The Supreme Court Has Found the Rock and the Hard Place.

All indications are that the Justices will either invent the idea that Trump has sweeping immunity, or they'll send it back to a lower court.  Either decision creates a problem for Trump.  And for the Court.

The analogy that has been floated in this case is whether or not Trump would have immunity if he had political rivals killed.  His lawyer says he would, but this immunity would be retracted if Trump was then impeached and convicted.

Keeping in mind how enraged are most Americans over the Supreme Court's removal of their rights to abortion, and considering how much further enraged they would be if the Supreme Court told them King Donnie can do whatever he wants, it becomes more or less unfathomable that Donnie gets elected this coming November, if it's not unfathomable already.

But let's say, for purpose of discussion, he does.  But Congress becomes more Democratic.  Donnie not only gets impeached immediately, but the Senate, unlike the one headed by Mitch McConnell, who said he didn't care what the House did about impeachment, because the Republican Senate wouldn't convict him anyway, does in fact convict him.  Immunity gone.

Or Donnie somehow, unimaginably, gets elected, and Congress shifts right, too.  At that point, 250 years after we detached ourselves from King George III, we're under the autocracy of King Donnie and his yes-people (if he needs them, and doesn't just discharge them), and the "democratic experiment" is over.  We lost.  We failed.

Or, if the Supreme Court says a president has immunity, and can have rivals assassinated, why can't Biden have Trump assassinated?  Biden wouldn't, because he's not like that, but if the SCOTUS says he could, and if he does it now, the House will impeach him, and the Senate, if it was as amoral as the one McConnell led, wouldn't convict him.

But the fact is that Donnie himself knows he's not immune.  The last time he lost an election, he did the right thing, at first.  He brought the matter to the courts.  Sixty or sixty-one times.  Sure, there was the famous call to Raffensperger in Georgia, and the denied request of Pence, but he didn't take matters in hand, and declare himself the winner, as if he was immune.  (Or have Biden and Harris assassinated.)  He knows he's not immune.

And the SCOTUS doesn't have to send this matter back to a lower court.  It's already been there.  The Supreme Court of Colorado already ruled against Donnie.  It said he was guilty, had violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and couldn't hold any office.  The Colorado Supreme Court simply suspended its decision for a little while, because Donnie wanted to appeal to the SCOTUS.

So, what's the SCOTUS to do?  They shouldn't have agreed to hear this case, and it's going to be more or less impossible for them (the right wing supermajority) to get themselves out of it without making fools of themselves more than they've been doing.

Nobody Saw That Coming.

Well, it's been a helluva week or so.  Last week Saturday, I went to South Miami-Dade Cultural Arts Center, and saw a magnificent dance show ("Ballet X").  Monday, I went to musimelange and heard a gorgeous baroque music concert.  Last night, I saw a very captivating exhibit (and had wine, Barbancourt Haitian rum drinks, a beer, and finger foods) at MOCA.  Tonight, I went to Sandrell Rivers Theater to see a play ("Bourbon at the Border").  Tomorrow and Saturday, I'm going back to South Miami-Dade.  Sunday, I'm going to an Indian music concert.

But I want to talk about the play I saw tonight.  It was put on by the M Ensemble, which is an African American theater company, and essentially all of their plays are about African Americans.  I almost always go on opening night.  It's more expensive --  well, when I say "expensive..." (it was $41) -- but after the opening night performance, there's food, drinks, socializing, and the actors come out after they've gotten cleaned up.  So you can meet them, and tell them if you think they did a great job.  There were four characters in the play tonight.  Rosa had a new boyfriend -- Tyrone -- so their relationship was part of the play.  And May is married to Charlie, who had gotten out of a psychiatric hospital for one of a succession of admissions for depression.  Charlie also had a limp from a fracture he sustained at some point.  Rosa and May were best friends, although Rosa was very fun-loving and was either libidinous or knew how to work men, and May was plain and seemed comparatively exhausted, likely, it seemed, because Charlie was so unstable and prone to depression.

Charlie seemed much better after this most recent hospitalization, and he was eager to get a job.  Tyrone worked for a trucking company that was hiring.  So maybe Charlie could get a job driving trucks.  Tyrone was going to put in a good word with Neil, who was the boss.

As May and Charlie reviewed their relationship, or May talked to Rosa about it, because they had come across some old photographs, it was revealed that May and Charlie had gone down to Mississippi in the 1960s to encourage black people to register to vote.  The setting of the play was during or shortly after the Vietnam war, so the background music from the radio was from that period.  So we're talking about something like a 12 year difference.

The geographic setting of this play is Detroit, which also influenced the choices of music.  The couple sitting behind me were singing along, even though I thought they looked too young to remember that music.  I told them so.  The woman was, shockingly, two years older than I am -- she could easily pass for 50-55 -- and her male companion was two years older than she was, and also looked much younger than he was.

I have to admit I wasn't sure where this play was going.  The write-up about the playwright was such that I expected something very interesting, but I couldn't figure out to what interesting place it was going to go.

And I'm not going to tell you how it ended.  The play runs until April 28 -- not every night, so you have to contact them at 305-705-3218 or tgcooper@aol.com to find out their schedule -- and I strongly suggest you go.  If you care, the regular ticket price for shows other than opening night is somewhere around $35.  Parking is free.  Staff are wonderfully friendly.  Pat and Shirley operate the M Ensemble.  They have very nice staff who take tickets, if you have them, or sell them, if you don't.  Sandrell Rivers Theater is at the corner of NW 62nd St and 7th Ave.  It's reasonably close to here.

You don't know how this play ends, but I do.  When the actors arrived at the post-play reception, I told them they did a great job, and I asked each of them if they saw the end coming as they were reading the play.  Not one of them did.  Nobody did.  I'm reluctant to be hyperbolic about this, but it's kind of brilliant.

Do yourselves a favor.

"Me, Too."

One of our neighbors sent me a frankly painful e-mail.  The e-mail said "Regarding the 'Anonymous' comments on your blog post regarding Ryan Huntington, I'm truly scared about the population and future of BP and our country."  I didn't ask for permission to reprint this, because I can keep the author confidential, and it doesn't matter who it is.  It's one of our neighbors, and someone I know.  I responded "Me, too," and I suggested that our neighbor could have entered this as a comment, instead of a private e-mail to me.  I also said the blog is ours, not mine.  It's true that because of the way blogspot is set up, I have unique proprietary discretion and control no one else has, but I try to minimize that.  I could block comments, or condition them on my approval, and I don't do either of those things.  I invite guest authors -- it's my pleasure to have their input, with which I most certainly don't always agree -- and those guest authors have as much control over the blog as I do.  In the past, I regularly offered guest authorship to people running for Commission, even if I was running against them.  I figured it was a good way for them to make their presentations, or cases, and we could have a nice discussion, or even debate, about their campaigns.  But few candidates took me up on it, and now, no one, frankly, seems to have an agenda.  Nor do they do their neighbors the common courtesy even of campaigning.  So I don't bother to do the legwork to go find the candidates, and offer them space and a circulation.

Which brings us back to our neighbor's lament, certainly about the Village, and also about the country.  Anyone who reads these posts, and the comments (which means the reader has to keep checking back every day or every few days, to see if there are any new comments), has seen the profusion of comments from someone who calls him- or herself "Anonymous."  And I will tell you that "Anonymous'" first comment under the last post came so soon after the post was published that it led me to wonder if "Anonymous" is in fact one of the people on the new post circulation I have compiled.  Either that, or it was a coincidence that "Anonymous" just happened to check the blog right after a new post was published.

"Anonymous'" comments are rambling, often incoherent, filled with misspellings, grammar mistakes, and what are probably the results of someone who has poor verbal ability trying to dictate, commonly enough have nothing to do with the topic of the post, are very often nasty and insulting, and seem to be the products of someone with frankly serious problems.  One of "Anonymous'" common refrains is hope or confidence that Donnie Trump will get re-elected this year, which I guess is part of the reason that our neighbor who e-mailed me expressed concern not only about the Village, but also about the country.  It does appear increasingly glaring that people who are in favor of Trump have in common noteworthy dimness of wit, to put it in a certain way.  Even increasing numbers of people who have been staunch Republicans and "conservatives" (it's still unclear to me what they think they're trying to conserve) are falling away from Trump.  But not "Anonymous."  S/he is still claiming to be a stalwart.  Clearly, that's part of what feels frightening and deflating to our neighbor who e-mailed me.

One of the critically important things about "Anonymous" is that "Anonymous" is anonymous.  So, when "Anonymous" talks, for example, about Village matters, in favor of or opposed to anyone or anything, it's not possible to know who "Anonymous" is, how "Anonymous" thinks s/he knows what s/he says, or if any of these ramblings are worth taking seriously.  So, if I, for example, can't tell, then the sensible choice is to ignore the content.  But if "Anonymous" is a Village resident, then s/he still gets a vote.  Hence, part of our neighbor's concern.  A complete moron with a vote can use that vote any way s/he wants, which imperils the Village.  And because, to take the example "Anonymous" keeps giving us, whether or not it's germane to anything, if the same complete moron is a remaining stalwart devotee of Donnie Trump (it's still impossible for me to believe the polls showing Donnie's considerable support among whoever agrees to respond to these polls), that person (benefit of the doubt here) can imperil the country, just as our neighbor feared.

Back in 2015 and 2016, when Donnie was first running, every available piece of evidence strongly suggested that Donnie was intellectually impaired, completely dishonest, and 100% self-centered.  Although Donnie did not get the support of the majority of the voters, he won because of the distortion created by the technicality known as the Electoral College.  Four years later, after he proved beyond any doubt that he was most definitely stupid, a total and inveterate liar, and had no thought for anyone but himself, he got even more votes than he did when we just strongly suspected it.  So the voters aren't very smart.  It's clear, although faulty and unnecessary, I hope, why our neighbor is as "scared" as s/he is, at least about the country.

Regarding the Village, we have crashed.  We've had the occasional dysfunctional and failed oddball on the Commission from time to time over the decades.  We've worked around them.  But starting in 2016 (yeah, I know: hmm), Commission candidates have stopped campaigning, commonly aren't properly "seasoned" for being Commissioners, and have no agendas.  Which certainly explains why Commissions since then haven't accomplished anything.  We've had 2 1/2 good Commissioners since 2016.  Dan Samaria started out surprisingly very well, until he went in some weird direction, Roxy Ross filled in for Betsy Wise or someone, who ran for the hills when the Commission problems got increasingly bad, and there's been Mac Kennedy.  I'm giving Mac full credit, Roxy full credit, even though it was just to fulfill the end of a term that had been vacated, and Dan half credit because he lost his bearings and didn't have to.

So I totally, totally understand our neighbor's concern, and I share it.  It's sort of heartbreaking to see what's happened to the Village, and to the country.  I even had a brief e-mail conversation with whoever is our current manager, and I suggested he fire police chief Luis Cabrera, because Luis isn't interested in safety on 6th Ave.  The manager said it was the Commission's job to manage the police chief.  So our manager presumably hasn't read our Charter, he doesn't know whose job is what, and which bucks stop at his desk.

Yup, I very much get it.  The straits are most definitely dire.  Whoever can be bothered to vote in the Village this coming Tuesday will have zero good choices out of three options.  In November, apart from the Village election -- again -- among others, we'll have the choice of Joe Biden, who is too old for this, and whose best accomplishments have been to undo some of Donnie Trump's damage, and then get out of the way (although he continues to help the Israelis annihilate innocent Palestinians), or Donnie Trump, who is the stupidest and worst past president this country has ever seen.  Great, huh?

I'm Guessing Ryan Huntington Hasn't Seen "Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror."

Early in that movie (one of the old ones starring Basil Rathbone as Holmes), Holmes is invited to join the British High Command to figure out who's behind the German recordings of attacks against England.  One member of the Council is very opposed to bringing in Holmes, a civilian.  But Holmes has already been invited, and he arrives as the Council members are debating the fact that he was invited.  Holmes shows off some of his stuff, and he notes that one particular admiral clearly objected to his being invited to help.  The Council members are very surprised that Holmes could have known this, and Holmes points out that the Admiral in question had been leaning against a table, and left heel impressions dug into the rug, clearly signifying resistance.

So yesterday, I went to the Village event before the Commission meeting.  Daniela Levine-Cava was there, I had met her before, and I wanted to talk to her for a while.  But while I was there, Ryan Huntington, clearly at the urging of Mac Kennedy, introduced himself to me.  He said he knew about this blog (hmm, he didn't ask me to include him in new post announcements from now on), and that I had mentioned him.  I confirmed I did, twice.  So he wanted to make an introduction, and he apologized for having missed meeting me while he was campaigning.  He said he had been in a hurry to distribute his materials, knocked on doors, and probably knocked on mine when I wasn't home.  Nope.  He distributed a door tag to my house when I was home, and he didn't knock.

Anyway, Ryan and I had a nice chat, under the circumstances (he's running for office, and I'm not supportive), and I told him Mac thinks highly of him, and notes that he comes to Commission meetings prepared with good questions.  (Ryan revealed he's lived in the Village for 13 years, so apparently, coming to Commission meetings is a new thing for him.)  But I told Ryan that he was at a disadvantage, and he was proposing to put his neighbors at a disadvantage, because he hasn't given himself an adequate opportunity to understand how the Village works, what our problems are, how we've addressed some, why we didn't address others, etc.

Ryan mentioned one thing he considers a problem: speeding.  I agreed with him, and I told him our biggest speeding problem by far is and always has been on 6th Ave, and we're not doing anything about that.  But that's not the speeding Ryan had in mind.  He's fixated on our interior streets, and how we should have speed bumps and rotaries.  I told him we already have speed bumps, and they're faulty.  I don't know if Ryan didn't hear me, or if he was just lost in his own thought process.  So I tried again to explain.  We have speed bumps/tables, and they're so high that no one can negotiate them at the accepted speed limit without damaging their car.  As it happens, one of my friends, who's lived here longer than I have, and was standing there, told Ryan the same thing.  Ryan thinks the answer to this is to drive slower (than the speed limit).  I asked Ryan if what he really thought is that 25 mph is too fast, and we should lower the speed limit, again.  (He can't know that we already lowered from 30 to 25, for no reason, or about the traffic studies we've already had.)  He didn't answer.  The purpose of traffic calming devices is to make sure people drive the speed limit, not to make it impossible to drive the speed limit.

Ryan did what Mac escorted him to do: he met me.  He is interested in his own thought process, not in anyone else's (despite his claim to want to include his neighbors more), and he still thinks it's reasonable and not disrespectful to his neighbors to imagine he can dope this all out while in office.  Heel prints are noted.

Have a nice day next Tuesday.  Give my regards.

The Problem With Opposing DEI.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is the subject of lots of opinion (for and against) these days.  DEI is criticized (by its critics) for deliberately and seemingly unfairly giving an advantage to some groups of people.  The most extreme objection goes by the slogan "The Great Replacement Theory."  As if making room for some groups of people to be here, exist, and thrive was a "zero sum game," which meant that other groups of people were displaced or deprived.

And the critics are partially right about their understanding of DEI.  In earlier days, we called it Affirmative Action, and it most definitely does give an advantage to some groups of people.  To the extent that it smooths the way for some of those people to enter this country, settle and stay here, and become citizens, it does make room that was selfishly hoarded before.  Whether or not it "replaces" anyone is much more a matter for interpretation.

But here's the problem.  If we say, for the sake of convenience, that the groups advantaged by DEI are guaranteed a right to be here, and common advantages, about which the critics complain, those critics didn't complain when they themselves had all the advantage.  They complained about Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus, but they didn't complain when she was relegated to the back seat.  They don't mind if some people are winners, as long as they're the winners.

When the Pilgrims came here in the 1600s, there were already people here.  Today, we call them Native Americans.  The Pilgrims didn't feel unentitled to impose themselves, and their religion, and their diseases, on the Native Americans.  And they violently mistreated those Native Americans in ways worse than they claim to think current immigrant hopefuls would mistreat them.  And took most of their land.

What's curious (and infuriating, frankly) is that in the past 60+ years, we've welcomed immigrants from Cuba, and many of those Cuban immigrants now claim to object to our welcoming other immigrants.  They fear, or claim, presumably, that they think the immigrant hopefuls to whom they object would behave in ways, and occupy this country, that the rest of us didn't fear when we opened the doors to them.

We've settled on various bogeymen over time.  The same things are alleged about every immigrant group: Germans, Irish, Italians, Middle Easterners, Chinese, Japanese (shocking mistreatment during WWII), and others.  During WWII, we turned away some ships carrying Jewish immigrant hopefuls, because we didn't want any more of "those" people here.  And over time (at most one generation), they all adopt American styles and values.  Well, all except the Native Americans, whom we appear to be unable to stop abusing, and the African Americans, who never came here looking for a better life, and whom we also appear to be unable to stop abusing.

Yesterday, a large ship rammed and took down a bridge in Maryland.  The bridge is a total loss, and although traffic alerts were broadcast to warn drivers, the people working on the bridge were not alerted.  Six of them died.  As far as I know, all six were from Central America.  Those are the people some of us keep trying to keep out, imagining it would be terrible to have them here.  They were working, on the bridge, had been here for years, had families, paid taxes, and were at least as creditable citizens as the people who don't want them to be here.

When we're not in some sort of hysteria over immigrants, we call (or at least used to call) this country a "melting pot."  And it is.  That's one of our great strengths, as long as we don't pick nonsensical fights with each other.  More or less no one who rails at DEI is a descendant of the Pilgrims, and even if they were, their forebears were unwelcome intruders.  DEI is what this country, when it functions rationally, is about.  African Americans can vote, except where the backward "Americans" are still trying to suppress them.  Women can vote.  Few but the most lost are distracted by miscegenation.

If you've never seen Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," you'll see that Americans tend to be a terrified people.  And for no reason, other, perhaps, than some self-consciousness and guilt.  We're entitled to feel that way, and the best way to keep ourselves self-conscious and guilt-ridden is to follow people like Ronnie DeSantis, and pretend we don't have to know about our mistakes, and the things we did wrong.  DeSantis, huh?  Sounds like maybe a French name.

The G.O.A.T.

I've been back and forth about following sports.  I finally gave up years ago, because the teams aren't devoted to the players, the players aren't devoted to the teams, the salaries are ridiculous (ridiculously high now*, although many decades ago, they were ridiculously low), protections often not good enough, and way too many players seem to want to hurt or damage other players.  To put it in a certain way, I don't follow basketball for the same reasons I don't follow boxing.

*I always remember when Mo Vaughn was a beloved player for the Boston Red Sox, but he left to go to the Los Angeles Dodgers.  The Red Sox were offering him $6.2M a year, and he said he had to worry about supporting his family, so he went to the Dodgers, who offered more.  Anyone who can't have a perfectly wonderful life, and provide luxurious support for their family, making $6.2M a year, has problems that more money won't solve.

And it's less likely to decide on a Greatest of All Time (G.O.A.T.) in baseball than in something like basketball, because there are more people on a baseball team.  But there has been talk about Shohei Otani, who is a remarkable pitcher and a remarkable hitter.  These disciplines are commonly thought of as opposite of each other, in the sense that expertise at one undermines quality at the other.  But Otani is sort of off the charts at both at the same time.  Babe Ruth started as a pitcher, too, but when his hitting became pre-eminent, he stopped pitching, to save his arm for hitting.

There's a population of people who say Tom Brady is the G.O.A.T. in football, which has even more players than does a baseball team, but Brady was not great in college, and he wouldn't have been great in the pros without a very protective offensive line, and excellent rushers and pass-catchers.  It would even be hard to say that Brady was the greatest quarterback of all time, because the game has changed, and many quarterbacks these days, most certainly including Brady, don't scramble as they did decades ago.  They just get protected.

Soccer fans seem generally to consider Lionel Messi the G.O.A.T.  He's great, and a great member of a team.  For me, it's Ronaldinho.  But perfectly solid arguments get made for Pele and Maradona.  Thierri Henri is on various people's list, too.

But there's an ongoing and entrenched idea of deciding which player is the G.O.A.T.  Or there's an ongoing and entrenched idea that there could be something like a G.O.A.T.  In team sports, there really couldn't.  With a rare possible exception which we'll explore.  In team sports, everyone depends on everyone else, and even if, let's say in basketball, one player scores more points, or logs more assists, or pulls down more rebounds, it's a team effort, in which plays are concocted, so that a player in a certain position will get more points, assists, or rebounds, and no one could use the stark statistics to decide someone was the G.O.A.T..

And not only that, but various conditions change.  When Wilt Chamberlain played, he was, as far as I know, the only seven foot tall player.  Now, there are several or many.  But Chamberlain had a unique advantage at the time.  And the rules change, favoring rushing, or passing, in football, or, in basketball, a more physical game or a less physical game.  The fans like scoring, so the rules are changed to allow for more points.  That's why in basketball, a three point line was instituted, so that a successful shot from far enough back to earn two points, now earns three points.  What would the earlier point producers have accomplished if a percentage of their shots had produced 50% more points?  Were they not considered the G.O.A.T. then, but they would be if they were playing now?  And what about a shorter player like Steph Curry, who is considered a master of the three point shot?  If that shot doesn't exist, and he has to come to the basket, is he a lesser player?

In basketball, it's fairly common that Michael Jordan, most of whose career was in Chicago, is considered the G.O.A.T.  But let's also not forget that whole teams are constructed around a good or great player, so that player looks better, and the team wins more.  It wasn't Jordan who won six championships.  It was the Bulls team.  And there's an argument that Jordan and the Bulls would not have been as successful without Scottie Pippen.

One of my all time favorites, for a number of reasons, is Larry Bird.  He is very widely acclaimed for his "basketball IQ" and his work ethic.  He started turning the then losing Celtics around as soon as he got there.  But Kevin McHale was then brought in, as was Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson, and Danny Ainge, and Bird had a short career, due to injuries.  The Celtics of which he was a member for about 12 years won three championships.  How many would they have won if he hadn't gotten so injured because of his fearless play?  Bird was rookie of the year when he started, almost always an all-star, a two time "Dream Team" member, a three point championship winner three times, and after he stopped playing, went back to Indiana (the Pacers) and became coach of the year, and later manager of the year.  One story I heard about him, from one of his Indianapolis players, was that the team was stretching, and Bird, injured and after his playing days, in his suit and leather shoes, got up to leave, and started shooting three-pointers.  The team were flabbergasted that a retired player, not dressed for the court, could, without practice, still put them up like that.  And Bird's influence on the Celtics was to make them all better than they would have been without him.

There are frankly several or many choices for G.O.A.T.  People talk about the late Kobe Bryant, and now Luka Doncic.  And Oscar Robertson, and the immensely successful Bill Russell.  And they're all dependent on their teams, the times, and the rules.  Except for one player.

LeBron James grew up in Ohio, and he didn't go to college.  He didn't have the advantage of extra years of experience and coaching.  He went from high school to the Cleveland Cavaliers.  The team was not built around him, and it did not have great success when he first joined.  He was then traded to the Miami Heat, which won two championships with him.  He then went back to Cleveland, which also won a championship with him.  He then went to Los Angeles, where he still is, and they won at least one championship with him.  James is still playing, now at age 38, after 20 or 21 years.  He makes an impact, and many active and past players are in awe of his talent.  He owns the record for most NBA points at over 40K.  (Although there's a Brazilian guy -- not NBA -- who had over 49K points, and is rooting for James to break his record, because he considers James a "perfect player.")

So, I still say there is no basketball G.O.A.T., or a G.O.A.T. of any team sport, and there can't really be one.  But Larry Bird and LeBron James seem as close as it gets.

So, Ryan Huntington Has Stepped Up His Campaigning. Sort Of.

When I went to get the mail from the box immediately outside my front door today, I also found a door tag from Ryan.  No one knocked on my door today, so someone blew by my house for the purpose only of leaving the door tag.

The tag was completed on both sides of a glossy card.  On the "Vote Ryan Huntington" side, there was a photograph of Ryan (and one of him, presumably, in a group of firefighters), and his "Mission" statement.  Ryan aims to "review, interpret, and understand the culture and history of our Village, so we can create healthy, sustainable and tangible change for residents now.  Which can lead to growth opportunities for the future, while staying true to the integrity and beauty of our Village."  At the end of this side of the card was Ryan's suggestion that we "Vote for Change."

There are several issues here.  First, as I mentioned, someone just wanted to leave the card, but not get, you know, bogged down or waylaid by the time-wasting possibility of a conversation with the people whose votes Ryan wants.  Second, I'm still assuming that Ryan spoke to Chester Morris.  Chester is on the new post announcement circulation for this blog, and if Chester reads the posts, I would have thought he would have given Ryan a heads up to be sure to meet me.  The fact is not only that I did a post about Ryan, but I always offer candidates guest authorship, so they can use the blog to say what they want.  It would have been to my advantage and to Ryan's advantage if he met me.

Third, Ryan wants to become a Commissioner so he can "review, interpret, and understand the culture and history of our Village," etc?  Isn't that backwards?  Hasn't someone who would be a useful and meaningful Commissioner already reviewed, interpreted, and come to understand the culture and history of our Village?  I realize that there are always people who think they can be effective electeds with no prior knowledge, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're right.  I still don't know how long Ryan's lived here, or if he's indoctrinated himself or served the Village in any way.  His door tag seems to make clear he hasn't.  So, he imagines he's going to get elected, then waste time finding out about the Village and how it works, what we've done, what we haven't done, and why we haven't done what we haven't done, on the job?  I don't know anything about firefighters, but I would strongly suspect that firefighters have more sophisticated training than just being children or unrelated civilians who are overtaken by a sudden idea that they should join the FD, then figure out about fires and how to fight them later.

The other side of the door tag has a photograph of Ryan's family.  They're a nice-looking group.  If they wanted to be models, I'd encourage them.  The "About" section talks about how Ryan is a firefighter, paramedic, husband, father, and BP resident (right; he couldn't run if he wasn't a BP resident, for at least a year).  He also notes that he "care[s] deeply" about the Park.

Below that, he lists four goals.  They're essentially the usual boilerplate campaign platitudes, but #3 is curious, because Ryan says he wants to "Renew a culture of collaboration between elected officials and residents, where we seek resident input prior to any project."  So, Ryan doesn't have time to meet his neighbors when he wants their votes, but he wants to collaborate with them about projects once he's in office?  Must be that new math.

If I felt compelled to vote in this election, I'd have a problem.  Dan Samaria was already a Commissioner, and has given me reasons not to vote for him.  Ryan Huntington has a level of visibility that is more frustrating and insulting than it is enlightening and reassuring.  And I don't even know who the other candidates are.  I think there are some, but they're totally invisible.  If I'm wrong, and it's only Dan and Ryan, I won't bother to vote.  Dan won't make a good Commissioner (as if we cared any more, apparently), and Ryan is a "pig in a poke."  If my house catches fire, or I collapse in the street, I hope he helps me.  As a Commissioner?  I'm just not seeing it.

Jim Young, Conservative Republican From Oklahoma, and Christian (Whatever That Has to Do With Anything), Wants You to Know Something.

I voted for Trump – twice. Liz Cheney's book and DOJ's Jan. 6 indictment changed my mind (msn.com)

Young takes a very dim view of Biden, whom he strategically mischaracterizes, or to whom he misattributes problems*, so it's unclear what Young expects to do with his vote.  But he's made very clear what he's not going to do with it.  Although with two very dominant candidates, a vote not for one is a vote for the other.

I have my own complaints about Biden, but I will have no trouble holding my nose, and voting for him.  I won't really be voting for Biden.  I'll be voting against the person Jim Young now finally understands is an antidemocratic and antiAmerican criminal.  (How he managed to take this long to figure this out is a mystery he explains only by saying he read three things that all seemed entirely credible and were precisely in line with each other.  But the fact is that most voters could clearly see this in 2016 and 2020.  And those were the two years Young couldn't see the problem.  Well, he sees it now.  Maybe he was just mindlessly voting against any Democrat.  I didn't much favor Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.  But against the alternative?  Not even close.)

*One issue Young misattributes to Biden is the imagined problem of immigration, or the "southern border."  Young does not mention that Biden agreed to strong shoring up of the southern border, only to have Republicans, on Trump's orders, then refuse to institute that shoring up, so that the imagined problem would still be there at election time, and it could be blamed on Biden.

Anyone who somehow still doesn't recognize how entirely self-focused Trump is, to the detriment of anyone or anything except himself (although his mindless crusades are even damaging him now) has his or her head even further in the sand, or up his or her ass, than Young did.  Until he finally, somehow, "got religion."

I don't know if it's reassuring to see that some people finally get it, or it's further demoralizing to see how many people take forever, or never get it.  It really, really ain't subtle.  Most of us could always see it, and increasing numbers of people eventually do.  If it's not clear to you, even yet, I just don't know what to tell you.  I don't even understand what your problem is.  I just know you very clearly have one.

"Vote Ryan Huntington?"

I was finishing my neighborhood "exercise" walk this morning, and I encountered about a half dozen campaign signs that said "Vote Ryan Huntington."  They were all on 119th St between 6th and 8th Avenues.  They had one of those square symbols in the upper right corner, and if you focus your smart phone camera on it, you get more information.  But not much more.  I have no idea where Ryan Huntington lives, except I'm guessing it's in the Village.  His wife is Danielle, and he has three sons, all of whose first names start with H.  He's a firefighter.

If you want to know more, you have to enter his Instagram page, and since I'm opposed to social media (a discussion for another time), I'm not going to do it.  Oh, what happened to old fashioned BP campaigning, where candidates actually walked the Village, knocked on doors, met you, told you about themselves, and answered questions?  One of the cluster of signs I saw was in front of Chester and Sandi Morris' house, and Chester wouldn't allow someone to put a sign there if he hadn't met them.  So Ryan (is it OK if I call you Ryan?) must at least have met Chester, and probably Sandi.

There have already been a lot of Dan Samaria's reused signs around.  And I know Dan is running for the term that ends this coming November.  But Ryan (I'm going to assume it's OK) had signs made, which he would not have done if he had no ambitions past this coming November.  Frankly, the first thing that struck me about Ryan's signs was the darkish green color, and the upside down triangle outline (the BP outline) in the middle.  It was as if they had something to do with Vermont.  Maybe Ryan comes from Vermont.  Or not.

If I'm being honest and uninhibited (not like my usual inhibited self), I have to say BP politics have fallen apart.  In the past, it was the occasional dysfunctional oddball Commissioner.  Now, it's almost all of them.  It's been years since anyone except Mac Kennedy and I has actually campaigned -- you know, knocked on all the doors, and had sometimes lengthy conversations, and left flyers, and stuff -- and almost as many years since we've had a BP Commissioner who knew anything about the Park, and cared.  (And you know these people wouldn't get elected if we didn't vote for them.  So the lack of ambition and expectation is not just theirs.)  For a short time in the past eight years, Roxy Ross did the Village a favor.  Now, it's just Mac.  (I was hoping John Holland would decide he wanted more than to keep a seat warm for a month or so, but I haven't heard that he does.

This is why it's also been years since we had a competent and remotely interested manager.  And if we don't have a competent and remotely interested manager, then we have a police Chief whose main interests are being a big dog and collecting a nice check.  Actual improvements in the Village?  Um, not remotely.

I don't know if I should wish Ryan good luck.  Good luck with what?  He's got a day job, a nice family (I'll assume), and he probably makes enough as a firefighter that he doesn't need the $2000.  As I said, I have not the slightest idea where in the Village he lives, how long he's lived there, what he knows about the Village (its strengths and problems), and what is his vision, apart from getting elected, which I assume he wants, because he paid for the signs.  Should I imagine the no longer expectable possibility that he'll knock on my door, and campaign like a BP candidate?  Or am I supposed to find out everything I want to know from Instagram?  That's not gonna happen.  The Village is a tiny place.  If things have become that impersonal now, I'll just vote for Dan Samaria, or not bother voting at all.

Should They Look in the Mirror? Should They Just Get New Glasses?

As much as the majority of this country was mobilized against Communism, it's fair to say that Republicans were most virulent, aggressive, and sometimes mindless about combatting Communism.  Setting aside Joe McCarthy's moronic and destructive antics, we propped up a collection of pretty horrible dictators, just because they said they opposed Communism.

But Communism finally fell in most of the places where it dominated.  Its functional birthplace was in what became known as the Soviet Union, and it had other outgrowths, like in China and Cuba.  It also had an outgrowth in Vietnam, because North Vietnam won a war, sort of, and it failed to spread from North Korea to South Korea, because North Korea lost a war.  A number of other countries were absorbed into the Communist regime, but that's because of Soviet imperialism.  Cuba's largely hanging on, China sort of is, and the erstwhile Soviet Union, now Russia and other independents, have had an interesting and troubling journey. 

Two years ago, Russia staged a military invasion of the Ukraine, having earlier taken over Crimea.  Well, it wasn't really Russia.  It was Vladimir Putin.  He invented some nonsensical allegations, and he began expanding his empire.

Vladimir Putin was born into Communism in the Soviet Union.  He was a devoted Communist, and he worked his way up the hierarchy.  Eventually, after the Soviet Union disbanded, he became president of...Russia.  He did it the old fashioned Soviet way, which was all he knew.  He cheated, and anyone who got in his way got killed.  The last one was last week.  Putin is today's Stalin.

So, the United States, still telling itself it "exports democracy," even though it doesn't exactly have democracy to export, came to the aid of the Ukraine.  Until recently.  Now, the Republicans are niggling about supporting the Ukraine adequately, and some of them (famously and idiotically Tucker Carlson, who claims Russia is nicer and better than the US, but who inexplicably doesn't want to move there) are cozying up to Putin.  It's probably important to note that Donnie Trump also cozied up to Putin, because Putin, and a number of other world leaders, know that Donnie is shallow enough and stupid enough to let his head be turned by anyone who says nice things to him.  In fact, Donnie will tell you that.  He'll tell you how wonderful someone is, because they told him how wonderful he is.  If this sounds to you like mutual masturbation, it sounds like that to me, too.

But the point is that the Ukraine's enemy is Vladimir Putin, who is a typical Communist dictator and, as Donnie would put it, if it wasn't about his boyfriend, Vlad, a "thug."  Vlad is doing precisely what the original Soviets did: he's invading and destroying other countries to make them part of his empire.

If there's anyone on earth who should be reliable to challenge that, it's American Republicans.  They should be able to do this in their sleep.  This is a Soviet dictator, once again trying to build himself an empire.  But they can't now.  They have two problems.  Maybe three.  One is that Democrats want to support the Ukraine, and Republicans today are incapable of doing anything in concert with Democrats, no matter how much they would otherwise be inclined to do it.  The second is that the Republican Party is broken and in such shambles that it can't really decide to do much of anything.  Certainly nothing adaptive.  The possible third problem is that Donnie just loves his boyfriend, whom he acknowledges trusting more than anyone, and it's extremely possible he has let his Republican stooges know not to get in his boyfriend's way.  One of Donnie's other psychotic fantasies, assuming he believes it, or cares, is that he will be elected president again, and having retaken the office (oops, sorry, Donnie, I forgot you were arguing that POTUS is not an office.  Well, it is to the rest of us.), he will ask lover boy Vlad to knock it off, which, he would tell himself, Vlad would, because Donnie always believes this nonsense about other dictators falling all over themselves to please him.

It's hard -- impossible, really -- to fathom how today's American Republicans aren't painfully aware of the comically ridiculous, and antithetical to everything they normally believe, corner into which they have painted themselves.  It's as if they no longer even know who they are.