The Raccoon Look

Have you noticed tan lines around the eyes of some men who appear without makeup on television? Our President is one. He must be wearing sunglasses when he’s in sunny climates (or on a tanning bed?)

The white circles especially distract me now that broadcasts are digitally clear, and some now are even high definition.

So men who appear in the public eye (no pun intended):

Don’t wear aviator sun glasses unless you’re an aviator. I have clip-on sun shades. Does this work for you?

Or, don’t go out in the sun. Remember —

“Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.”

Apologies to post-colonial Brits.


‘President Trump’, ‘Mr. Trump’ – not ‘Trump’

This is how I try to refer to the chief officer of the United States. How I write does not reflect the required usage of The New York Times, though. (Last time I looked, The policy of the Times was to refer to all people as Mr., Ms., Dr. So-and-So, for instance.)

I respect the office of the President of the United States, if only because of respect for the U.S. Constitution. I do not respect Mr. Trump as a person. His personality, activities, and philosophy are repulsive for me.

Virtually all the activities of his administration are “not in my name.” This phrase goes back to the time in my life of the Vietnam War. I and others were determinedly clear how that war was not being fought in our names. We completely disavowed that war.

I completely disavow the prominent policies of the Trump administration.

I am now ready to brew a cup of tea and to sit back to enjoy hot tea with sugar. I really need the tea.

Pundit Bill Bennett – my bête noire for February

I’ve liked Bill Bennett as a pundit since about 2005 when his program Morning in America , was being broadcast in Chicago over WIND 560 AM radio.

However, Bennett has abandoned the compassionate conservative agenda for the cruel features of President Trump’s agenda.

I regard Bennett as my bête noire in the sense of annoying me as a bugbear. In truth, I am bringing this annoyance upon myself. No one has told me that I must listen to his podcasts.

Let’s say that I listen to him so that you don’t have to. *

Bennett describes his podcasts with the catch phrase, “[Are you l]ooking for help translating [President] Trump? A podcast with an honest take on the current administration.” His podcasts present anything but an honest take.  He fails to point out how Mr. Trump is a bully. Bennett fails to point out how some of Mr. Trump’s policies are cruel.

One feature of Mr. Trump’s cruelty is to blame the victim. In one case of blame, the children of immigrants without papers have been in limbo ever since Congress created this human catastrophe.

We’ve heard the arguments for and against deporting these (mostly) young people. We’ve heard about deporting people to a country whose general culture and whose language specifically are foreign. These young folks are not being deported to Canada or Britain, for instance.

People with legal blemish get deported, not ordinary people. Such a policy of sending young people to a foreign country is cruel.

This brings up another feature of Bennett’s take on young immigrants.


* I listen to him so that you don’t have to – An expression coined by Chicago Sun-TImes columnist Neil Steinberg.

Someone whose scandalous behavior warrants being fired today …

… but they expect him to come in for a last day tomorrow.

Why let the creep come in tomorrow?

For a going away party, of course!

“Scandal just happens. A party is a plan,” quoth Nesanel.

Based on a real event in the U.S. Capital
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
(except for my fantasy about throwing a party)


Land once earmarked for the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem

Area where the U.S. Embassy could have been built. Note several parcels of land that are still undeveloped. The western parcel is on Israel’s side of the 1949 Armistice Line. The Israeli President’s House, Beit Hanatziv, is nearby on Hebron Road.

This map, below, identifies the location of land that was once earmarked for the U.S. Embassy.


In theory, there is land in Jerusalem set aside for a new U.S. Embassy. On President Ronald Reagan’s last day in office in [January] 1989, then-U.S. Ambassador to Israel William Brown signed a contract for a patch of land in West[ern] Jerusalem for $1 a year on a 99-year lease. This space [7 to 14 acres in the Talpiot neighborhood] was later zoned for “diplomatic purposes” by the Israeli government with the intention of building a U.S. Embassy there.

Although it was initially hoped during the 1990s that a U.S. Embassy could sit there, after the al-Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, new safety standards were put in place that require embassies to be set back 100 feet from any adjacent roads due to the risk of car bombs and other attacks. “With the new rules, that land is not big enough,” Shapiro said. For context, the space in Talpiot is seven to 14 acres, according to different sources, while the new U.S. Embassy in Lebanon sits on 43 acres.

From The Washington Post
By Adam Taylor | December 7, 2017

From: Nesanel –

Note, though, that the vacant western parcel lies entirely within pre-1967 Jerusalem. However, the new Consulate General Annex lies in what was no man’s land. The entire area on the maps was annexed by Israel into the City of Jerusalem shortly after the 1967 Six Day War.

The U.S. has had a consulate general in Jerusalem since 1844.

See Wikipedia , “Consulate General of the United States, Jerusalem,” and “Jerusalem Embassy Act.”

Are the Jews of Today Really Descendants of Abraham? Should They Inherit the Land?

It doesn’t matter.
Being Jewish is being a member of G-d’s Covenant at Mount Sinai. Over the centuries, some women and men said, in effect, “Count me in,” and so they became members of the Covenant by observing its specifics and generalities.
(I posted this before – “Ashkenazi Jews and their long-ago European mothers.”)

Wait, Wait . . .

. . . don’t tell me!

Governments are supposed to make jobs.

If that’s the case, then government bureaucracies are good. Let governments hire a few more people, then a few more.

Taxes are good since they can be spent on salaries for civil servants.

I’m going to reread the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps I missed this clause. Maybe it’s an amendment.