Category Archives: Chuckling

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 176: Indicting Comey Again?

Posted on by
Reply

President Trump famously does not like former FBI Director James Comey. Last September the Department of Justice indicted Mr. Comey, charging him with lying to Congress. During his testimony in 2020 Mr. Comey denied directing leaks on the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference. Since there’s no proof (or even indication) that he lied the indictment was laughable and the court dismissed the indictment in November.

Hard to imagine but the latest indictment is even more laughable. Last month he was indicted again for an Instagram post from May of 2025. He was walking on a beach and saw that someone had arranged sea shells to read “86 47;” he thought it was funny and posted it. He later removed it. We all know the term “86” as a slang term to discard or reject. Decades ago when I worked in a restaurant we would “86” a menu choice if we ran out of it.

Not to miss an opportunity the Justice department has once again indicted him. It is (and should be) a crime to threaten the President. The indictment claims that Mr. Comey was directing violence against the President and “86” meant to cause him harm.

This is just silly and hopefully this indictment will be denied soon. Mr. Trump, you need to 86 this vendetta.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 44: Kash Patel: I Am Not A Drunk!

Posted on by
Reply

First off, apologies to President Richard Nixon (1913-1994) who, in the midst of the Watergate Scandal told the American people: “I am not a crook”. Less than a year he resigned.

Current FBI director Kash Patel was the subject of an article in The Atlantic magazine (unfortunately the article is behind a paywall but it’s easy enough to find the highlights for free). The article, based on numerous interviews with numerous sources, claims that Director Patel has shown a pattern of excessive drinking both in Washington D.C. and Las Vegas.

In response Patel is now suing the Atlantic for for $250 million for defamation. Of course the easiest way to defend yourself against a defamation charge is to show that the article was accurate. But for Patel to win he has to show that the magazine either knew the article was false or used “actual malice.” In other words, he has to show the magazine intended to attack Patel and was reckless.

This comes from a now famous Supreme Court case from 1964, New York Times Company v. Sullivan. The Times was sued for minor errors in an ad that ran in the paper. They were sued by someone (Sullivan) who claimed he was defamed but he court unanimously stated that minor, honest errors don’t constitute defamation.

President Trump and many of his supporters want to have this case overturned which would allow public officials to sue more easily if they don’t like the coverage they are receiving. I don’t think Patel really expects to win this case but he knows it will make points with his boss.

Of course, if he doesn’t want this kind of coverage he could also moderate his drinking. Just sayin’

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 172: The Rules Don’t Apply To Me

Posted on by
Reply

President Trump’s opposition to mail in voting has been nothing if not consistent. Last August he vowed to ban it and he calls it mail in cheating. Of course he’s never shown any evidence of voter fraud (though I have: see my last post).

Interestingly enough he’s registered to vote in Florida where he lists his primary residence as Mar A Lago. This past week there was a special election to fill a congressional seat and he voted…by (you guessed it) mail. When asked he claimed it was because he is the president and is busy. So we need to ignore the fact that he had been in Florida the previous weekend and could have voted in person.

But his claim that he was too busy to vote in person belies his belief that he is more important than the rest of us. Many a time I’ve voted on days when I’ve worked. It normally meant I had to wake up earlier and I’ve been blessed that polling places here in California open at 7AM. A democracy depends on the belief that everyone’s vote is important and holds the same weight. If mail in voting is cheating (and it’s not) it’s cheating for him too.

Finally I can’t help but point out that the victor in that congressional election was a Democrat: Emily Gregory and she is Trump’s representative in the House of Representatives. I wonder if he’ll write his congresswoman.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 42: We’ve Finally Found Evidence Of Voter Fraud

Posted on by
Reply

Ever since the 2016 election President Trump has falsely claimed there is widespread election fraud. He lost the popular vote in 2016 but claimed it was because over 3 million illegal aliens voted. When he lost the 2020 election he demanded that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “find” enough votes to give him a victory in Georgia.

Of course Trump has never provided evidence of any of his charges and most of us assumed voter fraud is nearly nonexistent and virtually never intentional. But we’re learned recently about Harry Wait. Harry was convicted a few days ago of requesting the ballots of Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Racine (Wisconsin) mayor Cory Manson.

Funny thing, ol’ Harry is a Republican. He claims he did it to show how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Of course, he just proved is isn’t easy as he was easily caught. He attempted to defend himself by claiming his actions were criminal but not nefarious.

Yeah, right. If you rob a bank to show how easy it is to rob a bank, you’re still guilty of bank robbery.

There’s no date for sentencing but he may face up to six years in prison.

As The Baseball Leagues Merge

Posted on by
Reply

I haven’t always been a baseball fan. When I was 11 the Washington Senators left for Texas and I transferred all my loyalty to football. But when I moved to San Diego in 1995 I began to follow the San Diego Padres of the National League’s Western Division. At the time, with the exception of Spring Training, the All Star Game, and the World Series, their teams never played each other. On the plus side when the best teams of each league met in the World Series there was a mystique as they knew very little of each other. On the minus side American league fans virtually never saw Tony Gwynn play. Conversely National Leagues fans were also denied Cal Ripkin.

That changed in 1997 when baseball started inter league play. All of baseball played by the same rules with one exception: the designated hitter. In 1973 the American League ruled that one player didn’t have to bat but would be replaced by a batter who didn’t play in the field. Since pitchers virtually always bring up the rear in batting average it’s assumed they wouldn’t bat.

So what did they do since 1973 when teams from different leagues play? They decided that they would play under the rules of the home team. National League teams in American League parks were allowed a designated hitter and American League pitchers in National League parks had to bat. In fairness since most players play for multiple teams most American League pitchers had some experience in the batter’s box.

But this year the National League has also decided in the designated hitter. And I have to confess I’m saddened by this. I like the idea of all players playing both sides. It also called for creativity on the manager’s part. Most pitchers don’t pitch the entire game and the manager has to decide when he is “done.” But if he is pitching well but will bat the next inning, do you substitute him for a stronger batter? The hall of fame pitcher Greg Maddux famously worked hard in his batting skills knowing it would increase his chances for staying longer in the game.

This also means that the lines between the leagues have further blurred. I’m guessing that the number of times a team plays someone in the other league will grow to the point where we’ll lose track of which teams are in which league.

Oh well, I guess change is inevitable.

But I’ll still watch.

“We Baptize You”

Posted on by
Reply

In the last few days we’ve read about a priest who used the “wrong formula” in performing baptims using an invalid formula.

The Catholic Church, and most Christian churches, insist that baptism requires the formula “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” It appears this priest used “We” instead of “I.”

Does this matter? Well, it does. Clearly the priest’s intent was not to perform invalid baptisms and I have some sympathy for him. In the last 50 years the Catholic Church has attempted to become more inclusive and more welcoming. Part of that has included inviting the congregation to participate in worship. Until 1977 only priests and deacons were allowed to offer Eucharist (ie, give Communion to another person). For many people it was unsettling to receive Eucharist from someone other than a priest. Also, 50 years ago the idea of inviting a family member to speak at a funeral mass was unheard of but today it’s common.

And I’m guessing that this priest wanted to include the entire congregation in the child’s baptism. But when the priest says “I” he isn’t speaking for himself but for Jesus. There’s a Latin term “In Persona Christi” which means “in the person of Christ.”

So here’s the problem: we Catholics believe that all sacraments require some action on our part and it’s often what we say. The sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) begins with the penitent saying: “Bless me father for I have sinned.” When we receive Communion the Eucharistic Minister says: “The Body of Christ” and we respond: “Amen.” There’s more but you get the point.

Here’s the other problem: If a person’s baptism is invalid so are all the other sacraments, including marriage. What do we do going forward? I suspect this story will slowly fade away at least in the news media. But if you knew this priest baptized you and you’re fearful with your standing before God, what do you do?

If the Pope calls me for advice (and I’m not waiting by the phone) I’d tell him to issue a proclamation declaring that all these baptisms are valid. If the Pope calls you, tell him I’m available.

I Had a Conversation That Made Me Think: What Would I Say To Me at Twelve Years Old?

Posted on by
Reply

In the course of my work as a hospice chaplain I have the opportunity to speak with all sorts of people with all sorts of experiences, and of all sorts of ages.

I recently had a chance to speak with a 12 (nearly 13) year old girl whose relative was on hospice. We spoke about the usual things, including the question of what she’ll do when she grows up. She was equal parts hopeful and fearful. I remember well thinking I had to choose a path as a teenager that would inform the rest of my life. But now I know how silly that was.

In my parents’ generation most people worked in the same field (if not with the same employer) for their entire career. In my generation most of us worked in the same or related fields for a good part of our career, even if we had multiple employers. That’s the case with me. I’ve had a few unrelated jobs: I worked at libraries in Woodbridge, Virginia and at Mount Vernon College, and I spent 6 months working for the Salvation Army.

But the bulk of my career has centered on faith. I’ve been a seminarian, Director of Religious Education, Youth Minister, priest, and hospice chaplain. Interestingly enough, I’ve spent the last 18 years as a hospice chaplain, a position that barely existed when I was twelve. As a matter of fact, it was a volunteer position until 1982.

When speaking with this young lady I encouraged her to dream big and recognize that she may well spend a good part of her career in a field that doesn’t even exist now. I graduated from high school in 1978 and none of my classmates found their future in internet startups, only because the internet didn’t exist.

But our conversation got me thinking about what I would say to the 12 year old me if I had the chance. Here’s what I think I would say:

  • Forget about your classmates whose approval you crave. By the time you’re 30 you won’t even remember their names. They are playing the same “please like me” game you’re playing and if they are more successful it won’t translate into anything with meaning beyond high school.
  • You know that teacher who won’t let up on you? The teacher who keeps telling you that you can do something you don’t think you can (or want to) do? That’s a name you’ll remember. This teacher gave you a gift: you’re more than you think you are and you’ll be more than you think you’ll ever be. Say a prayer for him or her.
  • Oh yes, and that girl who doesn’t know you’re crazy about her? Yeah, maybe she’ll be your girlfriend and maybe she won’t. Maybe you’ll be too shy to talk with her or maybe she’ll shoot you down. In any case you’ll find the person for you and you’ll be happy she did the same.

Finally, relax. None of the stuff you worry about will really hurt you. You never saw your greatest gifts and your greatest tragedies coming. And yet you find yourself still here and your greatest tragedies were you best teachers.

And while your greatest tragedies were your best teachers, your greatest gifts were your best celebrations. Maybe it was the day you got married, likely it was the day your children were born, but in any case they were experiences you cannot explain, only experience. And worst of all, you don’t have the vocabulary to fully translate how you’re feeling at that moment.

The Obama/Cruz Citizen Throwdown: Chapter 2

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent post I spoke about citizen ship issues with President Obama and Senator Cruz (R-TX).

This doesn’t happen often, but I got a response from someone I don’t know who came across this page. I’m not sure who s/he is, but his/her screen name is “Fuzz T. Was.” I’m not able to enter a dialogue, but Fuzz T. Was makes some interesting points that I hope to accurately summarize.

A person is granted citizenship by two routes: by nature and by naturalization. A naturalized citizen is granted citizenship at some point after his birth and the rules for naturalization are governed by the nation. A natural born citizen is someone for whom citizenship is automatically granted and is beyond dispute.

In the United States a person is a natural born citizen by two routes: “Jus Soli” and “Jus Sanguis.” These are Latin terms and translate to “Law of the Soil” and “Law of the Blood.” A person who is born in the United States (states, territories, and holdings) is granted citizenship by law of the soil. Since President Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a citizen by law of the soil. A person was born outside the United States can still be a citizen if one of his/her parents was born in the United States. This person is not a citizen by law of the soil, but by the law of the blood (ie, your direct blood relative). Senator Cruz is a citizen by law of the blood because even though he was born in Canada, his mother was born in the United States. Both men’s citizenship is beyond dispute.

There is a good short article at FindLaw. If I’m reading this right, you can pass citizenship to your child through law of the blood only if you are a citizen by law of the soil or a naturalized citizen. This prevents someone who isn’t a citizen from tracing back to some ancestor who was born in the U.S. even if it was several generations back. If this is true and if someone like Ted Cruz marries a non US citizen, their children wouldn’t be citizens if they are not born in the U.S.

Fuzz T. Was, thank you for giving me the chance to think more about this.

President Obama and Senator Cruz: Bet You Didn't See This Coming

Posted on by
2

I’m writing this at 5:30PM (Pacific Time) on October 8, 2013. I just googled “Barack Obama Ted Cruz” and got 112,000,000 hits. This doesn’t surprise me, but yesterday I found a common link that is still making me laughing.

I podcast Fresh Air on National Public Radio. I’m addicted because I find the interviews smart, interesting, and informative. Yesterday I listened to the podcast from October 1st where Chris Matthews was interviewed; he was plugging his book Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked.

Chris worked for Tip O’Neill in the early 1980s and it’s not hard to assume his political leanings. But in his interview he made a point that I’m still thinking about.

A scary percentage of the population thinks that President Obama shouldn’t be President because he was born in Kenya. They are often called birthers and claim that since he wasn’t born in America he can’t be President.

And yet they put their blinders on and support Ted Cruz. Ted was born on December 22, 1970 in Alberta, Canada. His mother was born in the United States and his father was born in Cuba.

Is he eligible to be President? Good question. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution says this: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Persons be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

In other words, nobody who has been a naturalized citizen (e.g. Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger) can be President, no matter how popular they may be.

But who is a “natural born citizen?” Ted Cruz can argue (and I agree with him) that he is an American citizen by virtue of being born to a mother who was born in the United States. This allows citizenship to children of military parents who serve us overseas, or parents in the diplomatic corps. This prevents Americans who serve us in other countries to have to dash home while in labor only to allow their children the privileges the rest of us take for granted.

So here’s the rub: While nobody with a brain accepts the charges of The Donald or the rest of the birthers, we don’t have to. If Ted Cruz can be President because his mother was born here, President Obama is a legitimate President because his mother was born in Kansas. Even if you don’t believe that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

It's Good To Be the King

Posted on by
Reply

I live in La Jolla, California; it’s a neighborhood on the northern edge of San Diego and it’s a nice place to live. It’s also fairly affluent (Mitt Romney has a house about 3 miles away) and I’m amused by the number of people who assume we’re rich because we live here. We regularly get mailings from financial planners and investment firms who want to manage our portfolios “over $1,000,000.” Yeah, right.

On the plus side we also get letters promising gifts if we do simple things. A few years ago we were promised a $150 gift certificate to Smith and Wollensky Restaurant if I test drove a Maserati at a local dealership. It was completely worth it, but $150.00 almost covered lunch.

In April I got a letter that said if I test drove a Lincoln I could get a free pair of Maui Jim sunglasses. These things always sound too good to be true, but I took the form down to the local dealership and got the form signed. I sent it in and today I got my free pair of glasses.

They retail for $269.00. Yeah, no kidding. To be fair they are much better than my bargain basement glasses that I don’t wear much because I have a hard time reading my car dashboard. I’m not sure they’re worth a month’s wages at WalMart but I’m keeping them for now. I only hope I don’t get addicted to them and break them in a few months. We’ll see.