For this week's consideration: Facebook and Russian meddling; gun deaths; overseas visitors; another pardon; United Nations; kindness simply put; "Rocket Man" and the Great Disparager; Ken Burns and Lynn Novick; the modern gerrymander.

Facebook and electioneering. Just what steps did the social media giant take/not take as it earned more than $100,000.00 from ads purchased by fake, Russian-linked accounts? “ 'It’s always a little problematic when you come before a committee and show them documents and then take them back,' said Sen. Mark R. Warner (Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'My hope is they will be more cooperative going forward.' ”  The Washington Post story continues, "Facebook...[announced] earlier this month that accounts traced to a shadowy Russian Internet company had purchased at least $100,000 in ads during the 2016 election season ."
    The obvious question for other nations: Can/will Facebook avoid these same maneuvers by foreign-based entities in other upcoming elections?

Deaths among the 1-17-year-olds in the US. The third leading cause of death is gun-related. Someone in that age group is very, very unlikely to be felled in a terrorist attack. Her/his front porch is undoubtedly more dangerous than strolling down the street in most foreign cities.

Student exchanges. Learning about America, yes. But just "what" is learned? For eight young German exchange students arriving in Denver, it was all about running into America's growing "nativist wall." One Coloradan writes,

remember[ing] that "[in] the 1920s, Colorado Gov. Clarence Morley won by loudly proclaiming his outright hostility to Italians and eastern Europeans, as well as Catholics, Jews and minorities in general. He called Catholicism a great heresy and insisted that immigrants would seduce our young with ideas about drinking wine and producing it in California (of all places). (emphasis added)  How different is that from President Trump’s characterization of Mexican immigrants today?

Another strange pardon? Most easterners have no clue about Cliven Bundy and his strange very western story from Nevada.  Link to my blog entry, published 9/26/2017. Why this pardon story?

Roger Stone, an on-and-off adviser of President Donald Trump, says he will be in Las Vegas this Friday to demand a pardon for rancher Cliven Bundy and his co-defendants, who are currently awaiting federal trial. Stone also made public appearances in July in Nevada to urge Trump to intervene in the Bundy case, which is centered on the 2014 standoff between armed Bundy supporters and federal employees attempting to round up the rancher’s illegally grazing cattle.

October. It is that time of year: at 10AM on Monday, 2 October, the US Supreme Court will begin its new session and, in mid-September,  (most) world leaders have gathered in NYC to meet/greet/speak at the United Nations, though, interestingly, the leaders of China and Russia chose not to attend.
     At the UN both the President and  Mrs. Trump spoke; he to the General Assembly and the First Lady to a luncheon she hosted for the leaders' spouses. (One wonders if Herr (Mr.) Merkel was invited?) Mrs. Trump's twin themes, anti-bullying and exemplary guidance for the future generation,  are laudable goals, though her remarks did raise eyebrows for obvious reasons.

Be kind. A sign in a local restaurant put it quite simply: "Be the kind of person your dog wants you to be."

Vietnam in 18 hours. Once again, Ken Burns has turned his talents to illuminating a defining period in American history. While Burns is well known, this Washington Post article acquaints readers with his co-producer, Ms. Lynn Novick, "the most important documentarian you've never heard of." The article makes the case that "[Burns] couldn’t have made the film without his longtime co-producer. And Novick isn’t just Burns’s partner on 'The Vietnam War.' She’s the person most responsible for making [it] ...the epic story of two nations, not just one....[Her] insight and insistence that the movie had to tell the stories of the people of Vietnam, both North and South, as well as of Americans." Her involvement is well worth reading about even if you have seen the entire program. 
     Even though I was in the USAF 1964-1974 (a major portion of the conflict) and am a student of American history and international relations, like many viewers I find myself saying, "Yes, but I didn't know that!" That and wondering about the others men I met during my time in-country, with whom I have lost contact.
     The program examines our involvement with a balanced, nuanced eye. One can only wonder, was this conflict a (the?) signal point in America's declining international influence?

Kim Jong Un, aka "Rocket Man." David Ignatius (and others) think there are other rational, less bombastic ways to deal with North Korea. Cornering the leader of an otherwise weak nation, one  with nuclear weapons, is probably not a wise course of action. "Somewhere in this maze of public statements — including Thursday’s announcement of new economic sanctions on North Korea — there’s a nuanced American policy. But the seeming binary options are weirdly reminiscent of the nuclear standoff of the Cold War, when the only choices seemed to be a conflict with massive loss of life — or surrender to the adversary’s demands....Back in 2003, China suspended oil deliveries for several days (blaming the problem on a supposed pipeline malfunction) and North Korea quickly began negotiations....To be cynically honest, we must recognize that sometimes it’s less costly to bribe an adversary than to go to war."
     Everyone has to be somehow "less than" President Trump and, usually. somehow just "off" a bit. Jong Un is a madman, but Trump is OK, even if he has threatened the DPRK with total destruction. Go figure. Incidentally, it may have been an African leader who first used the term "Rocket Man" to derisively characterize Jong Un. Apparently both leaders were unaware that "Rocket Man" sounds cool, like a comic book super hero.

The 21st century gerrymander. The title of this Washington Post story, "How Representatives Choose Their Constituents," seems a bit off, perhaps backwards. An upcoming re-redistricting  case from Wisconsin will be argued before the Supreme Court this term. It will assuredly be closely watched in all fifty states, by both parties. This is the sort of political minefield the Court  would rather not enter. However, modern technologies and extreme partisan politics seem to have forced the issue.

Thank you for reading. Fall has arrived; enjoy!