Back To The Blog: It's The Donald

Issue dated October 12, 2015


I've been away from the blog for a few weeks and I'm happy to say that after a couple of days in the hospital, a couple of weeks at a skilled nursing facility and a few days at home moving around with a cane, I'm the proud owner/user of a new left hip. Has anything been happening while I was away from the blog? Yes, oh yes.

I've been figuring we'd get a People cover featuring The Donald and here it is. According to the teaser article at people.com, wife Melania and son Barron are already planning their move to the White House, with Melania reassuring Barron that although he'll miss his friends, his father will be able to "help children like him" and it's all good. (I have to ask: how much help do the children of billionaires really need?)

There's a Duggar story too, ick, ick, ICK!! The fact that some presumably rational advertisers think there's an approving market for more television shows about this wretched family makes me want to scream, scream, SCREAM!! Please, make it stop.

There's also news in the political world, specifically, two GOP presidential candidates, Rick Perry and wow, Scott Walker, have officially dropped out. For months pundit after pundit has had Walker in their top 3, but apparently he just wasn't ready for prime time and couldn't perform at the national/presidential level. I'm updating my lists and in honor of The Donald, I'm going to call the new list of withdrawn candidates the "You're Fired!" list. Here goes:

Declared (and still in the race) GOP Candidates, in order of their official announcement

1. Ted Cruz (March 23) 
2. Rand Paul (April 7)
3. Marco Rubio (April 14)
4. Dr. Ben Carson (May 3) 
5. Carly Fiorina (May 4) 
6. Mike Huckabee (May 5) 
7. Rick Santorum (May 27)
8. George Pataki (May 28)
9. Lindsey Graham (June 1) 
10. Jeb Bush (June 15)
11. Donald Trump (June 16) 
12. Bobby Jindal (June 24) 
13. Chris Christie (June 30)
14. John Kasich (July 21) 
15. Jim Gilmore (July 30) 

Officially Not Running
Rob Portman (Dec 2)
Paul Ryan (Jan 12)
Mitt Romney (Jan 30)
Rick Snyder (May 7)
John Bolton (May 14) 

Mike Pence (May 20) 

Bob Ehrlich (August 4)

You're Fired!: Candidates Who Have Dropped Out

Rick Perry (June 4 - Sept. 11)
Scott Walker (July 13 - Sept. 21)

Days until Election Day: 404

The Secretary Of Energy

Sunday afternoon update: Moniz's predecessor as Secretary of Energy was Steven Chu, who has a Ph.D in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. His predecessor was Samuel Bodman, who has a Doctorate of Science in Chemical Engineering from M.I.T. 

Original Post: 
The current Secretary of Energy is Dr. Ernest Moniz. He has a Doctorate in Theoretical Physics from Stanford University, as well as a few other credentials, as outlined at energy.gov:  

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Moniz was the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a faculty member since 1973. At MIT, he headed the Department of Physics and the Bates Linear Accelerator Center. Most recently, Dr. Moniz served as the founding Director of the MIT Energy Initiative and as Director of the MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment where he was a leader of multidisciplinary technology and policy studies on the future of nuclear power, coal, nuclear fuel cycles, natural gas and solar energy in a low-carbon world.

From 1997 until January 2001, Dr. Moniz served as Under Secretary of the Department of Energy. He was responsible for overseeing the Department’s science and energy programs, leading a comprehensive review of nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship, and serving as the Secretary’s special negotiator for the disposition of Russian nuclear materials. From 1995 to 1997, he served as Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President.

In addition to his work at MIT, the White House and the Department of Energy, Dr. Moniz has served on a number of boards of directors and commissions involving science, energy and security. These include President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, and the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.

A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Moniz is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Humboldt Foundation, and the American Physical Society.

Dr. Moniz received a Bachelor of Science degree summa cum laude in Physics from Boston College, a Doctorate in Theoretical Physics from Stanford University, and honorary degrees from the University of Athens, the University of Erlangen-Nurenberg, Michigan State University and Universidad Pontificia de Comillas.

There are many things about Sarah Palin that annoy me, including the fact that she doesn't know what she doesn't know. To be blunt, she's too stupid to know how stupid she is. Her extravagant, preening, clueless self-regard was on full display this morning during her appearance on CNN, when she announced that she wants to be the Secretary of Energy. (And insisted that we should all just speak "American.") The fact that Jake Tapper had her as a guest and acted as if she was actually qualified to comment on anything is a sad comment on the state of our media and leaves me shaking my head in sadness and despair. Hopefully we can chalk it up to the holiday week-end with all of the regular pundits were all on vacation. Otherwise, seriously Jake, what were you thinking?  

Really, Jeb!?

I know Donald Trump is getting under your skin. I know your path to the GOP nomination is turning out to be a lot harder than you expected. (And way, way harder than your brother's in 1999-2000. So unfair.)

I know you're doing everything you can think of to take down The Donald, but really. You want to be the leader of the free world and this is the best you can do?:

Would you rather support a candidate who

Strives to shake every hand everywhere

OR 

Is a germophobe when it comes to shaking hands

From a quiz at Jeb!'s website, see the whole thing here. 

And in case you're wondering, yes, the $75 guacamole bowl is still available for purchase on Jeb!'s website; wonder how many they've sold. 

Rosemary Kennedy

Issue dated September 14, 2015


I wasn't expecting a Kennedy cover story and certainly not one about Rosemary Kennedy, but apparently she's the subject of two new books, so there she is. There's no question it's an intriguing story, a secret sister, disabled and hidden away, but it's also old news. The headline sounded familiar to me so I scrolled back through the People Cover posts, and sure enough, from last November there it is, a sidebar story on Matthew McConaughey's cover, "The Forgotten Kennedy Sister," which turned out to be Rosemary. That story was tied to publication of a book called "Fully Alive" by Timothy Shriver, who is chairman of the Special Olympics. (Read the article here.)

Issue dated November 17, 2014


Blog readers know I'm fascinated by the Kennedys, both current and historic, but I've always assumed that not everyone else is. Still, apparently there's enough interest that People's editors believe a cover story with a black and white picture of a relatively unknown woman, who was born in 1918 and died in 2005, will sell well. According to the article at people.com, the new books are "Rosemary, The Hidden Kennedy Daughter," by Kate Larson, and "The Missing Kennedy," by Elizabeth Koehler-Pentacoff.

In a depressing coincidence, both of these issues also feature Duggar stories, Jessa's wedding last November and the on-going scandal around Josh in the new issue. Ick.

Diana And The Queen

Friday morning update: I've realized that there may be some confusion about what exactly is being commemorated on September 9. Hartley merely says "by the time she was 90" and "by the end of AD 2015." To be specific, on Wednesday, the Queen will have passed Queen Victoria and become the longest-reigning monarch in British history.

I also thought that having posted the first picture of Diana, I'd post one of the last as well, from her photo shoot for Mario Testino in the Spring of 1997. I've always thought this was one of the best pictures ever taken of Diana and it's fascinating to observe how much she changed in 17 years.



Original post:
Have you ever seen this picture?


This is the first picture of Lady Diana Spencer to ever appear in a newspaper or magazine. It was taken in July, 1980 by Arthur Edwards, a photographer for the Sun newspaper, who has been snapping royals since 1974. Diana would have just turned 19, Charles, who's not in the picture, was 31. In The Diana Chronicles, Tina Brown explains how the picture came to be. Edwards and Sun reporter Harry Arnold were at a polo match featuring the Prince of Wales. They "spotted her [Diana] there, a fresh-faced girl they vaguely recognized with a gold letter D hanging around her neck, who seemed to be included in the royal party. The resourceful Edwards took some pictures for his files, just in case."

A couple of months later, during Diana's famous visit to Scotland, she was spotted by reporters while fishing with Prince Charles by the side of the River Dee. Photographer Edwards figured this was the same girl from the polo match in July and pulled the picture out of his file. On September 8, 1980, The Sun ran the picture on its front page, with a headline that said "He's in love again. Lady Di is the new girlfriend for Charles." This was also the first time Diana was called "Lady Di," and the name stuck. It sure seems like a long time ago, doesn't it?

Yesterday, August 31, marked the 18th year since Diana died and I've got the royals on my mind. Some years I note the anniversary and blog about it; some years I don't. (Read what I was thinking on the 15th anniversary in 2012 here.) Things certainly have changed since the "Diana era," and if you weren't paying attention at the time, or don't think about the royals as often as I sometimes do, it's easy to forget how truly chaotic, and yes, undignified, things got in the late 80s and early 90s as Charles and Di did battle with each other. Things have settled down now, everyone's behaving themselves, mostly, and there's an intriguing milestone coming up on September 9.



In 1992, at the 40th anniversary of the Queen's accession to the throne, British journalist John Hartley published a charming book titled "Accession." It told the story, in great detail, of King George VI's death at age 56, while his daughter Princess Elizabeth was visiting Kenya, and the events surrounding her return to London and assumption of the role of Queen. At the end of the book, Hartley "did the math" based on how things looked as he was writing in 1991. At the time, Charles and Diana were still married, the Queen was 66, Charles was 44 and abdication by the Queen at some future date was considered at least theoretically possible:

"Assuming that the queen does not abdicate and continues to enjoy good health, she will celebrate her seventieth birthday on 26 [sic] April 1996. Two months later, on 14 June 1996 - and coinciding almost to the day with her "Official" birthday  she will have reigned longer than her namesake Queen Elizabeth I, who reigned for forty-four years, four months and seven days. On 20 November 1997, the Queen and Prince Philip will celebrate their Golden Wedding. On 6 February 2002, the Queen will celebrate the Golden Jubilee of her Accession to the throne. She will then be only seventy-five years old.

... If one were to assume further, that the queen were to continue as Monarch after her Golden Jubilee, she would celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in AD 2012 at the age of eighty-five. Were she to live as long as her mother, the Queen Mother, she would have outlived and outreigned every other British Monarch by the time she was 90. Her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, died aged eighty-one, having reigned for 63 years and 216 days. The present Queen would eclipse this record by the end of AD 2015, when she would be only eighty-nine." 

Other than living as long as her mother, who died at age 101, as of next Wednesday, the Queen will have met all of the milestones Hartley anticipated. Will she live to celebrate her 101st birthday, on April 21, 2027? (Note that in the text above, which is verbatim from Hartley's book, he misstates the Queen's birthday. She was born on April 21, not April 26.) It's certainly possible and I hope she does. Congratulations, Your Majesty and here's to many, many more years as Queen!