Blog Archives

Impeachment—Ticket to a Second Term

9/25/2019

If I were Donald Trump, and that’s a thought leaving me aghast, I’d be leaping with joy and sending congratulatory messages to Nancy Pelosi and each member of the House Democratic Caucus.

Those stalwart defenders of our constitution have decided it’s time to launch impeachment proceedings against the president. Why are they doing it?

Perhaps it’s because the public is demanding such action. No, that can’t be the reason. Polls show indifference or opposition to the procedure. Instead, the issues polls say are of interest include the economy, immigration, health care, national security, climate change, and guns. Impeachment didn’t even make the list. But our brilliant Democrats have decided to move the discussion and headlines away from subjects truly important to Americans.

Well, maybe it’s because previous impeachment attempts have been successful so there’s every reason to expect this one to be. Bit of a problem here, though. The two presidents who have been impeached are Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. Neither was removed. It’s just hard to do that, because it takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

One might counter by saying impeachment would have been successful against Richard Nixon. Perhaps so, which probably explains his resignation. But things were different then. First, unlike today, the public was supportive of the action. Second, there was not blind allegiance to party. Conservative Barry Goldwater, viewed with contempt these days by the ultraright Republicans he would not recognize, told Nixon he’d have to support at least one of the articles of impeachment. Oh my, that would not do now, because today the good Republican must kowtow to the party head, no matter how much he has forfeited the moral leadership of our country or destroyed our credibility in world affairs.

How many really think 67 of today’s senators would vote for removal when over half in the Senate are Republicans cowed by the divisiveness of Mitch McConnell? You know, the same upright guy who killed a Supreme Court nomination by Obama and has said if Trump had a similar opportunity to make one before the 2020 election, McConnell would assure the process proceeded to confirmation.

So let’s recap here. The people aren’t interested in impeachment of the president. Impeachment of presidents has never been successful. There is absolutely no hope the Senate would vote for removal.

What possible justification could there be for the Democrats to pursue such a hopeless cause?

I have heard them say, “Even if we’re not successful, at least we would have stood up.” Oh, my, doesn’t that sound grand? Makes one proud to be a Democrat. We “stand up” to evil.

Now, what exactly will be accomplished by this “standing up?”

Assuring the reelection of Donald Trump, that’s what. Don’t believe it? How do you think he’s going to react?

Can’t you hear the Twitter storm that already has begun? Trump will dominate the media. “FAKE NEWS!.” “WITCH HUNT!” “FAKE NEWS!.” PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!.” “FAKE NEWS!.” “Nancy just called for impeachment…Donate NOW.” “FAKE NEWS!.”

Never forget. He is a better manipulator than any Democrat. He is a better liar than any Democrat. He will do anything that is to his benefit. And don’t think it won’t work. Remember 2016?

But wait. Perhaps we’ll get a stirring response to all this noise from the Democrats. Something that will motivate the populace, take us to new heights. Something along the lines of, “This president has acted in an unconstitutional manner.” That should rouse the troops!

The Democrats are doing what they do so well. Ruining their chances of winning the upcoming election. Focusing on all the wrong things. Playing to their own base instead of appealing to the other’s. Thinking being against Trump is enough. Being boring.

I’m scared.

Please tell me the above analysis is wrong.

8 Comments

My First Bicycle

9/18/2019

2 Comments

I was nine or ten, and I wanted a bicycle so badly. My parents had decided it was time. However, World War II was raging and other manufactured items had priority. Nevertheless, bicycles were available, but in short supply.

Despite the odds, my mother took me to Bambergers Department Store in Newark (later to become a part of Macys). Back then, department stores actually were fun places to visit and had sections devoted to toys, entertainment equipment and other items in addition to clothes, dishes and perfumes. Of interest to me—they sold bicycles.

The bus trip was one I made many times, as a child with my mother when she went shopping and as a college student when I took night classes in Newark as part of a work/study program where days were spent at Bell Telephone Laboratories. I think the ride lasted about 30 minutes, but on THE day it seemed to go on for hours.

There was a short walk from bus stop to store. During it a plane dropped fliers, softly bombarding the pedestrians below. For a kid who spent an inordinate amount of time trying to catch falling leaves, this was a challenge made in heaven. I snagged several of the sheets and proudly carried them with me as we proceeded on our mission. The fliers urged folks to buy war bonds and I believe there was some monetary incentive if you brought one of the sheets to a bank.

When we finally reached the store, we found the correct department and my eyes snapped to the bicycle there displayed. It was beautiful. Could it be mine?

A salesman approached. That was more common then than now. I remember him as a nice guy. But when my mother asked about purchasing a bike his face clouded. He said the demand was great and the availability small. He offered to take mother’s name and phone number and let her know when (or if) one became available.

I believe he was sorry to see the disappointment on my face and tried to divert me by asking about what I was holding. I enthusiastically described the plane and the dropped leaflets. Then I offered one to him, to his delight.

I don’t recall the return trip, but I would be surprised if mother didn’t attempt to lift the gloom by buying me an ice cream cone.

I’m not sure if it was the same day or the next, but mother received a call from the salesman saying a bike was available and would we like it delivered. Back then free delivery was routine on purchases. He wasn’t sure when it would arrive. Mother was positive we received the call because I had given the man one of the fliers.

I immediately devoted my life to active waiting. This took the form of sitting on the curb in front of our home, staring up the street first one way and then the other. No truck came that first day, a day composed of about 100 hours. I never left my post except when called in for meals or bed. It didn’t come the second day. Nor the third. I don’t know how many interminable days passed, but it didn’t come and it didn’t come. Until it did!

I suppose there was some assembly required, but soon I was riding. I can’t recall how I learned. I just remember having no problems and soon I was going up and down the street. No helmet. I had no idea of the risks.

It was a full-sized bike and was my main transportation vehicle until my senior year in high school when a four-wheeled device took over. I had two close friends in high school and one of our projects was to paint all three of our bikes the same yellow and black.

We rode everywhere together, up curving hills sharing the road with racing cars, to hamburger joints, to courts where we could shoot baskets, to nowhere as we killed time on a hot summer afternoon. We never even considered locking them as we trotted off to some activity.

I didn’t get other bicycles until well after I was married, but only the first resides in my memory.

2 Comments

Vigils

9/11/2019

2 Comments

I’ve been to too many vigils in the past few years.

All in response to mass shootings.

The latest came in the aftermath of the El Paso and Dayton disasters.

I have mixed feelings about vigils. It seems to me they are similar to “thoughts and prayers.”

Having said this, though, I must admit to major differences. The thoughts and prayers proclamations usually arise from those who want to simultaneously look good and do nothing. That worked for a while, but people are beginning to catch on and demand more. Now the thoughts and prayers folk sometimes are forced to act like they actually want to respond to public outcries. As we’ve seen in an earlier post, they do this by looking for the most minor changes in gun laws they can imagine and then make them sound like major contributions. Like red flag laws. Like raising the age to purchase guns from 18 to 21. Big deal.

The true vigil folk do want change—real change—and are willing to fight for it. I’ve not been to a single vigil that didn’t demand restrictive gun laws. The people speaking and demanding range over a wide spectrum.

There are, of course, the politicians, always willing to orate. Some are truly good-hearted. Most are self-centered. All talk too long.

Then there are the advocacy groups, many of whom have been fighting for years against tremendous odds to bring sense to our country. And despite setback after setback, they line up for the next challenge. Unfortunately, some such groups want to run the show rather than cooperate with the efforts of established organizations. They suddenly appear in a state, ignore all others, and garner lots of publicity. You can tell them from the others because in their vigil talks they tell about themselves while the others discuss taking action.

The third speaker class is heartbreaking. These are the survivors. These are the people who have been shot at or have lost a son, daughter, parent, baby, friend to a deranged maniac who has all too easily been able to purchase a semi-automatic killing machine. Who can truly understand what they have experienced? Who can deny their right to demand reasonable gun laws? Who can object if they talk too long?

Why am I saying vigils and thoughts and prayers are similar? Because both seem to accomplish nothing. At least in the sense of making real changes in our laws. All the pretty words, and all the forceful demands, and all the promises that “this time it will be different” wind up with no changes. Then, after the next shooting, someone says we should have a vigil to process it.

Don’t misinterpret me. I think both vigils and thoughts and prayers are positive things. But not because they cause changes. Rather because they serve as expressions of comfort to those affected most directly by the shootings: survivors and the family and friends of victims.

Or to others, to anybody who is disgusted or scared about what is happening to our country. There’s something cathartic about vigils, about being surrounded by equally appalled individuals. It’s comforting to know there are other decent humans not only in the world, but in your own local community.

So I say, yes, hold the vigils. Yes, do send thoughts and prayers, but only if you really care and are not just trying to look good.

But then, when you’ve finished delivering your comforting message or have returned home after the vigil, think about what action you can take to effect true change.

Then do it.

2 Comments

They Don't Know What They're Doing

9/4/2019

2 Comments

I’m writing this in Orlando as I await Dorian’s decision about our fate.

Experts from the National Hurricane Center provide a map every few hours that illustrates their best guess as to where the storm will be at several time points over the next five days. You can draw a line connecting these points and most view this path as THE track for the storm. The experts aren’t nearly as convinced of its accuracy and, in recognition of this, they surround these points with a “cone of uncertainty.”

They’re wise to do so, since usually the prediction changes as more information becomes available. This annoys some because, focusing only on that line, they’ve made their preparations and now find it was unnecessary. They’ll say of the hurricane experts, “They don’t know what they’re doing.”

In actual fact, I believe they do know what they are doing. It’s just that we don’t know what they’re doing. The cone of uncertainty is an attempt to clarify the imprecision of prediction. Most of us have learned to accept the line may not be exact, and that the cone indicates possible deviations. But is that the whole story? I have not seen anyone properly interpret it for the general public, and I feel this is where the experts fail. So I decided to look into it. While far from obtaining a full understanding, here is what I discovered.

Let’s start with a simple idea. Suppose a car is traveling 30 miles per hour for two hours. It covers 60 miles. If it moves 40 miles per hour it covers 80 miles. How far it goes depends on the idea we call “speed.” Speed is what’s known as a variable and our tiny problem has only a single variable. That makes it easy to analyze. If I tell you the speed in miles per hour, you can tell me how far the car goes in two hours. Simply multiply the speed by two. We can be pretty sure our answer is correct. But what happens if the car speeds up and slows down, slips on icy roads, faces wind resistance, is carrying extra weight in the trunk? Now figuring out how far it goes isn’t nearly so simple, because there are many more variables to consider.

It’s even worse with hurricanes. I shudder to think of the number of variables that affect the location and intensity of a storm, a few of which are global winds and their strength and direction, water temperature and its variations, current speed of the storm, the presence of high and low pressure systems, the earth’s rotation, the jet stream, wind shear, land interaction, presence or absence of the Bermuda high, and history of past storms. To make it worse, most of these variables are continually changing with time and they’re interacting with each other in ways that can greatly complicate things. This means it’s really hard to analyze, and to obtain an accurate prediction. How could one not expect imprecision?

It takes supercomputers to take into account all the changing variables. A computer program that produces a track for the storm is called a model and it’s effectiveness depends on whatever variables it is fed and how it is programmed to analyze those variables and their relationships. There are at least 13 different models in use and the various tracks can be seen at https://web.uwm.edu/hurricane-models/models/al052019.png. These all differ because they consider different variables or interpret them in different ways. Indeed, the predictions can vary widely from one model to the next.

What it all means is that predictions can’t be perfect and that gets us to the cone. How is it formed and what does it really signify?

As a first step in a new track prediction, the current location of the storm is noted. Then best estimates are made for where it will be at 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, and 120 hours in the future, and the points are marked on a map. Of course, these positions may not be correct and acceptance of this gives rise to the cone. For each of these seven estimated spots, a circle is drawn centered at the position that indicates possible deviation from the path. The radius of the circle depends on the time. For example, it’s about 30 miles at the 12-hour point, 78 miles at the 48-hour point, and 228 miles at the 120-hour (five-day) point. No surprise the circles get bigger as the time ahead increases since there is more uncertainty then. Finally, all the circles are enclosed in a surrounding curve and that becomes the cone of uncertainty.

So how are the sizes of the circles determined? Intuitively I would have thought they’d be large enough so any deviations from the path would fit in the portion of the cone surrounding that circle. Afraid not! The radius depends on past errors observed over years of predicting. A circle is just big enough so that two-thirds of all past errors in prediction for that distance would fit in the surrounding curve. Only two-thirds! So that’s saying that portion of the curve will contain the true path, the path the storm actually follows—two times out of every three! That is, the path will go outside the curve in the area of the circle one-third of the time. The cone of uncertainty is even more uncertain than it first seems. In fact, suppose you take a cone at any given instant and you never make a new one. Then you plot what the hurricane does over the next five days. Its actual path will stay in that same cone only 60% to 70% of the time! That’s why the cone is constantly updated.

I understand the frustration with changing predictions. I worry that those displeased will wind up not trusting and thus ignoring future warnings, as many have threatened. I wish people could understand the true use of the cone and its limitations.

And I wish they could see it is far better to heed warnings that were later unnecessary than to ignore them and suffer the serious consequences if the warnings turn out to be correct. It’s advice I intend to heed even though, as I post this, Dorian, which has devastated the lives of so many, seems to have given us a break.

2 Comments

Impeachment—Ticket to a Second Term

My First Bicycle

Vigils

They Don't Know What They're Doing

Author

Archives

Categories