80 years ago on June 6, 1944, 225 Army Rangers scaled the hundred-foot cliff of Point du Hoc to take out the German guns trained downward on Omaha Beach. Before it was over, 77 of the 225 Rangers died while most were wounded and only a handful were able to continue fighting; 2,400 died on Omaha Beach that day and most are buried in the Normandy American Cemetery. That cemetery holds just shy of 10,000 Americans who died in the Normandy invasion. Additionally, 1,557 soldiers classified as “Missing in Action” are commemorated there.

On the 40th anniversary of D-Day, President Reagan stood on that promontory and recalled “The Boys of Pointe du Hoc” comparing their efforts to begin the end of the Nazi tyranny to the then current need to end the Soviet Union’s stranglehold over Eastern Europe. A few years later, the Berlin Wall would come down and Poland, East Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Czechoslovakia would finally enjoy freedom. As the Wall was coming down, a young KGB agent named Vladimir Putin was busy destroying incriminating records of the East German Stasi before he scurried back to Moscow.

On the 80th anniversary of D-Day, just weeks ago at the Normandy American Cemetery, President Biden invoked “The Ghosts of Pointe du Hoc” to compare their sacrifice to the sacrifice now needed to repel Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.”

William Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It is not even past.” The past is never past because what happened in the past is repeated time and again. So, on the political level, the forces of authoritarian tyranny will always vie with the forces of personal freedom.

Tom Brokaw coined the name “The Greatest Generation” referring to the American men and women who came through the Depression and then faced up to the Nazi threat and were responsible for ending it. They then returned home. When they returned home, they did not talk too much about their war exploits but they did do one thing: they formed and joined numerous civic and social clubs devoted to improving their communities. For example, when you drive into the city of Annapolis, Maryland, you will see a sign bearing the emblems of numerous social and civic organizations. (Lions, Optimists, Kiwanis, Rotary, etc.). I think the Annapolis sign carries perhaps 10 to 12 emblems.

These groups contributed a variety of ways to their local communities. The Optimists in the 1950s were the “Friends of the Boy and activities included athletic leagues and essay and oratorical contests. Today, Optimists run programs for all kids. The Lions concentrated on medical assistance to those in need and have a special interest in helping the blind. The Kiwanis Club in each community decides how to best serve that community with a particular interest in children. Anyone who follows baseball knows that the American Legion sponsors the best teams in the community. The common concern of each of these groups: bettering the communities where they operate.

My father was a member of “The Greatest Generation.” A World War II veteran, he was injured in a training exercise at Fort Benning, Georgia shortly before his unit was to depart for Europe. That unit ended up in the Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes Forest and only a few returned. He never forgot that.

Like many of that generation, he was active in his community. He was the charter president of the Hyattsville Optimist Club and became “Mr. Optimist” with his record of 37 years of perfect attendance. He was also a member of the American Legion, the Rotary, and the Knights of Columbus.

Unlike him, I have never joined any civic group and my only contribution to my community has been coaching Little League baseball, being on the PTA at my children’s school and being on the Parish Council of my local church, all of which is something but far less than that contributed by my father. Of course, my father did these things as well.

It is probably incorrect to say that the explosion of membership in service clubs in the 1950s was the result of the “shared service” experience of The Greatest Generation. But that experience certainly helped. Of course, everything was not hunky-dory with The Greatest Generation. My third base coach was convicted of killing his first wife after the same hitman he hired to kill his third wife spilled the beans about the first murder.

In almost all instances, the membership of these clubs has plummeted dramatically since the 1970s. Indeed, the spirit of service seems to be evaporating with every passing year. World War II had one positive effect on American citizens: the notion of shared sacrifice, one for all and all for one. It was the same sense of shared sacrifice that Winston Churchill engendered in the British people. The American men and women serving in the military were matched at home by “Rosie the Riveter” preparing armaments. (click here to see Norman Rockwell’s iconic painting of Rosie the Riveter)

If World War II effectively created “shared service” and that was a positive development for the American people, perhaps we should dust off the notion that all citizens should be enlisted into some type of service for others. We could require that all citizens, upon reaching the age of 18, should spend two years in a service role before they reached the age of 26. For example, some could enlist in the military; some could spend two years in the Peace Corps or two years in Vista (Volunteers in Service to America) or working on a project to save the environment similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps which existed in the 1930s and was the most popular of the New Deal programs. Others could spend two years serving in nonprofit organizations.

Participants would be paid the equivalent of a military salary with appropriate adjustments. Israel requires the citizens to spend two years in the military. This would be our equivalent, but the military would only be one place where one could serve and there would be multiple other options.

A proposal for mandatory service will be opposed by many. The principal objection will be that America relies upon voluntary activities by its citizens and, with the exception of the draft in times of war, there is no precedent for such an imposition. Moreover, the goal of bringing people together is a form of government social engineering one might expect in authoritarian countries but is surely not proper in the “land of the free.” The more popular expression of this feeling is contained in the Gadsen flag showing a rattlesnake about to strike with the words “don’t tread on me.” That flag was created during the American Revolutionary War and has come to symbolize the notion that individual rights are superior to government demands.

One potential compromise would be to make the two-year service voluntary but reward it with substantial benefits, such as the government providing educational assistance as it did after World War II with the G.I. Bill of Rights. There could be public service ads directed at high school and college students extolling the virtues of joining similar to what the military uses now.

A voluntary program would avoid one significant problem of mandatory programs. The Bill Clintons and Donald Trumps of the world will always find a way to avoid their duty while the average person will not flinch.

One additional bonus of such a program is that it will encourage a sense of community togetherness. The tribal politics of today will be diminished. Many of us will have served and, in that service, met each other.

The whole thing has spread like wildfire. The student protest at Columbia University in favor of the Palestinians in Gaza has resulted in solidarity efforts from fellow students at Southern Cal, the University of Texas, Princeton and countless other universities. Tent encampments are the order of the day as is the chanted slogan “from the river to the sea” which is “Hamas speak” and means that Israel must be eradicated.

Efforts to remove the tent encampments have resulted in howls of protest as the students demand that their university withdraw all support from companies that support or do business with Israel. Many arrests have occurred for violation of criminal trespass laws.

Some will not be surprised that Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) was the first to dive headfirst, without looking, into the shallow end of the pool. She criticized the Columbia administration for the “horrific decision” two weeks ago to call on the New York Police Department to deal with their “own” students and further said that the particular NYPD units involved had a reputation for being some of the most violent units on the force. Of course, she was speaking from hundreds of miles away and there is no credible report that the arrests of the trespassing students were violent.

If there is a tweet war between AOC and the police department, my money is on the NYPD which tweeted this response: “I encourage you @AOC to visit Columbia and do a walk-through. Good SAT scores and self-entitlement do not supersede the law. I’m sure that you will agree that we have to teach them these valuable life lessons.” AOC was not done but it would take two weeks for her to make a reappearance and, once again, made one question if her opinions comport with reality.

The situation in Gaza is difficult to witness. A war is being waged where a civilian population stands firmly in the middle and tens of thousands of innocent people have already died. A cease-fire is necessary, but it probably means that Hamas survives although, unfortunately, I think that it survives anyway as the death of each civilian probably results in the recruitment of another Hamas fighter.

Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by the European Union and the United States. It has ruled the Gaza for the last 20 years on strict Islamic principles. Having a protest in Gaza on behalf of women or gay rights, like any similar protest in Iran, would and has resulted in extremely harsh sanctions including death and prison sentences. Being a protester in these places requires great intestinal fortitude and a willingness to suffer the worst for your beliefs. The Columbia protesters are not cut out of the same piece of cloth; they have demanded amnesty and an erasure of their criminal records so their future life is not imperiled. There is no such thing as amnesty in Gaza or Iran.

Hamas ignited the current war when it invaded Israel and killed over 1,200 people and took 250 hostages, including the elderly and children. It is well documented that its invasion involved the beheading of people, multiple rapes, setting people on fire and the murdering of children. The current student protesters conveniently forget the precipitating cause of the war. Some are even supportive of Hamas. However, one can be very concerned about the war in Gaza and not be a supporter of Hamas, anti-Semitic or an enemy of Israel.

After the initial arrest of Columbia students two weeks ago, the protesters returned and set up their tents again. The Columbia Administration, relying on hope rather than experience, tried to negotiate its way out of the mess. That did not work as it only seemed to energize the protesters into believing they would win and, hey, why not run out the string. They then occupied Hamilton Hall and began to trash it and set up barricades. Finally, the Administration woke up, realizing there was no pleasing the protesters, and called in the cops again and order was restored. The grounds have been cleaned and now the Commencement can proceed as originally planned.

One of the more humorous demands of the Columbia students occupying Hamilton Hall was that the University provide them with food and water. One of the leaders of the protest told the assembled media that the students occupying the building might otherwise die of “dehydration and starvation or get severely ill. It is basic humanitarian aid that we are looking for” said Johannah King-Slutzky, a 33-year-old PhD student in English and Comparative Literature (her picture above). When a reporter questioned her logic, she noted that, after all, many of the Hamilton Hall protesters had a “meal plan” at Columbia.

You really can’t make this stuff up.

Now that they have been dispersed, they will have to find their own food and drink and have to explain why they have been suspended or expelled from Columbia and, in many cases, have a police record for criminal trespass or destruction of property. There are probably any number of employers who will raise an arched eyebrow when the applicant tries to explain.

If the allegations in a case (Virginia Case) just filed in a federal court in Virginia are true, the so-called student movement at Columbia and the other schools has been financially aided and abetted by network of organizations devoted to spreading the Hamas message calling for the destruction of Israel.

Israel is losing the battle in the court of public opinion because of the civilian deaths in Gaza. There is no easy answer. The destruction of Hamas would benefit not only Israel but the world. Getting there is the problem. Already 30,000 have died and, while many were Hamas fighters, most were not. Israel’s current government seems to have a bad war plan and no sensible plan to resolve the conflict. Hopefully, someone with common sense will convince the Israelis to stop killing innocent civilians.

In a few weeks, this will all die down as the universities shut down for the summer. I am pretty sure we have pretty much seen the end of it. The Democratic National Convention will probably see Gaza protesters, but not at the level that the anti-Vietnam protesters who showed up in 1968 for the simple reason that the 1968 protesters were arguing for themselves, i.e., not to be drafted for a war in Vietnam. The 1968 protesters were right about a war which could not be won and was not won. The1968 protesters, unlike many in the current crowd, did not try to disguise themselves by wearing masks. It’s hard to suspend (or respect) someone who disguises their face behind a keffiyeh.

So, I’ll leave it to the celebrity politician (e.g., when her lipstick shade was publicly revealed, it sold out in a matter of hours) to end this blog. A few days ago, after Columbia had been restored to normal, AOC complimented the Columbia protesters and others for their “peaceful” protests. Apparently, her newspaper did not report on (1) the vandalism at Hamilton Hall (2) the pitched battles at UCLA which resulted in police intervention and a clearing of the encampment to restore UCLA to normalcy or (3) the cancellation of the Southern California commencement due to security concerns.

Sometimes, people only see what they want to see.

Hollywood’s annual night of self-congratulations – the Oscars – occurred a few Sundays ago. Most of you know that Oppenheimer beat Barbie and Killers of the Flower Moon for best picture.

However, I suspect that few of you know that, in order to be considered for Best Picture (starting in 2024), the nominee must comply with at least 2 of 4 Diversity, Inclusion and Equity Standards (DEI) identified as Standards A, B, C and D. Standard A is for on-screen (actors and plot); Standard B is for off-screen leadership (support personnel); Standard C is for training and Standard D for marketing. See Oscars Standards.

But Hollywood being Hollywood, the Standards are more fantasy than real. The best picture nominee must meet 2 of the 4 standards and it’s virtually impossible not to meet at least two.

Group A Standards include the following:

1. One actor in a major role must be from an underrepresented group (all such groups listed below).
2. At least 30% of the actors in minor roles must be from underrepresented groups.
3. The main story line, theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s).

A movie must comply with only one of the 3 and complying with Number 1 is perhaps the easiest.  Number 2 and Number 3 would really change things a lot but the go to loophole is Number 1. Remember, however, that there are three more standards to go and you only have to hit two of them so, if you fail here, you are not out of the running.

Group B Standards provide for the following:

1. Two or more department heads must be from underrepresented groups and at least one of these positions must belong to an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
2. At least six other crew members must come from underrepresented groups.
3. At least 30% of film crew members must be from underrepresented groups.

Again, Standard B only requires that one of the three must be met. So having a female Casting Director and a Samoan Cinematographer makes everything good. One down, one to go.

So how did “lily white” Oppenheimer make the cut? Well, it blew through Standard B since at least a dozen women were department heads and the head hairstylist was Hispanic.

And since Oppenheimer was a Universal film, it also satisfied both Standard C (training programs) and D (marketing) since Universal has extensive training programs for underrepresented ethnic and racial groups and, in addition, it has a Black Director of Domestic Marketing.

In other words, Universal films will always make the cut, even if they cannot comply with Standards A and B.

The bottom line: these DEI standards are a farce but allow the Hollywood elite to “signify” their commitment to inclusion (as long as it doesn’t hurt).

What is an underrepresented group? Here’s the list of the current racial or ethnic groups but I am sure that others will soon apply:

This proposal probably made Samuel Goldwyn (MGM), Jack Warner (Warner Bros), Louis B. Mayer (MGM) and Jesse Lasky (Paramount) stand up in their graves as they and other Jewish people are primarily responsible for the creation of Hollywood. As the New York Times reviewer wrote (July 6, 1955) in reviewing a Scott Eyman’s biography of Lewis B. Mayer (“The Lion of Hollywood”) he was one of “the first- and second-generation East European Jews who built Hollywood created an idealized world where all differences were cast aside in favor of a dream in which everything was beautiful.”

The whole subject of DEI standards has become a lightning rod in the cultural wars we are now experiencing. For those on the right, they are “red meat” and, for those on the left, they must be vigorously defended. I think that the right may be more correct than the left on this issue.

The real hotbed for DEI standards is the American college or university. For example, the Chief Diversity Officer of Johns Hopkins Medicine recently resigned after she sent a newsletter identifying people with “privilege” (Baltimore Sun, March 6, 2024). Dr. Sherita Golden wrote that “privilege” was the “word of the month” defining it as a “set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group.” The groups she identified were white people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, men and Christians.

Once the conservative media got hold of that newsletter all hell broke loose and the national media picked up the story. And while Dr. Golden has resigned as Chief Diversity Officer, she remains on the Hopkins faculty. Hopkins Medicine has announced that a “national search” for a new Diversity Chief is underway. Think about that. Diversity Officers for universities are in demand on a national basis and I’m quite sure that they are extremely well paid and have well-staffed offices. This may be one of several reasons that college graduates are burdened with overwhelming debt.

I fall into all five of Dr. Golden‘s identified groups so I have “unearned privilege” times 5. But if you look at her definition more carefully, I think 99+% of the population are included given her comment about “cisgender people.” Cisgender means anyone who identifies with the plumbing they were given at birth. Almost all members  of “underrepresented” groups are cisgender. In fact, with the exception of the transgender community, it’s hard to find anyone who does not fit into this category.

DEI Standards identify people in certain groups as being frozen in amber and whose only recourse is through a DEI intervention. Life is much more fluid than that and to think otherwise is fundamentally misleading. To create an infrastructure to carry out DEI interventions is good for the well-paid interveners but not for anybody else.

I don’t think Denzel Washington needed a DEI intervention to become one of the finest actors in my lifetime. He is excellent in good movies (Philadelphia, Malcolm, X, The Hurricane, Training Day, Glory) and even in mediocre movies (Equalizer 1,2,3). Always a joy to watch, he has been nominated for best actor on numerous occasions and has received an Oscar for best actor and another for best supporting actor.

I don’t think Oprah Winfrey needed a DEI intervention to become the GOAT of talk show hosts. She is just incredibly talented.

I don’t think Ellen DeGeneres needed a DEI intervention to become a talk show host with legions of followers. She too is remarkably talented.

I don’t think that Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David needed a DEI intervention to become the greatest comedians of recent years. They too were so talented that they have been keeping us laughing for 30 years.

There is no question that many people are discriminated against. I am quite sure that Denzel, Oprah, Ellen, Jerry and Larry experienced such discrimination and countless sleights, many intentional and some not. In the end, however, talent will out every time.

The DEI police don’t recognize this fundamental truth, nor do the universities who go on “national searches.”

In 1961, Connie Hawkins was expelled from the University of Iowa. He was not expelled for poor grades or misbehavior. Indeed, he had done nothing wrong but was the victim of a false rumor.

Hawkins was a freshman on a basketball scholarship and his name had surfaced in a college basketball “point shaving” gambling scheme centered in New York City where he lived. Hawkins was a well-known high school basketball star in New York City and that had earned him the scholarship at the University of Iowa. He adamantly denied involvement, a denial subsequently confirmed by independent investigators but too late. Indeed, even if he had wanted to “shave points,” it would’ve been impossible for him to do so since, in those years, a freshman could not play on the varsity team.

His expulsion effectively blackballed him from playing basketball for any college or university. The head of the National Basketball Association(NBA) piled on, saying he would not be allowed to play in the NBA.

Connie Hawkins was not only a good player but, by all accounts, may have been the greatest player of his generation. If Nike had been around in the 1960s, there might have been a shoe line known as the “Air Hawks,” a precursor to the “Air Jordans” of more recent times.

The intersection of gamblers and sports figures is concerning. Did Sonny Liston take a dive in the first round of his heavyweight championship fight with Muhammad Ali for the benefit of gamblers? Did Pete Rose take his foot off the gas pedal because he was betting on baseball games? No matter that Pete (Charlie Hustle) played as hard as always. Because of his gambling, he will never be admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame where he belongs as one of the best players of the 20th century.

But 1961 is not only some 60 years ago, it is the Pleistocene age when compared to the present day. Back then, no one would have dared suggest that a professional sports team be located in a place such as Las Vegas.

The most recent version of the Super Bowl was played in Las Vegas. Las Vegas now has an NFL football team (Raiders), a WNBA basketball team (Aces), a NHL hockey team (Golden Knights) and it’s about to get a MLB baseball team (Athletics). The Commissioner of the National Basketball Association has just announced that Vegas is at the head of the queue for an NBA franchise when expansion occurs, and LeBron James has  indicated that he would like to be the owner of that franchise. What could possibly go wrong when professional athletes are in the gambling mecca of the United States?

You really have to wonder about a city whose motto is: “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!” Most cities call attention to their museums, their restaurants, their historic sites, their waterfront and the like. Vegas calls attention to the “sins” that can be committed there and adopts a “see no evil, speak no evil” attitude. That’s not exactly a message that you want to give to your children or, for that matter, to almost anyone.

There are surely upright citizens in Vegas, but it clearly leads any location in the United States for the per capita number of gamblers, grifters, hookers, touts and con men. In short, it is a place where things can run amok.

I suppose we should have seen it coming. Anybody watching a televised professional sport in the last few years has been inundated with ads from gambling websites (FanDuel, DraftKings, MGM, Caesars, etc.). You not only can bet on the game you’re watching before it starts but you can make bets on the game as it is progressing. Who was in favor of this? Well, obviously the gambling companies but maybe, not so obviously, the professional sports leagues and the state governments which take a slice of the take. Maryland took in $6.5 million from sports betting in the month of December 2023 and expects to make not less than $40 million a year. Basically, everybody gets a piece of the action.

Things are so out of control that children are now encouraged to use their smart phones to place bets with the equivalent of Monopoly money. The National Football League (NFL) and Nickelodeon launched a kid’s site which has sport betting elements, www.legalsportsreport.com. Sponge Bob, the animated Nickelodeon character recognized by all kids, can now help to pick the winner of the Super Bowl. Presumably, once schooled, kids can then graduate to the real deal.

Well, is this the end of the Country as we know it? Probably not, but I am not comfortable when sports and gambling are so chummy. The genie may be out of the bottle, but the least that the professional sports leagues could do is pump the brakes every once in a while. For instance, get out of the business of hooking kids.

In the end, Connie Hawkins did play in the NBA and was a star. But he only succeeded by bringing a lawsuit against the NBA for its role in denying him the opportunity to play. The NBA relented when it was clear that its defense was going to fail, and it arranged a settlement which awarded Hawkins today’s equivalent of $10 million and the right to play. He had lost at least five good years because of the NBA’s intransigence but still he was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame.

The NBA has now forgotten about its old objections as it readies entrance into the Vegas sweepstakes because that’s where the money is. The NFL is already there along with Nickelodeon.

Who knows but it may be a possibility that, in another 60 years, Sponge Bob is inducted into the Football Hall of Fame.

In 1968, the Rolling Stones released their song “Sympathy for the Devil”. While not their best-known song, it is one that you will not forget once you have heard it. The song engendered speculation that the band was worshiping Satan but that seems very unlikely given the lyrics of the song. However, if there had been a church for drugs, sex and rock ‘n’ roll, those boys would have been in the front pew. Give it a listen Sympathy.

When Donald Trump descended on the escalator in 2015 to announce that he was running for President, I told my wife that he was the “devil” and I meant that he was an instrument of the real Devil who appeared as a Serpent in the Garden of Eden and appeared as himself in the Gospels of the New Testament, tempting a weakened Jesus after his 40 day fast, promising him dominion over the entire world if he would just recognize him. Jesus refused. The American electorate did not share my concern about Trump.

I had been following Trump since the 1980s when he became the owner of the New Jersey Generals, a team in the United States Football League. He then single-handedly imploded that league when he challenged the National Football League in a court case. There are so many things to say about Trump, and most of them have been said, but I think the most succinct summary was just published by David Brooks in the New York Times. With Trump, the whole world is “us” versus “them” and “us” is always being screwed by “them.” Like Satan, outright fabrication is a necessary tool.

A few examples:

“They” stole the election from “us.”

“They” are overrunning “our” country, and “they” are not like “us”, so we need to keep “them“ out. (never mind that current “us” are the descendants of the “them” from an earlier time).

And he has made the Republican Party into a party of “grievance” because he is all about grievance and settling the score with his enemies.

To me, one of his more despicable comments was his reference to former Senator John McCain as a “loser” because he had been captured and spent five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp where he was so abused that he could not raise his arms. Meanwhile, Trump, who loves military trappings, made sure that he concocted bone spurs to avoid that same war.

The current polling data shows Trump winning in the electoral college states over Biden. I think the actual election will be much different as the economy continues to get strong, gas prices drop, and Social Security increases kick in. Nevertheless, the political class is apoplectic and in a complete dither over the current projections.

The editorial writers in all of our major papers, and the opinion columnists in those papers (whether conservative or liberal), in one form or another, believe that a Trump victory, as one of my friends said, would be the end of democracy and that the American experiment, almost 250 years old, would be over.

To which I say, quoting Pat Brady in the Roy Rogers television show of the 1950s, “Whooaa Nellie Bell” (the phrase he used to stop his Jeep, Nellie Bell). This flimflam artist – no matter how odious – has neither the discipline nor the smarts to undo 250 years of the American Republic. Will his four years be pretty? Absolutely not. But he will have a Congress and a Supreme Court to deal with, and he did extremely poorly with both in his first go round. Indeed, even though he self-proclaims himself a “winner,” he has been the regular “loser” in his thousands of court fights. Why should that change?

And don’t count out the American people. Only a handful of true believers are not disgusted by what happened on January 6, 2021 when the Trump hoard overtook the Capitol. You could bet your bottom dollar that those scenes will be run over and over again in political ads. For me, there is little doubt that most Americans blame Trump for that debacle and will remember it in the voting booths. Most Americans do not think that the crowd at the Capitol that day are, in current Trump speak, “hostages” who deserve to be pardoned.

Trump caught lightning in a bottle in 2016 and he may yet catch it again. There are some of you who will agree that Trump is a bad fellow but not agree with me that he is an instrument of the Devil. Well, the Devil is an attractive fellow and very good at persuading people that he doesn’t exist. After all, he led the fallen angels so we know he had considerable charisma although in the end he lost. But he hasn’t given up.

I remember Trump being interviewed by a religious broadcaster in 2016. He was asked what his favorite part of the Bible was. He deflected by saying “oh there are so many that he couldn’t pick just one.” But once pressed, he finally said: “an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth.” I don’t think it’s an accident that this quote was from the Old Testament and that this instruction was radically changed in the New Testament (rather than revenge the new rule is to “turn the other cheek” ). The Devil would never want to acknowledge the New Testament where Jesus refused his offer.

So why all this religious claptrap and stories of fallen angels? Someone says: “You must know that many of us are not religious and do not accept these ancient fables you reference.” I do know this but I think the theological story is a good one and explains a lot. I realize there are other explanations but they don’t seem to be as persuasive.

And Trump supporters? Are they also devils? Absolutely not, but Trump will never call forth the “better angels” in us to which Abraham Lincoln appealed; he only calls for our “worse angels” because, like the Devil, his purpose is to divide not unite, to create anger not love, to pit one against another and keep us from achieving the possibilities within ourselves.

To be sure, Trump has raised a number of significant issues such as uncontrolled immigration and the Democratic Party is hardly blameless. But ultimately Trump is not about solving the issues because that requires hard work, negotiation, compromise, and the willingness not to vilify the people you are negotiating with on Twitter (now X).

If the whole world is divided into either firefighters or arsonists, Trump will never be a firefighter. Nor will the Devil.

On September 22, 2022, Marilyn Mosby, the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, Maryland, was outside the courthouse preparing to address the substantial crowd but her timing was off. As Marilyn began her speech, Adnan Syed exited the courthouse where his 20 plus year-old murder conviction had just been overturned . Marilyn’s office was responsible for the reversal and Marilyn was there to take a bow. Unfortunately for her, the crowd – on seeing Syed – erupted in cheering and applause and she could not be heard .

If 1999 was the worst year of Adnan Syed’s life, 2014 may have been his best year. In 2014, Syed, then in prison for the 1999 murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, met Sarah Koenig ,a journalist who co-created the podcast, Serial, which originated from Chicago’s NPR radio station, WBEZ. Koenig’s podcast was a part of the This American Life series on NPR.

While there had been podcasts before Serial, it is fair to say that the Serial podcast on Adnan Syed (its very first) came close to breaking the Internet. It ran for 12 weeks at the end of 2014, and, within a year, it had been downloaded 100 million times. To date, it has been downloaded 300 million times.

The podcast world is divided into two parts: BS and AS, meaning Before Serial and After Serial referring to the Serial podcast on Adnan Syed. After that podcast, the number of podcasts exploded so that now there is a podcast on virtually any conceivable subject; in the BS period virtually none.

Syed was a 17-year-old high school student as was Hae Min Lee, his ex-girlfriend who was the victim. He was a member of a thriving Muslim community and it was two members of this community who persuaded Sarah Koenig to give his case a look almost 15 years after his conviction. Koenig had been a reporter for the Baltimore Sun some years before and had known Syed’s advocates when she lived in Baltimore and believed that they were serious and believable people. Once convinced that a wrong may have occurred, she spent a year researching the case and preparing the podcast which convinced more than a few people that Syed was innocent. To be sure, there are also those who were not convinced.

The power of the Serial podcast resulted from several factors. First, Sarah Koenig had done exhaustive research into the 15-year-old case. She reviewed every court document available and talked to every witness from 1999. Second, her voice and her delivery were both distinctive and pleasing. Third, when listening, you felt you were somehow involved in solving the case.

Listen now to the first of the 12 episodes entitled “The Alibi”.(https://serialpodcast.org) and see if you don’t agree.

Koenig has detractors. Some are just plain jealous that she has done something so original and so good that is now owned by the New York Times. Others believe she had an agenda to show that the criminal justice system does not work properly because of prosecutorial misconduct, false witnesses encouraged by investigating detectives, the failure to pursue alternative suspects and the use of “junk science” which, in Syed’s case, had to do with cell tower transmissions. That criticism now appears more accurate given her comments after Syed was released.

So, while Marilyn Mosby was attempting to give her speech and while the crowd was chanting that day’s version of Kumbaya, the question remains: was he guilty or was he innocent? The judge’s decision is now on appeal on the basis that Hae Min Lee’s brother was not given sufficient time to participate in the hearing on the motion to vacate Syed’s conviction. No matter the outcome of that appeal, it is clear that Syed will not be retried given the “problems” with the original prosecution.

Frankly, there does not appear to be the “problems” that the State’s Attorney now maintains. Even the new discovery of a “Brady” violation is not without controversy. A “Brady” violation involves a situation where the prosecution is aware of mitigating information (e.g., alternative suspect) which is not properly revealed to the defense before trial. A Brady violation means a new trial. The State’s Attorney now maintains that it discovered a note in the original prosecutor’s handwriting indicating that another person wanted to kill Hae Min Lee (if true, a clear “Brady” violation ). The prosecutor in question maintains that his note referred to Syed and not to someone else.

People who have listened to the podcast come away with different conclusions. Sarah Koenig was of the belief that Syed’s conviction was improper. In my family, my daughter agreed with Sarah. My son-in-law, my son and I thought that Syed was guilty. Political leanings do not appear to have affected the outcome as the “guilty” votes range from very conservative to very liberal. The State’s Attorney was careful to note that its action was not a declaration of innocence but a determination that the trial was flawed and that the conviction could not stand.

What is crystal clear is that without Serial, Syed would still be in prison. He became nationally and internationally famous and, all of a sudden, got what an inmate always hopes for: lawyers banging down the door to represent him. Ultimately, it was “pro bono” lawyers who freed him with the help of the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s office which, no doubt, was well aware of the Serial podcast.

We are most accustomed these days to the use of DNA to free the wrongfully convicted. There was no DNA in the Syed case. A witness said that he helped Syed bury Hae Min Lee’s body and took detectives to her car which had been abandoned after the burial. So, the Syed case depended on whether you believed this individual or not. The jury clearly did.

While 2022 was the year of Syed’s resurrection, it was not a great year for Marilyn Mosby and the least of her problems was the speech which was not heard. In January, in a spectacular fall from grace resembling a Greek tragedy, she had been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for perjury and also lying on a mortgage application. She was denied a third term by the voters in July. She would be convicted of perjury in November 2023.

Unlike Syed’s trial, the testimony in Marilyn’s trial was reported each morning in the paper.  In 1999, Hae Min Lee was one of 300 plus murders in Baltimore and very few received any notoriety.  We know the details of Syed’s murder trial only because of Serial.

So did Serial result in the release of a person actually guilty of premediated murder?

Maybe. Maybe not.

I have not done a blog in a while because of health issues and also because I could not find a subject that I thought was interesting. Recently, however, I realized that there are many subjects that catch my attention.

There is a columnist in the local paper who occasionally writes a column entitled “Nobody Asked Me But…”. and then proceeds to comment on multiple issues. So here is my version of “Nobody Asked Me But ….”.

Humpty Dumpty

It might seem odd that the children’s nursery rhyme applies to a present day political situation which, if it were not so serious, would be laughable. So, consider the present reality that our House of Representatives has no leader and then consider the centuries old plight of Humpty Dumpty.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy, like Humpty Dumpty, had a great fall. It was engineered by 8 Republican wing nuts, who were ably assisted by 212 Democratic congressmen and women and together they voted McCarthy out. 217 votes were needed, and they got 220 (the 8 wing nuts plus 212 Democrats).

Would be Kevin McCarthys cannot assemble the necessary votes to become Speaker and, again, the Democrats are quite happy with the Republican dysfunction. They will now have talking points in the 2024 election to show that they, not them, should run the show. Meanwhile, necessary legislation related to the Ukraine, Israel, the budget and to meet the fast-approaching deadline for government default are all ignored.

Current commentary blames the fractious Republicans on the mess and that is correct. However, commentary also suggests that the Democrats are the only adults in the room and that is absolutely incorrect. Adults are those who find solutions and a way forward. Neither party seems capable of that and their absolute tribal allegiance guarantees failure.

Pox on both parties. Neither of the Republicans nor the Democrats have any rightful claim to our support.

Hopkins Hypocrisy

In Baltimore, Hopkins is the 800-pound gorilla. There is the medical school, including the hospital, which is regularly in contention to be the number #1 hospital in the world. And then there is the University (entirely separate, both legally and geographically, from the sprawling medical campus) which is one of the most selective schools in the nation. Criticizing Hopkins in Baltimore may not be a mortal sin but it’s pretty close.

Which brings us to the case of Caroline Donovan. Caroline, in 1899, gave the University $100,000 to endow the Caroline Donovan Professorship in English literature. All went well for almost 125 years until the “Name Review Committee” of the University decided that Caroline’s name must be stricken because Caroline’s money had been derived from the slave trade .

There were, however, complications. Caroline’s gift had specified that her name must remain on the endowed professorship. So, the only way to remove her name is to petition a court and, of course, that’s what the Name Review Committee plans to do. If the court agrees, the Name Review Committee will rename the professorship to remediate “the harm associated with the original funding“ and “to reflect the core values” of the University.

So that seems all well and good. The Name Review Committee took about 18 months to make this decision. Around the time it was beginning deliberations, it was announced that the University’s founder, Johns Hopkins, had owned slaves. This was completely contrary to the century-old belief that Hopkins was from a Quaker family which opposed slavery.

However, don’t expect the Name Review Committee to be asking any court to rename Johns Hopkins University. Why? Because Hopkins is a national “brand” which is far too valuable to give up while Caroline Donovan is somebody that nobody knows or cares about. After all, the faculty members of the Name Review Committee have an elevated reputation because they teach at Johns Hopkins. They surely do not want to lose that distinction. Meanwhile, they can prove their “bona fides” as enlightened faculty by making sure that Caroline Donovan’s name is erased.

The Name Review Committee wants to have its cake and eat it too. Apparently, it’s alright to be hypocritical as long as you are “enlightened.”

Your Call Is Important To Us

I’m really not sure whether the same female voice is heard on every customer service line. If so, that lady should be very well compensated. When you call the typical 800 number, she speaks to you, on average, perhaps 25 times before an actual person answers. Usually, it takes about a half an hour before a person comes on the line.

The other day I called an 800 number to cancel a service, and when I finally got through the gentleman said: “Cancellation Department.,” I then asked for the address so I could mail the required cancellation notice . He then said:“ I’ll have to transfer you to customer service for that:” You would’ve thought that since he was in the Cancellation Department that he would know the mailing address of his workstation. It’s almost like they really don’t want you to cancel but, no, that cannot be the case because my call and my issue was very “important.”

When I was listening to the lady 25 times, the obvious thought occurred that – if our calls were so “important” – why didn’t the company employ enough people to answer them.

Birds Of A Feather

The last time that an ivory billed woodpecker was seen was 1944. It is a handsome bird (see below)

but has been on the possible “extinction list” of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but so far has been not declared “extinct.” The principal reason is that various individuals have insisted that they have seen the bird over the years since1944, although grainy photos are not really conclusive. Indeed, detractors say that the bird being seen is not an ivory billed woodpecker, but rather a pileated woodpecker which is remarkably similar in appearance.

So who cares? An awful lot of people are invested in this particular controversy. I became aware of it only because I had purchased “forever stamps” which featured animals that could become extinct. Since the mid-1970s, when the Federal Endangered Species Act was passed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been tasked with declaring extinct species. One of the stamps showed a desert bighorn sheep, a handsome animal, (see below)

that I would not like to see extinct. On the other hand, I did not have similar feelings for the San Francisco garter snake, the Nashville crayfish, the long-eared bat or the prairie chicken.

The whole point of evolutionary biology is that certain species make it and certain don’t. The Endangered Species Act tries to identify species that are not making it because of human development. I’m not sure what to think of this since the human species needs to evolve in order to survive, which can mean that other species might not make it. The idea behind the Endangered Species Act is noble but, perhaps, unrealistic.

That being said, I am all in favor of saving the desert bighorn sheep and the ivory billed woodpecker if that fellow is still around.

Nobody asked me, but the award for the most remarkable bird might go to the Bar-tailed Godwit (see below).

The Godwit summers in Alaska and winters in New Zealand. What is remarkable is that the Godwit flies that 7,000 miles in a week without stopping. For those of you who are having trouble making 10,000 steps a day, just think about the Godwit.

If affirmative action had been a boxer, it would have been on the ropes for most of its career but was regularly saved by split decisions. However, in what appears to be its final fight, it lost. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision (Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College) ruled that affirmative action programs at the University of North Carolina and Harvard discriminated against Asian students and were illegal and unconstitutional.

From the beginning in the 1970’s, the Supreme Court had ruled against certain types of affirmative action but maintained that carefully tailored programs would be allowed. An individual challenging affirmative action at a particular institution (see Alan Bakke below) might be admitted. The challenged affirmative action program was declared illegal but, at the same time, the Court indicated that appropriately designed affirmative action programs were desirable and, hence, affirmative action was effectively salvaged.

Since affirmative action is based on “race,” one wonders how it survived this long. In the last 75 years any racial category which disadvantaged black Americans would be struck down immediately as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause which was enacted after the Civil War. But “affirmative action” was a racial category which theoretically advantaged black Americans so what could be wrong with that? Pretty much everything because racial categories are inherently unfair to those who are excluded.

Suppose, for example, in the interest of diversity, a university determined that no less and no more than 15% of its students should be black Americans. In turn, other groups were awarded a percentage cap (first time college student 15%; Hispanics 10%; Asians, 20%; legacy students 20%, LGBTQ student 5%, all others, 15%). A prospective black American student sues, saying that he or she has been excluded simply because of the 15% rule. Is there any doubt that such a policy is and should be unconstitutional?

Alan Bakke was twice turned down for medical school at the University of California, Davis. He alleged that the quota of 16 black students for 100 spots violated the law. In 1978, the Supreme Court agreed (Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke) and ruled that Bakke should be admitted but also held diversity was a desirable outcome and, while quotas were illegal, any attempt to achieve diversity, was laudable although it would be judged by a “strict scrutiny.”

In 2003, the University of Michigan was involved in two cases that reached the Supreme Court over the issue of affirmative action and were decided the same day. In one case (Grutter vs. Bollinger), a white woman complained that she had been excluded from the law school because of unfair consideration given to certain minority groups. Her claim was unsuccessful, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote, in a 5-4 decision, that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” The Michigan law school admission policy passed the “strict scrutiny” test announced in Bakke.

However, in the second case (Gratz vs. Bollinger), Supreme Court (6-3) struck down a point-based admission system that awarded an automatic bonus of 20 points to the admission scores of minority applicants to the undergraduate school without any consideration of their individual merit. Automatic credit without individual consideration was not permissible.

While the Grutter vs. Bollinger decision affirmed the rationale in the Bakke case, the majority opinion by Justice O’Connor contained the following sentence: “Race-conscious admissions policy must be limited in time,” adding that the “Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

The “25 years from now” phrase became, for the dissenters, a swinging piñata begging to be smacked and smacked it was. Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the majority opinion on this single point: the policy in question would be unconstitutional 25 years from 2003 and, if it would be unconstitutional in 2028, he wondered how it could not be unconstitutional in 2003.

Attention has now turned to the issue of “legacy admissions” which have been described as “affirmative action for wealthy white people.” Legacy admissions are surely a benefit to prospective students whose parents or grandparents attended the institution. They may well be white although there probably is no shortage of black students whose grandparents or parents were the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs. Indeed, the most recent data concerning Harvard legacy students indicates that only seven out of 10 are white (New York Times, July 27, 2023).

In a broader sense, legacy students contribute to diversity. They may come from wealthier backgrounds, prep schools and the like but they will mix with other students who do not have the same background. Such exposure can be meaningful. A non-legacy student may look at the legacy students and decide that he or she wants to have values like them or decide to never be like them. The point is that a legacy student provides a model, good or bad, to be evaluated by the other students.

Then, of course, there is the money. One of the standard arguments for legacy students is that policy encourages granddad/mom or dad/mom to continue to make contributions to the college. At one school, $30 million got the giver a named quad and an expelled son readmitted: a classic case of someone with too much money and school administrators who knew it. The money, which is often quite substantial, can be used for many things including scholarship support for those who could not otherwise afford the tuition.

So, was affirmative action good or bad? It may have been good for those who benefited from it, but it was bad for those who were excluded because of it. It contributed to the notion that every black person who was accepted at a school or got a particular job was being rewarded because of their race and not because of their merit. There is little doubt the black people must have felt the condescending stares of fellow students or coworkers. It resulted in the creation of the phrase “reverse discrimination.”

Moreover, it was completely unnecessary. Colleges could have created a program that gave preference to first-time college students and to students from the lower socioeconomic groups. That would have effectively helped black students and white students as well. And, as a result of the Supreme Court decision, Harvard and other colleges can use these policies to select their student bodies.

The Supreme Court decision generated the usual political blather. The White House and the Democratic Party bemoaned the decision blaming it on the conservatives on the Court while the other side applauded the return to sanity. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, no stranger to hyperbole, said “the Supreme Court has put a giant roadblock in our country’s march toward racial justice.”

What is more interesting than politicians canned or tweeted reactions is the public’s reaction. A substantial majority of the public agreed with the decision, unlike last year’s abortion decision reversing Roe v. Wade which was wildly unpopular. Aaron Blake. writing in the Washington Post on July 6, 2023. indicated that one poll showed Americans approving it by more than 2 to 1 margin. The same poll indicated that more black Americans approved the decision than disapproved of it. Indeed, 31% of black Americans “strongly” approved of the decision. Just 20% of black Americans felt that affirmative action had put them at an advantage and, strikingly, 35% actually said they felt that it had put them at a disadvantage.

My take is that the decision was correct and that it will really not make much of a difference going forward. Indeed, it really was about time for affirmative action to be concluded. 

In this, I am reminded of the story of the farmer, his wife and his beautiful teenage daughter, who lived next to a military base. His wife spent every waking minute, trying to protect her daughter’s virginity. The farmer returned from the field, one day and found his wife crying inconsolably on the front porch. He asked why she was so upset. The reply: our daughter is pregnant.

The farmer consoled his wife as best he could, thinking all the time: “Thank God that’s over.”