Ignoring history

Posted on June 26, 2026 | 2 comments

As 21st-century Americans, we have a lot of our own history to look back on.  We should also look back at important events in world history.  Ignoring that history can create a troubling scenario.

I’m especially troubled by people who have ignored the reality of world history during the 20th century.  Especially people who ignore what happened to Europe during the 1930s and 1940s and make declarations like “Hitler was right.”

The recent upsurge in antisemitism, probably related to actions taken by Israel’s current government, may play a role.  But applauding the actions of a monster like Hitler totally ignores what really happened.

Hitler’s Nazi government transformed most of Europe, both before and during World War II, evoking almost incredible depths of cruelty and destruction.  The Holocaust systematically killed millions of European Jews in an overwhelmingly evil plan that still shocks us today.  But we should remember that the Holocaust was only part of the cruel and destructive Nazi regime.  Hitler wasn’t just about killing Jews.  He went on to kill millions of people in every occupied country in Europe, as well as tens of thousands killed in the London blitz.  And we should add to this number the estimated 21 to 25 million members of the military killed in combat during World War II.  Tens of millions more were wounded.

One early example of the damage done to so much of Europe appeared on my TV the other night.  Searching for something to watch, I clicked on Netflix, which offered me the chance to see a 2016 film, “Anthropoid.”  The Netflix blurb said that the film involved Czech patriots opposed to the Nazis, and it starred engaging actors like Cillian Murphy and Jamie Dornan.  I decided to take a chance on it.

As the film begins, the audience learns about the Munich Agreement, the attempted appeasement of Hitler in September 1938, which allowed the Nazis to take over much of a hitherto-independent country, Czechoslovakia, without firing a shot. The audience can watch newsreel coverage of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waving the piece of paper that allowed that to happen. The film goes on to feature seven brave Czechs who, following the orders of the Czech resistance based in London, parachuted into their home country to fight the Nazis who had taken over Czechoslovakia. 

The film focuses on two of these parachutists, played by Murphy and Dornan, who were given the mission called “Anthropoid” to assassinate Nazi General Reinhard Heydrich.  Heydrich, the top Nazi in Prague, ran a ruthless and brutal campaign against Czechs who resisted the Nazis.

In the film, these two loyal Czechs (named Jan and Josef) endure tremendous stress as they prepare for their task.  Along with brave women and men living in Prague who help them, they finally succeed at assassinating Heydrich.  The reprisals happen immediately.

While Jan and Josef are hunted, many others in the resistance are rounded up and massacred.  The film reveals that about 5,000 Czechs were killed in retaliation.  An entire village, Lidice, was wiped out.

I won’t reveal what ultimately happens to Jan and Josef and the other parachutists.  But I’ll add that I found much of the film almost unwatchable.  Because it clearly demonstrates the cruelty of the Nazi regime under Hitler, some scenes were terribly difficult to watch. I fast-forwarded through these scenes as well as I could. (Not easy to do with streaming.)

I’ve visited Prague myself, and I know that the Jewish population there was devastated by the Nazis.  But there is no mention of Jews throughout this film. Its focus is on the cruelty suffered by the brave Czech patriots whose story it tells.

This film is a potent reminder of recent world history. If we don’t ignore this history, and we honestly look at what happened to Europe under the Nazis, we can see how much of Europe, including Germany itself, was almost irreparably damaged.  Let’s remember that local populations were terrified by their Nazi occupiers, with only a few people brave enough to fight in the resistance–at least until V-E Day in April 1945, when the Allies finally freed Europe from Nazi cruelty.

The vivid story told in “Anthropoid” makes clear how vital it is to pay attention to history. Its story is a cautionary tale, serving as a warning for us today.  If we look back at the ruthless pursuit of cruelty in the Nazi era, we can learn to watch for signs of cruelty as they occur in our own time.  These signs are appearing in our country more and more frequently.  And as author Timothy Snyder writes in On Tyranny: “We are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to…Nazism…. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience.”

And we must, like the Czech patriots in “Anthropoid,” screw up our courage and oppose them.  At the ballot box if nowhere else.

2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Push those “hassslers”out of your life

Posted on May 10, 2026 | 1 comment

Do you find yourself dealing with “difficult people”? A recent study has looked at the health impacts caused by “hasslers,” people

the researchers defined as those “who create problems or make life more difficult.”

Let’s face it. We all have people like that in our lives. But the results of this study tell us that we need to avoid them as much as we

can if we want to avoid the detrimental effect they have on our physical health.

Information about this study, reported by Kathleen Felton, appeared in The Washington Post on March 8, 2026.

The study, funded by the National Institute on Aging and published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focused

on social relationships and how they relate to one’s health. Felton noted that while positive relationships have long been linked to

happier, longer lives, relationships with hasslers seem to have the opposite effect. Spending time with hasslers increases chronic

stress and elevates “epigenetic biomarkers” associated with aging.

One intriguing finding: Those people who are more likely to report knowing hasslers are women and those in poorer health.

NYU Professor Byungkyu Lee, lead author of the study, states that a strong social network offers protective benefits as you age,

including lowering the risk of cognitive impairment and mortality. Friendships may even help slow aging on a cellular level. But,

Lee adds, “not all social ties are supportive.”

According to the co-author of the study, Indiana University Professor Brea Perry, some friendships may be “ambivalent,” causing

problems or stress but also providing positive things like support and companionship. Others are “pretty much exclusively

stressful.”

The study notes that any relationship can go bad. But some people are more likely to be hasslers–family members, people you

can’t escape, like parents and children. Others are often co-workers, roommates, and neighbors.

There are real consequences. The study’s participants answered questions about their social relationships and self-rated their

overall health. They also gave saliva samples analyzed for DNA changes that signify biological aging. For every additional hassler

a participant interacted with, the pace of aging increased by 1.5%. When accumulated year after year, this can lead to earlier onset

of chronic disease.

The obvious advice, according to Lee: Avoid hasslers whenever possible and cut ties if someone is adding lots of negativity and

stress to your life. Extracting yourself from every hassler relationship may not be realistic. You may be obligated, for

example, to maintain those with family members.

But when you’re around a hassler, try to limit the amount of time you spend with that person. As Perry states, “As soon as you

recognize that…a hassler has…negative biological consequences for you, set limits” on the time you’re putting into that

relationship.”

At the same time, keep investing in relationships that provide support. If you have enough non-hasslers in your world, that may

help you avoid the problems created by those darned hasslers.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

A Blow to the Patriarchy

Posted on April 29, 2026 | 3 comments

Gosh, I thought the days of patriarchy were largely behind us.  But here come the forces who are trying to bring them back.

Our current Secretary of Defense appears to be a prime advocate of male dominance.  According to respected journalists, he has downgraded highly-esteemed women officers in the ranks of our military.  For example, he intervened to stop the promotions of several high-ranking service members, including two women on track to become one-star generals.  (This interference in the regular promotion process is viewed as a highly unusual move.)  He also fired Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to hold the Navy’s top uniformed job, with no explanation.  And in a country founded on the separation of church and state, he may have adopted the extreme ideas of his closest spiritual adviser. The Guardian has described this adviser as a staunch advocate of “biblical patriarchy,” openly advocating that wives submit to their husbands, and, by the way, opposing women’s right to vote.

I refuse to let those regressive forces take us back.  That’s why I’m glad to learn about the enlightening research by Professor Martin Surbeck, a professor in Harvard’s department of human evolutionary biology.

For over 20 years, Surbeck has studied the behavior of bonobos in the wild.  Bonobos?  Yes, bonobos.

Bonobos are a highly intelligent, socially sophisticated species of primates who, along with chimpanzees, are our closest living relatives.  They form social groups of about 10 to 25 adults and engage in complex forms of communication, including the use of symbols, gestures, and vocalizations.

A detailed review of Surbeck’s research, by writer Annie Roth, appears in the March-April issue of Harvard Magazine.  Surbeck told Roth that data gathered over two decades have changed how we should view these primates. They were previously viewed as peace-loving, but that needs to change

Surbeck finds the new data “exciting,” and so do I.  They show that females “reign supreme” in bonobo communities.

Female bonobos dominate in a number of ways.  One way is by creating sometimes-violent coalitions against males.  How? 

If a male is causing problems, females join forces to attack or intimidate him.  Males who back down lose social status, while their female adversaries gain it. On the other hand, males who fight back can risk injury and even (though rarely) death.

Surbeck and his team have also discovered that the higher certain females rank socially, the better access they have to food—and to quality mates for their sons.  This means that the male offspring of powerful mothers can more easily attract females because of their mothers’ status within the community.

Male bonobos, he notes, “are in the shadows of their moms…. [They] have a key player…to whom they can always go.”  And mothers and sons stay together for life.

Roth’s article notes that Surbeck’s research has documented many instances of female dominance.  When he observed nearly 2,000 conflicts between single males and single females over two decades, females won the majority of them.  He’s also pointed out that although females can prevail alone, their rate of success is much higher when they band together with other females (or at least know they will have back-up support if needed). 

Currently he’s focused on exploring less violent, more socially interventionistic approach to disputes, along with cooperative behavior among individual bonobos.

Here’s what’s important:  Surbeck points out that contrasting behaviors of different primate species can help us evaluate how humans think about our own societies—and identify alternative ways of relating. 

As he explains, some people may look at human warfare hostility, male sexual violence, and strictly patriarchal social structures, and believe that those behaviors are part of our DNA.  But bonobo communities prove that these aspects of society are not evolutionarily inevitable. 

Humans have “extremely flexible behavior and a strong capacity for social learning.”  Our patterns are “not rigidly fixed by biology.”  In other words, humans can change.  There is “a wide range of possible ways for human societies to be organized,” and “cooperation” is the key.

My conclusion?  This research by Martin Surbeck, illuminated by Annie Roth, strikes a powerful blow against the benighted individuals in our culture who promote the return of patriarchal dominance.

Matriarchy, anyone?  

3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Eyewitness to today’s economy

Posted on March 25, 2026 | Leave a comment

We’ve recently been hearing a lot of bad news about our country’s economy.  Last weekend, I became an eyewitness to exactly what’s happening.

I spent the weekend visiting a family member who lives in Silicon Valley, the area in Northern California dominated by the tech industry.  Between Palo Alto and San Jose, a host of tech companies pop up wherever you drive.

After watching TV news coverage of some of the billionaires who populate Silicon Valley (SV), along with the TV series that tell fictionalized stories about workers in SV, many people may assume that SV is an affluent area filled with the financially well-off.

There’s a kernel of truth to that, of course.  But the whole truth is somewhat different.  SV residents run the gamut from astoundingly affluent to just-getting-by.

Saturday afternoon, I had a few hours to spend by myself, and I decided to drive around SV.  Soon I spotted a mall that clearly catered to the just-getting-by.  I noticed a store called Dollar Tree next door to one called dd’s discounts.  I parked in the mall’s lot to see what each of these stores was offering.

I’d actually been in a Dollar Tree store in the past.  It’d been a useful place to buy things like coloring books and crayons for a young child.  But I hadn’t been in a Dollar Tree for a while. 

When I entered, I noticed that the store wasn’t quite as busy as I expected.  Even more surprising, the shelves weren’t packed with as much merchandise as they’d been.  As for prices, nothing was $1 anymore, so the moniker of “dollar store” no longer fit.  Almost everything was now priced $1.75, with a handful of items at $1.50 and still others $3 or more.  What happened?

It became clear to me that the imposition of tariffs lauded by the current White House has sent this chain of stores into a downward spiral.  Most economists will tell you that tariffs have increased prices on almost everything we buy today, from groceries to cars, from clothing to …. well, coloring books.  And I won’t even figure in the cost of gas to drive to a mall.

The result:  Dollar Tree stores and other former “dollar stores” are being squeezed, maybe even driven out of business.  Customers are still showing up, but they no longer have a vast array of products to choose from.  Formerly stocked with cheap goods produced in China and other Asian countries, these stores now have to pay more for merchandise, thanks to the tariffs, then pass the added costs on to their customers.  And many customers are simply staying away.

After a short time in Dollar Tree, I walked next door to dd’s discounts, a store packed with inexpensive clothing, shoes, handbags, toys, and household goods.  Here the current state of our economy really hit home.  The store was hot and crowded.  The checkout line included at least 30 or 40 shoppers, maneuvering their shopping carts through the aisles of the store as well as they could.  Impatient kids perched on some of these carts propelled by hot and sweaty parents.  I was stunned to see so many people clamoring for new clothes and household items at what they hoped were rock-bottom prices.

I couldn’t help wondering how a department store like Macy’s was faring on this Saturday afternoon.  While stores appealing to the truly affluent, like Louis Vuitton, are doing just fine, Macy’s, which appeals to customers in the middle, is trying to survive.  The middle is apparently dwindling, and Macy’s has been closing some of its stores in every part of the country.  Its very survival is in question.

My conclusion:  American consumers still want and need new things.  Right now they’re struggling to find them at prices they can afford.  They’re paying more than they did two years ago, before the tariffs, but they haven’t given up trying to find bargain prices on the things they want.  So they’ve settled for the prices at stores like dd’s discounts.  But I don’t think they’re happy about it.

Please don’t forget:  At the same time, Americans are faced with zero job growth, high gas prices, and other ominous trends in our economy.

Which way is our economy headed?  It’s impossible to predict.  But one quick way to improve it?  Get rid of the tariffs that create such a burden—an unnecessary burden–on American shoppers.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

One way we can help our planet: Stop buying “fast fashion”

Posted on February 19, 2026 | 1 comment

If you’re concerned about the future of our planet, you may be feeling pretty discouraged right now.  The current administration has just undermined a vital component in our effort to reduce air pollution, handing its multimillionaire donors a big win.  Those who back the fossil fuel industry have triumphed over years of scientific evidence demonstrating how greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks have polluted our atmosphere.  The result will be adverse consequences for human health, not only for those living today but, even worse, for our kids and grandkids.

Feeling discouraged by this dictate from DC, we can throw up our hands, viewing ourselves as helpless to effect change except at the ballot box, which unfortunately, in 2026, is not a sure thing.

But there’s one surefire way you can promote a safer environment.  Stop polluting our world by refusing to buy “fast fashion.”

If you’ve never encountered this phrase before, please let me explain.  Clothing manufacturers in recent years have been pumping out cheaper and cheaper products to sell to their customers.  They rely on cheap fabrics that are produced fast using polluting methods, then design styles that can be made quickly, then rush their shoddy clothes to market as fast as possible.  The result is “fast fashion.”

The horrendous methods employed to produce fast fashion are described in shocking detail in an article published in the January 2026 issue of The Nation magazine.  This article, “Our Global Fashion Emergency,” emphasizes that fashion is one of the most environmentally-destructive industries on the planet.  According to the authors, fashion is the third-most-polluting industry, after energy and food.  One estimate, from 2015, was that the process of making polyester, the favorite textile used in fast fashion, produced as much annual carbon pollution as 180 coal-fired power plants.  And when fabrics like polyester are woven, washed, treated, and sewn into garments, they continually shed plastic microfibers.

Plant-based fabrics like cotton and linen also have environmental consequences.  Cotton production uses huge amounts of water, and the chemical pesticides to grow it are flushed into waterways.

Please don’t assume that putting cast-off fast-fashion garments into charity bins solves these problems.  Even when clothes are donated, they often end up burned or in a landfill, where they produce greenhouse gases like methane as they decay.  Synthetic fibers keep shedding plastic microfibers into soil and waterways.  And even in states like California and New York, where bans of toxic forever-chemicals (PFAS) have been enacted, decades of their use waterproofing outdoor wear means that discarded rain jackets continue to leach those pollutants.

The global consequences are appalling.  Well-meaning donations of clothing to charities has created “fashion garbage patches” like one in Chile, where mountains of used clothing have been dumped for years.  These are growing bigger and bigger every year.  In 2022, the largest mound—possibly containing some 100,000 tons of discarded fabric–was set on fire, filling nearby towns with smoky, unhealthy air.

The problems created by fast fashion cannot be solved by individual shoppers.  We need to force the industry to change.  We can, for example, urge our lawmakers to enact more textile-recycling regulations wherever possible.

But there are things each one of us can do.  First, we should buy quality clothing that will last.  The key is sustainability.  Paying a few dollars more for a sustainable garment will go a long way toward solving these problems.  One American clothing company, Eileen Fisher, has taken responsibility for the full life-cycle of their clothes.  It has created Eileen Fisher Renew, which saves and repurposes its old clothing.  A director of the company states that “We will take them back, no matter the condition, and we’re going to [try to] figure out …the best thing to do with them.”  But the catch is that “you have to make a good product the first time.  You make something that hopefully lasts, and then you build the infrastructure and the systems to keep it lasting.”

Second, we can play a vital role as well.  As consumers of new clothes (when we need them), we should no longer patronize clothing manufacturers who emphasize speed.  Some of us are addicted to the cycle of buying new products quickly, then tossing them after wearing them for only a short time.  We need to break this cycle. If more of us can discipline our buying habits by adopting this new approach, we’ll help to stem the pollution currently created by the fashion industry.

My favorite attire? Comfy old clothes I plan to wear for a very long time.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Value of Friendship

Posted on January 27, 2026 | 1 comment


In Charlotte’s Web, E.B. White spoke for Charlotte when he wrote:

“You have been my friend.  That in itself is a tremendous thing.” 

I agree.

We’re constantly confronted by a host of troubling news stories, and as Americans, we should speak out against what’s wrong and stand up for what’s right.

But health researchers consistently advise us to put disturbing news stories aside when we can. They encourage us to focus instead on things that make us happy. These include staying in touch with our friends.  As geriatrician and author Dr. Kerry Burnight has noted, strong social connections can help people live longer in good health.  Burnight adds that we should even be “proactive” about maintaining and strengthening these bonds.

Consciously or not, I’ve chosen to maintain and strengthen the bonds of friendship.  I continue to make new friendships.  But I also choose to maintain and enhance my longstanding friendships.

I’m still in touch with friends I first encountered during my childhood.  I especially treasure a black-and-white photo my father took one summer day when I was seven.  My next-door neighbor Helene and I are holding hands outside our apartment building. We were best friends, living next door to each other until we were twelve, when my family moved away.

Astoundingly, Helene and I are still friends and talk now and then on the phone.  We have very little in common these days, other than growing older, but we still chat about our childhood memories and how lucky we are to have a lasting friendship for so many years.

I keep in touch with still others who go back almost as long. Childhood friends who shared our public elementary school, some in high school.  Friends from college and law school and a bunch of jobs, neighbors who are now other people’s neighbors, and even a former boss or two.

As Valentine’s Day approaches, I’m thinking about a friend who created a remarkable Valentine’s Day for me when we were in 6th grade.

I’ve written about this friend before. Today, when many of my friends have become seriously ill, his story reminds me how precious friendships really are.

My friend (I’ll call him Alan R.) grew up with me on the Far North Side of Chicago.  We were in a pack of friends who attended the nearby elementary school.  This was back when all of us walked to school, walked home for lunch, and walked back to school for the afternoon.

On the very coldest days, Daddy would drive me to school if he could.  Those days were different in another way, too.  Girl students, who otherwise were required to wear skirts or dresses to school, were granted a dispensation because of the sub-freezing weather.  We were allowed to wear something that would cover our legs.

I usually opted for blue jeans.  But wearing them was verboten during class time.  They could be worn only going to and from school.  So I would wear my jeans under a skirt, then remove the jeans and stash them in my locker.  I’m still angry that, in that benighted era, it was unthinkable for a female child to wear pants in school.  Thankfully, that rigid prohibition has largely disappeared.

I had a handsome “boyfriend” in 5th grade. (Although we thought of each other as “boyfriend” and “girlfriend,” we simply had a pre-teen crush on each other.)  My best friend Helene had a crush on my boyfriend, but I was the lucky girl who got the misshapen plastic pin he made when he went off to camp that summer.

By the fall, Alan R. had replaced him.

Alan was never one of the best-looking boys in our class.  He was tall for his age and somewhat awkward, and he tended to be rather stocky.  But he had a pleasant face and a pleasant way about him, and he became my 6th grade “boyfriend.”

In October, he invited a bunch of us to a Halloween party at his house.  Helene and I decided to don similar outfits—tight t-shirt tops and skinny black skirts.  We were trying to look like French “apache dancers.”  I wasn’t really sure what that meant, but I suspect that Helene’s savvy mother inspired us to choose that costume.  However it came about, we knew we looked terrific in our very cool garb.  We may have even added a beret to top it off.

Alan played the gracious host, and when the party wound down, he led us outside, and all of us paraded through the neighborhood, knocking on doors and yelling “trick or treat.”  It was a truly memorable Halloween.

I don’t clearly recall the next few months.  The days must have been filled with other parties, school events, and family outings.  But I definitely have a vivid memory of Valentine’s Day the following February.

When my classmates and I exchanged valentines, I discovered that Alan had given me two.  Not one.  Two.  And they weren’t the ordinary valentines you gave your friends.  These were store-bought pricier versions.  One was sentimental, flowery, and very sweet.  The other one was funny and made me laugh.

What inspired Alan to show his affection for me that way?  We were fond of each other, but I don’t remember choosing to give him a special valentine.

Looking back, I can’t help thinking about his decision to give me those two valentines.  Did he choose them by himself?  Did he have enough money in his pocket to pay for them?

As a mother, I also can’t help wondering what role his mother may have played.  Did she accompany him to the card store on Devon Avenue where we all bought our valentines?  Was she standing next to him when he chose his valentines, offering her advice?  Did she ever learn of this extravagance on his part?

I like to think that Alan came up with the idea and executed it all by himself.  He saved his money and walked alone to the store with the firm intention to buy a valentine for me.  When he saw the display in front of him, he couldn’t decide whether to show his affection with a flowery card or try to make me laugh with a funny one.

So he bought one of each and, head held high, gave me both of them.  I hope I responded in a way that pleased him.  I simply can’t remember.  But I know that his delightful gesture has remained with me ever since.

Sadly, those valentines disappeared when my mother one day scoured our house and tossed everything she considered inconsequential.  But they weren’t inconsequential to me.  I still remember the thrill of receiving not one but two valentines from Alan, my 6th-grade beau.

Everything changed in 7th grade.  A new school, new boyfriends, and new issues at home when my father’s health grew worrisome.  As always, life moved on.

I recently learned that Alan R. died a few years ago.  He and I had drifted apart long before, but his fondness for me during 6th grade never faded from my memory.

Did Alan’s flattering attentions give me the confidence to deal with some of the rocky times that lay ahead?  Teenage years can be tough.  Mine often were.  But his two-valentine tribute stayed with me forever.

Thanks, dear Alan, for being a warm and caring young person, even at the age of 12.  Although the rest of our lives have had their rough patches, the valentines you gave me in 6th grade have never been forgotten.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “True friends will leave footprints in your heart.”  Alan certainly left his footprints in mine.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scam City, USA

Posted on December 23, 2025 | 1 comment

December is a month when we should be reveling in the holidays and looking forward to a brilliant new year.

Let’s aim for that as our goal.  But, at the same time, we can’t ignore the dispiriting things in our daily lives.

I’ll put aside the current political scene for the moment and focus on another problem we’re faced with right now.

We’re all living in Scam City, USA.

If you haven’t been hit by a scam, or an attempted scam, you haven’t been living here in the past year or two. 

Scams have increasingly taken over the internet and our telephone lines.  I kept getting dire warnings about them from all sorts of reliable sources.  I’ll briefly review a few of them.

One batch of warnings landed in my mailbox (the real one).  A large nationwide bank sent me a 10-page booklet titled “Practical tips to help protect your money.”  It included two pages on scams and a refrigerator magnet with a phone number to contact the bank for help.  This bank must have had a whole lot of panicked customers for it to send pricey mailing like this one.

The New York Times recently highlighted our “holiday scam season.”  It noted “a new scam…, which lures victims to fake retail sites that are imitating well-known brands.  Scammers send emails that link to these sites, or they may appear on social media with realistic ads.  When you follow the links, however, you’ll land at a counterfeit but convincing site.”  The article quotes an expert who warns: “These sites look almost identical to legitimate retailers but exist solely to steal credit card information and personal data.” 

The Times adds: “Don’t click on embedded links.  Instead go directly to retailers’ websites…. And always use credit cards, which have stronger protections than many other payment methods.”

More warnings come from AARP, which consistently notes the persistence of fraud, often targeting older Americans.  It has made combating this “scourge” a top priority.  In a recent issue of the AARP Bulletin, it focused on a new scam that’s on the rise: “celebrity impostor scams.”  In these, criminals lure victims by setting up fake accounts and impersonating famous actors, authors, business icons, and other celebrities on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, and other social media sites. The criminals respond to a person’s social media posts, slowly establishing a predatory relationship that includes high-pressure asks for money, often in cryptocurrency.  

Experts say that A.I. tools increasingly help scammers create these persuasive celebrity photos and videos. One recent victim was initially skeptical but ultimately sent nearly $100,000 to the scammer before she caught on.  

Warnings appear everywhere, but even the most sophisticated person can become a victim.  Katha Pollitt, writing in The Nation, revealed that she had been scammed.  Someone impersonating an old classmate sent her an email and, “claiming that her credit card had been declined, asked me to send birthday gift cards to [a phony name],” a friend supposedly battling cancer.  Pollitt confesses that she ended up sending the phony name $250 in gift cards, even as she had doubts about it.  As soon as she clicked ‘send,’ she realized she’d made a mistake.  She tried emailing her classmate directly and learned that the classmate’s friends were “all being targeted by the same person—who promptly wrote to me requesting another $200!”

The FBI has pretty simple advice.  The best way to avoid scams like these is not to send money, gift cards, cryptocurrency, or any other assets to anyone you met only online or on the phone.

My wish for you this holiday season:  Stay sharp, follow the FBI’s advice, and be spared the agony of becoming a victim of heartless, ruthless scammers.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

LET’S BE THANKFUL           

Posted on November 27, 2025 | 2 comments

As we celebrate Thanksgiving, let’s take a moment to be thankful for our good luck.

With all of the stress in our lives right now, we need to take a deep breath and think about how lucky we are to live in the United States of America.

Yes, every one of us has problems and irritants and concerns about the future.  But if you take a few minutes to watch some or all of “The American Revolution,” the new documentary by Ken Burns and his colleagues, you’ll grasp just how grateful we should be to the Americans who fought and died during our revolution so we can live in the democratic republic we cherish.

The documentary presents the revolution in a whole new way.  As historian Maya Jasanoff comments, most of us have images of “men in wigs signing documents” in Philadelphia, but the reality is very different.  “We paper over the violence of the American revolution,” she notes, doing “a disservice to history and the people who lived through it.”  The reality is that “the United States came out of violence.”

I was startled to see this level of violence, depicted in countless scenes by talented artists.  Those loyal to the Brits, the “Loyalists,” fought hard to maintain their connection to the King.  The “Patriots,” fighting for independence from Britain, courageously and determinedly opposed the Loyalists.  Huge numbers of both Patriots and Loyalists were killed or wounded in combat, in brutal battles I don’t remember hearing about when my U.S. history classes “papered over” them.

The documentary highlights the role of women that is often forgotten to history.  On the battlefield, they worked to feed and clothe the armies.  At home, they ran businesses and farms.  And women like Abigail Adams recorded for history what they observed.

The series also reveals George Washington as a real human being, a brilliant general but one replete with flaws, making mistake after mistake as he led the Continental Army and the Patriots during eight bloody years.  His success at the end was hard-won.

Also honestly portrayed is the shameful treatment of the Native Americans whose land was torn from them, over and over.  Even those who fought with the Patriots were treated harshly.

Shameful too was the treatment of Black Americans.  Many sided with the Loyalists, believing the Brits’ assurances that they would be freed if the Brits won the war.  Others fought bravely with the Patriots.  But when the war was over, only some Black Americans gained their freedom. 

As the documentary points out, our revolution inspired people throughout the world to seek independence.  We were the first country to be ruled by “the people” instead of a monarch or a tyrant.  Our Declaration of Independence and its opening words, “We the People,” spurred others to replicate what we began.

Despite all of the violence and hardships Americans suffered during the revolution, when it ended they felt hope and confidence in the future.  In a country filled with diverse people, we were able to cohere around a set of purposes and ideas for one “common cause.”

Today, I’m hopeful that our currently polarized population will cohere again around one common cause, and we will return to the aspirational ideals of our revolution: The ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence—not merely the goal of independence but the goals of equality and liberty as well.  

Luckily for us, these ideals were later honored in our Constitution and its amendments. 

Thanksgiving Day reminds us all just how lucky we are.

2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A judicial hero

Posted on October 16, 2025 | 4 comments

As Marcel Proust has written, “Let us be grateful to people who make us happy.”  Today I’m grateful to a judge who has done much more than make me happy.  He has boldly stood in the way of the creeping authoritarianism in this country.  Because he has bravely noted the appalling defiance of our Constitution by the current White House, Judge William Young is a judicial hero who deserves our gratitude and our praise.

When I entered law school decades ago, the legal profession was highly admired, and I was excited to become part of it.  With a few exceptions, lawyers stood for truth and justice.  Our federal judges, especially US Supreme Court justices like Earl Warren, were revered.  They were prominent symbols of integrity and fairness.

Unfortunately, I no longer view most lawyers and judges with absolute esteem.  Too many lawyers are focused on the almighty dollar, willing to “bend the knee” for their personal financial gain.  Too many judges, including those who sit on the Supreme Court, are no longer viewed as fair-minded people dispensing equal justice.

But this year a judicial hero has emerged from the ranks of the hundreds of US federal district judges.  His decisions have stood out, highlighting the important role of the Constitution, a role too often ignored by the White House. 

Bill Young, appointed to the bench in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan, has a long career that includes a number of high-profile cases.  But, as The New York Times noted on June 18, Young “recently experienced what he viewed as a career first, and it didn’t sit well with him.”  He was dealing with two cases contesting cuts to research grants and programs administered by the National Institutes of Health.  The grants had been cancelled by the White House “to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and roll back transgender rights.” 

Bill Young decided to block these cuts.  He saw it as his duty to follow the Constitution, stating “I am hesitant to draw this conclusion, but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it: that this represents racial discrimination.”  During a hearing in May, he noted: “I have real concerns about even handedness here: …we’re talking about health care; I have concerns about Black Americans; I have concerns about women; I have concerns about legitimate gender issues having to do with health.”

In September, Bill Young presided over another lawsuit, where the most important issue was freedom of speech under the First Amendment.  The plaintiffs were student activists protesting their deportation, asserting that Rubio and Noem had misused their authority, targeting them for deportation even though the First Amendment protected political speech.  Young agreed with the activists that this government conduct had the goal of terrorizing anyone into silence, including non-citizens, simply because the White House didn’t like their views, thus chilling what is protected speech and thereby violating the First Amendment. 

Marc Elias is another one of my heroes.  Marc is a lawyer who has spent much of his career as a proponent of truth and justice and our currently fragile democracy.  Marc’s efforts include publishing Democracy Docket.  He has described his publication this way:  “I founded Democracy Docket in 2020, for moments exactly like this. Before we had a single subscriber, I envisioned a pro-democracy news outlet that would be the most authoritative voice on the most important cases facing democracy. I wanted it to cover the cases and the angles that legacy media so often overlook or apply a lens of both-sides journalism. What I’m most proud of is the hard work that Democracy Docket has been doing when few others were paying attention. … It’s this deep, committed coverage that sets Democracy Docket apart.”  

Marc’s publication noted Bill Young’s ruling on September 30, describing it as blasting “Trump’s full-throated assault on the First Amendment.”

As Marc wrote, “It can feel like we’re drowning under the incessant torrent of outrages launched by this administration, but every now and then, some true patriot throws us a lifeline.  

“This week, it was U.S. District Judge Bill Young, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, who published an extraordinary 161-page cri de coeur, ruling that the administration violated the First Amendment by targeting pro-Palestinian college students for deportation.”

Marc noted that Bill Young framed his decision “as a response to the anonymous sender of an ominous postcard to his chambers, which read, ‘Trump has pardons and tanks, what do you have?’“   Young’s response: “Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States — you and me — have our magnificent Constitution.”

Marc Elias added that Young’s ruling included a highly unusual 12-page assessment of the president that detailed how Trump routinely ignores the Constitution, laws, and regulations while governing but aggressively deploys the legal system against those who stand in his way. 

As The New York Times noted, Bill Young’s “frankness on the bench may not be unique among federal jurists, but it has been pronounced in recent months when Justice Department lawyers have at times struggled to rationalize policies the administration has relied on.” 

In my view, we’re lucky that Bill Young has “joined the ranks of other federal judges, including several Trump appointees, who have dealt a legal blow” to the current agenda.  His rulings will, of course, be appealed, and we have to hold our breath until the Supreme Court speaks. 

In the meantime, let us be grateful to judges like Bill Young who restore our faith in our judicial system, especially those judges who will unwaveringly follow the Constitution and protect the rights enshrined in that document.

4 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

My tribute to Robert Redford

Posted on September 20, 2025 | 2 comments

The stellar film actor, Robert Redford, died a few days ago.  He was not only a brilliant actor, but he also incorporated a set of values, embracing everything from the environment to independent filmmaking.  Since he died, a lot of people have been writing about him and his life’s work.  I wrote the following tribute to him in May 2019:

The Sundance Kid rides again!  Not on horseback but in a 1970s sedan.

In his most recent film (and perhaps his last), The Old Man and the Gun, Robert Redford plays a charming real-life bank robber.  Announcing his retirement from acting, he told Ruthe Stein of the San Francisco Chronicle that he chose the part because he identified with the bank robber’s rebellious spirit, and he wanted his last film to be “quirky and upbeat and fun.”

I have a special fondness for Redford that goes back to his role in his first memorable film, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  Redford has called it the “first real film experience I ever had” and “the most fun on any film I’ve had. It changed my life.”

When I saw the film in Chicago shortly after its release, I was struck by the performances of both Paul Newman (my perennial favorite) as Butch Cassidy and newcomer Redford as the Sundance Kid.

Unbeknown to me, there was a real live double of the Sundance Kid out there, waiting to meet me when I moved to LA a short time later:  my soon-to-be husband.  Once he added a mustache to his otherwise great looks, hisresemblance to Redford in that film was uncanny, and I dubbed him the Sundance Kid.  I evenacquired aposter of Redford in that role to affix to my office wall as a reminder of my new-found love.

The 1969 film, now fifty years old, holds up very well.  In perhaps its most memorable scene, the two leading men plunge from a cliff into roiling waters below, shouting a now more commonly accepted expletive for probably the first time in movie history.

Newman and Redford play leaders of the “Hole in the Wall Gang,” a group that robs banks, successfully for the most part, until robbing a train gets them into serious trouble.  They alienate Mr. E. H. Harrison of the Union Pacific Railroad, who hires special trackers who relentlessly follow Butch and Sundance.

An endearing scene takes place when the two men approach the home of Etta Place, Sundance’s wife.  News stories have alarmed Etta.  “The papers said they had you.  They said you were dead.”  Sundance’s first reaction: “Don’t make a big thing of it.”  He pauses and reflects.  Then he says, “No.  Make a big thing of it.”  And they enthusiastically embrace.

Redford’s brilliant career includes a large number of notable Hollywood films.  It’s easy for me to name some favorites:  Downhill Racer in 1969, The Candidate in 1972, The Way We Were and The Sting in 1973, All the President’s Men in 1974, The Natural in 1984, and Out of Africa in 1985.  (A few of these especially resonate with me.)  And in All is Lost, as recently as 2013, Redford shines as an older man on the verge of dying alone in troubled ocean waters. Outstanding performances, each and every one.

In recent years, as I became an active supporter of NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council), an entity vigorously working on behalf of the environment, I began hearing from Redford, who aligned himself with NRDC’s goals and requested additional donations.  I commend him for his strong support for protecting the future of our country and our planet.  His efforts on behalf of the environment seem even more critical now, as we face increasingly dire problems caused by climate change.

As for Redford’s movie career, my hope is that he chooses not to retire.  Most movie-goers would welcome seeing new films that include him, even in a small role.  In the meantime, I encourage every film buff to see The Old Man and the Gun.  Featuring a number of brief scenes from his earlier movies (plugged into the movie by director David Lowery), the film is a great reminder of a storied Hollywood career.  A career that began with the Sundance Kid.

I also wrote about Redford more recently.  In January of this year, I focused on his role in the remarkable film, “All the President’s Men.”  In that film, which highlighted the vast amount of wrongdoing by the Nixon administration, Redford assumed the role of journalist Bob Woodward, ferreting out what exactly happened in the Watergate scandal.  Here’s what I wrote in January 2025:

A few weeks ago, I plucked an old movie from my TV playlist and re-watched the 1976 award-winning film, “All the Presidents’ Men.”   I found it not only the riveting film I remembered but also a remarkably relevant film to watch right now. 

In this fast-moving story of two intrepid journalists working at The Washington Post in 1972, the media world at that time gradually became aware of what became known as “Watergate.”  Although President Richard Nixon had a commanding lead in the polls and was about to be reelected in a landslide in November 1972, his sense of insecurity and inferiority led him, along with his cronies, to sponsor abreak-in of Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate office building in June 1972.  The break-in was lessthan totally successful.  Moronic criminal-types made a couple of foolish errors that led to the detection of the break-in and their arrest by DC police.

At the Post, the two young journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, faced innumerable obstacles as they tried to ferret out the truth of exactly what had happened and why.  The story ultimately focused on WHO:  Who were the players in the Nixon administration who were pulling the strings behind the Watergate break-in? 

To see the whole story play out, you may want to watch the film yourself.  But whether you watch it or not, please keep in mind just how relevant it is today.

Watergate was only one of the “dirty tricks” Nixon and his cohorts employed to undermine his political opponents.  On January 20, a president demonstrably worse than Nixon was inaugurated.  After a campaign replete with disinformation, he has already begun to effect enormous change in our country.  More than ever, we need brave and intrepid journalists like Woodward and Bernstein to ferret out the truth behind any possible wrongdoing.

The role of The Washington Post is central in both eras.  In 1972, Woodward and Bernstein had to persuade their reluctant editor at The Post to support them as they pursued the truth.  He finally relented and allowed them to publish their findings.  But if they had faltered in the face of opposition, the truth may never have come out.

In 2025, journalists at The Post have taken a different route.  A popular columnist, Jennifer Rubin, loudly spoke out against her editors and her publisher, Jeff Bezos, whom she saw as kowtowing to the incoming administration.  She and her colleagues decided to quit working at The Post, proclaiming that it was no longer seeking the truth.  On January 20, she wrote:

“The American people certainly will not be front and center at Trump’s inauguration. It’s all about him and his billionaire cronies, including the media owners who have buckled to his will. ‘Big-name billionaires are lining up to strengthen their relationships with incoming President Donald Trump during next week’s inauguration festivities,” Forbes reported.  When you add in [others] whose combined wealth dwarfs many countries’ GDP’s—you get a vivid tableau of the new oligarchy. We usher into office today a government of, by, and for the billionaires.” 

Rubin and other like-minded journalists decided to create a new entity, The Contrarian.  Norm Eisen explained how it started:

“Jen and I agreed to launch [this] venture, rounding up…over two dozen contributors in a matter of days.  We kicked off with … Jen’s Post resignation letter. While we had high hopes, we never could’ve imagined what happened next. A quarter of a million subscribers poured in … And the engagement was through the roof, with over 1,000,000 views per day.” 

Rubin proclaimed that the new venture hoped to be “a…space where independence is non-negotiable. Here, you won’t find cozy alliances, half-measures, or false equivalences. We bend the knee to no one, vigorously challenge unchecked authority, and champion transparency and accountability.  In a nation awash with noise and growing disinformation, The Contrarian cuts through the static to deliver sharp, uncompromising insights…. Our loyalty is to … the truth, and to our democratic ideals—many of which are currently under threat.”

I’ve signed up to get The Contrarian delivered to my inbox.  I hope it will stick to its commitment to the truth.  But I haven’t given up on the “legacy media”–mainstream publications like The Washington Post, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the San Francisco Standard.  All of them still land in my inbox every day.  (I also watch TV news programming when it appears to report the news fairly.)  I think that all of these publications include at least a few brave journalists, like the now-legendary Woodward and Bernstein, still searching for the truth, still speaking out to report wrongdoing in DC or elsewhere. 

I’ll be watching to make sure they don’t falter, hoping that, despite editors and publishers who may stand in their way, they’ll continue to live up to their role as journalists and tell their readers the truth.

In closing, I’ll add these two thoughts:

  1. Robert Redford’s glorious film career will endure.  His legacy is certain to endure as long as the legacy of outstanding Hollywood films does.  He will also be remembered as an actor who embodied values we should all revere.
  • Let’s not forget one of his most important roles: that of a journalist committed to the truth.  And let’s enthusiastically support journalistic efforts by those who are equally committed to the truth.  It’s more important right now than it was at any time in our past.


2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,