Pre-Roe v. Wade: What abortion was really like.

Tomorrow at a House hearing on reproductive rights, three members of the House will testify about their pre-Roe abortions. That is, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash, will explain to the mostly male attendees about women’s reproductive lives prior to the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in 1973, Roe v. Wade. I’ve been there. I’m old enough to have gone through the experience, perhaps with a bit more luck than some other women, but with the same fear, secrecy, cost, and distress. In 1967 I was 23 years old, and had decided to end an intimate relationship with an older man who was purportedly divorced. Dear readers, he was not, but that’s nothing unusual in the male sexual lexicon of lies. My contraception failed following what I believed to be my last encounter with the man, and I anxiously consulted a prominent, ageing Fifth Avenue ob-gyn who had purportedly marched with Margaret Sanger. The doctor examined me, took some tests, and proclaimed me not to be pregnant. My monthly bleeding continued, much lighter than usual. And this was confusing, and apparently fairly common. The weeks went by. I became nauseated. I demanded that the doctor reexamine me, and she finally agreed that, yes, I was pregnant. And getting more pregnant every day. She declined to help me find an abortionist. My erstwhile boyfriend tried to call a variety of purported illegal abortionists for an appointment, but he was deemed suspicious because of his gender (he could have been with law enforcement) and was hence unable to schedule a procedure for me. My girlfriend gave me the name and telephone number of a preeminent ob-gyn in Union City, New Jersey, who performed abortions, and I scheduled an appointment, taking a bus to his office. He confirmed my pregnancy and scheduled me for a Saturday morning abortion in his office. That is, the doctor had a routine ob-gyn practice Monday through Friday and then performed abortions every Saturday morning, seven or eight each week. I remember the cost—$350—which was provided in cash by my boyfriend. And I remember asking to be the first patient that morning because I had a plane to catch to spend the afternoon with my parents looking for housing on the campus of a university where I was about to begin graduate studies. The doctor gave me a shot to numb the pain (it didn’t) and warned me not to make a sound that could frighten the other pregnant women waiting in the next room for their turn. Then followed twenty minutes of hell, cramps, and other uterine pain accompanying a procedure known as a dilation and curettage (D&C), whereby the uterus is scraped clean of its contents. I swore silently that I would never let another man touch me again as the interminable tremendously painful abortion procedure continued. The doctor indicated I was too far along for a D&C, but once it had been begun, he had to complete the procedure. The Fifth Avenue doctor was wrong about the duration of my pregnancy and I had been right all along. When it was over and the doctor escorted me to a recovery room, he asked if I were a nurse since I had not cried out during the painful procedure. I told him I was not. I guess many of the women, even younger than I, tended to scream and otherwise react audibly to the pain of the procedure. But I had girded my loins, so to speak, and used all my concentration to focus on the perfidy of men in general in order to remain silent. The doctor gave me a prescription for penicillin and instructed me to telephone him within a week to tell him if I had any negative aftereffects from the abortion. I did not have any aftereffects although I eventually had multiple miscarriages before finally having a child just before I turned 40. I don’t believe the miscarriages were related to the illegal abortion. But I will never know. The doctor in Union City is surely dead after all these years, and I wonder at my good fortune in locating a concerned, competent, caring doctor to give me another chance at a life that was yet to unfold before me over the decades. I could have been butchered. I could have been rendered sterile. I could have been left for dead. That doctor and thousands of others through the years prior to Roe deserve a medal for their courage in helping women choose whether or not to bear a child. The men who currently legislate reproductive laws that control women’s bodies are misogynists in the extreme by comparison.

Has the State of Texas Devised a Foolproof Way

to Overturn Roe v. Wade?

 

Tonight the Texas legislature’s latest anti-abortion statute is about to go into effect.

 

It will award to any person a bounty of $10,000 plus attorney’s fees who reports to Texas legal authorities the performance of an abortion on any woman who is six weeks or more pregnant.

 

The reporter need not be associated with the woman who has such an abortion.

 

The mother of the fetus need not actually be aware that she is at least six weeks pregnant or that she was pregnant at all.

 

The reporter need not show any relationship to the proposed mother of the unborn child, i.e., need not be the father of the aborted child, the husband of the woman having the abortion, the physician who performs the abortion (heretofore legally), any person affiliated with the medical office of said physician or other abortion provider, or any person connected with law enforcement such as it may be. That reporter need not even be a resident of Texas.

 

In other words, anti-abortion zealots who have no connection of any kind to a woman who is desperate to have an early abortion—whether or not she is even certain she is pregnant, since many women do not know they have conceived for a time period well past six weeks following impregnation—now have an incentive to hunt down and report any female person in the State of Texas who has had or wishes to have what has been a legal abortion pursuant to Roe v. Wade until this very hour.

 

Some fanatical person, not necessarily a resident of Texas, who carries signs, harasses pregnant women seeking pregnancy advice, and publicizes the names and other personal data about abortion providers—often to hunt them down and humiliate them, and sometimes to murder them—will have the blessing of the state of Texas to go after them with their legal guns drawn.

 

And the women of Texas will be caught in this trap by professional abortion mercenaries whose motive is to impose their notion of who may or may not legally abort a fetus by seeking payment from the public till—aided by similarly minded legal counsel—according to their twisted notions of the legality or illegality of abortion in the state of Texas.

 

For this we have the legislators of the Lone Star State and its Governor Greg Abbott to thank, men (almost exclusively) imbued with the zeal of the fanatical, many awash in evangelical religious justification, and all of them intent on controlling the reproductive lives of Texas women.

 

Counsel who oppose such an obviously unconstitutional  statute are attempting to persuade the federal courts to issue a late-night injunction against the effective date, methods, and philosophy of such a statute, but such efforts will be occurring down to the wire and will no doubt be followed by subsequent efforts to oppose them.

 

So what does this all mean? What does it signify long after the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion during such time as a fetus is too small and undeveloped to be viable, to live outside the womb should it be born early? With certain exceptions even to that standard such as a pregnancy caused by rape and/or danger to the life of the mother or the child?

 

WOMEN OF AMERICA, STAND UP AND BE COUNTED AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE UNDERGONE ILLEGAL ABORTIONS AND TELL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHAT LIES AHEAD IN THE EVENT SUCH A STATUTE IS UPHELD BY THE COURTS AS APPROPRIATE AND, IN THIS DAY AND AGE, “LEGAL” by the Bush/Trump conservative Supreme Court.

 

Even with the advent of medical abortions, which may not run afoul of an outrageous statute such as that proposed by Texas—and without traditional legal standing by a party seeking a financial bounty for preventing innocent women from exercising their right to control their decision whether or not to bear a child—it is no secret that the average pregnancy is not diagnosed until well after the sixth week of pregnancy. A variety of reasons underlie this state of events, including regularity of menstruation, type of pregnancy symptoms, sophistication of the mother in understanding the significance of symptoms of very early pregnancy, access to a qualified medical opinion, availability of pregnancy testing, and the like.

 

What is really behind such an outrageous purported statute is the long sought-after control of the Christian evangelical movement in America of the bodies of American women, their ability to interpret Scripture in such a manner as to dominate and determine which children may be born and which may not.

 

It is a statute that American women must oppose with all their zeal, protests, public marches, financial assistance, lobbying, and outrage. It is a statute drafted by the ignoramuses of this world—mostly male but not entirely—who have inserted themselves into the most intimate of decisions ever made in the lives of women . . . whether to beget or bear a child.

 

Sexual Misconduct and the Supreme Court: The Tie That Binds

The Old Boys Club at the Supreme Court of the United States of America is about to consider welcoming another Good Old Boy to its ranks. A sexual predator Good Old Boy.

Justice Clarence Thomas, forever branded as “Long Dong Silver” for his sexual remarks and unwanted invitations to Anita Hill leading up to the early 1990s, may soon have company.

If either Trump or the Scotus candidate doesn’t lose his nerve.

Readers may recall that during his confirmation hearings, Thomas was also accused of sexual harassment by Lillian McEwen and by Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett of the EEOC, all three of whom were familiar with Thomas’s employment management of attractive young black women who worked under his supervision: they were “inspected and auditioned as females.”

Unfortunately, these accusations were not aired publicly due to the timidity of the Democratic Senators who sat on the Judiciary Committee.

Let us remember that Thomas’s response to Anita Hill’s accusations was to label the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings as a “high-tech lynching,” not that there was anything high-tech about Hill’s testimony or Thomas’s purported conduct.

Thomas squeaked onto the court, but just barely, much as Brett Kavanaugh hopes to do in the coming weeks.

But now Kavanaugh must contend with an accuser who alleges he tried to rape her, and she has bravely elected to emerge from anonymity to make her accusations publicly. That courageous soul is California psychology professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was 15 years old one fine summer evening back in 1982 when she went to a party at the home of a private school friend in suburban Maryland, and drank a bottle of beer. Then two “stumbling drunk” 17-year-olds, entitled buddies who attended Georgetown Preparatory School—Brett Kavanaugh and his good friend Mark Judge—corralled Christine “into a bedroom” and locked the door.

They also turned up the music so that the other teens at the party could not hear what was occurring, and Kavanaugh “pinned [Ford] to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes.” The terrified young girl next experienced Kavanaugh “grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off” her clothing. He put his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream for help. She thought he would kill her.

Instead he tried to rape her.

Let that sink in. The current candidate for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court did his best to rape a 15-year-old when he was 17. He attempted to use his superior strength with the aid of a male friend to force a child to summit to him sexually.

Young Christine escaped only because the other boy “jumped on top of them,” enabling Ford to break free and lock herself into a nearby bathroom, safe from further attack. The two visibly drunk boys then sauntered downstairs to rejoin the party, and Ford fled the house and walked home, stunned and traumatized.

Ford referred to the incident only generally until she began couples therapy with her husband six years ago, at which time she described the events as a “rape attempt.” Her husband Russell Ford confirmed that during the therapy his wife had mentioned Kavanaugh’s name. Mr. Ford also remembered that Christine Ford “voiced concern that Kavanaugh,” already a federal appeals court judge, “might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.”

Lo and behold, that day has arrived, and the lady has elected to publicly out herself in a gesture that has inevitably put her in the crosshairs of thousands of people who hope to tell her a thing or two as Judge Kavanaugh waits to advance through his much anticipated confirmation for the Supreme Court.

This after Christine passed a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent. Not a bad recommendation for ascertaining the truth of the matter.

And Ranking Member Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee has referred the matter to the FBI for further investigation, although the referral is absent an official imprimatur from the Oval Office, which absence could impede the progress and credibility of the investigation. Trump refuses to affirm the Rule of Law, hardly a surprise to most of the country.

Whoa . . . . Brett, my boy, you really ought to withdraw your name to prevent any further besmirching. Your reputation has already taken a couple of direct hits during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s televised hearings in that

(1) you attempted to prevent a pregnant illegal immigrant from obtaining an abortion, using a twisted and erroneous interpretation of previous Supreme Court rulings and Texas law, and

(2) your earlier writings indicate that you believe some legal scholars don’t consider Roe v. Wade to be precedent or settled law.

You seem to think that coaching your two daughters’ basketball teams is sufficient to prove your bona fides in the art of counter-misogyny. (I beg to differ.)

These matters land Kavanaugh directly in the path of the #MeToo movement, which took off like a roman candle over a year ago and has already caused the resignation of Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Alex Kozinski, one of Kavanaugh’s mentors who hired young Brett as a law clerk and helped our gallant young judge also obtain a clerking job with retired Scotus Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Kennedy, we recall, just resigned from the high court in time to give our youngster Brett the opportunity to replace him.

Sound fishy? We think so. Smells to high heaven.

So apparently do some of the generally unconcerned Republican Senators such as Jeff Flake (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Susan Collins (ME), who as of yesterday favor the open testimony of both the accuser and the accused before the Senate Judiciary Committee now scheduled to reconvene Monday, September 24th (regardless of whether the FBI has had a genuine opportunity to investigate the matter and recommend the inclusion of additional witnesses).

When Kavanaugh learned—to his great surprise—about the numerous allegations against Judge Kozinski, our boy was shocked! shocked! to hear about the touching, inappropriate sexual comments, and forced viewings of pornography by female employees in Kozinski’s chambers. Why Kavanaugh had been unaware of these goings on when he was employed in those chambers was never explained as he testified recently to the Judiciary Committee, i.e.:

“When [the allegations] became public, the first thought I had was no one should be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace ever—including in the judiciary, especially in the judiciary.”

Further, said Kavanaugh, the allegations against Kozinksi “are part of a broader national issue,” and “there should be a better system for reporting harassment in the workplace.”

Kavanaugh added that he supported Chief Justice John Roberts’ “establishment of a working group to tackle issues with sexual harassment in the judiciary.”

“I’m interested in doing everything I can to assist those efforts to make those workplaces safe,” said our golden boy.

That he tried his drunken best to rape a teenager when he was an entitled preparatory school student is apparently not part of the discussion.

But it will now become part of the reopened hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and maybe, just maybe, Brett Baby will have the good sense or humility to withdraw his nomination and slink back to the D.C. Court of Appeals to rejoin the far better qualified and morally fit Chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Although I wouldn’t count on it.

After all, think of all the topics about which Judge Kavanaugh lied or prevaricated during the Judiciary Committee hearings that have just taken place:

(1) whether during his employment in the George W. Bush administration, Kavanaugh was in receipt of stolen material from numerous emails, draft letters and memos laying out the legal arguments Democrats were going to make regarding Bush’s judicial nominees;

(2) whether in 2003 Kavanaugh coordinated meetings with and about Charles Pickering, who had been nominated for a judgeship on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, by drafting remarks, letters to people on the Hill, and at least one op-ed for then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales about Pickering, advised Gonzales on Pickering strategy, and much more;

(3) whether in 2006 the good judge received documents stolen from the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; and

(4) whether Trump has “consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination” than any other president (dear reader, try not to choke).

Hence, depending upon the outcome of the new hearings on the Kavanaugh nomination and the Senate’s confirmation vote, come the first Monday in October or thereafter, Brett and Clarence may well form the nucleus of their extra-special club for Justices on the #MeToo list of offenders. For life.

[Updated September 18]

I Wrote the “Anonymous” Op Ed (and I’m Not Sorry)

As Donald Trump fulminates and threatens his entire senior staff with dire consequences if it doesn’t disclose the identity of the person who authorized the anonymous publication of a highly critical Op Ed in The (non-failing) New York Times earlier this week, no one in his right mind suspects me.

Nor will they.

That’s right. I’m the culprit. Working right under the great man’s nose.

Trump has accused me of treason (J’Accuse!). I don’t think so. My actions are helping keep Trump from nuking North Korea, Iran, and/or Syria. And assassinating Assad. And invading Venezuela. Among other unthinkables.

And that is not treason. That is protecting America from making terrible irreversible errors that could blow up or disorder much of the world.

Dozens of senior White House staff officials plus the Director of the FBI and the Secretary of State have signed letters attesting to their innocence in this affair.

Well and good. If they want to protect their rear ends, more power to them. But if they want to see the return of good governance in our executive branch, good luck to them in this Crazytown of an executive branch with a madman in charge obsessively running off at the mouth with ignorant riffs and understanding little to nothing about the nuts and bolts of operating a republic.

Senator Rand Paul—he of little valor and many bruises from his next-door neighbor—and an admitted addict of Ayn Rand (another Crazytown leader of her own cult not unlike that of the Orange One), wants all White House staff to take polygraphs. Not on your tintype.

Just imagine:

First question: “Are you now, or have you ever been, a mole for The New York Times.” The penalty for answering untruthfully? The blacklist, the hole, bread and water, LOCK HIM UP, the guillotine. Send him to North Korea tied to a nuclear missile. Shoot him in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue. In front of Trump Tower.

Donald Trump is apparently attempting to coerce all senior staff into signing an affidavit that they did not write the damning Op Ed. As if such affidavits—if found to be false—would be binding or provide for penalties of any kind save, no doubt, being fired.

Pundits disagree as to whether Anonymous is a hero or a villain. I opt for hero. It takes courage in the Era of Trump to call a spade a spade, to out the nasties in the White House and the full range of despicable, dangerous acts that Trump considers to be the province of governing as chief executive.

We all know the truth as revealed in recently published books by Michael Wolff (Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House), Omarosa Manigault Newman (Unhinged: An Insider’s Account of the Trump White House), and now Bob Woodward (Fear: Trump in the White House).

And there are tapes to back up numerous allegations in these books. Plenty of them.

So, Dear Leader in the Oval Office:

Quit fulminating and try mitigating some of your dangerous, ignorant, destructive conduct. Try learning from your aides, some of whom have done heroic things to keep the ship of state on reasonably even keel as the world watches your efforts to sink it.

Shape up or ship out.

Preferably the latter.

I will not cease exposing the worst of your continuing head-turning errors in the White House, just as I will not cease trying to make things better.

The rest is up to you.

Bon voyage.

Alan Dershowitz on Trump’s “Legal Colonoscopy”

Most Americans know about George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Rick Gates. How they’ve all been indicted (along with a growing list of other malefactors) by the Robert Mueller Special Counsel team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and associated criminal acts.

First, former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who ran off at the mouth about working with the Russians to undermine U.S. elections and then lied to the FBI; then Michael Flynn, Trump’s first Director of National Security, who failed to register as a foreign agent and also lied to the FBI; and finally, Rick Gates, the assistant director of the Trump Campaign who committed financial fraud and then—predictable as rain—lied to the FBI.

They’ve all “flipped,” as mob boss Donald Trump describes them, ratting out others higher up in the chain of command to avoid spending a great many years in the slammer (including, we are wishfully predicting, his Nibs in the Oval Office).

And now we hear that last week, as a Virginia federal jury was deliberating about eighteen counts of conspiracy, money laundering, and false statements, the defendant former Trump campaign head Paul Manafort tried to negotiate a deal with prosecutors. Even after his conviction on eight of those felony counts, and with a new trial fast approaching in Washington, D.C. on additional Ukraine/Russia-related charges (being an unregistered agent of a foreign power), Manafort recognizes that he is in big trouble (deep shit as our eloquent Commander in Chief might say).

Michael Cohen also came over from the dark side to offer whatever he knows about his erstwhile boss (which is potentially substantial) to the Mueller team. The Fixer of seemingly infinite loyalty who clammed up for months has realized that his life could stagnate for a very long time in a tiny barred cell if he kept his oath of fealty to the boss, a boss who never ceased to ridicule and deride him every chance he got.

As Professor Alan Dershowitz delicately described the downside of Trump’s loyalists defecting to avoid prison sentences that could keep them in Leavenworth for the rest of their natural lives:

“Businessmen are going to be deterred from running for political office because it’s going to result in a sort of legal colonoscopy.”

“Businessmen”? These guys were simply acting as ordinary businessmen?

Manafort’s failure to report tens of millions of dollars in income from a Russian-influenced Ukrainian strongman accompanied by excessive spending on multiple homes and expensive suits (even an ostrich jacket) was simply acting as a “businessman”?

In whose fantasy universe?

The ever-voluble Professor Dershowitz is worried about legitimate businessmen (and—let us give him the benefit of the doubt—businesswomen) avoiding politics because their illegal deeds might end up splayed across the tabloids in a federal probe against presumably inevitable thefts and grifting, kind of like The Trump Organization?

Is Dershowitz suffering from Martha’s Vineyard Alienation Syndrome?

Honest politicians have nothing to fear from being featured on the national stage as they conduct our nation’s business. Rather, the ones who regard campaign financing accounts and the federal treasury as their personal piggybanks and opportunities for “branding” to rake in big bucks from local lobbyists and foreign autocrats laundering illegal wealth are the charlatans who should be avoiding the spotlight of public service.

Dear Professor Dershowitz: Who has been spiking your drinks on Martha’s Vineyard?

Lo Unto Us a Child Is Born, or the Plot Thickens

CNN has published a story delineating and detailing an earlier rumor that a Trump Tower doorman has information about an illegitimate child that Trump fathered. (Sound familiar? Remember the Arnold Schwarzenegger out-of-wedlock child who was kept away from the limelight for at least 15 years? The story has an odd parallel to that about Trump since apparently both the children were borne by the fathers’ housekeepers.)

Naturally enough in Trump World, the story had been quelled and Trump himself dismissed it out of hand when the rumors first arose some time ago.

In the wake of this week’s grant of immunity by federal prosecutors in charge of the Michael Cohen campaign finance case to one David Pecker, Chairman of American Media Inc., which publishes the country’s biggest tabloid newspaper—the National Enquirer—the doorman has been released from restrictions about coming forth with the specifics of this apparently true story.

Mr. Pecker has revealed that his publication had acted as Trump’s press agent for decades, “catching and killing” a variety of negative news stories about Trump, even storing them for years in a variety of safes to keep them from prying eyes. (It also promoted a drumbeat of negative and entirely false stories against Trump opponents including Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, acting as Trump’s private press agent and censor.)

The stories that lay festering in the AMI safe included that of the out-of-wedlock child who henceforth will have the unfortunate fate of being associated with our 45th President . . . for the rest of his or her life.

Previously, the Trump Tower doorman, one Dino Sajudin, had signed a November 15, 2015 contract with American Media, Inc., the self-same company that owns and publishes the National Enquirer and which prohibited him from discussing the subject at hand, said subject being “Donald Trump's illegitimate child.”

Readers may recall that it was in November 2015 that the Trump campaign for presidency really got under way and began steamrolling other Republican candidates with malignity.

According to a CNN story:

“The contract appears to have been signed on Nov. 15, 2015, and states that AMI has exclusive rights to Sajudin's story but does not mention the details of the story itself beyond saying, ‘Source shall provide AMI with information regarding Donald Trump's illegitimate child . . .’

“The contract [further] states that ‘AMI will not owe Source [Mr. Sajudin] any compensation if AMI does not publish the Exclusive [story] . . .’ and the top of the agreement shows that Sajudin could receive a sum of $30,000 ‘payable upon publication as set forth below.’

“But the third page of the agreement shows that about a month later, the parties signed an amendment that states that Sajudin would be paid $30,000 within five days of receiving the amendment. It says the ‘exclusivity period’ laid out in the agreement ‘is extended in perpetuity and shall not expire.’

“The amendment also establishes a $1 million payment that Sajudin would be responsible for making to AMI ‘in the event Source breaches this provision.’”

How can this be? How can such terms be binding?

First off, no contract can be valid “in perpetuity.” That makes it void from its inception, or ab initio.

And second, a penalty clause of $1 million is so wildly out of proportion that it invalidates the contract altogether. Hell, the poor doorman apparently only pocketed $30,000, mere chump change in Trump World.

Or so I would anticipate Michael Avenatti will respond. (You remember Avenatti, don’t you, sports fans? The lawyer who made representing a porn star with a tale to tell into a modern folk heroine.)

This really is too rich.

How can a 21st century American politician who is seeking the White House imagine that a secret like this one will remain under the carpet?

Events have coalesced to force this particular secret out of hiding, laid bare for the American public—fickle and unreliably erratic in its judgments—to feast upon.

Pity the poor housekeeper.

Pity the poor child.

Their names will live in infamy, or at least ignominy.

"Looking for Love" Gets Acquainted in the Age of Trump

Looking for Love responds online:

Dear Wise Lady:

Unlike many people I do like to address both political and religious questions. So fire away. Replies or possible bantering will be my pleasure. I am so liberal and progressive that I often refer to myself as a non-conformist. You may make an inference from my strong political views that I am always willing to discuss: pro choice, pro stem cell research, pro assisted suicide, pro bail and prison reform, pro equal rights for women/minorities, pro affirmative action, pro right to vote for felons, pro equal rights for women, pro rights for LBGTQ community, pro universal healthcare, pro legalization of marijuana, and pro decriminalization of self-medication with any illicit drugs, pro gun reform, and pro separation of church and state. How do you stand on these issues? My favorite president is Franklin D. Roosevelt because his New Deal should be modernized and implemented today, especially in the poverty stricken ghettos.

There are other issues that I can discuss that may show my conservative side as well. I favor Israel (an admitted bias), legal immigration, and communication with Russia in a search for conflict resolution to major world problems that includes meddling in US elections.

I see you have a red line when it comes to Trump. I have a red line when it comes to being censored from discussing the issues or a politician. I am quite capable of maintaining my equanimity when discuss both the good and bad side of a politician or elected official. I am quite eclectic in that I either favor or disfavor issues one at a time without announcing a personal judgment about the politician before the fun of enjoying my provocative, irreverent and audacious side. Both the angels and devils are in the details. I prefer not to be denied the fun of repartee and bantering.

I am pretty sure I missed commenting on some issues. Obviously, you are very bright and I stand to learn from dialog. Your comments will be devoured.

Warm regards,

Jeremy

Dear Jeremy (Looking for Love):

Thanks for the very long message. I think we could feel very comfortable with what the GOP calls “social issues” but which are, rather, important aspects of the American melting pot and the global community.

We should be talking on the telephone. If you will trust me with your number, I won't abuse it.

Miranda (Wise Lady)

Dear Miranda:

Thank you for flattering me by suggesting we should be talking on the phone. Also we should explore a little further. Would you mind explaining, "I think we could feel very comfortable with what the GOP calls ‘social issues’ but which are, rather, important aspects of the American melting pot and the global community"? Are you suggesting something to do with traditional values and a moral majority? Perhaps some details will help me get my brain around this.

Cordially,

Jeremy

Dear Jeremy:

What I've been obliquely hinting at are the usual conservative failures to honor women's reproductive choices, diversity of many kinds (racial, sexual preference, religious, disability, cultural), and the well-being of those with limited resources (employment, wages, housing, medical needs). We are in a battle for the souls of the uneducated, undereducated, and miseducated to puncture the selfish fears that are being stoked by Trump & Co. We face assaults against our physical environment and the immigrant community that are dangerous and shameful.

We are also in a battle for the maintenance of the western global alliance to protect the safety of democracies, such as they are, and keep them from falling wholesale into the hands of autocratic billionaires and grifters.

Off the soapbox. You surely get my drift. I detest the current political direction of this country and its dangerous bumbling president with all my heart.

Miranda

Dear Miranda:

Hahaha. I will respond later. You write very well.

Jeremy

PS: Funny too.

Dear Miranda:

I came back to reply and realized that you pack a lot of information in those sentences and paragraphs. I have to read more carefully before I reply to do justice to your comments. Trying again in the morning will make this more fun for me.

Jeremy

[Jeremy] Wow, Miranda!!

What a succinct critique! Best I ever read about Trump. I have learned from your insight. Maybe I inspired you to greatness. lol I gladly associate myself with your brilliant explanation of his negatives. I haven't missed your humor in making him out to be the pink panther of politics. You must have been a serious challenge in a court room. You must have won a lot of cases.

I can understand your disdain for Trump, which is unusually common in online profiles of women.

Does he make you so angry that you might be blind to any of his assets, or is he bad to the bone?

Jeremy

[Miranda]

No assets. None. A total failure of a human being. A wrecking ball.

[Jeremy]

hahahahaha. In the court room you must have really gone for the jugulars. In another life were you an Italian hit-lady or an assassin of the Israeli Mossad Kidon? Do you think you might reconsider after compassion and loving-kindness meditation. LOL After all he has achieved much wealth and won the electoral college. Is he not pressuring NK and Iran so that there might be a different result from what was achieved by a less crazy more predictable POTUS? Is there anything wrong with a “goal” to comply with US law requiring immigration via legal protocols?

[Miranda]

This is a joke, right? You're not really advocating in Trump's favor, surely?

Much work to do for the rest of the day. Have a good one.

[Jeremy]

I only asked you a couple of questions? Clearly, you are free to imply I am arguing in Trump's favor. I thought there were no bad questions, only bad answers. Oh well. I suspect our fate that brought us together for a few minutes has run out. Perhaps I was right that I am not in your league.

[Miranda]

Trump is no ordinary politician. He is a clear and present danger who is putting the country in jeopardy. We could connect if you stop trying to sandbag me about this man. If you just steer clear of the subject. Over and out.

[Jeremy]

In all due respect, I believe we have crossed each other's red line.

[Miranda]

In Trumpland there are no acceptable opinions, no giving that man the benefit of the doubt. Not after so many months of treasonous and destructive conduct. If you care about the earth and our democracy, you'll stop looking for the positive in that horrid excuse for a human being. Do yourself a favor, and just walk away from him and his purported “ideas.” He is a dangerous void with an insatiable need for attention no matter the cost.

[Jeremy]

As I previously mentioned, I simply see bad ideas and good ideas. Sure, he has plenty of bad ideas. I don't like him kissing up to evangelicals and the southern bible belt fanatics. I am a strong evidence based atheist. Sure, I don't like his planned parenthood bias. I worked for PP for a year in NYC and love its mission. I helped write its long-range plans. Do I strongly believe in legal immigration as a goal. If you think a borderless nation is good then you disagree with Trump and me. If you believe Trump is not likely to make changes in NK, Iran, and middle east then you don't agree with me. I strongly believe he has skills that his predecessors lacked. Trump has the Machiavellian negotiating skills his predecessors lacked. I see great benefits from his tariffs to achieve better deals in the end game. I care about the earth and agree with you. He is irresponsible in putting garbage in my air and increasing global warming. Although I must admit in November I can appreciate the greenhouse effect in NJ. His policies will give us more Indian summers. He is certainly a wacko bird most of the time. But I just cannot find clear and compelling evidence that he is treasonous. So, forget about evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or making a case for impeachment. Innocent until . . . Again we cross the other's red lines. I didn’t need to self-medicate yet. How about you?

[Miranda]

This will have to be my last note to you: We don’t have a borderless nation, although there are some illegal aliens who don’t deserve to remain in the country. But DACA young people have lived with tremendous uncertainty for decades and are entitled to know their ultimate fate, and many immigrants in this country provide great benefits and are a credit to the country. My grandparents and great-grandparents immigrated without worrying about their eligibility, in part because of the times and in part because they were of European origin. Trump's “skills” have already hurt millions of people here and abroad. His predecessors were so far beyond him in competence, leadership, staffing, ability, goal-setting, global interaction, intelligence, empathy, planning, and and and . . . there can be no reasonable comparisons. The sudden tariffs are wrecking global trading and scaring the hell out of many producers in the U.S. Trump is indeed a “wacko bird” or a threat to the security of the country not “most of the time” but all of the time. The “evidence” for impeachment will come from the Mueller investigation, one indictment at a time, one subpoena at a time, one trial at a time, one witness at a time, one damning construct at a time. Do yourself a favor: Open your eyes and your heart. Listen. Observe.

And have a nice life.