Total Pageviews

Friday, October 20, 2017

What Did the Lions Eat on Noah’s Ark?

Noah had no idea how old he really was but since he was certainly the oldest person he knew it sometimes seemed like he must be six hundred, so that’s what he claimed as his age.  Eventually he’d really come to believe that number.  It’s what he told his eventual biographer.

When the bad dreams started coming, the ones about God Almighty destroying the world with a great flood and construction of a great ark, he didn’t want to believe it at first, but God in those dreams was very angry and very insistent, so Noah, terrified, had done what he was told.  The dreams contained detailed instructions, hazily remembered as most dreams are, and he’d had to fill in the blanks creatively.  But now, amazingly, the ark was more or less built—it had taken forever to figure out what a “cubit” was—and things seemed to be progressing better than expected.  That was good because the weather was changing and ominous clouds presaged ugly storms approaching like troopers. 

But this morning Noah was startled by a deputation of family members, come to him in a body, obviously bearing a prepared message.  Seth, his oldest, was the leader, but his other sons, Ham and Japheth, were at his side, and their wives and the oldest of the children made up the rest of the pack.

Seth spoke.  “Dad, we’ve been talking and I’m afraid we have to face the fact that this whole venture is a failure.  It’s time to admit that while we tried, we should throw it all up and go back to working the farm while there’s still time to get in a harvest.”

Noah was astounded.  The family had never questioned him before—well, okay, they’d made sure he was sober when he first described the whole venture, but then his descriptions of God’s wrath and the coming deluge had set them to working like a dedicated ant colony.

In a voice that betrayed nothing of his advanced age, Noah thundered, “WHAT DO YOU MEAN?”

Seth, stepping back slightly but determined to explain, persevered.  “We just can’t make this ark thing work!  Sure, we went out and gathered all the animals we could capture, but lots of others we simply couldn’t find, and the ones that we did corral aren’t all of childbearing age.  We’re supposed to have seven couples of clean animals and two couples of unclean animals, and, well, we just don’t have anything like those numbers.”

Noah pointed at the temporary zoo area where the animals were housed.  ‘THERE THEY ARE!”

Ham jumped in.  ‘No, Dad, they’re not!  Sure, yeah, we’ve got enough of the domestic animals, but the wild ones . . . not a chance!  Take the giraffes.  They’re a clean animal so we should have seven pairs, fourteen in all.  But have you ever captured and then herded fourteen giraffes?  And dragged them back here all the way from Africa?  Well what we have left is seven of them, not fourteen, and those seven consist of six males and one female.  Nobody in the giraffe pen is a happy camper.”

Seth added, “And there are so many species we don’t have any of, much less the required number.  What will God think about that?”

Noah paused, considering.  Hmm.  “Well . . . well, God will provide . . . I suppose.  Don’t worry, guys.  Species go extinct all the time.  Let’s just forget about the dinosaurs, okay?  Ugh!  Who needs them?”

“Fine,” ventured Japheth, “but what about food?  Right now we’re having trouble feeding our menagerie, and once we’ve packed everybody into the ark things will be ten times worse.  We simply don’t have room for the provisions we’ll need if we’re stuck on board for more than a day or two.  After that the animals will have to be fed to one another, defeating the whole purpose.”

“Start with the lions,” Ham ventured.  “They eat lots of meat, and that meat consists of the other passengers, including us if other sources dry up.  It’s the same with all the carnivores.”

“God will provide,” Noah mumbled again, eyes closed, trying not think about it.

“Not good enough, Father Noah,” insisted one of the wives, the one with the big mouth.  “We need answers before we climb onto that floating leaky shack!”

Hey!” ejaculated Ham, proud of his prowess as a carpenter.  “None of us know how to steer it, but I’m damned sure it won’t sink . . . as long as we don’t hit a mountain or anything.”

Seth jumped back into the fray with, “And, Dad, even if we make it through this big storm you say is coming and offload the animals, what then?  How could they all possibly thrive?”

“What do you mean,” asked Noah, sick of these questions.

“Well, for example, what will the lions eat on their first day free?  And the other carnivores?  Whole species will be gobbled up before they can propagate!”

Noah raised his hands.  “Stop, stop!  Enough thinking!  GOD WILL PROVIDE, I told you.  No more questions!”

As if on cue came a tremendous thunderclap and rain began pouring.  Everyone scrambled and frantically began loading animals onto the ark, which swayed dramatically in a rising wind.

Genesis/ Chapter 6
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. . . .
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Noah's Ark as recreated in Kentucky

Related Posts:

“A Guide to the Best of My Blog,” April 29, 2013;

“Creating the Bible: Water Into Wine,” April 7, 2013;

“Pious Ejaculations and the Flying Spaghetti Monster,” May 30, 2107,

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Changing My Name Late In Life: “Doug” to “Douglas”

I have a friend who in his late 50s (and for professional reasons) completely changed his name, both first and last.  This transformation caused some serious confusions for him, but he is now happy with his new name, and finds, I’m sure, a certain satisfaction in having chosen for himself the name by which he is identified in the world.  The rest of us have to live with (or battle or pervert) the name assigned to us without our consent by doubtless well-meaning parents.

My given name is “Douglas John Whaley” and I’ve always been happy with it.  The middle name of “John” is in honor of my paternal grandfather, John Alvin Whaley (and I carried on that tradition when my son was born by giving him the middle name of my father).

When I was a child almost no one called me “Douglas” with the sometimes exception of  my mother when annoyed with me, as in “Douglas John, come here at once!”  Everyone addressed me as “Doug” and that has continued until quite recently.  There was an occasional use of the much-hated “Dougie,” which causes me to snarl, teeth exposed, allowed only to a couple of very close female friends from whom I grudgingly accepted “Dougie” on rare occasions if said teasingly with loving affection.

However, about five years ago—probably after a drink or two---it occurred to me that I’ve never really liked being identified as “Doug.”  Considered as a word alone “Doug” has no music, no romance, to it.  It’s a rather abrupt noise, rhyming (as I’ve learned to my dismay since kindergarten) with a lot of ugly words like “bug, chug, drug, glug, lug, mug, pug, plug, slug, and thug.”

Saying “Doug” aloud to hear it’s timbre it suddenly struck me that “Doug”---particularly when intoned in a bass voice—sounds like the last thing a dying frog would gasp before falling off the lily pad.

“Douglas,” by happy comparison, is a fine old Scottish name, and my paternal grandmother (John”s wife) was Mary Frances Ferguson, truly of Scottish descent.  It is a name I can by rights claim.  “Douglas,” let’s all agree, has a particularly noble sound.  Some quite famous people have happily borne the name: Douglas Adams, Douglas Fairbanks, Douglas MacArthur, etc.  “Douglas” is easy to spell and pronounce, and, happily, there are not that many of us in the world.  If someone’s name is, for example, “David” or “Jose” or “Kevin” he is going to encounter identification snarls that a “Douglas” doesn’t usually face.  In a crowded public space like an airport if someone calls out “David” heads will turn all over the room.  But no one ever calls out “Douglas” and even the occasional “Doug” is quite rare as a summons.

Thus, starting in late 2012, I started introducing myself to new people as “Douglas” and all of those friends now call me that.  I met my husband in January of 2013 and he uses “Douglas” even though he now routinely hears my family and old friends call me “Doug.”  I cannot tell you how much that pleases me.  I love David Vargo for many reasons, but that’s certainly one of them.


Of course I don’t expect all the hundreds of people who already know me as “Doug” to suddenly switch to “Douglas.”  Old habits are hard to change, and why should they?  Some of them, hearing my little spiel about why I don’t much like “Doug” (always mentioning the dying frog) have kindly switched to using “Douglas,” and I thank them for that effort.  If you are one of my friends feel free, without obligation, to make the switch.

I am annoyed when total strangers to whom I’ve just given my name as “Douglas Whaley” instantly call me “Doug.”  How dare they presume I go by that nickname?  I don’t (I hope) show my annoyance, but it’s there inside me.  I wonder if “James” is sanguine about being called “Jim” by strangers, or “Robert” “Bob” or “Elizabeth” “Betty.”  If I were employed as an agent to talk to customers I'd never presume to shorten their name to the diminutive without at least checking first to make sure it would be welcome.

So, late in life, I’ve reclaimed my true name, the one my birth certificate.  It’s probably a strange thing to have done, but, what the hell, I feel really good about it.  Your Douglas has certainly done stranger things, as this blog attests. 


Have a good day, my reader, whatever you call yourself.

Related Posts:

“A Guide to the Best of My Blog,” April 29, 2013;  

“My Missing Grandmother,” December 26 2012;

“Naming Your Baby?  Some Mistakes to Avoid,” May 30, 2012;

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Must a Baker Create a Cake for a Gay Wedding? What Will the Supreme Court Likely Say?

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear this term the case of a Christian baker who violated Colorado’s non-discrimination law (which, among other things, forbids discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation) by refusing make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.  The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and it has generated furious debate.  Around 80 briefs arguing for both sides have been filed so far with the Court. The Trump administration caused much comment when it filed a brief backing the baker’s right to discriminate against gays.

Jack Phillips

The facts are clear.  The baker, Jack Phillips, is a devout Christian who has in the past refused to make cakes for various events that are in conflict with his deep faith: ones for Halloween, cakes with adult themes, cakes containing alcohol, etc.  His appearances on various shows like “The View”  [] make it clear that he’s a nice guy, proud of his craft, and very committed to his religion which believes that homosexual marriage is in violation of biblical precepts.  Mr. Phillips is perfectly willing to sell gay customers his other fare: cupcakes, cookies, etc., but balks at participating in an activity he believes is sinful.  Hence, goes the argument, he is not discriminating against gays, only against gay weddings.

The Gay Couple in the Case

How will this likely be decided by the Supreme Court (which will hear arguments this term and hand down a decision by the end of June)?  As is usual in controversial liberal/conservative cases everything turns on the opinion of one Justice: Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote between the four liberals and the four conservatives.  Justice Kennedy has been terrific in gay cases, including the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which gave gays the right to marry.  In fact Kennedy was the author of the majority opinions in the five major gay rights cases deciding by the Court in recent years.

[Justice Anthony Kennedy is seated second from the left]

In Obergefell Kennedy discussed religious objections to gay rights, and his language can be read to aid both sides in the new case:

Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises . . . .  Many who adhere to these doctrines may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.  But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

So perhaps it looks good for the gay couple in the new case, but not so fast.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2014, the Court’s five person majority (all males and all Catholics) including Justice Kennedy (and over the vigorous dissent of the four liberals) decided that a corporation like Hobby Lobby—the stock of which is owned by a very religious family—is protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause and thus could use religious beliefs to object to funding family-planning coverage for its employees mandated by federal law.  Corporations are thus now “people” too and religious corporations go to church just like other U.S. citizens!

The Hobby Lobby decision opened the door to the argument that people (including corporate “people”) have a right to discriminate against anything or anyone that violates their religious beliefs.  I’m no constitutional law scholar (my field is commercial law), but it will be interesting to see how Kennedy balances religious freedom and gay marriage in this case.  There is even a freedom of speech issue: cake-creation is an artistic statement.  Note that Phillips calls his business "Masterpiece Cakeshop."  Can Colorado’s law force a baker to use his talents to design and sculpt a cake that will add his talented abilities to the supposed sin of gay marriage?

If the Court says no so that Phillips wins, a slippery slope argument leads down other icy paths. Would a pro-baker decision require other religious exemptions such as allowing a Muslim-run organization to refuse employment to Jews since the Quran entombs hatred of the Jews as a basic Islamic tenet?  Might the Court compromise by saying that gays can always get a cake elsewhere, so Phillips wins, but were he the only baker in one hundred miles he would then have to make the cake?

It gets more complicated.  How in the world do we judge the sincerity of religious belief?  Must there be a history of such a belief, as Mr. Phillips clearly has, or can newly-acquired belief be enough?  

What will be the legal standard for something as amorphous as devout conviction?  Can someone who hates gays but who has never been religious suddenly turn away homosexuals from their pizza shop by deciding to be Christian after all and then point to the biblical verses condemning homosexuality?  [See Related Posts below.]

There’s more.  The religious views might be devout, true, and extreme: “Women are all unclean so at our company we only hire men!”  Sadly, this country has a sordid history of discrimination against all sorts of people thought to be lesser human beings.

If the Court sides with the baker in this case it will then spend decades deciding ugly cases in which these fact patterns will be presented.

I’m a gay man, quite liberal, an atheist, and someone with small patience for the argument that a religious belief should justify discrimination based on irrelevant factors such as race, sex, national origin, etc.  But I also am a firm believer in freedom of religion and freedom of expression.  The arguments in favor of Mr. Phillips are not flimsy, and the Court’s decision . . . well, Kennedy’s decision . . . could go either way.  It will be very tempting to rule that religion trumps gay marriage, and perhaps that’s the most likely result.

But it’s my own opinion that the better answer is to say that if someone is going to enter the business world and offer services to the public discrimination is not allowed, not even for religious reasons deeply felt.  If someone’s religion commands discrimination against customers to whom the door must be closed simply because they are black, female, born in Mexico, or gay, then that person should choose an occupation where the issue won’t arise (writing novels, playing sports, writing code, etc.).  In the United States at least the market place should be open to everyone. 


Related Posts:

“Is It Legal To Discriminate Against Gay People?” March 19, 2014;

"Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality and Gay Marriage?" June 29, 2014;

"Five Judges Have Stopped All Further Progress on Gay Civil Rights Legislation," August 18, 2014;

Married at Last! A Gay Lawyer Looks at What the Supreme Court Actually Said About Same-Sex Marriage,” June 30, 2015;

“Discrimination in the Name of Religion: Methodists, Religious Freedom Laws, and What’s Right,” May 31, 2016,

Monday, August 28, 2017

Chaos in the Country: Eight Months of Trump’s Presidency

From the time he announced he was running for the presidency in 2016 (“Mexicans are rapists”) until last night’s news broadcast (and by that I mean last night whatever night that would be when you read this—they’re a predictable steady horror stream) Donald Trump has convincingly proven himself totally and completely incapable of possessing even minimal competency for his job.

Of course we all suspected as much, even if we hoped we’d be wrong.  DJT was never anything other than a sometimes rich (and sometimes bankrupt) TV personality, whose history shows he has the attention span of a child, the ego of Mussolini [see], the morals of Caligula, and the self-control of an angry chimpanzee. 

[Click to enlarge]
When he first entered into the race I was rewriting my textbook “Problems and Materials on Consumer Law” (8th edition), and had decided to reprint a judicial opinion finding that Trump University was committing fraud in selling worthless financial advice to his most faithful followers (a really despicable thing to do).  The book went to press before Trump won the election, and I’m not sure what I’d have done if I’d have foreseen (which I did not) he would actually win.  But there it is: our new president found liable for deceiving thousands of people and absolutely ruining many of their lives.  I’ve written about this before (see Related Posts below).  Trump, once in office, promptly settled the three class action lawsuits against him for $25 million dollars, hardly the tactic of someone innocent of the ugly fraud with which he was charged.  The sleaziness and criminality of Trump University alone should have kept him from winning the highest office in the land, but, like many of his numerous scandals, nothing came of it.  Now this lowlife is our president.

The voters who chose him didn’t care about his sleazy past.  “Time for a change,” “Anyone but Hillary,” etc. were the slogans that energized his base.  One suspects—particularly in light of recent events in Charlottesville—that the real message was “No president should be elected who is negro, female, Jewish, gay, atheist, or liberal,” and “White conservative males only—preferably bigots.”

Trump has certainly met those expectations, and that is what is causing a crisis only eight months into his presidency. 

Crisis?  Yes.  Responsible people are very disturbed by what Trump is doing or threatening to do.  I suspect that even most Republicans are very uncomfortable with his antics and would do almost anything to replace him if only that were possible.  They should be embarrassed by the clown the Republican Party has put in charge of our precious country.

Might Trump actually start a nuclear war?  Oh, yes.  He’s “locked and loaded,” even anxious to show the world what he can do if provoked (which happens daily).  Most people think there are checks and balances that would make such a decision require consensus among governmental officials, but that’s wrong.  The whole system these days is set up for “rapid response,” and it’s totally up to the president to choose that response.  Under relevant law Donald Trump is the only person who can launch the nuclear bombs.  He is required to consult with two military officers, but they cannot change or interfere with his ultimate decision to bomb or not to bomb.  

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recently explained “In a fit of pique, [if] he decides to do something about Kim Jong Un, there’s actually very little to stop him . . . The whole system is built to ensure rapid response if necessary. So there’s very little in the way of controls over exercising a nuclear option, which is pretty damn scary.”

In February at Mar-A-Lago The Donald thought it fun to have a photo taken of a guest and the military aide who carries the nuclear football.  I have worried in prior posts that perhaps late at night, in between tweets, bored but still awake, our sleepless president sometimes gets out that device and explores how easy it would be to wipe out, say, North Korea.  Or Iran.  Or CNN.

The Nuclear Football 

David Remnick, the editor of New Yorker Magazine wrote a column in the August 28, 2017 issue in which he penned the following paragraph:

When Trump was elected, there were those who considered his history and insisted that this was a kind of national emergency, and that to normalize this Presidency was a dangerous illusion.  At the same time there were those who, in the spirit of patience and national comity, held that Trump was “Our President,” and that “he must be given a chance.”  Has he had enough of a chance yet?  After his press conference in the lobby of Trump Tower last Tuesday, when he ignored the scripted attempts to regulate his impulses and revealed his true allegiances, there can be no doubt about who he is.  This is the inescapable fact: on November 9th, the United States elected a dishonest, inept, unbalanced, and immoral human being as its President and Commander in Chief.  Trump has daily proven unyielding to appeals of decency, unity, moderation, or fact.  He is willing to imperil the civil peace and the social fabric of his country simply to satisfy his narcissism and to excite the worst inclinations of his core followers.

Perhaps worst of all is that Donald’s presidency has loosed the hounds of hate, most notably in his quasi-praise of the actions of the instigators of the Charlottesville riot.  Sure, he was made to read a clarifying statement that he condemned the KKK and white supremacists, but he did so with all the enthusiasm of small boy forced by his parents to apologize to a neighbor’s kid he beat up.  When off the leash the next day at the Trump Tower our president happily went back to his original effusive blessing of those who started the riots, saying there were “good people” mixed in with bad ones carrying Nazi flags and chanting things like “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil” (an old Nazi phrase celebrating racial purity).

I was in law school when Martin Luther King was assassinated in April of 1968 and I moved that summer to Chicago just in time for riots that had the city (and many others) reeling with blood in the streets and burned buildings.  Is that what’s coming next?  Again?  Is this what our president is cheering on?

Tribalism.  The word of the day.  An apt word because we are truly now dividing into tribes, and in 2017 we are no longer listening to the same sources of information, making dialogue impossible. 

My husband and I recently watched the astounding documentary “The Brainwashing of My Dad” (available on Amazon Prime and as a DVD) in which a woman explores why her father, a once liberal man became a raging bigot when he started watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh each day.  When he was weaned away from this and began viewing normal new channels he was himself amazed at the lies he’d routinely been fed and foolishly believed.  The documentary details those lies and how cleverly far right news sources brazenly push them out there as unassailable truths.

[Click to enlarge]

Conversely, if all you watch is MSNBC you will get only the message of the left, an attitude with which I am more sympathetic though I never watch that channel.  Why not?  Because I don’t want to hear only what I already agree with.  I want to know what’s going on without a slant to it.  That way I can make up my own mind.  All news has some sort of slant, but I want those that are at least striving to stay objective.

Republicans don’t have a happy history in the last 100 years of playing fair with minorities, having a particular problem with African-Americans.  Trump pretends otherwise, but he is one with those who would keep blacks in their place were it left to him alone.  Trump is big on purging “voter fraud,” code words meaning that far too many people of the wrong color are voting for Democrats.  Next he suddenly sympathizes with those who want to protect statues erected to honor traitors who led a war against the United States government, a war fought over the right to own slaves.  [Every state that seceded from the Union as Lincoln took office declared in its statement of secession that its primary reason for leaving was to keep slavery firmly in place or to protect “slave-owning” states; see]  Trump himself was sued for racial discrimination when he rented out housing early in his career.

However Trump doesn’t care deeply about these or any particular issues.  Their chief value is in keeping him firmly in the public eye.  Nor does he bother over the wisdom of any of his decisions.  What matters is that people are saying the word “Trump” over and over on a daily basis.  He squirms in ecstacy with the constant attention.  But he will stifle criticism as viciously as any tyrant in history and is annoyed he doesn’t have their power (yet) to use police force to do so.

So now what?  With a crazy leader urging on the demons all around are we destined for the collapse of the United States of America?  It’s frighteningly possible, a thought I’ve never had before.  My husband nightly says “someone should do something.”  Yes, but just who is that “someone” and just what could they do?  There is—damn it—no mechanism in place for removal of a president whose only offence is wildly bad judgment and slapdash stupidity.

Our system of government presumes that the person at the helm will try to keep the ship on course.  How do we, or the passengers on any ship, deal with a captain who thinks spinning the wheel first one way and then the other is a fun thing to do?

I’ve written before about the difficulties of impeachment, and with using the 25th Amendment’s power allowing the vice president to take over if the president is deemed crazy.  Both of those seem improbable at this state of things, but who knows . . . maybe that will change next week.

And if in the meantime the bombs go off, which is eerily possible at any time now, that will certainly solve the Trump problem.  Good luck to those who happen to survive that solution.

Okay.  Enough of this.  Time for me to publish this post, fix the Whaley martini, put my feet up, pet the first cat that climbs into my lap, and tell my hubby I love him.

Related Posts:

“Comparing Donald Trump to a Badly Infected Big Toe,” August 3, 2016,

“Trump University: A Fraudster for President”? March 10, 2016;

“President Preposterous: Donald Takes the Helm,” November 14, 2016;

“Calm Yourself: What Trump Can and Cannot Do About LGBT Rights,” November 16, 2016;

“Careful What You Wish For: Making Trump an Illegitimate President,” January 20, 2017;

“Fake News You Might Like to Read,” February 17, 2017;

Embracing Michael Pence’s Coming Presidency,” February 28, 2017;

“Is Trump Clinically Insane?  The Goldwater Rule Revisited,” June 29, 2017;

“Impeaching Donald Trump:  A Lawyer Looks at the Legal Issues,” August 16, 2017;