To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.
Tuesdays at 11:30 a.m. I talk with WGN-AM 720 host John Williams about what’s making news and likely to be grist for the PS mill. The WGN listen-live link is here.
Regular features of the Picayune Plus — Zmail, visual jokes and so on, will return next week. And there’s still time to vote in the conventional Quip of the Week poll!
Unpopular opinions?
The fatal shooting last Wednesday night in Washington, D.C., of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, employees of the Israeli Embassy, was a despicable act of terror, no question in my mind. But was it cowardly, as this quote in the Tribune headline says?
Sure, cowardice is widely considered a character flaw — an unwillingness to risk anything or forfeit anything in order to take action or accept responsibility.. The cowardice of Republican members of Congress when it comes to standing up against Donald Trump and for the conservative values they espoused for years and the words in that U.S. Constitution they carry around in their pockets — comes to mind.
So calling someone you despise — here Chicagoan Elias Rodriguez, the accused gunman — a coward feels satisfying. But it also rings false.
The ABC television network cancelled comedian Bill Maher’s late-night show “Politically Incorrect” in 2002 for just such an observation, as Newsweek reported:
(Guest panelist) conservative author Dinesh D'Souza … responded to President George W. Bush's contention that the terrorists responsible for the (9/11 attacks in the U.S.) were "cowards." D'Souza disagreed. "One of the themes we hear constantly is that the people who did this are cowards," explained D'Souza. "Not true. You have a whole bunch of guys who were willing to give their life. None of 'em backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete."
Maher agreed with D'Souza's point, and what he said next unleashed the firestorm that would end his show. "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away," Maher said. "That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building—say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
I wouldn’t use the word “cowardly” to describe any act of combat or war that doesn’t involve direct, immediate personal risk, but I took Maher’s point. Of all the adjectives to apply to those willing to give their lives for a cause — no matter how odious the cause or repellent the tactics — “cowardly” seems both inaccurate and weak.
Maher followed up with a statement, “In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong," but advertisers deserted him and then, so , quickly, did the network.
Last week’s result
Reader comments:
Mark K. — I agree with two of the options: Yes, we should acknowledge and learn from the experience. It feels his true condition was hushed and kept from the public and he should never had planned to run for reelection. I'm slowly coming around on the idea of age limits for holding political office, even as they seem arbitrary. But the top option is also true and is more relevant — the current person in charge of the country is obviously not only demented, but unlike Biden is cruel, incompetent, and vile in every conceivable way and is actively causing great harm to the country right as we speak! So yes, let's make a note that we've been misled by "our side" and keep that in mind in the future, but let's quickly move on and focus on the unfolding catastrophe at hand.
Phillip Seeberg —-I guess the Democrats who don’t want to accept the Biden was unfit for a second term may be remembering when Al Franken was sacrificed and the thinking was (maybe) that it would give them moral high ground on morality questions. But that didn’t seem to get them any votes, so they probably think now, “what’s the upside of admitting anything?”
Beth Bales — Biden was frequently not in touch with reality. I find it astonishing that so many people aren't bothered by the obvious cover-up by Biden aides and the media. Apparently, "orange man bad" was enough for reporters, editors, etc., to ignore what was right in front of their noses in honor of the greater (to their minds) good. Why aren't more people enraged about this coverup and now what I'm fairly certain is another cover-up of his cancer? What wasn't the 25th Amendment invoked? And -- most important -- who was actually running the country? So many people talk about Trump being a threat to democracy (and I'm not a Trump fan) but Biden actually was!
David Leitschuh — Biden's cognitive impairment was on very clear display throughout his presidency with him repeatedly freezing up and unable to complete a thought or slurring his words to the point of being incoherent. He often got lost in a public setting, not knowing which way to go and often attempting to shake hands when there was no one in the vicinity. As in is often the case, his mental decline was also accompanied by physical decline with him repeatedly stumbling about, walking on steadily and falling. His limited schedule was continually reduced with very few events, and virtually nothing scheduled in the evening hours. His lack of press conferences with unscripted questions was historic. Although the liberal mainstream media did everything possible not to feature this in videos or reporting, video of it was readily available for anyone who wanted to see it. Give a listen to the recently released audio of the Hur interview and you will hear a man who cannot remember what dates he was vice president nor even the year he was actually inaugurated as president, which is then clarified for him by an aide. Biden's serious cognitive decline is unarguable, and now we are learning that it is very likely his serious cancer diagnosis was similarly concealed from the public. Trump, in stark contrast, is maintaining an incredibly full schedule day after day which would be challenging for me when I was half his age. Yes, he does tend to ramble and that is just part of his style. But on an almost daily basis he opens himself up to questions, usually very challenging questions from reporters and gives them straightforward answers without any preparation.
Mike Koetting — The poll options don’t come close topaddressing the complexity of the situation.
1. Biden was in fact doing a first rate job as president.
2. There is no easy mechanism for pulling the plug on a sitting president.
3. Polls showed voters overwhelmingly thought Biden was too old...but didn't provide even a hint as to what they wanted instead.
4. Realistically, to have anything but anointing Harris would have required starting in 2022, when Biden was still rolling pretty well. (Putting together serious presidential campaigns is a long and expensive slog.) Having missed this cut off, D's were in a pickle.
5. Particularly since there was no general voter enthusiasm for Harris and a real fear of alienating Black women who have replaced union members as the absolute core of the party.
I conclude:
A. Biden was doing well enough to not feel a need to break the glass, particularly in the early part of the term. Different from "doing fine" but maybe good enough to be sympathetic to why people let it slide...particularly given the difficulty of doing anything else.
B. It is the past. Focus on Trump. But that doesn't undo the mess...and we count on Republicans to be claiming this as the cause of everything that goes wrong...so it's a little hard to ignore.
C. Not clear what is the lesson to be learned...but when someone figures that out, we should learn it.
This occasional Tuesday feature is intended to highlight opinions that are defensible but may well be unpopular. If you have one to add, leave it in comments or send me an email, but be sure to offer at least a paragraph in defense of your view.
NewsWheel
Inspired by the WordWheel puzzle in the Monday-Friday Chicago Tribune and other papers, this puzzle asks you to identify the missing letter that will make a word or words — possibly proper nouns; reading either clockwise or counterclockwise — related to a story in the news or other current event. The answer is at the bottom of the newsletter.
Thanks to paid subscribers for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.
Info
Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Paid subscribers receive each Picayune Plus in their email inbox each Tuesday, are part of our civil and productive commenting community and enjoy the sublime satisfaction of supporting this enterprise.
Contact
You can email me at ericzorn@gmail.com or by clicking here:
I read all the messages that come in, but I do most of my interacting with readers in the comments section beneath each issue.
Some of those letters I reprint and respond to in the Z-mail section of Tuesday’s Picayune Plus, which is delivered to paid subscribers and available to all readers later Tuesday. Check there for responses.
If you don’t want me to use the full name on your email or your comments, let me know how you’d like to be identified.
Social media
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ejzorn
Twitter: https://x.com/EricZorn
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@ejzorn
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ejzorn/
Help?
If you’re having troubles with Substack — delivery, billing and so forth — first try “Picayune Sentinel Substack help, Frequently Asked Questions.” If that doesn’t work check out the Substack help page. And if that doesn’t work, shoot me an email and I’ll be happy to help.
Answer to the NewsWheel puzzle
MEMECOIN (also written MEME COIN)
I remember Maher's comments about 9/11 attackers and the fallout they caused. I agree with that he was technically correct, but I feel his focus was too narrow. It's incorrect to call the individuals carrying out the attack cowardly, in the same way that berserkers - legendary Norse warriors who fought furiously in a crazed state of drug-induced frenzy - were not cowardly. But Maher should have added that the people organizing and financing the attack from afar, the ones spreading hateful ideology and brainwashing followers into committing senseless violence, they were and are most definitely cowardly. Similarly with the murders of the Israeli embassy workers, the people engaging in stochastic terrorism by spreading hateful ideology and calling for or at least approving violence from behind a computer or TV screen are indeed cowardly, even if the person carrying out the act wasn't.
The attacks weren't cowardly because the perpetrator lacked personal courage. They were cowardly because they were carried out against a foe that was unarmed, unaware, and unprotected. It doesn't matter how much personal risk the attacker might might take. If the target is completely vulnerable, it's an active cowardice. Would you say gunman who entered a grade school and slaughtered 7-year-olds was not a coward, because he was then was shot by police?