Biden Targets Trump, Part II

Do I believe the raid on Mar-a-Lago was politically motivated?  Of course I do.  Do I believe that Republicans are targeted in a way that Democrats are not?  Sadly, yes.  And it gives me no pleasure to say that.  And, frankly, I am not interested in hearing from those on the left regarding "whataboutism."  Because that is just a way of saying you do not care about the equal application of the law.

So, let me remind everyone that Hillary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, used a private email server that was in her home.  It was not secure.  Then FBI Director, James Comey, said that there were classified emails sent on that server, including some that were Top Secret.  James Comey said that they "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."  And that "hostile actors" gained access to her email account.  Yet, there was no raid on her house.  In fact, her lawyers were allowed to sift through the emails first.  There was no prosecution of Hillary Clinton.  After laying out the case for her criminal conduct, Comey declared that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."  Of course, it was not up to him.  It was up to the DOJ.  But the fix was in.

And what about the Clinton Foundation?  Getting one million dollars from Qatar (a supporter of the terrorist group Hamas), while Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.  Not to mention all the other foreign countries that donated.  I know the arguments.  She had nothing to do with the Foundation while serving as Secretary of State.  Plus, the Foundation did good work around the world.  I just do not believe the same defenses would be made if the name was the Trump Foundation.  

And how long is the DOJ going to keep Hunter Biden's laptop and do nothing?  How about the various times Hunter flew on Air Force Two with his father, when he was Vice President, to countries like China?  What was it, take your 40 year old child to work day?  Hunter was making deals in Ukraine and China.  Let's not forget "10% for the Big Guy."  Any raids on the homes of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden?  Does anyone really doubt that Hunter was trading on his father's name.  It's called influence peddling.  How about the Mexican billionaires invited by Hunter to the VP's residence?  And, we have a revealed text by Hunter to his daughter, complaining about having to give half of his salary to "Pop."  I guess Hunter was not getting a free ride on Air Force Two.  Yet neither Biden has been prosecuted.  Instead, the family is off on a vacation at the estate of a donor/friend.  How nice.   

Then, we have this rather incredible Op-Ed in the August 10, 2022, Los Angeles Times by Harry Litman.  If you don't know, Litman has held various positions within the Justice Department.  He started as an Assistant US Attorney, then becoming a Deputy Assistant A.G., and finally leading his own office as a United States Attorney.  Litman is clear when he states his obvious disdain for Trump, calling him a "pox on the country."  Litman recognizes the legal challenges to disqualifying Trump from running again (see Part I for a further discussion of this issue).  

But, no fear, Litman has the solution.  Offer Trump a deal.  Agree to a minimum prison term, or no prison at all, and drop all other potential charges, in exchange for Trump agreeing that he was disqualified from running again.  I could not believe that when I read it.  By looking at Trump as just another perpetrator, he completely overlooks (it can't be accidental as I doubt he is stupid) that he is willing to threaten the man who might very well be the challenger to the SITTING PRESIDENT in the next election.  Did that really not strike Litman as being so overtly political, so as to appear that we are living under a dictatorial regime.  The mere suggestion should have been anathema to any sensate citizen.  Lock up, or threaten to lock up, political adversaries.  And, to be clear, I cringed when Trump said "lock her up" with regards to Clinton.     

We have indeed crossed the Rubicon.  We now have the minority leader in the House, McCarthy, already threatening A.G. Garland, should McCarthy become Speaker after the midterms.  One paper had this headline:  "A High-Risk Gamble By the Justice Dept. In a Polarized Nation."  The conservative NY Post?  No.  The NY Times.  Yet, I hear from people on both sides with no concern about creating even further divisions within the country.  I'll repeat a line from the WSJ which I stated in Part I:  "The Justice Department is unleashing political furies it can't control and may not understand..."  

May G-d bless the United States of America.  

Biden Targets Trump, Part I

C'mon man, what do you mean Biden targeted Trump?  The Attorney General, Merrick Garland, said he signed off on the warrant.  And the FBI conducted the search/raid.  What has Biden got to do with it?  What I mean is, Biden had previously said that Trump was a threat to democracy.  Biden had previously said that Trump ought to be prosecuted over January 6.  Biden had previously said that "he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor."  (Per the New York Times)  Does anyone really believe that Garland did not get the message from the Commander in Chief?  Of course he did.

So let's talk about this unprecedented raid on the home of a former president of the United States of America.  Is anyone really surprised by this unprecedented act?  If so, permit me to remind you of Nancy Pelosi rushing a second impeachment vote against Trump after January 6 - without first having any House Judiciary Committee hearings.  Unprecedented.  Although they managed to get around to having the hearings 18 months later.  Allow me to also remind you of the unprecedented action taken by Speaker Pelosi in denying the minority leader, Rep. McCarthy, the right to appoint the Republican members of that January 6 committee.  Weren't we just told that the Supreme Court did not respect precedent?  It appears that the Democrats do not care for it much either. 

But why did it require dozens of FBI agents to raid Mar-a-Lago?  Well, it was urgent, as there was a risk of highly classified documents being destroyed.  So, "urgent" now means that the government could wait for 18 months after Trump left office to collect those documents?  Urgent now means that, a warrant signed on Friday need not be carried out until Monday because...what?  The agents had beach days planned?  (To be clear, I have always supported law enforcement.  But, to also be clear, the top echelon of the FBI has already shown themselves to be corrupt.  Think James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.)

I must say, I do appreciate the coordination of talking points within the Democratic Party, and within the mainstream media.  Talking point no. 1:  "No one is above the law."  Everyone agrees with this.  Everyone.  And, theoretically, it is correct.  But in practice, plenty of people are above the law (see Part II.  Maybe Part III.)  Talking point no. 2:  "This was not a raid."  I know this to be true because one MSM talking head after the next told me.  If they say it was a "search" and not a "raid," it must be so.  Right?  Talking point no. 3:  "How dare those dastardly Republicans and conservatives criticize the DOJ and FBI over carrying out a lawful search warrant?"  What about criticism of local police departments around the country for the last two years?  Perfectly permissible.  Harsh criticisms of, and even threats against, the Supreme Court must be perfectly permissible.  Or, did I miss the prosecution of Senator Schumer, following his threats against Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? 

Question:  Does anyone really believe this raid was about classified documents?  Yes, the Federal Code does have section 2071, which provides for certain punishments of those found guilty of concealing, removing, mutilating etc. any public documents.  That section provides for fines and imprisonment, but the key is the provision that states the guilty party "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."  Disqualified.  Some on the left were drooling over that provision.  However, a number of commentators have already made the point that, even if Trump were to be found guilty under that section, he would not be disqualified from running for, and becoming president again.  

The reason is simple.  The Constitution states the 3 requirements for being eligible for the office of president - being a natural born citizen, being 35 years of age, and being a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.  No statute can change the constitutional requirements.  The Supreme Court has already ruled on similar issues, such as when a state tried to impose term limits on members of Congress.  Again, the Constitution does not place any limit on the number of terms for members of Congress.   

Then, if section 2071 is not the issue, what is?  First, we have the 14th Amendment.  That Amendment does bar someone from office if, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, they engaged in insurrection or rebellion.  That is what Biden and the DOJ and the FBI are looking for.  A smoking gun that ties Trump to the events of January 6.  This raid was not just about classified documents.  Now we learn from the warrant that there is also a claim of possible violations of the Espionage Act.  And. just to make sure that Trump is either found guilty of something, or becomes so repugnant to the voting public that he cannot possibly win reelection, someone has leaked to the Washington Post a claim that the government is concerned about nuclear secrets having been taken to Mar-a-Lago.  Nuclear secrets are of great import, which, again, explains why the government waited 18 months to retrieve those documents.  

Former Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, asked why, if Trump was not complying with a previously issued subpoena, the DOJ did not just seek an order compelling Trump to comply.  After all, we have already shown that time was not of the essence.  

Perhaps the Wall Street Journal said it best, in their 8/10/22 editorial:  "The Justice Department is unleashing political furies it can't control and may not understand, and the risks for the department and the country are as great as they are for Mr. Trump."  Yet, not a single person of the left with whom I have communicated, has expressed any concern about the risks to the country.  Instead, I get the main talking point of the left - only Trump is a threat to the country.    

Growing Up In 1981

 (Note.  The series continues.)

This was a big year.  I had already moved from New Jersey to California 6 1/2 years earlier.  I had already graduated from law school, and was about to start my fourth year as an attorney.  On the personal side, I was already dating my future bride.  And, in 1981, I would be turning the big 3-0.  

1981 was also the year that I purchased my first home.  After working for the same firm for three years in downtown Los Angeles, I was transferred to a suburb about 30 miles away.  It was in that area that I bought a townhouse, for the grand sum of...$105,000.  It was a two story home, with the kitchen, a small family room, dining area and living room on the first floor.  There was also, thankfully, a half bath on the first floor.  The second floor had two baths, the master (a now politically incorrect term, which I have learned from watching House Hunters) bedroom, and a second bedroom/den/study that was open to the downstairs.  

In 1981, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was a buck and quarter.  A loaf of bread cost 59 cents, and a dozen eggs went for 95 cents.  If you wanted to send a first class letter?  18 cents.  1981 saw the beginning of seven seasons of "Hill Street Blues," with an ensemble cast of some rather eccentric characters.  As with many police dramas, Hill Street Blues became one of my favorite shows.  Regardless of my political leanings, I have always loved the shows where the good guys prevail.  I have always possessed a strong sense of right and wrong, even though my political beliefs, at times, might have resulted in my reaching incorrect conclusions. 

1981 was the year that Ronald Reagan, having defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980, became the 40th President of the United States.  However, as I was still a man of the left, I recall predicting before the election, that Reagan might be "too extreme" for the American electorate.  So much for that.  It was the day before Reagan took office, that Iran agreed to release 52 American hostages that they had kept in captivity for 444 days.  When Reagan took the oath of office, the hostages headed home.  One could not help but notice.

Then, on March 30, 1981, we had yet another assassination attempt on an American President, when John Hinckley shot, and nearly killed, the new President.  I remember being moved by Reagan joking with the doctor at the hospital when he said:  "I hope you're a Republican."  And I remember the doctor replying:  "Mr. President, today we are all Republicans."  I felt the same way.  I did not vote for Reagan either time he ran.  But I have always considered myself "old school" with regards to certain things.  When a bad guy attempts to assassinate a sitting president, and thereby change the course of history, I will always be opposed.  Plus, I hate bad guys.

One year later, my girlfriend/fiance and I got married.  In just a few weeks it will be 40 years that we have been married.  As the joke goes, some say I should get a medal; but many more say she should get the medal.  Forty years later we have three wonderful children, and finally one grandchild, a beautiful granddaughter who is now 13 months old. 

Two years later, in 1983, I would suffer another serious medical setback.  After being sick for two weeks with a low grade fever and vomiting and diarrhea (sorry), I lost 20 pounds.  Given the fact that I only weighed 140 pounds at the time, that was a substantial weight loss.  At the end of those two weeks I finally started to feel better.  But the following morning I could not get myself out of bed.  My legs simply would not move.  My now wife called the ambulance and I was taken to the hospital.  Nobody was sure as to exactly what happened to me.  However, in the hospital, they did a stool culture which showed that I was exposed to a food born bacteria called campylobacter.  

As it turns out, my family had been visiting my mother-in-law two weeks earlier, and she served what was likely some undercooked chicken.  (Was she trying to tell me something?)  No one else got sick.  But, I have an autoimmune disease called ankylosing spondylitis.  As I was later told (after this happened again in 1986) by the head immunologist at UCLA, my immune system often has a delayed reaction.  If the chicken we all ate was undercooked, other family members with a normal immune response, had their antibodies successfully fight any bacteria.  But with my delayed immune response, I was sick for two weeks.  

And the not being able to get out of bed?  That's when my antibodies finally kicked in.  And the autoimmune nature of the illness is that my antibodies attack me.  So, my muscle enzymes were elevated to such an extent that I could not move my legs.  My liver enzymes were also elevated, as was my alkaline phosphatase and my sed rate.  In medical terms, my entire body was out of whack.  My antibodies went on to attack my hips, resulting in my use of a cane, and the beginning of the destruction of my hips.  But it was my bride (before any doctor told me the cause) who went to the medical library at UCLA (what internet?) and found articles discussing the relationship between ankylosing spondylitis and campylobacter.  And, while there were more difficult times to come, my bride was there to take care of me each step along the way.       

A Postscript to "Growing Up In 1971."

 (Note.  Sometimes I forget things, such as the two academic related paragraphs I should have included in "Growing Up In 1971."  Neither story is flattering to me.  Nevertheless, here they are.)

In high school, I loved math and science.  I also loved history and current events.  What can I say.  When I enrolled at Rutgers I was confident that I would be able to do well in calculus.  I was wrong.  It turns out, that a good understanding of trigonometry would have been quite beneficial.  However, having missed over half of my senior year in high school because of my back surgery, I also missed over half of the year of trigonometry.  

Thankfully, that year at Rutgers we were able to take classes the first semester on a pass/fail basis.  Also, thankfully, a math whiz (Ramon) who lived across the hall in the language section of the dorm, volunteered to help me.  A lot.  So I was able to pass.  But I also realized that would be the end of my math and science curriculum.  Thereafter, liberal arts it was.

Another first semester class was English composition.  I have no recollection if we were assigned a topic or permitted to discuss whatever we might choose for our first composition.  The assignment was given the first week of classes.  And I have no recollection of the topic I chose.  I wrote the essay in a blue book and turned it in.  I do recall that the grading was done by a teaching assistant, who corrected it in red ink.  If I had to estimate, I'd say that the amount of red ink at least equaled the amount of the blue ink that I used.  Then, the T.A. ended with this classic line:  "This is crap!"

On the bright side, I learned to improve my writing during my years at Rutgers.  However, at that moment, I remember saying to myself:  "Well, Mike, you're off to a great start at Rutgers."

"Progressive" Prosecutors

There were two interesting pieces, one in the Wall Street Journal and the other in the Los Angeles Times, on the topic of progressive District Attorneys.  In the WSJ, on 8/1/22, was an Op-Ed ("Why I Support Reform Prosecutors") by none other than George Soros, the left-wing billionaire who has successfully funded the campaigns of quite a few "progressive" prosecutors across the country.  In the LA Times was an editorial ("Gascon is an easy scapegoat") discussing the recall petition of LA County's district attorney.

The piece by Soros is filled with platitudes, yet lacking in any facts.  "Yet our system is rife with injustices that make us all less safe...If people trust the justice system, it will work.  And if the system works, public safety will improve."  How's that?  When criminals can say that the system is "fair," they will stop committing crimes?  I am not following the "logic."  

Soros:  "We need to acknowledge that black people in the U.S. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people."  What Soros fails to discuss is the rate at which different racial groups commit crime.  For example, for the year 2019, the FBI reported that blacks committed 55.9% of the homicides in the US, while accounting for only approximately 14% of the population.  Clearly, those numbers are going to account for increased arrest and incarceration rates for blacks.  

Soros asserts that the rise in crime can be attributed to an increase in mental illness as a result of young people being isolated as a result of the pandemic.  He also points to a "pullback in policing in the wake of public criminal justice reform protests."  Hmm.  He is clearly on to something, although he draws the wrong conclusions.  There is little doubt that there has been a "pullback in policing," as police have seen decreased support from the public and elected officials.  But then it's a vicious circle - elect soft on crime district attorneys and mayors, and the police curtail law enforcement.  Why would the police put themselves at risk, in terms of their own safety and freedom even, if the people they arrest are back out on the streets in a matter of hours.  All because left-wing politicians have instituted "no bail" reforms.

The LA Times is upset that there is a pending recall petition (assuming enough signatures qualify) of LA D.A. George Gascon.  The Times makes some rather bizarre assertions.  The editorial mentions the June 7 recall of progressive San Francisco D.A. Chesa Boudin.  Explains the Times:  "Boudin was a high-profile target of justice reform opponents, in part because his city is a leading bastion of progressive politics, and in part because his parents were convicted of killing police officers in the 1980's..."  The Times does not care to explain that, given those facts, how was it that Boudin was elected D.A. in 2019 in the first place?  Nor does the Times care to discuss the rather inconvenient fact that San Francisco, one of the most left-wing cities in the country, booted their progressive D.A. on June 7.  Might it be because even people on the left have no desire to be victims of crime.  

Here is something we can agree on:  "The increase in crime in Los Angeles County is real and deeply troubling..."  So much so that the LAPD has taken to advising people to be wary of the expensive cars they drive and jewelry they wear.  Yet, LA was always known for the rich and famous dressing and driving ostentatiously.  What happened?  

The Times:  "Yet the notion that it's the prosecutors - not the police, the mayor, county supervisors and other players or criminal laws and policies regarding health, economics, education - that control crime is fairly new and somewhat odd."  No one is disagreeing with the idea that left-wing elected officials, with their left-wing laws, play a role in increasing crime.  But let's not pretend it is "odd" for a D.A. to be blamed for increasing crime when he immediately instituted these policies:  an end to seeking the death penalty, ending the requirement of cash bail in many cases, eliminating sentence enhancement charges, and other changes.  

Yet, I regularly see on the local news family members, often minorities, of loved ones badly injured or killed, begging for the D.A. to throw the book at the perpetrators.  And then complaining when that does not happen.  What these left-wing D.A.'s, politicians and media people don't understand, is that minorities are the frequent victims of crime, and their family members want to see the perpetrators brought to justice.  They don't want these criminals back out on the streets.

What Soros and the Times editorial board also fail to mention is the success of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.  Giuliani became Mayor in 1994, following David Dinkins, who served from 1990 through 1993.  My recollection from that time is of the New York Times fretting over whether New York could ever bounce back after Dinkins left office.  But bounce back it did.  Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, instituted the "broken windows" theory of policing.  If you let the "minor" crimes go without punishment, if you let neighborhoods deteriorate with a few broken windows, then criminals will move on to more major crimes.  Giuliani cleaned up Times Square.  People moved back into New York City.  Businesses returned.  All honest citizens want the same thing - safe neighborhoods.  They don't want soft on crime prosecutors.  Only the left-wing fringe, and their supporters in the mainstream media, want that.           

A Good Guy With A Gun

On July 17, a shooter at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana, killed 3 people and injured 2 others.  Greenwood is a suburb of Indianapolis.  The shooting stopped when a 22 year old who was legally carrying, shot and killed the shooter.  Said the city's police chief:  "A good Samaritan with a handgun" killed the shooter.  The city's Mayor added:  "On behalf of the City of Greenwood, I am grateful for his (referring to the Good Samaritan) quick action and heroism in this situation." 

As my friend, the retired police officer, has advised me, when a good guy with a gun (whether a cop or a citizen) takes aim at a shooter, it gives people time to run and escape from danger.  It also results in the cop or civilian putting themselves in harms way, because the shooter will turn his attention to the person shooting at him and fire back.  As my friend explained, when a cop does that, it is his or her job.  But as far as I am concerned, when a civilian does it, it is an act of bravery.

But not everyone was happy with the "good guy" being referred to as a "Good Samaritan."  Said one commentator who took offense:  "The term 'Good Samaritan' came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man who was injured.  I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone killing someone...My G-d."  Maybe someone can explain this to me.  Aiding an injured man is good, but saving lives is no good?

Last year, the New York Times reported on CDC findings that in the US, there are anywhere from 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

Meanwhile, on July 12, the Austin American-Statesman reported on the release of the 77 minute video from Uvalde, Texas.  The paper said that the video "shows in excruciating detail dozens of sworn officers, local, state and federal - heavily armed, clad in body armor, with helmets, some with protective shields - walking back and forth in the hallway, some leaving the camera frame and then reappearing, others training their weapons toward the classroom, talking, making cellphone calls, sending texts and looking at floor plans, but not entering or attempting to enter the classrooms." 

Dozens of officers in Uvalde compared to a single 22 year old in Greenwood.  Something to ponder.

Growing Up In 1971

 (Note.  On July 10, I wrote "Growing Up In 1961."  The story continues around 1971, with more to follow.)

My college years at Rutgers began in September, 1969.  And it was quite an eventful month.  On September 27, 1969, Rutgers played Princeton in the 100th anniversary of college football game; the first game being played between Rutgers and Princeton in 1869.  (Rutgers won that game, more in the style of rugby, by a score of 6 to 4.)  It was a home game for Rutgers, so, of course, I went.  It was thrilling to have TV cameras there, which was not a common occurrence for Rutgers at that time.  I remember it as a perfect fall day.  And the game ended with a perfect result, with Rutgers shutting out Princeton 29-0.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I was exposed to left-wing ideology for the first time.  Not only by some professors, but by fellow students.  And I became all in.  It was not how I was raised.  My parents were classical liberals.  That liberalism has nothing in common with leftism.  But the Vietnam war was raging and I attended various peace rallies at Rutgers.  I was also at the peace rally in New York City at Bryant Park, on April 22, 1972, organized by the National Peace Action Coalition.  (As an aside, Bryant Park is where the New York Public Library is; and other than the Library of Congress, it is the largest library in the country.)  Anyway, John Kerry spoke at the rally, although I have no recollection of him being there.  I do recall the headliners - John Lennon and Yoko Ono. 

But prior to that rally, in the spring of 1970, were the protests against the bombing of Cambodia.  It was an effort by the US to end the supply lines to the Viet Cong.  It was quite a tumultuous time as that spring, on May 4, 1970, 4 students at Kent State University in Ohio, were shot and killed by members of the Ohio National Guard.  Students there, and across the country, were also protesting the expansion of the war into Cambodia.  After that shooting I remember thinking that any of us at these protests could be targeted. 

At Rutgers I grew a full beard and a Jewfro, although it was already thinning at the top.  As a freshman I lived in what was called the "language section" of one of the dorms.  As I recall, it was a new experiment at Rutgers.  Students who scored at least a 600 on the foreign language SAT in either Spanish or French, were eligible to live there.  My foreign language was Spanish.  The idea was to encourage the day to day speaking of those languages.  I am not sure how often that occurred, but I do recall each of us having been called by our name in that foreign language.  I, of course, was Miguel.  

During my sophomore year at Rutgers my parents and brother moved from New Jersey to California.  I believe it was at the end of the school year when a friend at school was also flying to California, as his family also lived there.  A group of the guys from the language section drove us to the airport.  At the ticket counter was this sign:  "Warning - carrying a concealed weapon is a federal offense."  It was the era of plane hijackings.  Another Spanish speaker from the dorm saw the sign and joked:  "Hey Miguel, you better hide your gun."  So here I was with a full beard and a bushy head of hair, and I'm called "Miguel," at a time when there were hijackings to Cuba.

My friend and I walked down to the gate and were waiting to board the plane.  Suddenly a man in a three piece suit walks up to us and asks our names.  Then he takes out his badge and says:  "Federal Marshal, you two come with me."  He immediately asks which one of us has the gun.  It took me a few seconds to remember what my other friend said about hiding my gun.  Clearly, the man at the ticket counter reported us to the Marshals.  I explained to the Marshal that it was a joke.  Said the Marshal:  "Does it look like I'm laughing?"  He then frisked my friend and me and went through our carry on baggage. 

After seeing that there was no gun anywhere the Marshal told us that he could still arrest us.  Or he could let us go on the plane.  I think he saw two terrified college students, and let us go with a warning.  After the plane took off, I opened up my carry-on and took out the latest edition of the student newspaper, the Rutgers Targum.  Although not an Ivy League school, Rutgers was an all male college, with our sister school being Douglass, which was across town in New Brunswick.  Back to the Targum.  What was the front page headline I saw?  "Bomb scare at Douglass College."  I could not believe it.  I knew the airlines had Marshals on virtually every flight.  I knew if I said the word "bomb" on the plane I would definitely be arrested.  I immediately closed the paper, put it back in my carry-on, and sat with my hands folded on my lap for the rest of the flight.  Without saying a word.  

It was not constant politics at Rutgers, although it may have been the dominant activity.  But it was the beginning of video games, which we could play at the Rutgers student center.  And I went to concerts at Rutgers.  I recall Arlo Guthrie and Sha Na Na playing at Rutgers.  And George Carlin came and did his routine.  I still remember one of his lines, pretending to be the hippie dippie dippie weatherman.  His forecast?  "The weather for tonight is getting dark, and getting lighter towards the early morning hours."  I have no idea why I remember that.  

I was not a hippie.  I was not a joiner; so I never joined any groups such as SDS, Students for a Democratic Society.  But when I left Rutgers in 1973, I definitely departed as a man of the left.