
• Life on the Hot Seat, Part II: House Republicans Are Now a Part of the Epstein Conspiracy
• Life on the Hot Seat, Part III: The Texas Flood
• Mamdani Experiences Life as the Frontrunner
• Never Forget: The Dark Side
Life on the Hot Seat, Part I: Trump Threatens Russia
It is very easy to sit in the cheap seats and talk about how everything would be so very much better if you were in charge. It gets far, far, far, more difficult once you're in the hot seat, and the buck stops with you. At the moment, Donald Trump is in the midst of several messes, largely of his own making, any or all of which could serve to undermine his support, even among some members of his base.
First up is the mess in Ukraine. Truth be told, we're not quite sure how to explain the dynamic that has unfolded, particularly in the last week or so. It's pretty clear that Vladimir Putin thought he had Trump wrapped around his finger. And he was right, it would seem, for a very long time, but not anymore. Meanwhile, it's also pretty clear that Trump thought he had a close buddy in Putin. That was never the case; Putin does not have friends, only useful idiots. We assume, for want of a better explanation, that Trump's sudden interest in defending and arming Ukraine is primarily due to his having finally awakened to the fact that he was duped by Putin, taking it personally, and deciding to seek payback.
The other possibility we can think of is that someone persuaded Trump that the war could be a moneymaking opportunity for the United States, and that is what got him excited. He loves, loves, loves money, of course, and he might be able to shrink the hole that the BBB blew in the budget by as much as 0.5%!
In any case, over the weekend, Trump took steps toward sending another shipment of arms to Ukraine (with Europe picking up at least some of the bill). And yesterday, he took things even further, telling Putin he has 50 days to reach a peace deal with Ukraine, or else there will be punishment via "severe tariffs."
One can scarcely imagine a threat less likely to achieve its ostensible goals than this one. Starting with the Russian side of the equation, there is a pretty good case to be made that Putin cannot afford to have this war come to an end; that the war effort is keeping Russia nominally unified, and is deflecting attention from problems in Russian society. Certainly, the Russian President cannot afford to end the war without substantial territorial or other gains, which he will not get today, tomorrow, or in any of the next 50 days. And finally, even if Putin somehow was planning to throw in the towel in the near future, he's not going to do it now, because he cannot appear to be taking marching orders from the leader of the United States. It would be an affront to Putin's Russian manhood to take orders from anyone, but in particular from the guy who leads Russia's longstanding rival and enemy.
And then, from the American side, exactly how meaningful a threat is "severe tariffs"? Russia is already so thoroughly sanctioned that direct tariffs will mean virtually nothing. Even Trump realizes this, and so the "severe tariffs" would be imposed on Russia's trading partners. But Russia's three main trading partners are China, The Netherlands and Germany. Trump has already waved his tariff saber in China's direction many times; will brandishing it one more time have any impact on Xi Jinping at all? And is Trump going to simultaneously try to sell arms to Germany and The Netherlands (who are both NATO allies, by the way), while at the same time hitting them with punitive tariffs? Oh, and the leaders of all three countries also know that: (1) Trump uses tariffs recklessly, as his all-purpose solution to all problems (see Brazil and Jair Bolsonaro) and (2) TACO.
We will see what happens in 50 days (well, it's now 49 days), but we foresee Trump generously granting himself another extension, as he usually does. Meanwhile, whatever happens, the President's approach is roiling his base. Roughly speaking, Trump's base is about equally divided into three factions: (1) isolationists, (2) folks who are pro-Russia because Trump told them to be pro-Russia, and (3) folks who are pro-Ukraine because they hate Godless pinko commies, just like St. Ronnie of Reagan did. The third faction is semi-happy right now, although even they are concerned that Trump is not giving the Ukrainians everything they need.
Meanwhile, the other two factions, particularly the isolationists, are furious. Trump has been trying to pitch the idea that if the U.S. is selling the weaponry, rather than giving it, then it's just The Art of the Deal, Part 223, and entirely consistent with "America First." The isolationists believe that "America First" actually means "If the United States is not threatened directly, then the U.S. should not get involved." It will not be possible for Trump to make all three factions happy, although he's doing a fairly decent job of making all three factions unhappy. (Z)
Life on the Hot Seat, Part II: House Republicans Are Now a Part of the Epstein Conspiracy
We really did not want to write about the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy story today. And, as late as 5:00 p.m. PT, it seemed we would be able to avoid it. But not so much, as it turns out. The news is a harsh mistress.
The Democrats are generally less willing to play dirty pool than the Republicans are, but that does not mean they are totally unwilling. The blue team has done the same analysis we did last week (not that this was particularly profound), and has concluded two things: (1) Whatever is in the Epstein documents likely implicates/semi-implicates Trump (or maybe some Republican close to him), and (2) the whole situation is driving a wedge into the MAGA base.
To that end, Rep. Ro. Khanna (D-CA) decided to get his (dirty) pool cue out yesterday, and to chalk it up and fire a shot in the Republicans' direction. During a meeting of the House Rules Committee, Khanna offered an amendment to the proceedings that would have required the publication of all files related to Epstein within 30 days. If Khanna had not won this particular race, another Democrat would have introduced a similar amendment; Rep. Mark Veasey (D-TX) already had his version ready to go, for example.
All the Democrats on the Rules Committee voted in support of Khanna, all of the Republicans on the Committee, save Ralph Norman (R-SC), voted against. So, the amendment failed. Still, Khanna presumably achieved what he wanted, putting the notion out there that the Democrats are in favor of full transparency, while House Republicans are aiding and abetting the "cover-up."
We have made the observation, many times, that if you make violence and a disregard for the rule of law a part of your political program, you risk losing control of that tendency, and becoming a target of violent lawbreakers yourself. It is not a coincidence that Trump has been the subject of at least two assassination attempts in the last year. Similarly, if you make conspiratorial thinking a part of your shtick, you can lose control of that, as well, and Trump apparently has.
Mind you, there was no good way to deal with this Epstein business, assuming it: (1) does not implicate Democrats and Democratic donors in pedophile sex trafficking and/or (2) it DOES implicate Trump or other Republicans in pedophile sex trafficking or some other offense. As soon as the White House decided and announced that it was not releasing anything (despite prior promises to do so), it was guaranteed to throw fuel on the fire. And the administration has done itself no favors by virtue of its inability to stick with a single story. At various times, for example, Trump himself has claimed that: (1) the files are real and were being buried by the "deep state"; (2) the files don't exist; and (3) the files exist, but are fabrications. Clearly, two of the three stories are lies. And that raises two excellent questions: (1) Which story is the truth? and (2) Why did you feel the need to lie?
The administration's strategy, at the moment, could not be more plain. They are taking the "nothing to see here,
please move on" approach,
kind of like
Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun:
Trump & Co. are leaning very hard on their enablers in the media to try to make this happen. For example, last week, Dinesh D'Souza could talk about nothing but the Epstein files. Yesterday, he told his audience that it was time to move on. Last week, Charlie Kirk could talk about nothing but the Epstein files. Yesterday, he announced that he is "done talking about Epstein for the time being." Last week, Laura Ingraham could talk about nothing but the Epstein files. Yesterday, she declared that conservative influencers need to stop "eating their own about Epstein." Perhaps readers sense a recurring theme here.
Will it work? Can Trump actually bury this? Certainly, the MAGA base has been willing to overlook many and varied other offenses that would have sunk any other politician. However, the QAnon faction of the MAGA movement (which is probably a majority, and is certainly the loudest faction) has spent over a decade deeply invested in two ideas: (1) the Democrats are pedophile sex traffickers (remember Pizzagate, etc.), and (2) Donald Trump is the knight in shining armor who will ride to the rescue and smash the pedophile-trafficking deep state. If the White House's current line ("There's no there, there") is true, then belief #1 is shattered. And if the White House's current line is false, then belief #2 is shattered. Oh, and if the documents somehow link Trump to pedophile sex trafficking, and NOT Democrats, then both beliefs are shattered. The MAGA base is really good at resolving cognitive dissonance, and maybe they will find a way to do it again. But this is a particularly tough hill to climb and, thus far, over a week removed from the White House announcement, the base has done no dissonance resolution at all.
Whether or not MAGA is able to move on from Epsteinpot Dome, there is likely to be at least one head that rolls. Reportedly, "Attorney General" Pam Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino have been in an open state of warfare over the last week, with Bongino savaging Bondi for her handling of the Epstein files, and then spending the weekend pouting and threatening to quit. Washington is probably not big enough for both of them for much longer, and Trump has already sided with Bondi. So, it's a fair guess that the administration will be in the market for a new FBI Deputy Director sometime soon. Though the White House will have to work very hard if it wants to find someone as thoroughly unqualified for the job as Bongino was (and is). (Z)
Life on the Hot Seat, Part III: The Texas Flood
By now, everyone knows about the 100-year flood in Texas; the current death toll is 131, with 97 people still missing, and new storms on the horizon.
Consistent with the theme running through much of today's posting, the floods are a definite political problem for Donald Trump in particular, and for the Republican Party in general. There are at least three reasons for that:
- DOGE: Elon Musk and his DOGEys fired a lot of people, or otherwise ran them out of their
government jobs. Quite a few of these people were part of the National Weather Service, or other such concerns whose job
it is to anticipate extreme weather events, and to warn potential victims. The Texas flood was an extreme weather event
and, obviously, a lot of people in the path of the flood did not get warned. You can see the problem.
Of course, even the best experts, with the best equipment, and the best data, cannot foresee everything. So, it is at least possible that DOGE is not responsible here, and that this tragedy would have taken place with or without the "work" of Elon Musk. There are, however, two problems here. First, voters have a habit of connecting "A" and "B," even if the connection doesn't quite work, because voters get angry when children die and because voters often want someone to blame. Second, the guy who is in charge of "warning coordination"—making sure the right information gets to the right people in time—is Paul Yura. Or, actually, he WAS the guy in charge, until he was compelled to take early retirement... by DOGE. In other words, some people are going to be inclined to blame the administration here, fair or not, and in this case, it's probably fair. - Rule-Bending: As reporters have looked under rocks and in closets to try to figure out what
happened in Texas and why, they
have learned
that Camp Mystic, the young girls' summer camp that was hit hard by the flood (and suffered at least 27 campers/staffers
dead), got FEMA to waive flood-safety requirements for 15 of its buildings in 2013, and for another 15 of its buildings
in 2019. It's not yet clear why the camp asked for this; it could have been to make it cheaper to renovate the
buildings, or it could have been to save on flood insurance. In any case, although presidents obviously do not sign off
on every decision made by FEMA, see what we wrote above about voters wanting someone to blame. 2013, of course, was
during the Obama presidency, while 2019 was during Trump v1.0. At the moment, between Obama and Trump, only one is
currently in the White House.
- Tone-Deaf Response: It is a fair question whether there is value in presidents visiting
disaster sites. On one hand, by going they show they care, and maybe they can help lift survivors' spirits. On the other
hand, they and their security detail are a huge distraction, and at a time when distractions are very much not wanted.
Also, if they don't do empathy well (and Trump doesn't), then their visit might not be all that uplifting.
There is much less question, however, that the leader of FEMA should be on-site soon after a disaster. They are much less of a distraction, given that they attract much less attention, and they have a much smaller entourage. Meanwhile, by being there, they show that they are working hard to help. Plus, they may see or learn things that allow them to do a better job of rendering aid. Well, the current (acting) FEMA administrator, David Richardson is MIA. Perhaps he is in Cancun. In any event, it is bad optics, and makes it seem like the administration doesn't really care.
Of these three news items, we would guess the Texas flood is least likely to hurt Trump and/or to hurt Republicans nationally. Indeed, it appears the story is already fading from the headlines. But you can never know, and so we mention the potential issues that have emerged, just in case. Further, even if this does not remain resonant on a national level, it will certainly linger in the minds of Texans. And it could very well become a campaign issue if Texas AG Ken Paxton, who is part of the state government, is the GOP's U.S. Senate nominee. (Z)
Mamdani Experiences Life as the Frontrunner
There has been a lot of news recently related to the New York mayoral election, and it's time to get caught up.
When we last visited this subject, we had reports from readers J.R. in New York City and D.C. in Manhattan, both of whom had positive things to say about the campaign of Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani and critical things to say about the campaign of Democrat Andrew Cuomo. This prompted a response from reader J.A. in New York City, which we wanted to share:
I was very interested to read analysis of both J.R. in New York City and D.C. from my home borough of Manhattan. I agree with J.R. that Andrew Cuomo is a deeply flawed candidate and that this race presented New Yorkers with bad options (one could easily draw parallels between this race and the 2016 Presidential Election). And D.C. is correct that Mamdani ran an amazing race against an opponent who seemed to think that this was his race and so ran a terrible campaign. Democrats should carefully study what Mamdani did.
However, unlike what (Z) wrote in his analysis, a deep dive into the election shows that this race was ultimately decided by liberal white voters, mostly those of higher economic strata. The New York Times has a wonderful map that can be broken down to a very granular level. Mamdani ran up numbers in:Cuomo's strongest areas were:
- "Brownstone Brooklyn" (Brooklyn almost single-handedly decided the race)
- Morningside Heights (Columbia University neighborhood) and the area around NYU (Bernie Sanders' endorsement was very helpful)
- Many Hispanic neighborhoods (AOC's endorsement helped tremendously)
- Muslim neighborhoods
The general election, as was noted in (Z)'s write-up, is NOT RCV, so it is quite possible (even likely) that we will end up with a mayor who receives less than 50% of the vote. Cuomo, Eric Adams and Curtis Sliwa are all very flawed, but each has a base of support that will vote for them, thus keeping Mamdani below 50%. Even if Cuomo, Adams and Sliwa were to agree that two of the three would step down so as to make it a 2-person race, I don't see their supporters completely uniting to keep Mamdani from winning.
- Working Class whites
- African-American neighborhoods
- Politically moderate neighborhoods
- Hasidic / Yeshiva Neighborhoods (contrary to what J.R. wrote). In Borough Park and Williamsburgh, Cuomo took as much as 90% of the vote.
- In Riverdale (also heavily Jewish), Cuomo beat Mamdani better than 2:1
One other thing—and in this I'm going to disagree with J.R.—while criticism of the current Israeli government does not definitionally make one antisemitic (just as criticism of the current U.S. administration does not, definitionally, make one anti-American), Mamdani is unquestionably antisemitic. To whit:
- He has called for the ending of the Celebrate Israel Day Parade, while leaving all other ethnic pride parades alone
- He has publically called Israel not to be a Jewish state (which is the same as calling for its destruction)
- He has a long history of calling for academic boycotts of Israel
- As a member of the New York State Assembly, he has consistently refused to support resolutions condemning the Holocaust
Needless to say, Mamdani would not agree with J.A. that he (Mamdani) is antisemitic. But, at very least, the would-be mayor is walking a fine line. For example, he concedes that he has not been a co-sponsor of the last three annual "condemn the Holocaust" resolutions passed by the New York State assembly, because he largely does not co-sponsor any "symbolic" resolutions. Instead, he points to social media posts he made each year in honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day, as well as his vote to increase funding for support of Holocaust survivors.
A very much related issue that J.A. does not mention is that Mamdani refuses to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada." It is something that he's been asked about several times, including during his first nationally televised interview, on Meet the Press. In short, many/most Jews regard that slogan as a call for violence against Jewish people and/or against Israel, while Mamdani takes the position that "intifada" actually means "resistance" and that it's a statement of Palestinian solidarity. So, while he does not use the phrase himself, he does not condemn it, either.
We are not here to take a position on who is right, and who is wrong, when it comes to "globalize the intifada." What we can say, however, is that this particular issue, and more broadly the concern that Mamdani is antisemitic, are a problem for him. Modern politics does not do nuance well, particularly when it comes to Israel and Palestine. And Mamdani, to be blunt, is not great at explaining where he is coming from. There are undoubtedly many voters who will not accept any explanation for his position on "globalize the intifada." However, even those voters who might be open to his viewpoint, well... we had to read three different statements from him on the subject before we began to grasp his argument. The same is true, to a large extent, of his approach to Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Between the Israel/intifada issue, as well as Mamdani's very lefty political program, other Democrats have been grilled about the race, with some of them doing a lot of tap dancing to avoid stepping on any toes. Some members of the blue team have literally run away from reporters, to avoid answering questions about Mamdani. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is Jewish, has issued a statement of support for Mamdani, while making clear it is NOT an endorsement. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has done the same. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has implied that she supports Mamdani in the general, but said he should condemn the use of "globalize the intifada." Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who is staunchly pro-Israel, opined that Mamdani is "not even a Democrat, honestly." The candidate does have the endorsements of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jerry Nadler (both D-NY). Sanders and Nadler are both Jewish, it should be noted.
Meanwhile, many Republicans' response is somewhere between "scared witless" and "infuriated." New York-based billionaire Bill Ackman took a break from his burgeoning pro tennis career to announce that he would give "hundreds of millions of dollars" to a viable challenger to Mamdani. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) wants the government to strip Mamdani of his citizenship, and to deport him. And Donald Trump, for his part, has been absolutely apoplectic, slurring Mamdani as a "total nutjob" and threatening to arrest him and to "take over" New York City if he is elected in November.
Although these folks seem to be ignorant of this fact, they are undoubtedly helping Mamdani, rather than hurting him. Although Democrats most certainly cannot agree on Israel and Palestine, they do agree that they loathe Trump. And so, Trump's attacks on Mamdani have caused many Democrats, most obviously Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY), to close ranks around the would-be mayor. Truth be told, as much as some people like the criticism of billionaires or the talk about reducing housing prices, "I am the guy Donald Trump despises" is probably the best selling point that Mamdani has working for him.
The New York Times has also continued to make no secret of the fact that they don't want Mamdani as mayor. Most obviously, the paper ran something of a hit piece, based on information that was illegally stolen from Columbia University, and then was passed on to the paper by a white supremacist blogger. The big scoop is that when Mamdani applied to Columbia (he did not get in), he checked the boxes for "Asian" and for "African-American." As Mamdani does not identify as African-American, the Times treated this as a big "gotcha!"
It should be noted (as the Times concedes) that Mamdani most certainly IS African-American. He was born in Uganda, and his father is partly of African descent. The candidate says that he filled out his application in that way because it did not allow him to accurately represent his background and his experience. While we don't have an opinion on the "intifada" issue, as it's not really our place, we think we CAN weigh in here, as academics. And our view is that Mamdani is absolutely right. We struggle to think of ANY form we've filled in for a university that did not have at least one question where we felt our answer wasn't really accurate, but there was no better option. Oh, and as long as we're sharing our opinion (after all, one of us also worked at a newspaper), the Times story is pretty shoddy journalism, and the paper's staff should be embarrassed.
In short, the battle lines are being drawn. On one side are Mamdani and the left-wing populists and progressives. On the other side are the billionaire class, the right-wing populists, and The New York Times. And stuck somewhere in the middle are the more centrist Democrats. It certainly should be interesting.
Because Mamdani looks like he might just be vulnerable, and he might not be able to consolidate the Democratic vote, there has been a lot more jockeying than normally would be the case. Thus far, Republican candidate Sliwa and the "independent" incumbent mayor Adams have stayed the course. Yesterday, in a surprise to absolutely nobody, Cuomo got back in. Since New York City does not have a sore-loser law, Cuomo is allowed to run as an independent, which is what he will do. Although nobody is saying so publicly, we presume he will be the beneficiary of those "hundreds of millions of dollars" that Ackman promised.
Adams and Cuomo see each other as rivals for the "real Democratic" vote, and so each is pressuring the other to drop out. They both have giant egos, so it's doubtful either will fall on his sword for the benefit of the other. There has also been some vague scuttlebutt that the Trump administration will offer Sliwa an ambassadorship, sending him off on a nice vacation to, say, the Bahamas. The idea, obviously, is that his voters would migrate to one of the two high-profile non-Mamdani candidate. Even if the White House tries it, however, it's not clear that Sliwa would accept. And even if Sliwa did accept, it's not clear that his voters would switch their loyalties, as opposed to just leaving that line blank, or sitting this election out.
So, the likeliest outcome is that it's going to be a four-way race (not including minor candidates). Do the ranked-choice primary results give some insight as to what might happen in the non-ranked-choice general election? At this point, we might try to crunch the numbers. However, we don't have to, because reader J.E. in Manhattan, NY beat us to it. Take it away, J.E.:
Looking over the data, I think there are a lot of things the state Democrats should take note of.
First, in big picture terms, it looks like Zohran Mamdani has a very, very good chance of winning in November even if Eric Adams runs as an independent.
Second, the Democratic establishment tried mightily to derail Mamdani and is still trying to do so. But this is going against the will of the voters (or at a minimum, the local Democratic electorate) as demonstrated by the votes Mamdani got.
One of the things the data tells you is that Mamdani was a second choice of a pretty solid majority of the non-first-choice votes. That is, while you can't quite see whether he was second or third for the people who voted for Adrienne Adams, for example, when you look at the votes transferred to both Mamdani and Cuomo, it's clear that wherever Cuomo fell on people's lists, he was clearly not high on about two thirds of them.
This is pretty significant, because in the last mayoral election the vote was Adams, 753,801; Sliwa, 312,385.
Let's assume Curtis Sliwa gets all the votes he had the first time around. Mamdani had more than that just from the people who voted for him as first choice in the primary.
So if only the people who voted for him first choice vote Mamdani, and Sliwa gets the same vote count he got before, and the remaining 307,000 voters who voted for Adams in 2021 vote for him, Mamdani wins, if relatively narrowly: 446,163 (Mamdani) to 307,638 (Adams) to 312,385 (Sliwa).
Basically, Adams or Sliwa would have to peel off a sizable portion of the electorate that voted in the Democratic primary. After Mamdani and Cuomo, Brad Lander got the next biggest haul of votes in the primary, 115,105. A large chunk of Lander's vote would have had Mamdani as a second choice, judging by how the votes got transferred. I have difficulty envisioning these people voting for Adams, Sliwa, or even Cuomo.
But even if every Lander voter were to vote for Adams—not terribly realistic, I might add—that would still not put Adams over the top.
Could Adams peel off votes from Sliwa's constituency? Possibly, but he would still need a third of it and that seems a stretch, given where Adams' base is.
What if Cuomo decides to run? Well, Cuomo still didn't get the votes of most of the Democratic electorate. He got 374,818 voters to rank him first. He needs an additional 70,000 votes just to match Mamdani's primary total, and since Lander's voters are far more likely to vote for Mamdani (remember, Lander basically told them to support Mamdani) Mamdani seems to already have on the order of 500,000 votes in the bag.
Cuomo would need to peel off 70,000 votes from the people who voted in the primary plus some portion of people who voted for Adams last time. So if Cuomo wants to get by with a plurality, it seems that Adams and Sliwa would have to suffer pretty historic losses relative to their primary totals. That's possible, but it seems unlikely.
Could Sliwa do that? Only if a lot of Mamdani voters decide not to come to the polls at all and Mamdani loses a very large portion of the Democratic vote in the next few months.
And again I will turn to some big-picture stuff: The NYC Democratic electorate has made it pretty clear that the older establishment Democrats aren't selling something they want to buy. Right now the Democratic leadership is spending more time attacking Mamdani and pulling out some pretty bigoted stuff to do it than they are fighting the fascists who are threatening the very lives of many of our citizens. This isn't lost on anyone here. I would invite Democrats to look up what happened when the SPD spent its time going after the KPD in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. This did not end well.
Thanks, J.E.!
We'll add that there's already a poll of the general election, and it supports J.E.'s conclusion. The poll, conducted by Slingshot Strategies, says that Mamdani has the backing of 35% of registered voters, followed by Cuomo at 25%, Sliwa at 14%, and Adams at 11%. Another 2% goes to lesser candidates, while 13% of respondents are uncertain.
It certainly could get interesting if Adams drops out, and the majority of his support migrates to Cuomo. But, failing that, it looks like it's Mamdani's race to lose. Of course, there's enough time, and he's got enough potential liabilities, that such an outcome is certainly in the realm of possibility. (Z)
Never Forget: The Dark Side
Today, a less rosy turn from P.C. in Vero Beach, FL:
I keep hoping that you'll end these "never forget" posts. I'm sure that many are inspired by the selective memory remembrances; I for one, prefer the whole story. In that light, here is my submission.
When World War II broke out, my father was already a bit long in the tooth, having passed his 30th birthday. But, out of a sense of duty and having the trade of electrician under his belt, he joined the Navy in 1942. Eventually he was assigned to a mine sweeper; his electrical skills were invaluable to the process of sweeping mines through the set up of electrical fields behind the minesweeper. His duties kept him mostly around New York and Boston harbors, but he got to travel as far as Iceland during his hitch.
His most-often-told story was that of the captain's dog, a privileged little cuss who had the habit of urinating on a life preserver which was hanging on the railing on the bridge, where he spent his time with the captain. Unfortunately, below the life preserver was an area where off duty crew could relax and enjoy the outside air in the summer. Often, while lounging there, they would be hit by a strong stream of doggie urine, an unpleasant experience that stayed with them for a long time due to the lack of hygiene in the small, ocean-going warship. Having the electrical knowledge, my father took it upon himself to rid little Fido of this habit, so he placed a metal plate into the middle of the life preserver and hooked up an electrical current to the plate. As we all know, salty water can conduct electricity, so the next morning when the dog did his morning business, as soon as his stream hit the plate, a strong electrical current ran back up the stream leading to a very, very shocked dog. Ha ha, those kidders.
After the war, my father met and married my mother, a devout Catholic who would have been happier as a nun but ended up as the mother of four kids. My father was a successful manager at RCA, moving up the ladder into middle management quickly. Both my parents were devout Catholics and spent hours in the church and volunteering for church duties. One year, my father ran the summer picnic; a few years later, my mother ran the winter bazaar. When the church wanted to start a Sunday night bingo, it was my father who ran with it, organized it, and made it very successful. At home, my father's main habit was drinking beer and abusing his family, which he did with increasing regularity. Saturdays were the worst, with my father calling them, "Saturday Night at the Movies," where he would get drunk and select one of his children to sit with him and be verbally abused and told what an absolute piece of crap they were and how they would never amount to anything. If he got drunk enough (quite often) he would make phone calls, often to the parish priest, to let him know how awful his family was and how he deserved better.
My mother would mostly hide during these drunken rages, I'm sure praying or some other useless effort, while leaving her children to deal with the verbal, and sometimes physical, abuse. Over time these rages became more and more frequent, sometimes 5-6 nights per week. As we children got older, our main efforts were to get out of the house as soon as possible, either through boarding school or college. Still, it was very hard to leave, because that meant that you were condemning your next youngest sibling to his/her turn in the sh**chair.
As my father aged, his health required him to reduce, then quit, drinking. Sober, he actually became a sweet old man, happy to work his crossword puzzles and watch sports on TV. This enraged my mother, who used his drunken antics to support her own claims of martyrdom, putting up silently with an obnoxious husband. When visiting late in their lives, my mother would constantly rant on any perceived weakness of my father, trying hard to establish her ongoing martyr status and reminding us all of the abuses of 40 years past.
When my father died, he was remembered in the church as a pillar of the community, bedrock of the church he helped build, and a devout family man. My mother played the grieved widow, then promptly disowned three of her four children because we saw through her charade. Over the last 20 years of her life, I visited her maybe 3 or 4 times, including her spending time with her only grandchildren (after that upbringing, none of my siblings chose to have any children).
So, thanks for posting all these warm memories of our patriotic fathers.
Thanks, P.C., and our sympathies on your upbringing. (Z)
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- questions@electoral-vote.com For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- comments@electoral-vote.com For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- items@electoral-vote.com For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.
Email a link to a friend.
---The Votemaster and Zenger
Jul14 Some Trump Officials Hold Two or More Jobs
Jul14 More Republican Senators Feebly Try to Justify Voting for a Bill They Hate
Jul14 Alligator Alcatraz Is Much Worse Than You Thought
Jul14 Epstein Died but the Issue Won't
Jul14 Harvard and University of Virginia Grads Are Working to Sabotage Their Schools
Jul14 Will Ernst Be the Next to Go?
Jul14 State Sen. Angela Paxton (R) Just Gave the GOP a Giant Gift
Jul13 Sunday Mailbag
Jul12 Saturday Q&A
Jul12 Reader Question of the Week: Chin Up
Jul11 Trade War: Trump Is Just Making Things Up on the Fly
Jul11 Legal News: The Birthright Citizenship Ball Is Back in John Roberts' Court
Jul11 Channeling Elbridge Gerry: GOP Desperately Trying to Save House Majority
Jul11 The Epstein Files: MAGA Base Continues to Freak Out
Jul11 Never Forget: Back to the Beach
Jul11 I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The Jackson 8
Jul11 This Week in Schadenfreude: Grok Does a Villain Turn
Jul11 This Week in Freudenfreude: The Farmer Is the Man, Part II
Jul10 Trump Angers MAGA Base
Jul10 Republicans In Congress Are Dismayed about Trump's Tariff Policies
Jul10 Why Does Trump Want to Fire Jerome Powell?
Jul10 Mike Crapo Wants to Do Another Reconciliation Bill
Jul10 Megabill Is Still Unpopular
Jul10 Trump's Social Media Company Makes a Deal with Newsmax
Jul10 What Musk Doesn't Understand
Jul10 Republican Senate Super PAC Breaks Fundraising Record
Jul10 Dan Osborn Is Back
Jul10 DCCC Will Focus on Districts Where Rural Hospitals May Close
Jul09 The Shadow Docket Strikes Again
Jul09 Rollins Visits Fantasyland
Jul09 Of Course Newsom Is Running
Jul09 Democratic Candidate of the Week, #33: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
Jul09 Never Forget: Sweet Tooth
Jul08 Trump Launches Latest Trade War Offensive
Jul08 Profiles in Cowardice
Jul08 The Epstein Conspiracy Theory Comes to an End... Er, Gets New Life
Jul08 ActBlue Is Doing a Brisk Business
Jul08 Of Course Beshear Is Running
Jul08 Never Forget: Hello My Sweetheart, Good-bye Vietnam
Jul07 Will the Bill Play in Peoria?
Jul07 Now Comes the Hard Part
Jul07 The MAGAbill Is Full of Secret Tax Breaks for Favored Insiders
Jul07 More Americans Are Hungry Now than 4 Years Ago
Jul07 Bessent Warns Countries That, Absent a Deal, Tariffs will Go Back up on Aug. 1
Jul07 COVID Is Back
Jul07 Democrats Are Actively Recruiting Veterans to Run for the House
Jul07 Welcome, America Party
Jul06 Sunday Mailbag
Jul05 Saturday Q&A