Belief in God?

I asked Nancy that question recently. Her response: "If God doesn't exist, then how did we get here?" That's a useful way to phrase the question, because it helped me to articulate my own belief: God as depicted in The Bible is not necessarily the same thing as the creator of the universe, if there was one. I'm not sure about a creator, as I'll explain. 

Begin with the question: was the universe created, or has it always existed? Some (including Plato's Timaeus) would say that it must have been created, because it exists, and nothing can exist unless it is first created. I can accept the possibility of a creator. 

But a true creator -- a force that set creation in motion but was not itself created by anything --- would be an entity totally beyond our understanding. Maybe not even an entity at all. A force that acted, but was not acted upon? It's hard to even think about it. As Timaeus said, the father of all this (if there is one) is beyond our knowledge.

But assuming there was a creator, I have difficulty reconciling that entity with the God presented in The Hebrew Bible and The New Testament. 

I refer now to the God that spoke directly to early Biblical figures and intervened in human affairs; expects us worship him ("Praise ye the Lord", as the Anglican service puts it); who expects us to obey his commandments, and punishes us if we don't; who loves us and has a plan for us all; who sent his son Jesus to us and then took him away to atone for man's sins.

I struggle with the idea that the sort of creator I'm talking about would do such things. Such a creator would be so different from us that it might not even be aware of mankind, let alone bother to watch over and judge us.

I am aware that I'm applying human concepts to something that, if it exists, is beyond our understanding. As theologians tell us, it's a mistake to try to apply logic and reasoning to what is essentially a matter of faith. 

Still, I have to believe that the God of The Bible and other monotheistic religions is a man-made concept. It must have emerged as an attempt to answer the deepest questions. Why does the world appear as it does? Intelligent design, or evolution? How did all this come to be? Was it created? I never will know the answers, nor will any human being. The questions are too vast. They are beyond our capabilities.

There is much value and wisdom to be found in The Bible and the sayings of Jesus, and The Torah, and no doubt other religions as well. As well as some very eloquent writing. But I am left with little faith, just a series of questions. As I've said before, I do pray in times of crisis. But I'm not sure anyone is listening.

Why I Did Not Vote for Trump

 I’ve just signed my mail-in ballot for the November 2020 election. I voted for Joe Biden. Not Donald Trump. And I shall tell you why. 

• Trump did not provide effective leadership during the coronavirus pandemic.
• Trump is an authoritarian threat to American democracy.
• Trump interfered with and attempted to influence Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and the House of Representatives’ impeachment effort.
• Trump's 2016 campaign welcomed and amplified Russia’s social media campaign to influence the presidential election.
• …and a host of lesser issues.

 The rest of this post expands on these points.  Follow the links to view my sources.

Did not provide effective leadership during the coronavirus pandemic.

I agree with the recent editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, which stated: “When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs.” 

Trump chose to “downplay” (in his words) the coronavirus problem, instead of coordinating a national action plan. Here are just a few examples.

• Delegated pandemic response to state governors. 
• Told states to handle their own medical equipment procurement (“We’re not a shipping clerk.”) Argued with states about how many ventilators they needed.
• Slowed down testing, as he stated at a campaign rally in June. [Trump suggests US slow virus testing to avoid bad statistics. AP News. June 21, 2020]
• Refused to follow his own experts’ advice on wearing a mask and social distancing. [Face coverings recommended, but Trump says he won’t wear one. AP News. April 4, 2020. ]  [Trump, still infectious, back at WhiteHouse — without mask. AP News.  October 5, 2020.]

An authoritarian threat to American democracy.

Trump has made a number of statements that deeply trouble me: 

• “When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and that’s the way it’s got to be. … It’s total.”  [Washington Post] 

• “I have an Article II where I can do whatever I want as President.”  [C-Span]

He fired FBI Director James Comey while the FBI was in the midst of investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election. This was a move of astounding proportions for anyone (such as me) old enough to remember Nixon firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the Watergate investigation. It's hard to be certain of Trump's reasons, because at first he blamed it on the handling of Hillary Clinton's e-mails. But I am inclined to believe the statement he made to Russian diplomats after the firing: "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." The implication is that firing Comey took the pressure off.   

He raised the possibility of postponing the 2020 election (the sort of thing dictators do) and declined to commit to an orderly transition of power after the 2020 election before voting even began.

During the final weeks of the 2020 election, he tried to use his presidential power against his political rivals – a tyrant’s tactic. Specifically, he pressured Attorney General William Barr to indict Biden and other political adversaries, and ordered Secretary of State Pompeo to declassify Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.

During the 2020 campaign, Trump engaged in what could be termed voter suppression tactics. He attempted to discourage use of mail-in ballots (which tends to hurt Democrat voters) by seeking to limit the number of drop boxes. Just a few months before a record number of ballots needed to be mailed, he threatened to cut funding to the US Postal Service. His political appointee launched a cost-cutting initiative at the USPS during the same time period.

Trump also encouraged his mail-in vote supporters to vote twice unless they could get proof their ballot was tabulated. See my post on this topic.

 Mueller Investigation

Trump attempted to interfere with and influence the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Special Counsel’s March 2019 report stated that the investigation:“...found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations….The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.” (volume II p. 157)  

 

Other key findings of the Mueller report included:

• The investigation “established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some cases, the Campaign was receptive to the offer.” (volume 1 p. 173)

• "Trump Campaign affiliates promoted dozens of tweets, posts and other political content created by the IRA.” (volume I p. 33. The IRA is the Internet Research Agency, a Russian organization that “conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.”). Those campaign affiliates included Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Kellyanne Conway and Michael Flynn. 

Highlighting the severity of these findings, over 400 former federal prosecutors published the following statement soon after Mueller's report was issued:

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.” 

Nevertheless, Congress declined to impeach Trump for these acts. Instead, they waited until the Ukraine affair came along. 

Impeachment

In its impeachment report, The House of Representatives stated that Trump solicited the interference of Ukraine in the 2020 election and obstructed the House investigation into the matter. According to The House Judiciary Committee’s December 2019 report:

“President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 US Presidential election… by a course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 US Presidential election to his advantage” ( p. 2).

“Trump abused his power of his high office through the following means: 1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding production of documents sought therein by the Committee. 2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and office to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents from the Committee. 3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.” (p. 3)

“President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.” (p. 3)

It is worth remembering that the Ukraine affair was not the first time Trump encouraged a foreign government to assist him against a political rival. At a July 27, 2016 press conference: 

"...just thirteen minutes into the press conference, Trump addressed himself directly to a foreign adversary in a way that no reputable presidential candidate ever had before. 'Russia, if you're listening,  I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing,' Trump said, referring to those of Hillary Clinton's e-mails that had been deleted. 'I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.'  ...here was the Republican Party's candidate encouraging - soliciting - Moscow's interference in his race against Clinton." (Donald Trump vs. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President. Michael S. Schmidt. Random House. 2020. page 57.)

Senate Select Committee Report

 In August 2020, the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence reported that Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign:

• encouraged and amplified the messages of the Russian social media campaign to interfere with, influence 2016 election. (page vii)
• promoted and disseminated Russian-hacked Wikileaks documents
• sought to maximize the impact of Russian intelligence and leaks to aid Trump's electoral prospects, sought advance notice about those leaks, and encouraged further leaks. (page vii)

 Other Issues

• Undermined longstanding relationships with allies, damaging the world leadership position and credibility of the United States.
•  Did not provide effective leadership on climate change. Doubted the truth of climate change (“I think science doesn’t know”). Left the Paris climate accord and dismantled various Obama-era environmental policies.
• Trump commuted the prison sentence, fine and probation of Roger Stone, a convicted felon. Trump's attorney general William Barr withdrew the government’s prosecution of Michael Flynn, despite Flynn’s admission that he was guilty.
  
•  Did not provide effective leadership in response to Charlottesville protests. Would not speak out against white supremacists. 
• Refused to make public his tax returns.
• Threatened to cut federal dollars for certain big cities that "have permitted violence and the destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract these criminal activities.” It seems that most of those cities are in states with Democratic governors.
  
• Sept. 29, 2020 debate: Ungentlemanly (and unpresidential) conduct towards Biden which resulted in a debate that I view as a low point in US political history. This is only one of many egregious examples of how Trump has generally lowered the standard of political behavior. His crass public attacks on a wide range of people have degraded the tone of public discourse and set a terrible standard for young people. If this is how the game is to be played, how can we expect any decent person to get involved in politics?
• Trump would not condemn the Proud Boys far-right organization when asked to do so during the September 29 debate. Instead, he said that Proud Boys should “stand back and stand by.” That was bad enough, but the next day, he said: “I don’t know who Proud Boys are. But whoever they are they have to stand down, let law enforcement do their work.” This is just one example of his penchant for saying one thing today, and then distancing himself from it later. He did something similar in 2016 regarding David Duke. The man is not trustworthy.

Trump famously promised to "drain the swamp." But as amply demonstrated by all of the above, he has made it much worse. And now, having committed this litany of outrages to writing, I hope to put it behind me once and for all. Of course, that will be much more difficult if Trump is re-elected.

Support the Police?

The often-seen statement "We support our police" strikes me as too broad. 

My support is conditional. I support police officers who use good judgment, act like professionals and are slow to anger. 

I believe that covers most of them. But I won't make a blanket statement of support for everyone that wears a badge. They have to be held to standards of conduct, just like the rest of us. The same applies to "Support our troops."

Pandemic: Rounding the Final Turn?

 

This graph shows Covid-19 data for the entire USA (source: The New York Times).  It’s not encouraging. 

 

The average daily case counts go up and down, but we’re six months into this and the virus is still out there, cutting an unpredictable path across the nation. Meanwhile, we’re approaching 200,000 deaths.

In my opinion, there’s no telling how long it will last. This data gives me no confidence that we’re "rounding the final turn," as Donald Trump recently predicted. And I’m skeptical of his claim that a vaccine could be ready "within weeks."  

Why do I lack confidence in those predictions? Not to belabor the obvious, but the pandemic has become too politicized, at least in the US. With this administration leading the effort in an election year, it’s going to be very tough for researchers, drug companies and regulators (such as the Food and Drug Administration) to make good scientific decisions. With all the pressure to get something approved and into production, it wouldn’t surprise me if the first-generation vaccine turns out to be ineffective.

Trump Suggests Polling Place Double-Check for Mail-In Voters

 [Cartoon by Kevin Kallaugher. The Economist.]

Every few weeks, The President of the United States says or tweets something that irritates, amazes or just plain drives me half-crazy. As to whether this is a deliberate strategy, or just the man’s mental incontinence and quick trigger finger, I cannot decide.  This article by AP News documents the most recent outrage in pretty objective terms.

Trump suggests polling place double-check for mail-in voters
 By Christina A. Cassidy and Deb Riechmann

Some news outlets depicted this as “Trump encourages people to vote twice.” It’s not quite that bad. According to the AP story, he said or at least meant “that people who vote early by mail should show up at their local polling places on Election Day and vote again if their ballots haven’t been counted.” 

But I have to ask: if you’re willing to go to the polls in person to check whether your mail-in ballot has been received, why even bother to vote by mail? Just vote in person. 

I doubt Trump thought it through that way. There are many possibilities. Perhaps he felt an urgent need to rally his troops in a strident call to action, but ended up just shooting from the hip without thinking it through at all. Or perhaps he’s laying the groundwork for a future claim that the election was rigged, a hoax, invalid, fake news, and it’s all because some people’s votes weren’t counted and others were counted twice. That will come in handy if he happens to lose the election. 

Or maybe he simply delights in trying to stir up trouble and confusion, to distract people from something else. 

Whatever his motives, there are all kinds of problems with the approach he’s suggesting. Imagine the chaos if crowds of people show up at the poll in person on Election Day demanding to vote again unless someone can prove to them that their mail-in vote has been "counted." Poll workers would have to deal with disputes and temper tantrums while everyone else waits in line, infecting one another with covid-19. 

In addition, giving people that second chance to vote is bound to increase the risk of an inaccurate count. No system is perfect, and the more people are allowed to vote twice because we can’t find their mail-in ballot, the greater the risk that duplicate votes go undetected. That hurts the public’s confidence in the system. In the worst case, it would give Trump a reason to refuse to accept the results of the election.

Of course, Trump's approach to politics has already hurt confidence in so many things. Never did I imagine that people in this country would come to doubt the fairness of our elections, but somehow it has happened. Two people I know personally are deeply concerned that their vote will not be counted, or will be somehow stolen. Trump's "polling place double-check" idea plays directly to this paranoia. It doubtless appeals to conspiracy theorists and disaffected voters who suspect that shadowy forces are at work, pulling the strings like a diabolical puppet master behind the scenes, trying to thwart the President’s efforts to drain the swamp and Make America Great Again.

It borders on irresponsible for an elected official to make a proposal like Trump's just two months from Election Day. If we're going to consider changing our election process this way, it should be done deliberately and with care. Let's consult experts, such as whoever oversees the election in each state.  Get input from the public. Hold Congressional hearings. Do it carefully and with transparency, not in haste.

Personally, I don't think any of that is necessary. Our election system has worked pretty well for the past 200 or so years. I think mail-in voters should just trust the system to capture their vote effectively. If they cannot get comfortable with that, then they should forget the mail-in idea and vote in person on Election Day.

This post began as a response to someone’s comment on a Facebook post. But at my wife’s insistence I’m trying to avoid doing battle on Facebook. So I turned it into a blog post instead.

Steve Bannon Arrested for Money Laundering and Fraud

This is the text of an e-mail I was going to send to a close friend. Not wanting to hurt feelings or ignite a feud, I wisely (???) decided to turn it into a blog post.

I’m sorry if my comment about Steve Bannon’s arrest offended you. I was just reacting to this story in The Economist and BBC News. 

Bannon was once Donald Trump’s chief strategist. In that role, he was quite vocal about wanting to dismantle the "deep state" and "drain the swamp." Before that, he was the executive chairman of Breitbart News. 

But now, Bannon has been indicted by a federal grand jury for money laundering and fraud in connection with the President’s promise to Build The Wall. 

Please do not try to turn this aside by reminding me that a former FBI lawyer has pleaded guilty to making false statements in an effort to put surveillance on one of Trump's campaign staffers. That doesn't advance the discussion, nor does it do nothing to mitigate my concern, which is simply this: Trump has too many associates (Stone, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Papadopolous and now Bannon) who have been accused, and some convicted, of wrongdoing. There must be a reason for that. It can’t all be a tissue of lies in a diabolical plot designed to bring down Trump. It is plain to see that this must stem from a failure of judgment, or character, in the President himself.

 References

The Economist. August 20, 2020. Steve Bannon is Arrested for Fraud. Yet Another of the President's Cronies Is In Trouble.  

Dunleavy, Jerry. The Washington Examiner. August 19, 2020.  Ex-FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleads guilty in Durham investigation.

Chances Are... by Richard Russo

Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2019
ISBN 9781101947753 (ebook)

In this splendid novel by one of my favorite writers, three men in their mid-60s - longtime friends Lincoln, Teddy and Mickey - spend a weekend on Martha's Vineyard mulling over the disappearance of Jacy, their mutual fantasy girlfriend from college days.

I've read most of Russo's novels. This one has all the things I love about his writing. It's highly readable, with a compelling story and believable characters. But then there are passages such as this one, which appears after Lincoln wonders: "If there was such a thing as do-overs, if we all had a bunch of chances at life, would they all be different? .... Or would they play out exactly the same?"

"To Teddy's way of thinking - and he'd thought about it a lot - this depended on which end of the telescope you were looking through. The older you got, the more likely you'd be looking at your life through the wrong end, because it stripped away life's clutter, providing a sharper image, as well as the impression of inevitability. Character was destiny. ...Why? Because... well, that's just how the story went. Nor, as the ancient Greeks understood, was it possible to interrupt or meaningfully alter this chain of events once the story was underway."

Russo doesn't bludgeon us with his insights. He has the knack of blending them together with plot, character development and believable dialogue.  Chances Are... will appeal to readers of my generation who remember the Vietnam war, the draft and the late 1960s in general. Russo fans will also notice that poignant sense of regret that runs through much of his work.

NB - I could hardly believe it when I read it, but this book contains the following passage: "Staring out to sea, she said, 'How come everything has to be so fucked up?' "  This is quite a coincidence, because in jest I have often asked my wife that same question, in almost exactly the same words. I have yet to find the answer.

Further Reading
New York Times Book Review. The Old Men and the Sea (or Richard Russo's New Novel). Alida Baker. July 30, 2019.

Neil Armstrong: Deist

In recent weeks, much ink has been spilled over the fiftieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. Among the more interesting tidbits: astronaut and moon walker Neil Armstrong once listed his religious affiliation as “deist.” Could I do the same?

Deists believe in a Creator, who was the first cause of everything. But the Deists' Creator is not involved with or concerned about mankind, and may not even be aware that mankind exists.  Deists do not believe in divine miracles, one true faith, or a true and authentic holy scripture.

I’m willing to accept the possibility of a Creator. Everything I can think of was created in one way or another.  Plato's Timaeus dialogue holds that "Everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created." In this view, since the universe exists, it must have been created, and something must have caused that to happen. 

But does the same argument apply to the Creator itself? What created the Creator?


Some religions believe that the Creator has always existed. It was the first cause, and was caused by nothing. That would make it a totally unique being. Likewise, some say the universe itself was not created, but has always existed. This concept of an entity with no beginning puzzled me as a child, and still does.

Some say that you can't use the existence of the universe as an argument for a Creator unless you accept the possibility that the Creator was itself created by something else, just like the universe.  This leads to a dizzying scenario "wherein each newly presumed creator of a creator is itself presumed to have its own creator" (Wikipedia, Problem of the Creator of God).  Sometimes known as "infinite regress," this seems almost a paradox. It's like "turtles all the way down," the myth that the world stands atop a World Turtle, which stands on another turtle, which in turn stands on yet another turtle, and another and another, all the way down to....what? Infinity, I suppose. If this is true, reality is a hall of mirrors and infinite reflections.  

Some Gnostics believed in an artisan god, the demiurge, which fashioned what we perceive as the universe but was itself created by a higher being. That higher being created the raw material with which the demiurge worked. This, Gnostics reasoned, explains why the world we perceive is not perfect. But who created the higher being? Where did the process begin? We are searching for the first cause, not something that was acted upon by something else. 

All of these possibilities are difficult to grapple with.  I keep coming back to the question of what came before. (This reminds me of the cleverly titled Who Came First, Pete Townshend's first solo album. But that is another story.)

Timaeus handily disposes of this problem by stating that "the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out."  This is a good point. There’s an inherent mystery here that cannot be solved by logic and reasoning.  I suppose it is ultimately a matter of faith, something which I do not have. Creator? No Creator? Supreme Being? First cause? Turtles all the way down? To me, the answers are unknowable. 

Trump-Induced Constitutional Crisis

I'm very proud of myself for not posting this on Facebook, which I almost did a moment ago. So I'm going to vent here and now. 

According to this article in today's New York Times, "Some who previously urged caution are now saying impeachment may be inevitable." 

Facing Defiant President, The Democrats Aim for a Get-Tougher Strategy

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times

Let's back up for a moment. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded his investigation and submitted his findings. I've read Volume II of the report (well, the executive summary and selected pages, at least).

Congress is seeking an unredacted copy of Mueller's report. They are also pursuing multiple investigations of Trump's doings.  Mr. President and Attorney General Robert Barr are refusing to cooperate and "fighting all the subpoenas", as Trump puts it. 

After the Mueller report was released, over 400 former federal prosecutors released a statement which included the following: 

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

It's hard to ignore a statement like that, coming from so many legal professionals. To me, it's a call to action. And it is Congress which must act now.  Trump cannot be indicted as a sitting president. He is effectively above the law unless Congress decides to impeach him. 

I once hoped this country would never have to endure another impeachment. But sadly, my view is that Congress must impeach to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. This is part of the system of checks and balances that has held our democracy together for centuries.  

There are others who agree with me. In an April 27 article, The Economist opined that impeding an investigation and accepting help from an enemy (which interfered in the 2016 election "in sweeping and systematic fashion", as the Special Counsel's report put it) are precisely the sort of actions the founding fathers would view as grounds for impeachment. That article went on to say: 

Democrats fear an unsuccessful effort to remove Mr Trump would help the president. But just moving on as if it were business as usual seems unacceptable too, signalling as it would that the only limit to the power of presidents is what they can get away with politically. How Congress and American political institutions respond in the coming weeks to Mr Mueller’s report will set precedents that could last for decades. 

A few final, dismal observations: not so long ago, the President and some of his supporters in Congress called for an investigation as to why the Special Counsel was appointed in the first place. Others would like to see the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton investigated.  And in a particularly mind-bending twist, there are those who call for an investigation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to determine whether the FBI spied on the Trump campaign. 

Our federal elected officials are stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of investigating one another. This activity is a huge distraction. They should be dealing with critical issues facing this country: health care, gun control, national security, the federal deficit, climate change. But there's no time for that now. We've got a constitutional crisis on our hands. 

Nevada Gaming Control Board vs. Wynn Resorts

On January 25 the Nevada Gaming Control Board filed a complaint against Wynn Resorts, owner and operator of the luxurious Wynn and Encore hotel/casinos on the Las Vegas Strip. In that complaint, the Gaming Control Board asks the Nevada Gaming Commission to fine Wynn Resorts and "take action against" the licenses held by the company.

Las Vegas Review-Journal,  January 28, 2019

The complaint contains numerous allegations of sexual misconduct by Wynn executives, including Steve Wynn himself. Even worse is the Gaming Control Board's claim that various senior executives were aware of these incidents, but did not report or investigate them -- a violation of the company's own sexual harassment policy. Even the chief human resources officer and three separate people who held the position of general counsel are said to have failed to act in this regard.

In other words, the company did not apply its own policies and procedures to Mr. Wynn. And it goes beyond that. A former Wynn employee now stands accused of facilitating sexual relationships between cocktail servers and guests of Wynn Resorts (see page 16 of the complaint; link below).

Read the complaint:

Nevada Gaming Control Board vs. Wynn Resorts

Complaint, January 25, 2019

The following is a summary of the allegations contained in the Gaming Control Board's January 25 complaint.

• A Wynn employee complained to her supervisor that she had been raped by Mr. Wynn and became pregnant as a result. The company settled this complaint for $7.5 million. See page 9 of complaint. 
• A cocktail server at Wynn Resorts claimed that Mr. Wynn pressured her into a nonconsensual sexual relationship. Wynn Resorts settled this claim for $975,000. See page 11.
• A former Wynn cocktail server and flight attendant claimed that Mr. Wynn engaged in sexual misconduct against her. See page 12.
• Separately, a flight attendant sent Mr. Wynn a letter alleging that he had engaged in sexual harassment with several flight attendants. See page 14. 
• Three employees of Wynn's Encore Spa claimed that Mr. Wynn engaged in sexual harassment during massages that were performed on him. See page 13.
• A former general counsel of Wynn Resorts received an e-mail alleging that a former executive "loves sleeping with cocktail servers". The general counsel did not investigate or report the matter, according to the complaint. See page 17.

About a year ago,  some of these accusations were made public in the Wall Street Journal. At that point, the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts began investigations. Wynn has since resigned his position and divested all his holdings in the company.

It is not clear to me why it took the Nevada Gaming Control Board so long to file the January 25 complaint. A year has passed since the Wall Street Journal published its article. Perhaps that's how long it took for the Wynn board to complete its own investigation.

Speaking of the company's board of directors, many of the allegations in the complaint relate to things that happened over 10 years ago.  How could something so wrong go on for so long without coming to light? Why didn't the board come to grips with this sooner?

You may wonder why I have put so much effort into writing this post. And I shall tell you. If the January 25 complaint is accurate, Wynn Resorts has committed an outrage against its own employees and against the city of Las Vegas. Worst of all, of course, is the damage done to employees. But there's a business concern as well. This sordid tale fulfills the coarsest "Sin City" myths and expectations that so many people have come to believe. That tarnishes the reputation of our city. It's bad for business in so many ways. Just as an example, stories like this make it harder for local companies to recruit quality employees to relocate to Las Vegas. No wonder we have a shortage of doctors in this town.

Read the story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Wynn Resorts admits wrongdoing, Nevada regulators find more sexual misconduct allegations

by Todd Prince and Richard N. Velotta, January 28, 2019

UPDATE: On February 26, the Nevada Gaming Commission fined Wynn Resorts $20 million for the conduct outlined in the complaint, according to The New York Times.  This follows a settlement reached between the Gaming Control Board and Wynn Resorts. The timeline for the settlement is curious. All parties signed the settlement on January 25. That is the same day the Gaming Control Board filed its complaint.  I wish I had a better understanding of this timeline. Why didn't the Gaming Control Board mention the settlement in the complaint? Or was the settlement speedily reached after the complaint was filed and signed on the very same day?