Which President Was Most Responsible for the Artemis Project?

The Orion spacecraft during trans-lunar injection, to bring an Artemis mission to the moon. (Image credit: NASA)

The short answer, much as it pains me to say this, is that our current President, Donald Trump, is the President most responsible for the Artemis Project.  My readers will know how strongly I have opposed and criticized Trump's policies in his two administrations, on immigration, ICE, just talking about destroying Iranian civilization, and just about everything else.  But a key factor in Trump's policies is his disregard for the truth.  And the truth is that the Artemis Project was initiated in Trump's first administration, enacted with the uncrewed Artemis I in Joe Biden's administration, and furthered with the human trip around the Moon just completed by Artemis II, in the current second Trump administration.  The truth therefore is that Trump is the President who was most responsible for Artemis.

There's of course a history to all this.   As I outlined in several books -- Realspace: The Fate of Physical Presence On and Off Planet and Touching the Face of the Cosmos: On the Intersection of Space Travel and Religion -- Richard Nixon, a Republican, stopped trips to the Moon in the space program, dropped them like a hot potato, after the extraordinary success of the Apollo Program in 1961-1972, because it heralded the vision of John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, who beat Nixon in the 1960 election and ignited NASA and the US space program after its slow start in the 1950s under Republican Dwight Eisenhower.  By the time we got to the 1980s, Democrats like Walter Mondale were active opponents of spending money on space, and Ronald Reagan and the Republicans had become the champions of extending our species off this planet.  That reversal continued into the first Trump administration.  Democrat Bill Clinton did little for space.  Republican George W. Bush started the Vision for Space Program in 2004, which included the Constellation initiative, a vehicle aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020 as a stepping stone to Mars.  Democrat Barack Obama ended the Constellation in 2010, which almost made me sorry I voted for him.

This history is important, because it spotlights the significance of Joe Biden's strong support for Artemis in his one term in office.  That crucial support makes Biden the first Democratic President to fully support the space program -- specifically, getting human beings to actual moons and worlds beyond this planet -- since LBJ in the 1960s.   When the history of how the human species went out into the universe is someday written, it will show that we Americans, supported by both parties, led the way.  And if Donald Trump was a crucial factor and force in that success, so be it.   

That doesn't mean that we have to support Trump and his dangerous policies that threaten our very democracy.   But it does mean that we have to stand up for the truth, which in just about every other aspect of his presidency, Trump disdains.

Confronting the Presidents: A Review of Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard's New Book

I started reading Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard's new 400+ page book on Friday.  I finished it last night -- Monday night.  That should give you an idea of how important and captivating Confronting the Presidents is. 

It is subtitled "No Spin Assessments from Washington to Biden".  But that obscures what the book actually is: assessments of US Presidents from Washington to Obama, co-written by O'Reilly and Dugard, followed by assessments of Trump and Biden written by O'Reilly, and assessments of Trump and Biden written by Dugard.  I'll explain near the end of this review why I think that distinction is crucial.

First, let me begin by saying I was on the O'Reilly's Fox show, The Factor, several times over 20 years ago (here's the video of my first appearance in January 2004), and four times on O'Reilly's No Spin News podcast several years ago.  We have strongly different political opinions, but I very much enjoyed our conversations.  O'Reilly has written numerous best-selling books, and O'Reilly and Dugard have a best-selling series (the "Killing" series about assassinations, attempted assassinations, killings of terrorists, etc), which I haven't read, but based on the writing in Confronting the Presidents, I expect that I eventually will, or at least read some of the books.

That writing is crisp, informative, and even exciting.   In part because most of it is in the present tense -- "At the start of Jefferson's second term, he is sixty-one years old.  He is no longer the young idealist...."  And in part because it has so many facts, big and little, that I didn't know and, after reading them in Confronting the Presidents, I think I should have known.  Like Theodore Roosevelt planning to run for a third term as president in 1919, before he died, and LBJ having a decades-long affair with Alice Glass, which Lady Bird knew about, and only ended when Alice left him because she was so furious about the Vietnam War.

We learn what each president ate for breakfast (right, I find that interesting), what kind of exercise they preferred, and how they died.  There's lots of humor in the book, but cradled in an underlying gravity and mortality.   And this is not because of what happened to Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and JFK, and almost happened to several others, but because as the authors make clear, the job of president, given the power to make one's dreams come true, is almost guaranteed not to be fulfilled, meaning your dreams will end up broken, their only chance being some future president may pick one up and carry it to victory in some more hospitable time.

Another salient point of history which I already knew as a media historian, and Confronting the Presidents makes abundantly clear, is that the intense polarization in our current world, (wrongly often blamed on social media, I would say), actually has been in the United States of America from the very beginning.  Editors of newspapers were prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Act that John Adams signed into law, and O'Reilly and Dugard tell us that Alexander Hamilton wrote that Adams was "a mere old woman and unfit for president".

As a professor and lifelong student of communication and media studies, I was also glad to see that Confronting the Presidents notes that First Lady "Carrie" Harrison brought electricity to the White House but she and her husband Benjamin (1889-1893) were afraid of being electrocuted, radio began to have a big influence on politics in the 1920s, and of course TV took center stage in the 1960s.  (See my continually updated McLuhan in an Age of Social Media for how and when television gave way to the social media president.)

***

But this powerhouse book, brimming with fascinating, useful, and important information, concludes its confrontation of presidents with Barack Obama.   An "Afterword" briefly gives O'Reilly's and Dugard's assessments of Trump and Biden independently.  The reason for this change in format isn't given, but it must be because Trump's presidency may not be finished (he's currently running for a second term), and at the time the book was written, neither was Biden's (he had not yet withdrawn from the current election).

I'm making such a big deal about this because O'Reilly's assessments of Trump and Biden are the first in the book I strongly disagree with.  No mention is made of Trump's treatment of COVID, and the attack on the Capitol he instigated on January 6, 2021 is barely mentioned, as a political mistake, not the fundamental attack on our democracy that it was.  Even more incredibly, O'Reilly ranks Biden as the second worst president in American history (after James Buchanan).  

As I said at the beginning of this review, O'Reilly and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum.  But I was nonetheless taken aback by what he said about Biden and didn't say about Trump because I found his joint assessments with Dugard about other progressive presidents like Obama and Clinton, and conservatives like Nixon, to be right on key.  

Obviously, Dugard was a moderating factor, and he had plenty to say in his own assessment of Trump about January 6, 2021 (because of this, he ranks Trump the worst president, one below Herbert Hoover).  Dugard also had some praise for Biden, and went so far as to say he hopes Biden wins in 2024 (the book was completed, again, before Biden withdrew from the race).

So what you'll get from Confronting the Presidents is a fair and balanced -- to use that Fox cliche -- assessment of every American President prior to Trump.  Then, for Trump and Biden, separate assessments from each author, which taken together accurately reflect the current polarization of this country.

I'm not sure what I would have suggested to the two authors prior to publication about how to conclude this book.  Maybe conclude with Obama with no Afterword.  Or maybe struggle to find some common ground as the authors did for every other president.  But I can say I recommend this book to anyone who'd like to have a handy, accessible guide to the people who have been at the top of our noble, imperfect experiment with democracy.

The Comey Rule Part 1: The Reality, Part 1

I had planned on waiting until I saw all of The Comey Rule on Showtime -- the two parts -- before I reviewed it.  But there are too many things I want to say about first part, on earlier tonight, to wait until tomorrow.

First, as for the craft of the docu-drama, including the acting, it was just superb, ranging from Jeff Daniels as Comey down to every FBI man and woman, in every scene, and also Comey's wife.  Even Kingsley Ben-Adir in the relatively small part (in this narrative) of Obama was good.   I could write all day about how well this first part was done, but the reality it describes cries out for comment.

No one can say with any certainty why Trump won the Electoral College vote, even as he lost the popular vote.  The fact that this resulted in him becoming President, and the horrendous job he has done in that office, is more than enough reason to do away with that anachronistic "college" as soon as possible.

There are other villains in this true tragedy.  Anthony Weiner unable to control his impulses, Jill Stein unable to control her ambitions, the Russian assault on our country via cyberspace, all played some role, and deserve some apportionment of blame.

And Comey?   This first part of this two-part series shows at least three interlocking errors:  the way he first announced the non-actionable result into the FBI investigation into Hillary's emails, his refusal to go public with the FBI's investigation into Trump's Russian connections, and his second announcement (in a letter to Congress) that the FBI was reopening the investigation into Hillary's emails just ten days prior to the election.   Like a classic Shakespearean tragedy, Comey did those three things for noble reasons.  But the result was the complete antithesis and annihilation of nobility, putting America into the most dangerous condition it has been in since the Civil War.

Can we reasonably say Trump in the White House was the result of Comey's actions?   No doubt not completely, but also no doubt yes, at least in part.   I will say, on Comey's behalf, that the writing of his book, A Higher Loyalty, the basis of this mini-series, is at least an attempt at retribution.  And kudos to Showtime for putting this on at a most appropriate time, when we Americans are again focused on an impending Presidential election.

And I'll be back with thoughts on Part 2 tomorrow.   I'm especially looking forward to seeing more of Brendan Gleeson as Trump.  They somehow managed to get someone made to look uglier and sound even more abrasive than the real thing,  A nightmare of a nightmare.

Written Report on Fourth Day of 2020 Democratic National Convention

And the 2020 Democratic National Convention concluded tonight, very likely the most important political convention in our American history, because it nominated candidates for President and Vice President for what in many ways is the most important election in our history, upcoming in November.  Why so important?  Because it's the last and only chance to vote out of office a President who is the biggest threat to our democracy in history, Donald Trump.

This convention, as you know, was conducted virtually.   The reason, as you also know, was safety, with the COVID-19 pandemic still raging across America.  This would have been a very necessary compromise.  But I thought it came off so well, the virtual convention was in many ways so much better than the in-person convention,  that it thus was not only no compromise, but something, or parts of which, that should be done again, and become part of the basic structure of how conventions to nominate Presidents of our country are conducted and presented to our nation.

The virtual convention was better, I thought, in at least two ways.  First, the sequences of people across America, in the nomination roll call, in the endorsements and nominations, in the people talking about their struggles with racism, the pandemic, and their businesses, were the best way I've seen of putting substance to the "We, the people," the first words of our Constitution that were  adopted as the motto of this 2020 Democratic National Convention.

Second, I think talking into a camera in a quiet hall or room made for better speeches by the major speakers.  Part of the reason why I thought everyone from Bernie  to Obama and Joe Biden gave the best speeches of their careers was the clarity and intensity that the camera rather than a huge crowd affords the speaker.  I'm not sure this kind of speech making will continue when COVID subsides.  I hope it does.

The Democrats, at least in my lifetime, have always been the Party of the future, so it's only fitting that they trail-blazed a new way of conducting conventions in this age of COVID-19.

Now as to the content of this final night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention, it had many splendid, memorable moments, many of them bringing tears to the eyes and hope to the soul.  I thought the rivals segment was especially effective.  Julia Louis-Dreyfus as host of the entire evening was not only emotionally satisfying but laugh-out-out funny.  And the teenage boy in New Hampshire who stutters, and who explained how Joe Biden, who also stutters but has largely gotten on top of it, gave him some helpful advice was ... well, courageous and inspiring only do it partial justice.

And Joe Biden ... well, yes, he too indeed delivered the speech of his life.  Summoning all of America to join him in the battle ahead to reclaim America, and then set it on a better path. The great speeches earlier in the convention were delivered by people like Barack Obama who had delivered many an inspirational and eloquent speech before.   But I've never heard Joe Biden deliver anything like what he said tonight, masterfully written and masterfully delivered, in equal measure.

I can barely imagine, and don't particularly want to imagine, what the Republicans will do next week at their convention.  I can imagine the America that Joe Biden so powerfully described, and I'll do all in my power in the months ahead to help make that happen.

See also Written Report on 1st Night the 2020 Democratic National Convention ... Written Report on 2nd Night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention ... Written Report on 3rd Night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention

Written Report on 3rd Day of 2020 Democratic National Convention

What a speech by Barack Obama on the third night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention, the first virtual National Democratic or Republican Convention in history.  I thought the speech was so pertinent and powerful it was even better than his speeches as President, and in his campaigns for that office.  Unafraid to call out the monster, the would-be destroyer of our democracy, now in the White House.  Sobering, inspiring, chilling, and so very necessary.

Kamala Harris gave an outstanding speech, too, accepting her nomination as Vice President on the Democratic ticket.  Her empathy for the victims of racism and COVID, combined with her astute attack on Trump, and her winning charm, show what a wise choice Joe Biden made in selecting her as his running mate.  And wasn't it excellent to see him come out on stage and join her after her speech, especially impressive in this age of COVID.

Elizabeth Warren's speech was powerful, as well, preceded by real people across the country whose businesses have been jeopardized to the edge of extinction by the COVID pandemic and the poor leadership -- non-leadership -- of Donald Trump.   I hope she gets a prominent position in Biden's cabinet.

And the segment on victims of gun violence, followed by Gabby Giffords, was also ever timely and necessary.  Good for the Democratic National Committee for not letting this life-and-death issue get lost in the toxic sea of COVID and racism and attempts to suppress the vote that beset all Americans. 

So this third night was a real joy and inspiration.  Biggest surprise for me: Mariska Hargitay of Law & Order SVU endorsing Biden for President!  You just can't beat a Benson endorsement!

I'll see you back here tomorrow after the fourth and final night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

See also Written Report on 1st Night the 2020 Democratic National Convention ... Written Report on 2nd Night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention

Captain Phil interviews Paul Levinson about his New Album 'Welcome Up', and Trump

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 123, in which the inimitable Captain Phil (on WUSB Radio) again interviews me about my new music, latest science fiction, and Donald Trump. But this time, there's my brand new album of science fiction related songs, Welcome Up: Songs of Space and Time (now releasing by Old Bear Records), to talk about.  And we're right in the middle of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump (author Bill McNulty joins us for the first part of this discussion).  Phil also plays, at the start and end of the episode, two songs from Welcome Up.
Helpful links:

• a taste of Welcome Up on YouTube
• lyrics to all the songs on Welcome Up
• free digital complete album on Bandcamp
• advance order multi-color limited pressing vinyl (100 copies) from Light In the Attic Records
• CDs

Check out this episode!

Fourth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

I thought the 4th Democratic Presidential Debate - just concluded on PBS and CNN - was easily the best so far (but with the proviso that I saw and reviewed both parts of the first and second of these debates, but I didn't see the third, because I was up in Toronto doing this event).  Maybe tonight's debate was stronger because there were fewer people up on stage, so each of the seven candidates got more time to talk.  Maybe last night's Impeachment of Trump inspired the candidates (it certainly inspired me).  But, for whatever reasons ...

I thought the exchange in response to the question about Obama's recent statement that women would do a better job of governing America was outstanding.  All the candidates (with the exception of Yang, who I don't believe gave an answer) responded with clarity, style, and humor.  That included Biden, who easily had his best night, and Steyer, who I thought really came into to his own tonight, with consistently strong answers about how his Presidency could tackle the problems of our time and really make a difference.

But Bernie had a powerful night too, with clear expositions of his socialist perspective.  And Klobuchar was strong, in her defense of improving Obama-care rather than scrapping it in favor of Medicare for all, a position she shares with Biden, in opposition to Bernie and Warren.  And Klobuchar and Buttigieg got in some good lines in their one-on-one exchange, as did Warren and Buttigieg in theirs.

So all the candidates, with exception (again) of Yang, had excellent nights in tonight's debate.  Since Biden was already leading in the national polls, his having such a strong outing is especially significant, since it reinforces his already considerable strength.  But Steyer stepping into the light was notable, too, and the performances of all the other candidates (other than Yang) was more than enough to keep them in the running.

See also  First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... First Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ...  Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

The Report: The Not-So-Good Old Days

My wife and I saw The Report last night on Amazon Prime.  Even more so than its superb star-studded cast - Adam Driver, Annette Bening, Jon Hamm, Michael C. Hall, Maura Tierney, Ted Levine, you get the picture - the story of  how our government, before Trump, lied and otherwise did its utmost to keep the public from knowing that we tortured prisoners via water-bordering after September 11, makes The Report an absolute necessity for anyone who cares about democracy and human decency to see.

I say the government, but Senator Diane Feinstein, brilliantly portrayed by Bening, sticks with Daniel Jones (powerfully played by Driver) and is ultimately instrumental in seeing his report published.  Not so much just about everyone else, other than a few of Feinstein's colleagues on her Senate committee.

That George W. Bush would have wanted to keep this secret is not surprising - the torture took place on his watch.  But Obama was in no hurry to make it publicly known, either.   And since the government was regularly denying that it ever took place, including when Obama was in office, well, he doesn't come across the greatest in this narrative, either.

But the most disconcerting was CIA Director John Brennan (2013-2017, i.e,, under Obama) perfectly played by Ted Levine, whom I first noticed as a good guy in Monk.   Here, in The Report, Levine plays pretty much the complete antithesis of a good guy.  I've seen Brennan many times on MSNBC.  He's understandably a favorite critic of Trump to have on the air, seeing as how Trump took away his security clearance after Brennan dared to criticize Trump.  But the way he behaved in regard to Jones, coming this close to getting him thrown in prison for years for daring to uncover the truth, well, I'll never look at Brennan the same again.

The point here is the degradations of democracy and humane conduct on which we pride ourselves here in the United States were bipartisan, with many Democrats, at least in the Administration, more than willing to do whatever it took to cover up what the Bush Administration had done and denied doing.  All in the name of national security.

To be clear, I'm a New Yorker, and was terribly traumatized by what happened on September 11.  Although I wasn't in favor of torturing prisoners, I might have at least understood it though not supported it, if it had really worked.  But as The Report makes clear, it did not.  And the attempt to keep it from the public, to lie about its effectiveness, represents a low day for all Americans.

The only heroes here are Driver, Feinstein, and The New York Times for going public at a crucial time with what it knew of the story, which kept Jones from being ruined.   And now, this crucial movie is heroic for being made (written and directed) by Scott Z. Burns and shown on Amazon right now.  Kudos to all, and, once again, our First Amendment.

Watchmen 1.4: What We Learned

Here's what we learned in the continuingly gonzo, bordering on insane episode 1.4 of Watchmen tonight - that is, a little more than everything you could want in an alternate reality or alternate history story:

• Henry Louis Gates is Treasury Secretary.  In case you don't recall who he was/is in our reality, he is the African-American Harvard professor arrested by a white racist Boston police sergeant in his (Gates's) own home, because the sergeant thought Gates had broken into it.  As compensation for this wrongful arrest, Gates had to have a beer with the sergeant at the White House at President Obama's invitation.  Gates apparently did better in Watchmen.
• This alternate reality is well ahead of ours in genetics, gene-splicing, DNA manipulation and the like.  And a Vietnamese women owns some kind of huge biological facility in Tulsa.
• Adrian Veidt is in prison - that's what his gorgeous estate really is - and he is permitted to keep ordering up babies who, placed in a bizarre, almost-Frankenstein-like piece of equipment, quickly mature into the man and woman who are his servants.  And who, we also learn, Veidt kills about as quickly as they are created and mature.  Like I said, this is world of advanced biology - and psychos.

At this point, I'd say Watchmen is more comprehensible than Twin Peaks, but a less endearing (nothing, quite yet, like that cherry pie).  But Watchmen does have going for it an intriguing science fiction, nibbling around the edges.

See you next time.

See also Watchmen 1.1: Promising Alternate History ... [Watchmen 1.2: don't look for my review, I didn't feel like reviewing it] ... Watchmen 1.3: The Falling Car

more alternate reality - "flat-out fantastic" - Scifi and Scary

The Loudest Voice 1.5: Was Ailes Really All That Powerful?

The fifth episode of The Loudest Voice makes clear what the series has been more than hinting at all along: it was Ailes more than anyone else who put Trump in the White House.  Or, at least, the coming attractions do, after we see Ailes do his utmost to get Obama to lose in 2012.  Ailes blames his failure on that score to the lameness of Romney as a candidate.

I should point out that I'm not a particular believer in any single reason for Trump's winning in the Electoral College. Not the Russians, not Facebook, not Ailes.  All of those contributed in one way or another, but none was decisive, and even all together, those reasons, and those kinds of reasons, don't add up to a factor that was much more important: there were enough racist people in the country, along with people who see their futures eclipsed by what I and others see as progress, like health care for all, that they put Trump over the top.  Because they just happened to be in the right places to do this, given the oddities of our electoral system.

So Ailes, who played a role, was not quite the king maker he's made out to be in The Loudest Voice, and Ailes himself apparently and presumably believed.  A genius for understanding what a significant segment of the American public wanted in its news, yes.  A paranoid conservative with boundless confidence, willing to always act on those beliefs, yes.  A womanizer, yes.   But if he was responsible for Trump, he shares that awful distinction with millions of other Americans.

Back to tonight's episode, it was another powerhouse of docu-drama.   His firing of Brian Lewis, his near destruction of Joe, his groping of Gretchen - all parts strongly played by their actors (Seth MacFarlane, Emory Cohen, Naomi Watts) - not to mention the searing off-the-charts performance of Russell Crowe as Ailes - make The Loudest Voice a show to behold.

See also:  The Loudest Voice 1.1: Fox Launch ... The Loudest Voice 1.2: September 11 and After ... The Loudest Voice 1.3: Prelude to Trump ... The Loudest Voice 1.4: "We Create the News"

The Loudest Voice 1.3: Prelude to Trump

The most chilling part of The Loudest Voice 1.3 tonight on Showtime is Roger Ailes, in his speech in Warren, Ohio after Barack Obama's victory, saying we need to "make America great again".  That, combined with the talk about immigrants ruining America, on the day that our ICE gestapo began rounding up immigrants for deportation, is an eerily prescient voicing of the worst instincts in America in 2008 and shortly after - when Obama won and became President.

Before that, we see Ailes struggling to stop that from happening.  But he's hampered by his boss Rupert Murdock, who genuinely wants Fox News to live up to its "fair and balanced" moniker.  And he's hampered by the sheer dumbness of Sarah Palin.  And by David Axelrod, who stands up to Ailes and his political abuses.

On being dumb, we also get an eerie glance at our present day when Ailes says Biden, the VP candidate, is "dumb as an ash tray".  Again, our modern day fascist in the White House has said much the same about Biden today.  Trump has not originated much.  He's good at borrowing insults from Ailes and the cunning intelligentsia of the new right in America.

We also see more of the ways that Ailes preys on women.  All of this is leading up to what happened with Gretchen Carlson, which we saw the beginnings of in this episode.   We've yet to see what Ailes did to get Trump in office - in addition to giving him phrases - and get the disaffected in the midwest to leave the Democratic Party.  The Loudest Voice continues to be one of the best accountings of how fascism has managed to get such a grip in America.  In laying that bare, it may also show some pathways for rooting it out.

See also:  The Loudest Voice 1.1: Fox Launch ... The Loudest Voice 1.2: September 11 and After

Jose Antonio Vargas and Joy Reid at Powerhouse Arena

 I first heard about Jose Antonio Vargas in 2007 from my wife Tina.  She was editing Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia pages, and Jose had called her for an interview in a article he was writing for The Washington Post about the impact of Wikipedia on that Presidential election.  Those were early days in the advent of social media - or what I call New New Media (buying a book online is new media, creating a book online is new new media, or consumers becoming producers).  Twitter and YouTube were just a year old, and Wikipedia, though a little older, was not allowed as a reference in student papers in probably every class except mine at Fordham University.   But it was a new new medium par excellence - anyone who could read an article on Wikipedia could edit it - and Tina and Jose recognized its importance.

Tina and Jose kept in touch after that article was published in 2007.  We were delighted when Jose's team at The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize the following year for their reporting of the Virginia Tech massacre, and applauded his incredible bravery when, in 2011, he announced that he had been living here in the United States since age 12 as an undocumented immigrant.  Jose and I had met for the first time, a month earlier, in May 2011, when we both were guests on The Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, talking about social media and politics.   Tina and I greeted him at a screening of his autobiographical documentary Documented at the Village East Cinema in Manhattan in 2014 and saw it again on CNN.  (Jose had asked Tina to look at part of it before the film was completed.)

We of course were in the front row last night when Jose was interviewed by Joy Reid at the Powerhouse Arena in Brooklyn about his new book, Dear America.  First, the venue, with a Manhattan Bridge archway out the window as backdrop for the speakers, was perfect.  And Joy conducted a savvy and sensitive interview, not easy when you're better known than the subject of interview.  Jose told the story of his difficult and dangerous life, which is the story of his book, which I'll review here in the next few weeks, after I've read it.  It's the story of someone not only unwilling to accept the hand our idiotic and arbitrary immigration laws has dealt him, but unwilling to accept this for everyone else in the same or similar boat as he.   Not only does Jose refuse to live off the radar, he and his group Define American actively campaign in every way they can to take this discriminatory radar, inconsistent with the true spirit of America, totally offline.

From such an all-out warrior, we shouldn't be surprised to find unusual opinions.  Jose of course sees Trump as a threat to what is good in America, but musing about Presidents and their impact on immigrants, he cited George W. Bush as the President who was most congenial to immigrants, meaning that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama not as much.  In other words, Democrats and Republicans have been more equal opportunity abusers of this crucial aspect of the American dream than we may have supposed.

Go see Jose talk wherever you can.  And get his book.  And look here soon for my review.

Some Thoughts on What Trump and His Minions are Doing to Children on our Southern Border

A few thoughts about the horrendous, immoral Trumpian policy of border security separating children from parents of people trying to enter our country on the southern border:

• It's good to see all the former First Ladies come out against this policy (Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, Rosalynn Carter).  The current First Lady Melania Trump's statement was better than nothing, but could have been stronger.  But ... where are the former Presidents?  I'd like to see Obama give a speech about this, and George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well.
• The agents themselves who are implementing this policy - separating children from their parents, lying to the children, as a means of separating them - are as much to blame as Trump and his lying minions.  Those agents are no better than Nazis who said they were just following orders.   Where is their humanity?  Without them, Trump's bluster would be just that, bluster without consequence.  I hope the next Democratic President fires each and every one of these agents.
• Where are the Republicans who, in the past, have shown a shred of decency on this issue?  Where is John McCain*, Jeff Flake, Ben Sass, Susan Collins?  Why don't they step up and vividly denounce this inhumane policy? Some have made statements, and some are better than others.  The time has come for every Republican with any compassion to come out with clear, unconditional statements calling for this heinous policy to end. *[McCain just tweeted the following at 7:30pm Eastern, "The administration’s current family separation policy is an affront to the decency of the American people, and contrary to principles and values upon which our nation was founded. The administration has the power to rescind this policy. It should do so now." Excellent - exactly!]
• Much has been said by Trump and his supporters about the Democrats made this law.  That's not true - as just about everyone knows, this is a policy, not a law, that Trump has chosen to initiate.  But even if it was a law - as our great philosophers have told us throughout the ages, there are moral imperatives that transcend the law, and should be followed when the law calls for something evil to happen.  Caring for our children, seeing that no harm, let alone indelible harm and pain befalls them, is among the most important moral imperatives in our human condition.
• Credit to most of the media for shining a spotlight on this awful state of affairs.  If ever it was clear that we need a free media system, unregulated by government, the baneful actions of our government are demonstrating this today.
• Psychologists accurately say that separation of children at such early ages (especially toddlers!) can cause enduring psycho-social damage to the children.  This is something that every parent, and everybody who was ever a child, which means everyone, should instantly understand.

Every American needs to step up and speak up and oppose this policy, in whatever way they can.  For what it's worth, I think it's the worst thing our government has ever done, domestically, in my lifetime.

On Leaving Power

I read an article years ago about the pain of leaving power.   Possibly the fact that I can't recall the author's name is indicative of the author losing power, but the ideas seem especially relevant this week, as Barack Obama concludes his eight years as President.

The gist of the article was how starkly different, to the point of seeming unresponsive and even barren, the world around you can seem when you leave a position of power.  Obviously, the more powerful you are, the more you feel this literal draining and recession of the world.

The President of the United States is probably the most prominent example.   In addition to having a channel and megaphone for any and every idea you have, if you want to communicate it, you also have ways of getting these ideas implemented, that you never had before and never will again.

You also have people waiting on your every need.   Although Presidents including Obama frequently say how much they value their downtime and privacy, and that's true, the flip side is that when all you have is privacy, you miss being in the public light.

Possibly our world has changed to the point where a former President like Obama can continue to have some residual power, at least as far as people paying special attention to his ideas, if that's what he wants.

But my guess is Barack Obama will sorely miss even the onerous responsibilities of the Presidency, in ways the rest of us who have never been President or anything close to it can barely imagine.  For that reason, in addition to all the extraordinary good he has done and tried to do for the country, I wish Barack Obama all the luck in the world.

Four Seasons in Havana: Five Stars

As the new year gets underway, Netflix continues to revolutionize television in many ways, one of the most important being the way it makes available to American viewers (and viewers around the world) television series from other countries and cultures.  In the past months, I've reviewed outstanding examples from Israel (Fauda), France (Marseilles), and Nordic Noir narratives from Denmark and Iceland.   The stories are not only riveting, but when you watch them subtitled (not dubbed) in their original language, you get a chance to increase your international vocabulary over what you learned in high school and college when you weren't paying that much attention.

So I had high expectations when I started watching Four Seasons in Havana - four 90-minute detective stories, rendered in Spanish, made in Cuba and Spain, following the exploits of Lt. Conde - and they were not only met but exceeded. Conde (well played by Cuban actor Jorge Perugorría) is a philosophically minded, hard-bitten but full of heart, existential mid-level detective, wise-cracking one minute, challenging Cuban authority the next, doggedly pursuing the murderer, and always with an eye for a beautiful woman.  He usually succeeds in both quests, but not usually in a way that brings him any lasting satisfaction.

We've seen hard-boiled detectives like Conde - actually, I'd say he was medium-boiled - many times before, but what makes Four Season in Havana different and memorable is that it takes place in Havana.  As is well known, a lot of the culture of Cuba was frozen in the late 1950s, with American cars from that era carefully maintained for decades.  One of the best things Barack Obama did as President was finally lift the American embargo on Cuba, so that snapshot in time is likely to catch up to the present pretty quickly.  This means that Four Seasons in Havana gives us a fascinating glimpse of a Cuba that may soon be gone - and with it, not only antique cars, but old telephones, big desktop computers, more radio than television, and a love of music (such as Creedence Clearwater Revival) that, while still admired in America, has long been old hat.

So in addition to the crime stories being appealing in their own right, we get in Four Seasons in Havana the dividend of the next best thing to an actual visit to Havana, which I now hope more than ever to do myself one day.   Whether you feel that way or not, see the series.


silk noir

William H. McNeill and The Logic of Universal Health Care

With the Republicans chafing at the bit to repeal Obamacare, and replace it with who knows what, I thought it was time to roll out an argument I made in favor of government-financed heath care back in 2008.

It comes from an unlikely source, and he doesn't provide an argument in favor of universal, government supported healthcare himself or per se.  But his histories of modern civilization - unusual, anthropological, widely respected - lead to just that.

In two books, both of which I read shortly after they were written, decades ago, William H. McNeill provides the following templates for understanding human history.  Throughout our existence as a species, he explains and demonstrates, we humans have done all we could, mustered all the knowledge and technique at our disposal, to counter two kinds of parasites: macro-parasites and micro-parasites.

A macro-parasite is anything in our general size range - wild animals, other humans.  Parasitical humans can attack individually, as in someone who murders, robs, or otherwise assaults someone else, or en mass, as when a horde or army or airplane force attacks.  In order to counter such attacks, everyone recognizes that we must rely on government - in general, police against individual marauders, military against mass invaders.   Even conservatives who want to limit government spending acknowledge and support this need.   Only a stone-cold anarchist would deny it.

Micro-parasites, as the name suggests, are bacteria, viruses, and tiny things that make us sick, and can kill us.   Most people do recognize that, at very least, the government is needed to help research these illnesses, develop vaccines and cures, etc.

And that is where McNeill's analyses, presented in two books - Plagues and Peoples and The Pursuit of Power - ends.

But I would now add: where is the logic in not extending government support and financing for personal medical care?   What is the difference between paying for a police force, and paying for a force of doctors - the first to help protect from macro-parasites, the second from micro-parasites?

I hope Republicans think about this question as they seek to do away with the Affordable Care Act.

Yesterday's Election and the Cheapening of the Presidency

It's now a little more than the day following Trump's election.  It's late at night, or early in the next morning, about 24 hours after Trump was declared the President-elect.

And I'm thinking: What most bothers me about Trump's election to this office is how it cheapens the Presidency.  Maybe people felt that way when James Buchanan or Warren Harding was elected President.  I don't know, I wasn't around then, but those guys, and the worst of our Presidents, at least had a little experience in some kind of government job before their election.

Reagan was an entertainer for most of his life, but he was also Governor of California for two terms. Grant and Eisenhower were generals.  Woodrow Wilson was an academic for most of his life, but he was also Governor of New Jersey for two years before he was elected President.

And Trump?  No political office, no position of any public authority, elected or appointed, whatsoever. His complete credentials can be summed up as real estate tycoon and entertainer.  And as I told Eyewitness News in New York in the interview below, conducted earlier today, that's probably more than anything else what got him known and elected as President yesterday.

And that cheapens the office, whatever Trump's policies, whatever he may go on to do.   The Presidency for me, this day, and I'm guessing for every day forward, will never be the same - I'll never look at it, think of it, in the same way.   I'll think of it as something less than I've thought it my entire life.

Later today, Barack Obama, who will be the President to end the succession of people to the office with any credentials worthy of the office, will be meeting with Donald Trump, who has no credentials at all.   It will symbolize, as will the two of them on Inauguration Day, something very sad, the passing of the baton of American leadership to a place sharply downward and unimaginable until this year.

Props to Bill Weld

"I'm here vouching for Mrs. Clinton," Bill Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, currently VP Candidate for the Libertarian Party, " told Rachel Maddow last night.  "I think she deserves to have people vouch for her other than members of the Democratic National Committee."

In the face of the vile invective hurled on a daily basis by Donald Trump and his surrogates, Weld's statement stands as an extraordinary expression of decency, honor, and rationality.  It will remembered as one of the few and true high points of this campaign season.

Weld's statement objects not to any of the specific, demeaning, and outlandish charges lodged against Hillary Clinton, but to the fact that too many people accept them as at least in part true, or where there's smoke there's fire.  But the fact is that Hillary Clinton in her long career has done nothing even remotely rising to the level of making her unsuitable to be President.  Indeed, to the contrary, as Weld further pointed out, her life's work demonstrates that she would be a "capable" President.

Barack Obama, also speaking yesterday, wondered if some of the resistance to Hillary Clinton might be based on an unconscious male basis against a woman as President.   He may well be right.   For that, and other reasons, Hillary Clinton's campaign has been subject to abuse unheard of in American politics, including unprecedented actions by even the Director of the FBI.

I fully expect the American people to do the right thing, and follow Weld's de facto advice, and elect Hillary Clinton President next week.

A Great Moment for America!

It was wonderful and inspiring watching Hillary Clinton step up to claim the Democratic nomination for President a few minutes ago.  I only wish I could have seen this historic moment in person instead of on television.

As I've said many times since 2008, the Democratic primary back then presented a very tough decision for me. Two excellent candidates - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  The election of either would right a profound historical wrong in our country.  I went with Obama, by a very narrow margin in my mind. I've never had cause to regret that, but I always hoped I would have a chance to correct the other wrong.

And tonight it's clear we have been given that chance - the opportunity to elect the first woman President in the United States.  Obviously, the candidate has to be more than a woman to deserve any thinking-person's vote.  I would have voted for almost any privileged, rich white dude instead of someone like Sarah Palin.

But Hillary will be a superb candidate, progressive and strong, on every important issue, including gun control, health care, and all the things the Republicans are so retrogressive and wrong about. And as a former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton probably has more foreign policy experience than any candidate for President since, I don't know, Thomas Jefferson.

All that's left is for Hillary Clinton to beat the worst candidate for President by a major party in my lifetime.  That should be easy.  But it won't.  It never is.  The media have to do more than they've done until very recently in reporting the ravings, lies, and inconsistencies of the Republican candidate for President.  We all need to do whatever we can - Bernie supporters as well as Hillary supporters - to see that Trump is defeated and Hillary Clinton is in the White House in 2017.

Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy Speech and JFK

I thought, as I was watching Hillary Clinton's superb speech about foreign policy in San Diego on television today, that she reminded me of JFK, his optimism for America and its engagement with the world. Later on MSNBC, Chris Matthews also said he saw a connection between Clinton's speech and JFK.

More specifically, Matthews said Clinton's speech reminded him of America's unapologetic approach to foreign policy before the Vietnam War, which can indeed be equated, at least in part, to JFK.

I was a fierce opponent of the Vietnam War.  It not only was unconstitutional but unwarranted, and it nearly tore the country apart.  I got teargassed in Washington protesting that war, and was barely able to bring myself to vote for Hubert Humphrey over Richard Nixon in 1968 because of it.   Matthews is right that among its many casualties was the bright, bold view of America as the leader of the world, and the best it has to offer.

Significantly, although JFK indeed got us far more involved in Vietnam than we should have been, it was LBJ who expanded this into the all-out war and disaster it became.   It was therefore JFK's assassination, more than JFK himself, that tragically set this in motion.

Although we've had our great moments in foreign policy and world affairs since then - including, in different ways, from Nixon (opening relations with China), Reagan (end of Soviet Union) and Obama (better relations with Iran and Cuba) - we've yet to regain that sense of confidence and moral leadership that we had under JFK.

Hillary Clinton's speech this afternoon was the first I've really heard or seen of that since the early 1960s, when I was just a kid.   Not only is it an inspiring tonic for the insanity of Trump and the dangerous isolationism of saner people on both sides of the isle, it is a blueprint for a better America and a better world, which as the speech made clear, is increasingly one and the same.

I don't know who wrote this speech, but I'm sure Ted Sorenson would've been proud.