Category Archives: Media

Area 45

 

People always ask me about Roswell and the aliens and UFOs, and it turns out the stuff going on that’s top secret isn’t nearly as exciting as you expect.

~President Barack Obama/November 17, 2015

Every president since Harry Truman has been asked about Roswell and the Nevada Air Force testing facility commonly known as Area 51.  Due to the highly classified nature of activities conducted there, it is at the center of multiple conspiracy theories claiming the site is where an alien spacecraft crashed in the early 1950s.  Such rumors intensified as a result of the government’s unwillingness to publicly acknowledge the existence of the facility until June 2013, following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

As an admitted political junkie, I too have fantasized about unfettered access to the nation’s deepest, darkest secrets.  But not whether there are remains of aliens in an underground fault a la Independence Day.  My interests lie elsewhere.  What dirty laundry about his detractors did J. Edgar Hoover keep in a private file cabinet that protected his tenure at the FBI for 37 years?  And of course, despite presidential promises to the contrary, why has each administration continued to withhold from public view still classified documents pertaining to John Kennedy’s assassination?

It makes you wonder if Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men is a metaphor for a paternalistic federal government which believes the American people “can’t handle the truth.”  Both in the past and in the present. Has the White House under Donald Trump become Area 45, a federal facility shrouded in secrecy protected by an attorney general who sees FOIA as an annoyance rather than a tool to ensure transparency within the public sector?

Yesterday, thanks to Bob Woodward, Donald Trump, in his own words, confessed, “You’re damn right I ordered the Code Red!”  However, instead of being hauled off by MPs, Trump suggested he has done it more than once and will do it again.  In foreign policy.  About systemic racism.  Bragging about classified weapons systems.

As I’ve referenced in a previous post, comedian David Steinberg revels in those occasions, e.g. Watergate, when we get “to see the torn underwear under America’s tuxedo.”  And despite concerns to the contrary, we always seem capable of handling the truth.  That is why on his first day in office, President Joe Biden needs to heed the advice of those who recommend the formation of a bi-partisan Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  Although they may not admit it publicly, many Republicans and conservatives, if they truly fear Biden will usher in an era where unrestrained presidential power will be used to implement a radical leftist agenda, should also welcome such a panel.

Woodward has chiseled a peephole into Area 45.  To understand the bigger picture and address the legal and moral shortcomings which allowed it to be constructed in the first place, we need to unlock the gates and air out the windowless recesses. Citizens have a right to see an unredacted version of the Mueller Report.  The interpreters’ notes from Trump meetings with Vladimir Putin.  The complete transcript of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky.  Communications between the White House, Trump Campaign Committee and the Department of Justice related to ongoing investigations, pardons and commutations and the firing of district attorneys and inspectors general.  And more.

Not only can we handle the truth, we must demand it and put every succeeding occupant of the Oval Office on notice that this is the standard going forward.

EPILOGUE

In 2010, I team-taught a course at Miami University titled, “Entrepreneurship and the Future of Journalism,” with a colleague in the Journalism Department.  While much of the syllabus focused on changes in what interests news consumers and the impact of technology, my goal was to help these aspiring reporters and editors think like entrepreneurs.  Lesson #1 was, “Every potential story is an opportunity, but more importantly it is a call to do more homework than the story requires.”  To no one’s surprise, I would use Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as examples.  In particular, demonstrating how what began as a back-page story about a break-in at the Watergate proved to be so much more as Wood/Stein (as they were often referred to by Washington Post editor-in-chief Ben Bradlee) kept peeling away the layers of the onion.  Each time revealing more of the saga.

At the end of the lesson, I wondered aloud where the next Woodward or Bernstein would come from.  What epic story would bring them to the forefront of journalism?  Win a Pulitzer Prize? Yesterday, we got the answer.  The next Bob Woodward is still Bob Woodward.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Adieu Good Men

 

When new movie releases are dominated by re-makes or re-boots, it is a clear signal writers and producers are short on new material.  This year has been no exception. From Hugh Jackman as Dr. Doolittle to Colin Firth as Mary’s guardian Archibald Craven in The Secret Garden to Elizabeth Moss fighting off The Invisible Man, I have found they have one thing in common.  Making me wish I might find the originals available for viewing on Turner Classic Movies or The Criterion Channel.

Open Letter to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) – Around the BlockHowever, there is one re-boot I anxiously await.  Aaron Sorkin and Rob Reiner’s courtroom drama pitting a young Navy lawyer Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) against Colonel Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson).  Sorkin and Reiner have promised to retain much of the pithy dialogue from A Few Good Men, especially in the final confrontation between the two adversaries.  Except in the new rendition the actors use their real names.  California congressman Adam Schiff has been cast as the prosecutor and Florida Senator Marco Rubio as the defendant who believes he is entitled to his own reality.

There is one other major deviation from the original.  The trial is not precipitated by the murder of PFC Willie Santiago by fellow marines for allegedly violating the corps’ code of honor.  In this latest adaptation, defendant Rubio is accused of being complicit in one final, desperate effort to cover up the Trump campaign’s coordination with Russian officials to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Spoiler Alert:  This morning I had a chance to screen excerpts from the film and feel it is my responsibility to share with you the conclusion of the final showdown between the two rivals.

Schiff:  Senator Rubio, if you thought the Russian investigation was a hoax why did you and other members of the committee like Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton and Texas Senator John Cornyn sign off on the Senate Intelligence report that confirmed everything in the Mueller report and more.  The three of you have been among the most vocal critics of the Mueller report and the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Rubio:  Because if there had been Russian collusion, the country would have been in danger.

Schiff:  Grave danger?

Rubio:  Is there another kind?

Schiff:  Senator, if, in writing (holds up the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report), you were willing to confirm the existence of coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign and allege Donald Trump committed perjury by lying in his written testimony to the special counsel, why would you immediately tweet “WE found no evidence of collusion” ?

Rubio:  You want answers?

Schiff:  I think I’m entitled to them.

Rubio:  You want answers?!

Schiff:  I want the truth.

Rubio:  Neither you or Trump supporters can handle the truth…  Son, we live in a world with walls and Bibles that are props so Trump can pretend that he is protecting you from imaginary enemies.  And people like me have to guard those myths.  I have more responsibility to protect Donald Trump’s image than you can fathom.  You weep for America and curse Trump.  You don’t know what I know.  And my existence, while grotesque to you, ensures Trump and Mitch McConnell stay in power despite the fact that the Republican party has lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections and Democratic candidates for the Senate in 2018 received 12 million more votes than their GOP opponents.  We use words like hoax, fake news, rigged elections and enemy of the people.  They’re the backbone of our power.  I have neither the time or inclination to explain myself or Donald Trump to someone who questions the way we do things.  Better just to thank us.

Schiff:  Senator, did you and are you still covering up for Donald Trump?

Rubio:  I did the job he sent me to do.

Schiff:  Did you cover up for the president?

Rubio:  You’re goddamn right I did.

Schiff:  Your honor, I suggest the jury be dismissed so that we can move to an immediate Article 39a Session.  The witness has rights.

Rubio:  What the hell’s going on?  I did my job.  I’d do it again.  Now I’m getting on a plane and going back to Florida.

Judge: Sergeant-at-arms, please take the Senator into custody.

In case you’re wondering, Senator Rubio’s trial is scheduled for November, 2022 during which a jury of his constituents will have a chance to render judgment.  As he did during his 2016 run for the White House, Rubio will no doubt look to divine providence for guidance in waging his defense.  Matt Damon has already secured the movie rights and hired Paul Greengrass to direct.  The working title?  You guessed it.  The Bourne-Again Ultimatum.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Covert Capitalism

 

A former Miami University colleague and lifelong mentor would always advise his students,  “If, at the end of a day, you cannot say, ‘I had fun or learned something today,’ it’s time to do something else.”  Five years and 580 posts later, I still have not hit that wall.  That said, there are still challenges which make some mornings at the keyboard more difficult than others.  This morning was one of those occasions.

The dilemma was what many might call a good problem to have.  Which of the topics deserving attention should I tackle first?  Having just watched the most recent video from The Lincoln Project, I wanted to address the conspiracy theories life-long Republican operatives like Rick Wilson and Steve Schmidt have an ulterior motive behind their efforts to help Joe Biden evict Donald Trump from the White House. Meanwhile, Trump continued his months long crusade to offend one demographic after another within the coalition on which his 2016 victory depended.

As the old adage promises, “Good things come to those who wait.”  Sure enough, there was a solution.  The key being, instead of too many competing topics, there were too few.  The missing piece of the puzzle turned out to be activist James Lawson’s remarks at John Lewis’ funeral during which he referred to the wealth gap in America as “plantation capitalism.”  Thus, this post became a juggling act, keeping all three balls in the air.

BALL #1: The Lincoln Project.  I am under no delusion Rick Wilson and Steve Schmidt have become flaming liberals or will be supportive of much of Joe Biden’s policy agenda.  They have staked their flag on the Democratic front line of the 2020 electoral battlefield because they share a concern Donald Trump is an existential threat to what American should stand for.  I have no doubt, if successful, their next project will be to try and re-establish a saner version of a political party grounded in conservative principles.  I can live with that.

See the source image

Democrats, questioning their motive does not bode well for post-election governance if you cannot see this arrangement is no different than Senator Majority Leader Bob Dole and President Bill Clinton coming together, in the midst of the 1996 election, to address the  ballooning federal deficit.  Or House Speaker Tip O’Neill and President Ronald Reagan joining forces to save social security.  Democrats and Republicans used to be able to put aside differences on those rare occasions when the consequences of not doing so were unacceptable to either side or more importantly the public interest.  There will always be time later for a return to partisan and ideological wrangling, something the founding fathers acknowledged was inevitable in any representative democracy.

BALL #2:  James Lawson.  I cringed when Lawson, who otherwise made a strong case for active engagement in the affairs of state, uttered the phrase “plantation capitalism.”  Was this the 2020 equivalent of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s “God Damn America” rant in 2008?  How can Democrats, so often, be on the right side of an issue and fail to find a way to express their opinion without offending those they hope to convert?

I know what Lawson meant.  Those who own the major corporations (i.e. stockholders) and those who run them reap the benefits of the harvest while the laborers are left with the chaff.  One need only look at the major stock indexes at the same time GDP declines at an annual rate of 32.9 percent and 30 million Americans are out of work.  Or the fact that CEO income has risen 1008 percent over the last four decades while worker pay has increased by only 12 percent over the same period.  It is unconscionable, but you make no friends calling it “plantation capitalism.”  Who came up with that?  The same people who tagged law enforcement reform as “defund the police”?

Which is why Democrats and liberals, in this time of desperation, need allies like the Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump.  These are the same people who came up with a campaign theme in 2000 to gut the social safety net under George W. Bush called “compassionate conservatism”.  And turned a underqualified small town mayor from Alaska into the darling of the Republican right.  Theoretically, I might consider a defense lawyer who successfully represents the most disgusting clients the scum of the earth.  But if I am  the one facing ten years in the slammer, hand me his business card.

BALL #3: Donald Trump’s 2020 Election Strategy.  If Trump’s base of support was an onion, every action he has taken this year has been the equivalent of discarding one layer after another.  Criminal negligence handling the pandemic response has alienated the elderly.  Racial dog-whistling has offended suburban women.  Intervening in the prosecutions of his partners in crime has exposed the hypocrisy of his tacit support for justice reform.  His infomercials for Trump properties and promoting products like Goya foods and My Pillow reek of self-dealing and corruption.  And of course, his gaslighting the legitimacy of an election he is trying his damnedest to lose has generated a backlash among conservative voices from Rupert Murdoch’s  Wall Street Journal to William F. Buckley’s National Review to Steven Calabresi’s Federalist Society, the folks who brought you Brett Kavanaugh.  Trump has transformed his 2016 inside straight into a royal flush of remorse.

Too bad for Trump the masters of Republican advertising are on our side.  Otherwise, the campaign’s response to under the table dealings and abuse of power would be sold as “covert capitalism”.  Trump would be touted not as someone who RAN government like a business, but the person who MADE government a business.  The administration would be a pantheon to American capitalism in an arena where the fight was never intended to take place.

How did this happen?  Because Plan A, “overt capitalism,” was sidetracked when 77,000 voters, Russia and James Comey contributed to Trump’s victory in 2016.  Pre-2015, the Trump brand was associated with wealth and luxury. His target market was the rich and famous.  But as Mary Trump states in the title of her tell-all book, it was “never enough.”   Enter Trump University, a vehicle to fleece the poor and forgotten.  How better to reach that new market than free airtime and a campaign financed by the Republican Party?  Plan A was to lose the election but gain 40-50 million potential customers.

Plan B, “covert capitalism,” looked good on paper.  But the return on investment has been disappointing.  The brand has taken a hit with its original market as evidenced by the declining revenues at Trump resorts and hotels, even prior to the coronavirus.  Hosting certain public events at Trump properties is viewed as a conflict of interest and off-limits (e.g. the G-7 meeting and the WGC Golf Tournament at Doral National).  And government watchdogs are building a mountain of receipts that document the family’s self-dealing and potential misappropriation of campaign funds.

The only logical explanation for the Trump 2020 campaign is customer retention.  One has to wonder if Ivanka, Junior and Eric haven’t held an intervention in which they convinced daddy it is time to go back to Plan A.  Exhibit #1.  Last week the Trump Organization applied for a trademark for the term “telerally.”  The application stated “telerally” would be used in “organizing events in the fields of politics and political campaigning.”  And who do you think will be the audience for these events?  I won’t insult your intelligence by answering that.

Welcome to Trump Overt Capitalism 2.0.  The same voters who believed their lives would be enriched by a real estate shyster and reality television host will pay for the opportunity to listen to him whine about his victimhood, don Chinese-manufactured t-shirts and ball caps proclaiming “We Was Robbed,” and stay at Econo-Trump motels.  They will long for the “good old days” as they watch telerallies on the One America News Network, likely to be renamed the Trump Resistance Channel.  Yet, each and every one of them will still benefit from the health care and government transfer payments of which Trump did his best to deprive them.  And complain about it all the way to the bank.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Anatomy of a Lie

 

In normal times, Donald Trump’s Thursday night interview with Dr. Marc Siegel on Fox News would have been on the front page of The Onion. It was a parody of George Carlin’s monologue “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” This satirical version will henceforth be known as “The Five Words You Have to Say Over and Over on TV.”   I understand Trump’s rendition of “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.” is great theater.  But it should not have been the headline from Dr. Siegel’s audience with the king.

If we had a living, breathing press, someone would have picked up the fact Trump’s version of his experience in MoCA Land could not be true.  Consider the following three excerpts of Trump’s rambling response to Dr. Siegel’s question about his cognitive acuity versus that of his opponent Joe Biden.

So the last time I was at the hospital, probably a year ago, a little less than a year ago, I asked the doctor, I said, is there some kind of a cognitive test that I could take? Because I’ve been hearing about it. Because I want to shut these people up.

I said to the doctor, it Dr. Ronny Jackson, I said, is there some kind of a test? An acuity test? And he said there actually is and he named it whatever it might be.

So I said, yes, I said, person, woman, man, camera, TV. Okay, that’s very good. If you get it in order, you get extra points. If you’re — okay, they’re always asking you other questions. Other questions, and then 10 minutes, 15, 20 minutes later they’d say, remember the first question, not the first, but the 10th question. Give us that again. Can you do that again? And you go person, woman, man, camera, TV.

A colleague at Miami University, a professor of business legal studies, always reminded me, “It you want to understand a situation, build a timeline.”  Therefore, when it seemed something was suspicious in Trump’s narrative, I did just that.

July 25, 2013 – March 28, 2019
Dr. Ronny Jackson’s term as Physician to the President.  (Source: Wikipedia)

March 28, 2019
Dr. Sean Patrick Conley becomes the Physician to the President following Jackson’s nomination to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs.  Jackson’s nomination was withdrawn following revelations of his addiction to alcohol and over-prescribing drugs. (Source: Wikipedia)

November 18, 2019
President Donald Trump made a trip to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, as White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham put it, to “begin portions of his routine annual physical exam” on Saturday. But there are indications the trip wasn’t as routine as the White House would have the public believe.  (Source: VOX.COM)

Do I even need to point out the telltale lie?  If he took the test during a hospital visit “a little less than a year ago,” Ronny Johnson could not have been there.  He had not been the President personal physician for eight months prior to the alleged date of the cognitive assessment.

But that’s just the most obvious falsehood.  Anyone who has taken the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) knows the memory exercise involves five totally unrelated terms.  For example, version 7.1 of the test, asks the the subject to repeat the following:  Face. Velvet.  Church. Daisy. Red.  There is no way any version would include both the words “man” and “woman” or “camera” and “TV”.

You can always tell when Trump is lying because he is always hedging his bets.  In this case he gives three different time lapses before he was asked to repeat the five words.  First, 10.  But in his stable genius mind that is not impressive enough.  So it becomes 15, then 20.  If Kayleigh had properly prepped him for the interview, he would have known the instructions clearly state, “Do recall after 5 minutes.”  And of course, there is NO extra credit if you get all five.  In Trump world, extra credit is a “figure” of his imagination.

MoCA: A Test to Assess Mental Capacity - Health and Wellness AlertsDuring the interview with Dr. Siegel, the one thing on which Trump chose not to elaborate was the portion of the assessment when the subject is required to name three animals.  If everything he did talk about was false, one can only imagine his response to that exercise.  “Hmm.  The second one is Mitt Romney.  The third one, don’t tell me.  He used to be in cigarette commercials wearing sunglasses.  Does he vape now? And the first one?  Of course.  He’s always been a lion.  Just like I do.”

Behold, the musings of a “stabled” genius.  And I would say it’s way past time to put this horse out to pasture.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Why Hamilton?

 

There is one positive aspect about the founding of the United States which is beyond reproach.  Cinematic productions of award-winning Broadway musicals about the era are among the best transformations of content from stage to screen.  Such was the case with Peter Hunt’s 1972 production of 1776 and Disney’s presentation of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton.  What do they have in common?  Both films (I know it’s an anachronism) featured the original Broadway casts and neither relied on B-roll clips or CGI to enhance the atmosphere of the stage settings.  Such devotion to capturing the source material in its original format allows one to focus on the “cattle” rather than the “hat.”  NOTE: For non-Texans, this reference comes from the Lone Star State axiom about an individual of no substance, “All hat; no cattle!”

Without the distraction of bizarre camera angles and disco-esque light shows, I fixated on the question, “Why Hamilton?”  Was this the alternative to Peter Hunt’s having already examined the process of drafting the Declaration of Independence in melody and lyrics.  Given the opportunity, would “The Room Where It Happened” have been about the chamber in Independence Hall when Jefferson trades abolition of slavery for South Carolina and Georgia’s ratification of the the document rather than a dinner where Jefferson and Madison swap the location of the future seat of government for Hamilton’s national bank.

The obvious answer?  Alexander Hamilton and Miranda share the same Puerto Rican roots.  What better personal choice for a metaphor about the on-going desire for freedom and respect.  Yet, Edward de Bono, the father of “lateral thinking,” implores us never to stop at the first adequate right answer.  Keep searching.  For me, that next right answer emerged when Jonathan Groff enters as King George III.  You immediately notice Groff, who is whiter than white (hopefully with the aid of make-up), is the exception to the rule.  He is the only Anglo character in the story played by a Caucasian.  And quite the dandy.  Ashley Wilkes and Rhett Butler rolled into a single persona.

It is not just his looks, but his words, especially the chorus to his first solo number “You’ll Be Back,” which expose his character.

You’ll be back
Soon you’ll see
You’ll remember you belong to me
You’ll be back
Time will tell
You’ll remember that I served you well

You are better off a colonist than responsible for your own care and feeding.  The theme re-emerges during King George’s second appearance following the surrender at Yorktown in the song, “What Comes Next.”  The monarch further demonstrates his disdain and lack of respect for his “beloved” subjects.

What comes next?
You’ve been freed
Do you know how hard it is to lead?
You’re on your own

Sound familiar?  The exact words every plantation owner told his slaves at the end of the Civil War.  Right answer #2.  Hamilton is not about the American Revolution.  It is not about the colonists seeking independence from The Crown.  It is the realization that emancipation from the lingering attitude toward former slaves was harder than abolishing the institution of involuntary servitude.

But again, why Hamilton?  Could the narrative not been equally effective if the musical had been about Pedro Albizu Campos, a Puerto Rican attorney and politician who championed the territory’s independence movement in 1950.  Or Harriet, The Musical.  Ironically, right answer #3 is handed to us in Act 1, Scene 1, when Aaron Burr (Leslie Odom, Jr.) cannot understand his rival’s success.

How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a
Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten
Spot in the Caribbean by Providence, impoverished, in squalor
Grow up to be a hero and a scholar?

If you thought Hamilton  was a metaphor for emancipation, substitute the words “absentee father” for “Scotsman” or “project in Chicago” for “spot in the Caribbean.”  Or consider the following excerpts from Miranda’s first solo, “My Shot.”

Hey yo, I’m just like my country
I’m young, scrappy, and hungry

The problem is I got a lot of brains, but no polish
I gotta holler just to be heard

I’m a diamond in the rough, a shiny piece of coal
Tryin’ to reach my goal

These are not the words of a colonist or a slave.  They are the words of too many disadvantaged Americans of color and Dreamers who have much to offer if only given the chance.

But still, why Hamilton?  Why not Martin Luther King or Medgar Evers?  Which brings me to right answer #4.  Hamilton is as much about unfulfilled potential and legacy as it is about the title character’s life.  And what better examples of the unfairness in the world than the cruel reality when King is assassinated at age 39 and  Evers at age 40 is gunned down while those responsible for their deaths live to be 70 (James Earl Ray) and 80 (Byron De La Beckwith).  Is it a coincidence that Burr also lived to be 80 while Hamilton died at 47 or 49, depending on the conflicting records of his birth?  Miranda captures this message in the lyrics of the closing number, “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story,” in which Hamilton’s sister-in-law Angelica Schuyler sings:

Every other founding father story gets told
Every other founding father gets to grow old

The same question could be asked about George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, or Admaud Arbery.  In their own way, each found themselves in the middle of a modern day movement, one more attempt to reach the vision of a more perfect union where all are “created equal with inalienable rights.”  And each protester who takes a knee or marches in support of Black Lives Matter is echoing the lyrics, “I gotta holler just to be heard.”

Hamilton is not about the past.  It is a metaphor of the moment.  Why Hamilton?  Because it is a story for all time, all places and all people.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP