Making My Mark

About 65 years ago, I played chess; so I drove into Santa Monica to see a mighty chess match between Bobby Fischer, perhaps the greatest ever, and Sammy Reshevsky.  It took place in the ballroom of a giant hotel (I think), and during a break I headed for the men's room.  When I entered it, I found myself alone with Bobby Fischer, who was using one of the ten urinals.  He looked young, pale, slight, wearing a nice, loose suit. 

I waited until he finished, then went to the same urinal and peed on top of his, making my mark. 

Life at 89

LIFE AT 89

I decided to look for Bob.  I hadn't seen him for 40 years. I wanted to talk with him, but  I didn't have his address.

Bob was a truly good man, an intelligent, trusted old friend, but we'd parted ways one day in Buffalo when our wives had gotten into a discussion of different approaches to child rearing, and my wife had told his to fuck off. 

On the 'net I discovered that Bob had sold his house twenty years ago. Then that he had died three years ago. 

At my age searching for lost friends has been unrewarding.

gary1234goss@aol.com

Great Minds at Work

Last week the Supreme Court, the customary collection of dimwits, crooks and weeping boofers, took up the question of whether a lunatic in the pay of Russia should be allowed to run for president and maybe win. Justice Elena Kagan, one of the better thinkers, asked if a single state, Colorado, should get to decide which man will be the next leader of the West. (Colorado has barred Donald Trump.)

Kagan was sitting in a room with Justice Clarence Thomas. A few years back, Thomas, a richly paid hireling of our big business oligarchy, had been part of a five to four court decision that had made George W. Bush president, although Bush had finished second in the voting, which proved close enough. 

Without Thomas, Bush would not have won. So, in a sense, Thomas--one man--got to decide who would be president. That's what I call real power. And now Thomas may get to pick again. 

If Trump Wins

It is my unfounded opinion that Agent Orange will not be elected president again. I expect him to be found guilty of ugly crimes and to be out on appeal next November. 

But suppose Trump wins.

Batja sent me an article by Asli Aydintasbas, written for Politico. In it the author discusses how long it usually takes for an elected leader to grab total control of a nation's media, judiciary, city mayors, state leaders and related institutions. That is the process that installs a dictator in a democracy. 

Aydintasbas measures how much time it took recent aspiring dictators to get that sort of thing done, and he concludes it usually takes a lot more than four years. 

Orange's proposed attempts to make himself El Supremo of the world will encounter stonewall resistance from the mayor of Chicago, The NY Times, the governor of California, the courts, the nurses' union, the small town librarians, etc.  

Remember, Orange is a fading fool, who tends to surround himself with incompetents. 

Life with President Orange will be awful. He will do immense harm to billions of people.  But he probably won't be able to make a dictatorship stick. He's too stupid, too confused, too disconnected from Western  civ. 

Criminal Librarians

 According to The NY Times, librarians in America's heartland are being threatened with violence by armed Christian hate groups because the libraries carry books about gays. 

About new 150 bills in 35 states set punishments for librarians who don't remove books that the hate groups dislike. 

The most banned book is GENDER QUEER, which I mention because I once met the book's author, a really nice young person and an expert setter of type.

A Brutal Truth

All modern nations are hierarchical. One of the divisions is between males and females, with males privileged as the more intelligent and wiser caste. When something like that is universal, it almost has to be based on something tangible.  It can't be just made up. But there is no convincing evidence that males are smarter than females.

The most thoughtful and fair male thinkers appear baffled by how men came to be privileged. I believe there is an easy way for us to find out why modern society is controlled by elite males. Ask a woman.  

q

A House of Toast

 

Bob Elliot and Ray Goulding (Bob and Ray) were satirists for five decades. Mostly they did absurd interviews of one another in a deadpan manner. For a while they focused on an imaginary rival of the then-new International House of Pancakes. 

Bob and Ray called their rival business the House of Toast. It was franchised widely over the state, ready to serve all varieties of breads, including pumpernickel, toasted lightly or darkly, well buttered, along with special prune-flavored shakes.

Bob and Ray's satire came to mind this morning when my wife forced me to enter a small breakfast place called the House of Bagels. Basically the same idea. The problem was that I did not want a bagel.

 I do eat about 75 bagels a year. The best come from Grossman's in the Old Italian Section. But I was not in the mood. I had a cup of hot chocolate as my meal, and I thought about Bob and Ray. 

The Discontently

Susan became unhappy when a talking head on TV used the term "discontentment." Why not say "discontent"? 

Experts sometimes split hairs attempting to develop a slight difference between the two words. I  think the two words mean the same thing: (not) content. 

I'm fearless when it comes to agreeing with my wife and Shakespeare, who did not write: "Now is the winter of our discontentment."

We Are Wendy

The Constitution contains several emolument clauses. The  Presidential version (art. II, § 1, cl. 7) states that: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased (sic) nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

President Trump violated this clause often, made millions of dollars, and nothing will be done about it. In effect, one of the emoluments clauses in our Constitution is dead because one nutter ignored it.

The Constitution is not real in the sense that my pocket knife is real. The Constitution is real only when we believe in it-- in the sense that Tinker Bell is only real when we believe in her. 

We are Wendy.

The purpose of the Ineligibility Clause is to preserve the separation of powers and prevent executive influence on the legislature (and vice versa). The Clause thus prohibits federal officers from simultaneously serving as Members of Congress. Moreover, a Member of Congress may not hold an office if it was established during his tenure or if the emoluments of that office were increased during his tenure.

Officers Subject to the
Emoluments Clauses
In terms of the persons to whom they apply, the scope of the Domestic Emoluments Clause and the Ineligibility Clause is clear from the Constitution’s text: The Domestic Emoluments Clause applies to the President, and the Ineligibility Clause applies to Members of Congress.

The scope of the Foreign Emoluments Clause is less clear. By its terms, the Clause applies to any person holding an “Office of Profit or Trust under” the United States. The prevailing view of the Clause is that this language reaches only federal, and not state, officeholders. According to the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which has a developed body of opinions on the Foreign Emoluments Clause, offices “of profit” include those that receive a salary, while offices “of trust” are those that require discretion, experience, and skill.

There is disagreement, however, over whether elected federal officers, such as the President, are subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Legal scholars have debated whether, as a matter of original public meaning, the Foreign Emoluments Clause reaches only appointed officers (and not elected officials). The OLC has generally presumed that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the President, and the only district court to consider the issue (in District of Columbia v. Trump) came to the same conclusion.

The Meaning of the Term “Emolument”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “emolument” as an “advantage, profit, or gain received as a result of one’s employment or one’s holding of office.” There is significant debate as to precisely what constitutes an emolument within the meaning of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, particularly as to whether it includes private, arm’s-length market transactions. The only two district courts to decide this issue (in District of Columbia v. Trump and Blumenthal v. Trump) adopted a broad definition of “emolument” as reaching any benefit, gain, or advantage, including profits from private market transactions not arising from an office or employment, although higher courts have not weighed in on the issue.

Standing to Enforce an Alleged Violation of the Emoluments Clauses
Whether the Emoluments Clauses may be enforced through civil litigation is an open question. The doctrine of standing presents a significant limitation on the ability of public officials or private parties to seek judicial enforcement of

 The Foreign Emoluments Clause (art. I, § 9, cl. 8): “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

 The Domestic Emoluments Clause (a.k.a. the Presidential Emoluments Clause) (art. II, § 1, cl. 7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

 The Ineligibility Clause (art. I, § 6, cl. 2): “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Off

q