of wide-eyed radicals and agitators, and that support for stronger actions to address the issues at the University was widespread.

Two events demonstrated how quickly the complexion of a peaceful protest movement can change.  First, President Richard Nixon’s announcement U.S. troops had been deployed in Cambodia followed by the killing of four students and wounding of nine others by Ohio National Guard troops at Kent State University.  Kirsch, who now served as a president of the Virginia Progressive Party, organized a fundraiser featuring Chicago Seven defendant Jerry Rubin and his attorney William Kunstler.  What Kirsch originally envisioned as a “classroom sized presentation,” was moved to University Hall, the indoor athletic arena, to accommodate the 9,000 students from UVA and surrounding universities who came to hear them speak.

Even Kirsch, who introduced Rubin and Kunstler, remembers his own trepidation as both speakers urged the audience to “liberate the president’s house.”  Immediately following their remarks, Kirsch rushed to Carr’s Hill, the president’s residence, to warn Edgar Shannon of what was about to happen.  In the 50th anniversary retrospective, Ernie Gates writes:

Out front, Kirsch faced the mob he had unintentionally helped to create. “People were inflamed,” he says. “I felt like it was my fault. It was my event.” A megaphone amplifying his words, Kirsch addressed the crowd. “I said, ‘This is not the right tactic. We should be going after a target that is more associated with the war effort—we should take the Navy ROTC building.’ I didn’t want to burn down Maury Hall—I was trying to protect Shannon and his family.”

And to the ROTC building they went, occupying it again and declaring it “Freedom Hall.” A photo from that night shows a scorched mattress that had been dragged from the building’s basement, possibly a remnant of an attempt to follow through on the cries of “Burn it down.” The smoke, however, eventually forced the protesters to abandon the building.

The next morning, all the news reports and images focused on the incident at the Navy ROTC building.  In a New York minute, the extremist fringe of the anti-war movement fractured a coalition, three years in the making.

I share this story in such detail because the same forces seem to be at play on college campuses today.  When I see peaceful student protests calling for a ceasefire in the Israel/Hama conflict and humanitarian aid to civilians, I do not believe the overwhelming majority are calling for the destruction of Israel nor do I believe they hold American Jews responsible for what strike so many as counterproductive policies of the Netanyahu government.  At UVA, a majority of students voted in favor of a resolution demanding the university divest its endowment funds in companies doing business with Israel.  The text is similar to a 1987 resolution in response to apartheid in South Africa.  The resolution did not include antisemitic language or call for the dissolution of Israel.  It only addressed government policies believed to be contrary to the rights and aspirations of Palestinians.

Unfortunately, there is an extreme fringe of the pro-Palestinian movement on campus that has threatened Jewish students and vandalized property.  Concerned parents of Jewish students believe President James Ryan has not done enough to protect their children.  Some are demanding he resign.  And once again, when the fringe elements of a social movement, regardless of the cause, make the headlines (i.e. get top billing), it only detracts from the greater purpose.

Which begs the question, where are leaders of the pro-Palestinian student movement, who like Jeffrey Kirsch acknowledge their role, even if unintentional, in creating a hostile atmosphere and say, “This is not the right tactic.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP