Latest news with #DoubleTake
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Miami Herald
Epstein files: Is it about justice for victims, or just politics
Editor's note: Welcome to Double Take, a regular conversation from opinion writers Melinda Henneberger and David Mastio tackling news with differing perspectives. MELINDA: What infuriates me about Jeffrey Epstein has little to do with Donald Trump, MAGA or politics of any kind. The tragedy of Epstein and his fancy friends, whoever they were, is what they did to those girls, period. That is why it chaps me when people say oh, they're so bored with this whole thing. You know who is not bored, because their lives were stolen before they really even got started? His victims, some of whom were as young as 14. We would know nothing about any of this without our brave McClatchy reporting colleague Julie K. Brown of The Miami Herald. And what she just said on a New York Times podcast with Ross Douthat that I highly recommend is that 'these girls' lives were essentially ruined, even if they had only gone to his house one time.' So no, the ennui is not killing me the way it is some of you who keep telling us how over it you all are even as you also keep writing about it as if it were some joke. (Hey, let's do Gérard Depardieu next!) It is not, as you wrote in comparing it to a 'Seinfeld' episode, 'a scandal about nothing.' Now you can tell me how you didn't mean it that way. DAVID: I'll give you two examples of what I mean by nothing. First there is The Sunday New York Times magazine story with the headline 'An accuser's story.' First the accuser was in her 20s at the time of the wrongdoing she complained of, not 14. Until the time the last man dies, men are going to chase young women in their 20s. It is not a crime and we shouldn't make it one. This isn't even up to the standards of having oral sex with your intern in the Oval Office bathroom. MELINDA: This is not about older men 'chasing' younger women. The story you reference begins this way: 'It was the summer of 1996 when Maria Farmer went to law enforcement to complain about Jeffrey Epstein. At the time, she said, she had been sexually assaulted by Mr. Epstein and his longtime partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Farmer, then in her mid-20s, had also learned about a troubling encounter that her younger sister — then a teenager — had endured at Mr. Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. And she described facing threats from Mr. Epstein.' These events, as described, absolutely are crimes. And why are you euphemizing what we know happened? This is a man who, according to Brown, molested hundreds of girls. DAVID: That same accuser's story includes this 'to be sure' paragraph about what is in the Epstein files: 'The story of Ms. Farmer's efforts to call law enforcement attention to Mr. Epstein and his circle shows how the case files could contain material that is embarrassing or politically problematic to Mr. Trump, even if it is largely extraneous to Mr. Epstein's crimes and was never fully investigated or corroborated.' That seems to me to be a long-winded way of saying there is going to be a lot of nothing in the Epstein files. MELINDA: You glean from this that there is nothing worth knowing in the files? Again, Brown is the expert, and here's what she wrote in The Miami Herald months ago: 'Sources also said that the files are voluminous. There are 22 files containing over 500 pages in the FBI vault, a portal on the FBI's website accessible to the public. The bulk of those 11,000-plus pages are heavily redacted, and Justice Department prosecutors have fought their release for years. … One critical source of evidence against Epstein was in the discovery for a Florida civil case brought by Epstein's victims against the FBI in 2008. That case spanned a decade and included tens of thousands of pages of material that sheds light on how federal prosecutors mishandled that early case. Not all the FBI documents connected to that case — or the federal criminal case — in Florida have been made public.' DAVID: When Trump goes down in flames, it will not be because of allegations that may or may not be true and haven't been investigated. If the Wall Street Journal story from last week at the center of Trump's new lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch is an example of the kind of revelations about Trump that we can expect, then, yeah, I stand by my description of it as nothing. A naughty picture? Seriously? So what else did Julie Brown have to say to Ross Douthat? MELINDA: You are looking at this primarily as a story about Trump, but I am not. And no one should ever go down in flames — especially hard on straw men, I think — based on uninvestigated allegations. What I say is, finish the investigation and find out who else was responsible. Douthat asked Brown, 'Do you think it was just Epstein?' 'No, it wasn't,' she said. 'Because over the years a lot of women have come forward. … These women are scared to death.' Another question from Douthat: 'So, from your perspective, then, it is likely that there are some set of men in the world who move through Epstein's mansion — Epstein's island and so on — who are guilty of essentially having girls trafficked to them and in part, having sex with minors.' Here's her answer: 'That's correct.' DAVID: That sure would be a scandal, but it would be Epstein's scandal and he's dead. Anything going forward from here is going to have to be about Trump. And to get excited about what is supposedly in there, you have to believe that the Obama administration didn't leak it to save Hillary Clinton in 2016 and the Biden administration didn't release it in 2024 to save Kamala Harris. Not likely in my view. MELINDA: Why does it have to be about Trump? Stop looking at this as a political story for a minute and you might see what I see. Which is a man who damaged who knows how many lives. He died in jail because the judge denied bond, and the judge denied bond because Epstein's victims feared for their safety. Brown says they are still afraid now, and why would that be, if their only abuser is dead? I do not know the answer, but I want to. How about 'getting excited' — argh — about what more can be known just to see justice done? Run it all down and then we'll be done. No, I do not think the Democratic Party is run by pedophiles. And no, I never understood why one wing of MAGA was ever counting on someone who had a long friendship with Epstein and many allegations of sexual misconduct going back decades to be the man who was going to break up the party. But that doesn't mean Trump is implicated, either. I just want justice for those girls, even if the one you read about was in her 20s. Of course this story reminds me of one I covered for years, about former Kansas City, Kansas, detective Roger Golubski, who like Epstein was charged by the feds with sex trafficking. Golubski, too, acted with impunity for decades and then, on the morning he was supposed to show up for the first day of jury selection in his first federal trial, killed himself instead. No way did he act alone, either. I thought of him as a down-market Epstein a long time before the two of them chose the same way out. Two predators, two cowards, zero 'glee' from me. DAVID: Justice is a rare and delicate thing among us tragically flawed humans. It is nice when we can get it, but expecting it in this life is the road to disappointment. The main culprit died in jail. His main helper is in jail, too. That's pretty good for our flawed system. Often when we pursue perfect justice, what we get is worse. I don't think releasing a bunch of unvetted allegations gets us closer to justice especially if we protect the identities of those making the allegations as many of the efforts to release the Epstein files propose. Being able to face your accuser is among the things we've learned is necessary to get justice. It is time to let God judge Epstein as he will all those who preyed on young women with him. We need to let it go.
Miami Herald
5 days ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Elon Musk and the America Party: A real shot at a 3rd party or a way to manage Trump?
Editor's note: Welcome to Double Take, a regular conversation from opinion writers Melinda Henneberger and David Mastio tackling news with differing perspectives. DAVID: There are two ways to think about a national third party: as a vehicle to get people elected and as a way to change policy. If Elon Musk's plan for the America Party is to elect a president or even compete with Democrats and Republicans for control of the House or the Senate, I wish him luck. One thing is for sure, he's found a great way to spend a lot of money — a lot more than the $300 million he blew on the presidential candidate he now disavows. But if his idea is to turn a third party into policy regardless of electoral wins, then it is a smart move. Just look at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ,who turned a ridiculous third party candidacy into his own mini-MAGA movement and control of America's health care apparatus as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, where he's reshaping federal health policy based on the fantasyland science of his Make America Healthy Again movement. For a bigger win, look back to Ross Perot, who was obliterated in the 1992 election, but whose deficit control ideas were adopted by both the Democrats and the Republicans, resulting in the first balanced budgets in decades. I can't read Musk's minds, but his tweets seem to indicate he wants to target a handful of Senate races and a bigger number of House races to build an independent caucus in Congress that will be the kingmaker at critical moments on legislation. That's folly for three reasons. First, recruiting the kind of candidates who can break through and win is really tough, when Republicans and Democrats can offer ambitious people easier routes to power. Second, to have influence in this way, he'd have to win actual elections. There's not much history of Libertarians or democratic socialists winning elections outside the two party system. Third, Trump will still have the veto, and spendthrifts among Democrats and Republicans alike could choose to work together to keep up their reckless ways without bowing to the America Party's green eyeshade accountants pointing at the deficit. MELINDA: Since we've discussed Mr. Musk before, you know that the kindest thing I can say is that I do not hold him, his dodgy DOGE or how he sees women, families, compassion or what we owe one another while we're here on this planet in very high regard. However, since we desperately need real alternatives to both of our major parties, I think this America Party he wants to fund is an idea worth trying. Now, Musk may well change his mind again — or as you said, minds, which although it might have been a typo is perfect. DAVID: Now I am going to have to be careful of my typos because if you mention them, then I can't correct them later. MELINDA: We all make 'em. Though my kids delighted in calling me 'grammar freaky,' I also make that kind of mistake. Anyway, as I was saying, Musk's America Party would presumably mostly pull from Republicans. But it's too bad there's no center-left Musk willing to do this as well, for the good of the country, and please don't mention No Labels. DAVID: No Labels has been amusingly hapless. It is like they are trying to create a third option without upsetting anyone in the Democratic or Republican parties. I too wish, someone would shake up the Democratic Party, too. MELINDA: They did not amuse me, but relieved a lot of well-intentioned people of their cash to pay #MeToo offender Mark Halperin a huge salary as a consultant, which did not signal values for any third, fourth or fifth way I wanted any part of. Yes, quaint me, but as The New York Times would say, this was emblematic of what they were selling, which was the same old thing, which can't ever be an exciting new thing. Democrats are in trouble even with their own tribe; while only 4 in 10 Americans say they approve of the job Trump is doing, that's a stadium wave of enthusiasm compared to the 27% approval rating for congressional Democrats, mostly because Ds themselves have had it with their team's meek approach. While 73% of Republicans are A-OK with Congressional Rs doing whatever Trump says that day, even if that changes so often that Trump himself doesn't always seem to know what that is, just 44% of Democrats are satisfied with the job their representatives are doing. With some exceptions, I agree with this harsh assessment, and do have one suggestion: Chuck Schumer, what if you just stopped talking? Back to Musk, he is not trying to elect a president; he did that already, and did it make him happy? He walked away richer and more powerful but if anything, all the more furious. He says his goal is to 'laser-focus on just two or three Senate seats and eight to 10 House districts.' If what he's really after is to elect a bunch of deficit hawks, I don't see that going anywhere with the public, especially once they see what a bite the Big Nasty Cuts will put on them, so among other things we could spend $45 billion on filling a bunch of Alligator Alcatraz prisons with non-criminals. I know Musk will never soften that focus, but if he widened it, I see what he's setting out to do as difficult, but not impossible. DAVID: If Musk had some political smarts, which he may or may not, he'd build his party not around stricter accounting— he'd build it around his brand, which is the future. Think Mars and artificial intelligence and electric cars. Perot was on the right track, but he thought too small. Deficits and debt are a burden to the young — our future — but there is much more than that. Social Security and Medicare are giant subsidies for the past at the expense of the future. So are ag subsidies and steel tariffs and high-speed train dreams. MELINDA: Oh, Mama. Social Security and Medicare are not subsidies for the past but benefits we've earned over the course of our working lives. And I think we agree that we're going to need to start over on public health once RFK Jr. is done. DAVID: Spoken like you're FDR himself. Look at it another way: Why do we invest in the technologies from literally Before Christ (agriculture and steel) and 1804 when the train locomotive was invented? Most of the federal budget is invested in the past. Second most is spending on the present (defense and public health). As a percentage of the federal budget, very little is spent on the future (space and research and education). A party focused on that could start some conversations that are badly needed and draw supporters from both political parties, as well as those who are so profoundly uninspired by our present politics, which seems to be more focused on handing out the booty from political victories than taking our country to any particular place. MELINDA: FDR was derided by my family, so I know all of the 1930s jokes about him. As you probably know, there were serious concerns, valid ones, about his health as early as his second term, so maybe when Congress finishes booting Joe Biden and his loved ones around, they can look into that scandal, because what did Roosevelt's ailing, nonambulatory self ever accomplish, even on the brink of death? Oh, right. In this century, in any case, we need several new parties, and if Musk wants to begin the splintering, which is definitely his best event, then he should by all means go right ahead. Should he succeed, then his faction would wield a lot of power in an evenly divided country and Congress. And so, would be able to provide a real check on his former whatever he was, Donald Trump, someone Musk already thought he'd bought and paid for once. Yeah, I think that's the goal.
Geek Dad
16-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Geek Dad
Win a Curated Movie Collection from Shout! TV's 'Double Take'
Shout! TV's series Double Take has celebrities curating and hosting movie double features on their channel. This July 18th has Eyes of Wakanda star Jona Xiao hosting a double feature of Labyrinth and A Walk to Remember. In honor of this, Shout! TV is giving away a bundle of some of Jona Xiao's favorite films to one lucky GeekDad reader. This is a physical media bundle featuring the Legally Blonde Collection Blu-ray, The Man In The Iron Mask 4K, Bring It On 4K, and Kubo and the Two String Blu-ray. In order to win, just fill out the form below. The giveaway will run through midnight Tuesday, July 22, after which a winner will be chosen. Sorry, U.S. entries only. Good luck, and don't forget to tune into Shout! Movies on 7/18 for a new episode of Double Take hosted by Jona Xiao! Liked it? Take a second to support GeekDad and GeekMom on Patreon!
Miami Herald
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
What is fueling the LA riots: Trump's fascism or Newsom's incompetence?
Editor's note: Welcome to Double Take, a regular conversation from opinion writers Melinda Henneberger and David Mastio tackling news with differing perspectives. MELINDA: When L.A. really was burning, Donald Trump sent water, which was never an issue, somewhere else that it wasn't needed. When there really was an insurrection, intended to keep Himself in power illegally, he intentionally whipped up the mayhem, tweeting, 'Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done.' And only reluctantly, hours into cops being beaten and our democracy getting pooped on, literally and figuratively, did he ask his followers to maybe mosey on. I'm not ever for looting or setting cars or anything else on fire, in Los Angeles or elsewhere. But the response to protests against the ICE detention of day laborers in Home Depot parking lots is wildly disproportionate to what's actually happening in Los Angeles. It may yet explode, as our arsonist president seems to be hoping it does. But for now, we've seen far worse, there and across the country, without calling in the military. DAVID: I think you need to look a little more closely at what is happening in Los Angeles. Gov. Gavin Newsom was concerned enough that he sent in 800 more police officers and the police chief himself said that he was reconsidering whether the city needed help after the violence on Sunday. Here's what The New York Times reported: 'Chief McDonnell, asked whether the National Guard was needed, said, 'This thing has gotten out of control.' He said that although the LAPD would not have initially requested assistance from the National Guard, 'looking at the violence today, I think we've got to make a reassessment.' MELINDA: Oh, I'm looking closely. Today, for instance, I looked closely at the appalling sight of U.S. Senator Alex Padilla being physically pushed out of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's LA press conference. They threw down and handcuffed a U.S. senator for showing up to speak. Imagine how bummed her boys were that they couldn't send him to El Salvador. Here's the proof that this whole exercise has nothing to do with quelling violence: 'We are not going away,' Noem said at her news conference, which certainly did make news. 'We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and burdensome leadership that this Gov. Newsom and this mayor,' Karen Bass, 'placed on this country and tried to insert into this city.' She's come right out and said this is a political operation, and an occupation. It galls me, David, that some protesters are being charged with attacking local law enforcement in a time of civil unrest, which I guess means that unlike those who attacked local law enforcement officers on J6, they didn't do it for Donald Trump and so won't be pardoned later. And Trump has called these protesters 'paid insurrectionists.' Unlike his insurrectionists, who did it for free? I'll never forget the one poor Trumpist rioter who testified that a world in which Donald was not in charge was not a world worth living in. DAVID: When I do this, our readers call it whataboutism. I agree the Jan. 6 insurrection was awful and Trump's pardons, particularly of insurrectionists who assaulted police officers, were sickening. But that is no excuse for what is going on in Los Angeles. MELINDA: Fair enough, but I said already that there's no excuse for violence, there or anywhere. When I was watching Portland, Oregon, supposedly ablaze five years ago, my friends who live there said it was only like that on TV; they were having dinner outside blocks away from the nightly theatrical presentation and feeling no fear. My former New York Times colleague Todd Purdum, who's been in California for a long time now, told me that the way this current provocation is being broadcast to the nation is similarly cynical: 'If you're living in Los Angeles, you're not afraid for your life.' Unless, of course, you're a dreaded day laborer. Or somebody's beloved nanny. This is happening on a few streets and could have been handled by the city and state, except that it suited Trump's agenda to pretend that only the U.S. Marines could address looting and cars on fire. DAVID: So what do you want? A return to the open border policy of the Biden administration? I think there is a need to restore order to the immigration system and that starts with getting out millions of people who shouldn't be here at all. MELINDA: If you've spent any time at all in Southern California, you know that its economy would collapse without immigrant labor. Just like the economy in western Kansas, where the meatpacking industry couldn't function, right? So much hypocrisy, so few willing to own what's happening. But maybe the failure of California's economy is the goal? I wonder all the time what Trump hasn't done, from canceling lifesaving medical research to smashing alliances, that I'd do if what I really wanted was America's failure. DAVID: Even with the flood of illegal labor, California's economy is no great shakes under Newsom. The state hasn't created a net new job outside government and government-funded sectors of the economy in years. Well-off people are actually fleeing the state in droves to move to Texas and Florida while lower-income people move in. Major businesses are decamping, too. One thing I would like to see Trump do is bring criminal charges against the businesses that are hiring all these undocumented workers. Those jobs are the magnet that brings them into the country in the first place. MELINDA: I'm telling you, not only would Los Angeles be unable to build for the 2028 Olympics with no immigrant workers, but if you really were able to send everyone back, the whole country would suffer. They pay taxes and contribute so much in every way. Of course ICE is already sweeping up innocents like that third grader in New York and a beloved waitress in Kennott, Missouri, and guys standing outside California Home Depots just waiting for work so they can feed their families. Because, as I've been saying forever, there were never going to be enough violent criminals to fulfill Trump's promise of the mass deportation of 11 million people. You could, of course, send people back to their countries without all this televised drama or ruinous trauma, like Barack Obama did, but what fun would that be? Obama deported 3.1 million in eight years, compared to the 1.2 million Trump deported in his first four. This is America, so naturally there are protests. As an authoritarian — I think we can stop calling him an aspiring one — Donald Trump is happy for any excuse to shut down constitutionally-protected speech and the right to assemble. When, that is, it's speech he doesn't like and protesters who don't agree with him, not only in California but everywhere. Because he's definitely taking this show on the road after its world premiere in Los Angeles. Turning the military on civilians is a horrible thought. But it's not a shocking one, since Trump's own people reported that during his first term, he asked why cops couldn't just shoot peaceful protesters in the legs. What he wants to shut down is not really any violence; having pardoned even the J6 rioters who did the most harm, he's shown that he's OK with that. Instead, he wants to stop expressions of disagreement with him. DAVID: That's baloney. The Gestapo isn't showing up at critical columnists' houses and taking them away to reeducation camps. Trump didn't send in the National Guard until police cars were burning and immigration enforcement officers needed a backstop that local police couldn't provide. And Newsom has no problem sending in the National Guard to help law enforcement when he wants to do it. He sent hundreds into San Francisco and elsewhere to help deal with crime by backing police and prosecutors in the state. . One thing I am worried about is sending in the Marines. National Guardsmen are rooted in the communities of the state they protect. The training and experience they have includes civil matters. Active duty Marines, on the other hand, are razor sharp at killing people and breaking things. That is a dangerous move. MELINDA: Of course it is. It's a move many applaud, and if you don't think he's trying to shut down dissent, listen again to what he says about anyone who would come out to disagree with the parade he's throwing for himself this weekend: 'If there's any protester who wants to come out, they will be met with very big force. I haven't even heard about a protest, but (there are) people that hate our country.' To disagree with his disregard for the U.S. Constitution is the opposite of hating our country. I'm going to spend his birthday covering the protest of some women living in a retirement home. To me, you have to love your country quite a lot to get out, as one of their daughters told me, 'on their walkers and wheelchairs to protest the Medicaid cuts, birthday parade debacle, ICE tragedy, Ugly Bill, etc.' The one thing I would really like to see come out of this disaster? I would love to see Trump debate Gavin Newsom, someone he has said should be arrested for doing a bad job.
Miami Herald
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Iran-Israel war could pull in the United States, offering no good choices
Editor's note: Welcome to Double Take, a regular conversation from opinion writers Melinda Henneberger and David Mastio tackling news with differing perspectives and respectful debate. DAVID: If Donald Trump has a superpower it is in being a disrupter. With two keystrokes, — 'W E' — on Tuesday, he sent the whole foreign policy establishment into a tizzy. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured 'stuff.' Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA,' Trump said on his social platform, Truth Social. I thought it was Israel that was controlling the skies over Iran and bombing the country back into the pre-nuclear age, but apparently it is 'U S,' that stands for us and United States, I guess. I had been enjoying the irony of our proxy, Israel, taking the war to Iran's terror-supporting government after their years of supporting terrorist proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Gaza (Hamas) and Yemen (Houthis) who threaten U.S. interests while Iran can proclaim it doesn't know anything about it. Remember when the embryonic Hezbollah carried out the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed more than a dozen American Marines? MELINDA: Sure I do. You are right about Iran's horrible history and bad intentions. DAVID: If Trump has been consistent in one thing so far in his presidency it is that he is going to keep us out of foreign 'forever' wars, especially ones that smell like the one in Iraq, right next door to Iran. Is that all in the rearview mirror? I hope not. MELINDA: I have a big job on my hands here, because I'm going to have to argue with not only you, but also with myself, since I don't know the right answer. I do know a few things: Iranians have been putting up with repressive and rapacious leaders longer than I've been alive. Trump should never have backed us out of the Iran nuclear deal that was working; we used to have inspectors with eyes on at least some sites. Trump also said no new wars would start on his watch. And wasn't one of his biggest selling points that he and Bibi Netanyahu were so tight that Israel would do whatever he said? Yet here we are and off we go. What's that saying again? Fool me 1000 times, and I guess it's because we wanted to be fooled? I think the only time I have supported a military intervention was to end ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and of course what we did not do in Rwanda was shameful. Like you, I very definitely do not want us in another war. Yet even I, who barely even believe in bombs and certainly do not believe in this president or his team, have to admit that I am a little bit torn over whether a man with the impulse control of a squirrel should do the world a favor and drop some bunker-busters on the Fordow plant. Why? Because no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. DAVID: I, too, am tempted by the idea that Trump could drop a few of those 30,000-pound bombs from a flight of B-2 Spirits on that cave full of uranium centrifuges. Maybe in a few hours we could wash our hands of the whole thing. MELINDA: The counterargument is that we have no idea where that one act would end. Remember how quick Iraq was going to be? We have 40,000 troops in the region, and I do wish Trump hadn't run off so many capable diplomats. Last Sunday, I attended Mass at Our Lady and St. Rose in KCK, and in his terrific homily, Monsignor Stuart Swetland, the pastor and president of Donnelly College, who is a Navy vet, noted that the doomsday clock now stands at 89 seconds to midnight. Tick, tick, tick. First the parade, then the war? Again, like you, I really hope not. DAVID: I sure understand where the Israelis are coming from. For far longer than a quarter-century, Iranian leaders have been saying they want to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And that's not even really what they say because they hate Israel so much they can't even say Israel. State media in Iran calls it the 'Zionist regime.' And with the murderous baby-killing, teen-raping ways of Iran's proxies like Hamas, the Israelis have no reason not to take Iran literally. A nuclear bomb is the last step to the Final Solution. But do we always have to join Israel in the fight? Isn't it enough that while the rest of the world has turned their backs, we have given Israel everything it needs to defeat those who threaten it? The more I think about it, the more I think we do, whatever Trump's campaign promises. I don't want to be viewed in history like the generation of Americans who turned away Jews fleeing the Holocaust. Do I want Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard to lead this affair? Do I trust them to make the right choices to minimize our involvement and to not start another generational occupation of a broken nation? No, I do not, but I don't think we have a choice. MELINDA: We always have a choice, and I trust neither Trump and Co. nor Bibi. But oh, God, you know I will never get over some of our World War II-era decisions. In 1941, the U.S. made it even harder for those trying to flee the Nazis to make it to America. FDR did so much good, yet I will never understand how he could have turned away the German ocean liner St. Louis in 1939, and refused to save those 937 Jewish refugees on that boat who were close enough to safety to see the lights of Miami. On this, the 100th anniversary of 'The Great Gatsby,' I admit that the last couple of times I have reread what to me is the Great American Novel, I couldn't help thinking at some moments of those aboard the St. Louis looking with true yearning at those Miami lights and feeling, oh boohoo you, Jay Gatsby, staring at that green light at the end of Daisy's dock and searching for the impossible American dream of reconnecting two people who, even within the world created by Fitzgerald, really only ever existed in your own mind. Our government said little to nothing about the Nazi concentration camps well after we knew about them, and why did we not go in sooner to save more Jews imprisoned there? So are you banging on a bruise here in saying we need to stand with Israel? Yes. The more I think about it, though, the more I think the risks of a wider war are too great. I'm still not sure that I know the right answer, but Iran is so weak right now, and I hope that diplomatic efforts work. 'We're strong, we're prepared, we're defensive and present,' said our historically underprepared but always defensive defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. I don't know if that scared Iran, but it did worry me.
