​By thy rivers gently flowing, Illinois, Illinois,
O’er the prairies verdant growing, Illinois, Illinois,
Comes an echo o’er the breeze.
Rustling through the leafy trees,
And its mellow tones are these, Illinois, Illinois,
And its mellow tones are these, Illinois.

When I saw that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced this department was opening an investigation into U.S. Senator, former astronaut and retired Navy Captain Mark Kelly for his participation in the video with five others Democrats that explained (according the the Uniform Military Code of Justice) members of the military are not required to follow "illegal" orders -- as to whether he should be returned to active service leading to a court martial.  (Fun Fact: "Captain" in the Navy is one rank below Rear Admiral.)

I responded with a tweet that read -- "HEADLINE: "Former Fox Host Brings Non-Existent Charges Against American Hero. Alcohol Suspected."

This is going to end as the latest massive embarrassment for Hegseths's tenure as a lackey for Trump.

It also added weight to the amount of time I've spent online the last few days responding to MAGOP officials in Congress and in the White House attacking the six Democrats (all of them either who served high in the military or the U.S. intelligence services) who posted a video explaining that no one in the military has to follow illegal orders.  And almost all the attacks each said pretty much the same thing. 

​Mind you, no, I don’t expect any of them are reading what I say, nor do they care.  But I’m replying so that anyone in the middle who might believe what the MAGOPs are saying or are uncertain are able to see a contrary thought that shows the attacks are not what they seem.
 
The MAGOP attacks I’m referring to are those against the six Democrats who posted a video explaining that no one in the military has to follow illegal orders.  And in fact, by the Uniform Military Code of Justice they are required not to.
 
Almost all of the attacks have followed the same pattern.  They left out the word “illegal,” and say the Democrats are lying to the military by telling them they don’t have to follow orders, and call the action “seditious” (indeed, the supposedly clever name they’ve come up is the “Seditious Six”).  And suggest they should be brought up on charges.
 
Not to worry -- though I saw I've been spending time responding to all this, it's fairly easy.  Since most of the attacks are so similar, then depending the tweet I’m answering, I have almost a template.  It's more annoying that our MAGOP officials are being this deceitful, ignorant and foolish than it is time consuming.  And so, my replies tend to be some adaptation of the following:
​

​To be clear, I’m not remotely the only person in social media who is pushing back.  The number has steadily grown.  While MAGOPs at first seemed to believe that they had a great issue at hand have started to see that their efforts of leaving out the word "illegal" are backfiring on them a bit.  That’s why, I suspect, a few of them are trying a new tact.  They appear to think it's a great "gotcha" attack.  Actually, it’s an incredibly empty one, though.
 
This new attempt focuses on how so far none of the six Democrats have named one illegal order that Trump has given.  (Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has been most prevalent with this try, though he’s not alone  "JD Vance" and Rep. Nancy Mace have been busy.)  And the MAGOPs seem to suggest that the Democrats are lying and have nothing.  
 
The problem for them, of course, is that many people online start listing a range of illegal orders that Trump has given, notably bombing fishing boats without due process, but also others orders.  I tend not to (leaving that to others) but do throw a related comment in on occasion.  For the most part, my response to these charges is –
 
“While courts have overturned some of Trump’s orders as illegal – like last Friday the court saying that the order to send the National Guard into D.C. was illegal -- the video only states that members of the military need not follow “illegal” orders.    But mostly, it’s just letting the military know that any order in the future that’s illegal should not be followed, as described in the Uniform Military Code of Justice.  Do you not agree that those in the military should not follow illegal orders??”
 
There's an alternative version, though, I use that tends to fit certain of these attacks better, the ones that try hard to make the case that since no illegal orders were given, the six Democrats have broken military law.  What I respond is –
 
“When members of the military enlist, they swear to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice that says they should not follow illegal orders. But no illegal orders are specified or have yet been issued to them. Why do you have a problem with that??!”

But there are two particular MAGOP tweets that stand out to me as my favorites. 
 
The first came from Roger Stone, who went on about how the six Democrats were violating the law (for reasons he didn’t explain…) and that they should be prosecuted.  It was too hard to pass up, so I replied, “Says the man who literally violated the law and went to prison for it.”
 
But the best came from the aforementioned Mike Lee (who I always try to remind people that he posted on social media in October, 2020 that “We’re not a democracy”).  In this effort, sure that he had a great point wrote –
 
“Why would one encourage troops to ignore orders from the commander in chief—based on an apparent presumption the he issues illegal orders—in the absence of illegal orders?”
 
I decided to get right to the heart of the matter.  And replied:
 
“Thanks for asking -- because Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies, adjudicated of rape and guilty of fraud, showing disdain for the law...and many of his orders have already been thrown out of court as illegal, so it is reasonable to think he may issue illegal orders ahead.”
 
After having gone through this for the past few days, I was so pleased to read about what Joe Scarborough said Monday morning on his MS NOW program, saying with much greater fervor the points I was trying to get across.  He was almost giddy and stunned that, in his words, Republicans were making utter fools of themselves, falling into what was, in essence, a Democratic trap.
 
“I saw one lughead,” he commented, “who goes on CNN regularly saying, ‘They are clearly trying to take down the chain of command,’” Scarborough added. “No! This is, if he knew anything about the military, he would know that when they raise their right hand, they swear an oath. They swear an oath to the Constitution to not follow illegal orders.”
 
“I can't believe I have to say that, this was a brilliant move,” Scarborough later went on. “I cannot believe I'm even saying this about the Democratic Party. This was a brilliant move by Democrats for two reasons.”
 
“One, they have Republicans actually defending illegal orders — like these people in the MAGAshpere,” he laughed before repeating, “Like people — I saw one lughead who goes on CNN. They're so stupid that they're defending illegal orders. So bravo, Democrats there. Like they played right into your trap.  And number two, all weekend, what did you have?  You had Democrats, who served this country in the military, who served this country in the CIA…[and] for the face of the Democratic Party, they knew this was going to cause a controversy, every single person there will have served this country in uniform or in the CIA.  And it was a brilliant move.  And I’ve got to say,” Scarborough went on, “…the most extreme MAGA defenders walked right into their trap.”
 
Yeah, defending the position that members of the military should follow illegal orders is quite a fascinating concept.

Especially when the Commander-in-Chief, and leader of your party, has been convicted of 34 felonies, adjudicated of rape, found guilty of fraud, has dementia...and an approval of just 33%.

Okay, first, here's how actually easy it is to make.

Ingredients:
I package of washed cranberries
1 cup of water
1 cup of sugar

Yes, that's it!  Pour the water and sugar in the pot, stir and bring the mixture to a slow simmer.  Then, dump in the bag of cranberries, stir, cook for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally.

And that's all.  Really.  As I said, that truly isn't much more difficult than opening a can.  And it's delicious, and tastes like a real fruit, because it is.  You could probably eat it hot, but it's probably best to refrigerate it until it's cool and gels on its own from the sugar.

But here's my recipe to make it even better.  You can adapt the amounts according to your taste.  You'll note that it uses apple -- I got that trick from my Grandma Rose.  I'll explain more about that in a moment.

Ingredients:
I package of cranberries
3/4 cup of water
1/4 cup of dry sherry
3/4 cup of sugar
1 apple, cut to cranberry-sized pieces. (I use Red Delicious)

You make the dish almost the same way.  Bring the water, sherry and sugar to a slow simmer.  (Let it boil enough to cook the alcohol out.)  Mix in the bag of cranberries and the chopped up apples.  Stir, cook for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally.

And that's it.  Ideally, let it cool.  And taste it -- if you feel that the apples didn't sweeten it enough for your taste, just mix in some more sugar until it's how you like it.

Why apple rather than orange peel and orange juice like many recipes suggest (including the Epicurious chef)?  A few reasons.  First, orange peel is bitter and orange juice is acidic, and since cranberries are bitter to begin with, I think the sweetness of apples are a better complimentary mix.  Second, what Grandma Rose knew is that because apples are so sweet, you can use less sugar (which also brings the calories down). Third, she also knew that the blended flavor of apples and cranberry was especially delicious, tasting almost like strawberry (or strawberry-rhubarb).  And finally, the main reason Grandma Rose liked to use apples is because they have natural pectin, so it creates it's own "gel."  So, way to go, Grandma Rose!

And to those concerned about the alcohol from the sherry, know that boiling the sherry cooks the alcohol out of it.  But if you don't want the sherry, fine, leave it out and just use a cup of water.  But I think the sherry adds a rich flavor.

But that's how incredibly easy it is to make cranberry sauce.  And to make it even better. ​

As I said, the foundation of this film is true.  Some things are changed, but there's an additional part of the story, which Hawke didn't discuss, that's sort of remarkable.  He may not have brought it up because it's what came after the events of the movie.  Perhaps they include it in a scroll at the end.

The story is memorable to me because it was the first time (and I think the only time) that I ever won a bet with my father.  He not only was a very smart guy, and rarely bet, but when he did, only bet on a sure thing.

I was about 15 at the time, and I forget how the subject came up, but I mentioned that Lorenz Hart was still alive when Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote Oklahoma!  "That's not true, my dad said, but I insisted it was.  And as someone who even at that age studied the arcana of Broadway history, I went even farther.  And so I said, "It is true.  And not only was Hart still alive -- but he Richard Rodgers actually reteamed after Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote Oklahoma! and wrote another musical together!"

No, that isn't possible, my dad said.  Insisting that Hart had died.  I held my ground, and that's when we made our bet.  And I was able to show my dad the research material that after Oklahoma!, Rodgers and Hart reteamed to add some new material and new songs to a revival of their show, A Connecticut Yankee, based on Mark Twain's novel, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

And I won my bet!  I think it was for a quarter.

By the way, one of the additionally great things about this occurrence is that not only did Rodgers and Hart write new songs for the revival, after Rodgers and Hammerstein had written Oklahoma! -- but one of those new songs is one of my favorite Rodgers and Hart songs, a number that I think has the best, funniest convoluted rhymes of any song in Broadway history.  It's called "To Keep My Love Alive".  It's overloaded with triple rhymes that not only is a remarkable task, but the rhymes are often hilarious.

It's sung by the character Morgan Le Fey.  In romantic Arthurian legend, Morgan Le Fey was a sorceress  queen of Avalon and foe of King Arthur, his half-sister.

This is Elaine Stritch singing that song on a TV special, put together by Sylvia Fine (Danny Kaye's wife, and an accomplished songwriter) who you see very briefly at the beginning and a few words at the end.

Written by Rodgers and Hart.  After Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote Oklahoma!

On Friday, the beloved Northwestern football team was in town to play USC.  Going to the L.A. Memorial Coliseum to see a USC game is always a lousy experience.  (Too many reasons to go into, but near the top is that their band plays the school's ponderous, pretentious Roman Marching Theme throughout the entire game, and Really Loudly which is pretty much their brand.  Volumen super qualitas.  Volume Over Quality.)

But that's not the point here.

What I learned after the fact is that I was there for history!  Northwestern was defeated 38-17, and it was the school's 716th football loss – the most ever by any team in college football history! 

Now, mind you, it is, of course, conceivable that they could have that record reversed as soon as this year if the team whose record they beat loses more games than NU the rest of the year.  But that improbable, since that other team is Indiana, which has 715 loses, is currently ranked the #2 best team in the country…

I should note that this record does not come as a total shock.  That's because Northwestern currently holds the FBS Division 1 record for "longest losing streak" of 34 consecutive loses, which occurred from 1979 to 1982.

And note, as well, that my dad -- who loved football, especially college football, and also taught in the Medical School at Northwestern -- has season tickets for Northwestern football for 51 years.  Including during this 34 games losing streak.  That's the definition of a true football fan.

Two of my favorite sports quotes from from the team's coach during that losing streak, Rick Venturi (who had played at Northwestern, and also in the pros).  The first quote is --- "The only difference between me and Custer is that Custer didn't have to look at game films on Monday."

And the other quote came after the game when Northwestern finally won.  They had had a solid lead during the game, and played very defensively at that point -- and little by little their opponents chipped away at the lead...and were driving for a game-winning touchdown when the clock ran out.  And so, Northwestern won, breaking the losing streak.  After the game, coach Venturi was asked if he thinks he used the right strategy at the end.  His reply was:  "You have to understand -- I never had a lead before."

In fairness, Northwestern football has been pretty respectable in more recent years.  They are 5-4 this season.  Their head coach was named Big Ten Coach of the Year two years ago.  And they even went to the Rose Bowl in 1996.  (And yes, I was there, with my Mom and Dad who flew out for it.)

But history is no small thing.  And happily, it's what the present has built upon.
​