The Middle East Cauldron, and the Israeli Firebomber

 The situation in Lebanon is truly dangerous. To understand the enormity of danger, we must look at the geopolitical context. Hezbollah understandably, but foolishly, makes rocket attacks on northern Israel. These attacks are in the context of Israeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza [over 41,000 killed so far], murder of Palestinians in detention in the west Bank [hundreds documented], and annexation of Palestinian land as "State Lands" in the West Bank [not unlike Russian annexation of Crimea]. But it is a bad bet for Hezbollah for several reasons. First, Israel has apparent "unconditional" support from the US government for its military aggression, even if Israel has few if any OTHER allies willing to support its military plans. Second, Israel respects no international laws or standards in actions it will take to "defend the safety" of Israel. The "exploding pagers" strategy was arguably "effective," if one ignores the hundreds of innocent civilians, including children killed in the blasts. Third, Netanyahu does not fear all-out war with a neighbor, and indeed invites such a wider conflict to shield him from loss of the PM status and criminal prosecution for corruption. He is shielded and supported by an Ultra-Orthodox faction in the Knesset who struck a deal to support Netanyahu's genocidal campaign, as long as youths from that faction were exempt from military service and actually fighting in Netanyahu's war. The old political maxim applies: "when you are in hot water politically, start a war!"

Netanyahu knows that Iran or any other supporter of Hezbollah or the Palestinians will be reluctant to step in aggressively to challenge Israeli genocide. He attacks anyone publicly and objectively calling out his actions as liars and slanderers. Netanyahu petulantly and arrogantly points to attacks on Israel as "justification," but conveniently ignores the hypocrisy involved when those attacks are provoked and fueled by Israel's own oppressive conduct, some of which have been documented as international war crimes. But the overall situation remains that a conflict neither side can "win" by force. Israeli superior armaments will continue to support massive and increasingly brutal and immoral assaults in Palestine and Lebanon. Palestinians and Lebanese have no option but resistance, since even in "peacetime" Israel has continued oppression and usurpation of their lands. Israel's rejection of the concept of a two-state solution confirms its true motivation. It is fair to say that Palestinians have as much reason to fear from this Israeli regime as Israelis have to fear Palestinian terrorism. Netanyahu has no qualms about borrowing from the Nazi Germany "Final Solution" playbook. He would and seems to be pursuing genocide and extinction of Palestinians and permanent occupation of Palestinian lands. Short of that option, Netanyahu seeks a permanent "concentration camp" for Palestinians with Israeli complete control of Palestinian entry and exit, food supplies and commerce, and health and medical resources. This strategy has never worked long term, whether in Nazi Germany, US WWII Japanese Detention Camps, Bosnia, Tamil oppression in Sri Lanka, or elsewhere. It has temporary expedience, but long-lasting damaging implications.

The broader danger lies in the fact that no one, including the US government, seems willing to stand up to Netanyahu and his Israeli "defense mission." Allowing a self-serving despot, armed with huge resources of highly lethal weapons and no restraint, to continue to wage collective punishment in violation of international law invites wider conflict. Politically, Palestinians and their supporters, who do NOT seek to justify the Hamas October 7 attack, but who strongly protest Israeli genocide are being silenced in the US. They are charged with asinine accusations of being "antisemitic." [NOTE: "semitic" is an archaic term describing descendants of many middle eastern peoples that genetically include Jews AND Palestinians. So, logic compels the conclusion that Israel's genocide of Palestinians is "antisemitic!" It is a political ruse, a sham argument.]

Any politician who dares object to Israeli genocide and US support for it is attacked by the huge bankroll, influence, and resources of AIPAC.  They are effectively silenced by threat of losing their elective office, as well as false claims of antisemitism and public shaming. There is also a broader and time sensitive context. Right now, Russia is engaged in territorial aggression in Ukraine and Putin and Lavrov have even whispered the threat of nuclear options. Constraints and international monitoring of Iranian development of nuclear capability were abandoned by Trump when he was in office. No one can be certain of current progress. And North Korea is making noises about ramping up nuclear capability. So, it is not hyperbolic to suggest that Netanyahu's invitation to a broader conflict could trigger global consequences. As a practical matter, this becomes time sensitive leading up to the US presidential election because it is unclear whether Harris would continue to provide Netanyahu the same level of "cover" that Biden has done. This might explain the urgency of Netanyahu's current offensive in Lebanon and push to evacuate northern Gaza. Netanyahu almost certainly understands that if he loses PM status, just as if Trump loses the US election, criminal prosecution will swiftly follow. So, for Netanyahu, self-interest "trumps" best interests of Israeli citizens, Palestinians, and international law.

At present, Netanyahu is acting like a deranged tyrant standing in large meeting hall holding a hand grenade and threatening to pull the pin, while his agents run amok murdering innocent women, children, and other civilians in the ruse of eliminating the Hamas threat. No one seems willing to stop Netanyahu and demand a sane approach to put out the fire in the Middle Eastern cauldron. We can only hope that someone will intercede before the madman ignites the world.

"No Need To Vote in the Future If I Win" - Trump & Project 2025

 

Instead of panic regarding Trump’s remarks to the right wing “Christian” Turning Point Conference, we might step back and take a more comprehensive view. Trump has difficulty with nuance; his approach is inherently bombastic and hyperbolic. So, his statement about abolishing elections is likely an exaggeration, as most of his claims are. Reactions turn toward Trump aspirations as dictator in the executive branch. However, the substance behind the claim is perhaps more dangerous than Trump’s blatant bumbling claim. The president as dictator is perhaps the lesser evil in the scheme.

The GOP concerted mission of changing and “rigging” the electoral process to remove democratic safeguards surfaced during the Reagan years. The primary front has been processes of gerrymandering, voter dilution, and voter suppression. In gerrymandering, for example, a region in which 70% of voters favor a democrat is surgically divided into 3 voting districts so that at least 55% of those democrat leaning voters are concentrated in one voting district, and the other 45% are split between the other 2 districts. This systematic carving is often piggybacked on discriminatory housing patterns. The unavoidable result is that the democrat leaning voter majority will never be able to prevail – the 30% GOP voters will control 2 of 3 districts.

Voter dilution is more insidious, and typically focuses upon race as an indicator of voter preference. As in Jackson, MS, with a predominantly Black population, control over traditionally “local” issues such as police and education was shifted to “statewide” authority and effectively neutering the voices of the local community. Shifting control to “statewide” offices is just one dilution tool.

Voter suppression is a more aggressive form of anti-democratic shift. Imposing more stringent and more onerous conditions to “qualify” to cast a ballot, and obstacles to access to polls are primary examples. One such strategy is to reduce the number of polling locations in communities of color, so that long lines and long waits discourage voter participation in targeted precincts.

The secondary front is the judiciary. Politically appointed and biased judges are installed to make sure that the above strategies are not deemed “unlawful” or “unconstitutional.” Such rulings are a strained interpretation of the 14^th Amendment. In addition, measures such as the Voting Rights Act have been gutted by these GOP appointed judges so that options to challenge antidemocratic processes are limited.

The point here is that when Trump, in his clumsy way, was probably referring to the Project 2025, the substance of the promise to the right-wing group was that, if he is elected, the “fix” of assuring dominance of GOP control would be fully institutionalized during his term in office. The concept of democracy as “majority rule” will no longer exist in US elections. As an historical note, Bush and Trump assumed office as president despite failure to receive a majority of votes in those elections. So, this strategy and scenario is far more than just “hypothetical.”

Reflection and Narcissism: Perhaps the GOP should look within!

 As days pass, we learn more about the incident at the Butler, PA rally and yet are still left with major areas of speculation. We do know the identity of the shooter, and something of his background, but we will not likely know his mind, motivation, or intent. He was killed by Secret Service or police sniper fire within seconds of his firing the AR-15 assault weapon. We are left to speculate about what may have caused Crooks, a 20-year-old middle class youth who was described as a loner who liked guns, to actually go to the rally armed and fire the weapon. We know that he was a registered GOP member, when relatively few of his peers are formally registered as members of either party. We also have learned that some time ago he contributed $15 to a progressive get out the vote organization [NOT the Democratic Party, as media tend to imply]

Reflecting on these events and facts, the GOP should be concerned that a Gen Z member of a white middle class GOP affiliated family in a small western Pennsylvania town that was a member of a local gun club would seek to eliminate Trump [if that were his true intent]. The demographics and politics suggest that these would be prime characteristics for MAGA followers. Another factor is his contribution to an organization seeking to encourage voting. While some may want to infer alliance with Democrats, it must also be considered that the current GOP seeks to suppress rather than encourage voting by the general population. It is not easy to identify many GOP “get out the vote” organizations because of the party’s anti-democratic characteristics. Both Trump and his surrogates have taken the position that they would not commit to honor the 2024 election results

So, why would a youth who apparently believed in conservative values and policies, and politically aware enough to register to vote with party affiliation, view Trump as a threat to America? While we are not likely to reach any certain answer to that question, it does suggest that the GOP might be well advised to shift some of its focus away from wild conspiracy claims and demonization of the Democratic Party threat to the nation toward some internal reflection upon defects in its message and policies under Trump and the effect such policies are having on younger members of the GOP and Trump’s “Base.”  Most current GOP operatives are so infected or inebriated with the narcissism of Trumpism that they may be unable or unwilling to engage in critical reflection. But they fail to do so at their own peril. Crooks had practice and training with weapons and should have been able to hit his target with at least one of the multiple rounds fired from the semi-automatic weapon. yet he missed Trump as a target. It is possible that Crooks, faced with the enormity of his actions, flinched enough to just miss a solid strike. Plenty of research suggests actually killing someone is not easy or romanticized as in movies and TV. That is a reasonable inference, IF we assume Crooks' true intent was assassination. 

If they could accept that "one of their own" could view a Trump victory as a sufficient threat to democracy and the country to motivate an attempt on his life, the important question is not whether there will be more attempts on his life, but whether that disaffection and distrust might manifest in lesser forms, but still injurious to Trump and Project 2025. It would be far easier for Gen Z voters to simply not vote for Trump at the polls or not vote at all, if they shared even a fraction of the doubts and disaffection that Crooks must have felt about the GOP standard bearer. And without reflection and close analysis, that abandonment by Gen Z voters might be something the Trump Campaign never saw coming. 

Peacemaker, Appeaser, Quisling, or Apologist – Justice Amy Coney Barrett

 

Attention has recently been drawn to Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a somewhat favorable light because of her concurring opinions and statements appearing to downplay the cavernous division on the SCOTUS between the “conservative” bloc and the liberal justices. Much is made of her comments departing from the partisan majority that either questions the soundness of the ruling’s rationale or criticizing the majority for reaching beyond what was necessary to decide the case.

At the same time, she has spoken critically about the liberal justices who have spoken out about the ill-conceived, poorly grounded, and sometimes disastrous opinions the GOP bloc has handed down. Her contention is that the justices are in agreement more often than the minority criticism would suggest. Statistically and technically, that is accurate. But it is also somewhat dissembling. Liberal justices have actually been quite restrained and strategic in their dissents, often declining to issue a public statement of criticism or even acceding to opinions of the majority when their disagreement has no hope of swaying the GOP bloc. It certainly could not credibly  be claimed that when the sharp public dissents have come that they were in minor or trivial cases. To be fair, Barrett has shown herself a better justice that was expected and certainly superior to her contemporary Trump appointees Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. She has pointed out ungrounded or unreasonable departure from precedent and procedure by the majority used to reach a contrived result. At least in that sense she has shown some respect for SCOTUS as an institution and for her professional responsibility as a sitting justice.

Barrett treads upon thin and hypocritical ground, however, when she seeks to downplay the importance of differences among the justices, claiming that “we all wear the same color black robes.”  Cute phrase, but it fails to acknowledge that those robes can cover up huge and important differences in what lies underneath. The false equivalency argument that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown could ever be equated with Thomas and Alito in character and competence is truly laughable. And in another comment, Barrett disgraces the chair that her predecessor sat in. Ruth Bader Ginsburg would never have argued that her female colleagues should shut up and sit down or try to mollify an errant male dominated majority. In response to minority dissents regarding the presidential immunity ruling, Barrett said:

“The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up,” Barrett wrote. “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”

Wrong. It is not the job of any justice to ignore the law, precedent, Constitution, and well-being of the nation and seek to mollify or blunt criticism of an errant majority that has both strayed and done serious damage to the country and respect for SCOTUS as a fundamental institution. It is sexist and demeaning to suggest that the minority dissenters, all women, should play the stereotypically feminine role of minimizing and smoothing over major problems. They have no duty to play the role of apologists for the majority and its erroneous and politically motivated ruling.

As such, the role Barrett is playing may be less that of a peacemaker, than that of a quisling. She may be seen as one seeking to portray an alliance with other women justices while voting consistently to undermine the principles and policies that would protect constitutional protections citizens should be entitled to enjoy. The Dobbs decision is one obvious example. Barrett, because of her wealth, status, and personal choices, has multiple children, natural and adopted. But when faced with a decision that would preserve the right to make such choices on reproduction and family, Barrett stood with the conservative majority to carry out the GOP agenda of denying those rights to other women. While Barrett may spout words of supposed collegiality, if I were one of the minority SCOTUS justices, I would not turn my back on her for a minute.

It is understandable that there should be an attempt to “buff up” the image of Barrett, since none of the other justices in the majority have shown attributes, character, or performance that is respectable ands praiseworthy. Barret has been silent on issues of corruption on the SC OTUS and failure of some justices to recuse themselves even when clearly required by law and jurisprudence to do so because of conflict of interests. But it is also fair to say that not too much can really be expected of Barrett, since even when she may side with the minority justices, they still are defeated by the five other conservative justices.

NEWS vs NOISE

 Reflecting on the barrage of media postings, blogs, vlogs, and podcasts, etc., it occurs to me that there is a strong need to step back and take a more critical perspective. Decades ago, the primary source of media news reportage came in the form of print media and TV news programming. The newspapers only had a number of pages per edition, so there was some editorial constraint upon what to print. Is it reliable, is it newsworthy, is it informative or just pandering? Now, the base of such reporting includes thousands of "sources" that are neither accredited nor professional, and editorial standards are akin to: "what story will garner the most attention, regardless of its veracity or informative value."

A similar progression can be seen on video media, where the plethora of video clips have overtaken and forced out thoughtful and professional journalism. And this is not about a liberal vs conservative orientation, it is about the fundamental purposes of the fourth estate, and the reason it enjoys constitutional protection. One aspect of the deterioration is the wholesale broadcast of material known to be fraudulent, false and deceptive. The Rupert Murdaugh case involving a settlement of nearly $1 billion for conducting a knowing and strategic campaign of false reporting intended to deceive the public and drive-up ratings.  

Perhaps a more basic problem is the "truckload" strategy. As a young litigation attorney, we encountered a practice by defense firms [one in particular] of responding to document discovery requests by delivering truckloads of mostly disorganized papers. While the required discovery was in the pile of documents somewhere, it was a serious challenge for plaintiff's counsel to find the relevant documents among the heap of papers. In the present context, the problem is that there is so much unreliable and irrelevant "news" being published that the public cannot discern the reliable and relevant information from all the noise and rubbish. 

A more critical and perhaps cynical view of the practice could be detected. If a concerted strategy were used to flood the published arena with false and deceptive reports, the result would not only be confusion, but a deterioration of trust in media generally. This a could explain reports of the numbers of the younger generation turning away from or simply ignoring news media. there are few consistent and reliable indicators to guide the public, even when they try to adhere to the admonition to always check multiple sources before drawing any conclusions. Decades ago, one knew that the National Enquirer was 90% unreliable garbage, and the Washington Post was probably 80% reliable. Now, we see that formerly trustworthy sources such as the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are approaching the 50% reliability level. We know that any source labeled "FOX" is not only slanted toward right wing agendas but is also likely to contain falsified and deceptive "information."  The problem effectively created by this strategy is that when so much of what we hear and read is unreliable, there is a tendency to believe none of it. And the result is an uninformed and easily misled public. With all of the NOISE being broadcast, through unprofessional neglect and cynical destructiveness, the NEWS and relevant information get lost.

The Problem with Legal "Historical Precedent" Rationale - Gun Control

 I wonder whether judges issuing recent rulings regarding restrictions on assault rifles [AR-15 and similar] that seem twisted and contrived are doing so from ignorance or dishonesty.

For example, a federal judge in Illinois issued an injunction against enforcement of a ban on possession and use of automatic assault rifles, including "ghost" guns [operational weapons that can be manufactured via 3D printing and without registration numbers, i.e., effectively untraceable] Fortunately, the 7th Circuit overturned the injunction, but one of the judges dissented and bought into the lower court argument that the ban was not consistent with "historical precedent" and the 2nd Amendment. Thise trope was also indulged by the conservative majority of SCOTUS that restrictions on gun ownership is "unconstitutional" because the restrictions are inconsistent with "historical precedent."  What rational "legal principle" accounts for this so-called "historical precedent" is very obscure if one exists at all. 

Automatic rifles neither existed nor were contemplated when the Constitution was drafted and established as a founding document. Certainly, there is no evidence that even the wildest futurist Sci-Fi authors in the 18th century never contemplated computer-based 3D printing of assault weapons. There is no rational basis for an "originalist" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this context. The AR-15 was manufactured solely for military use in 1958 and did not become available to public until 1973, after military production fell off. It stretches the bounds of credulity to argue that the 2nd Amendment, when written could be read to contemplate protection of ownership and public use of such weapons. 

So, if "historical precedent" has any legal merit or weight, then rational consistency would dictate that laws established as late as the 1970's should have pre-emptive validity. In that case, the SCOTUS would have to admit blatant hypocrisy in overturning Roe v Wade, which had been the law of the land since that era and striking it down would be "inconsistent with historical precedent." Otherwise, the Court and any other judges using the Constitutional "historical precedent" argument would have to either show that the context sub-judice was extant and actually considered at the time the Constitution was drafted or admit that the argument and rationale is a sham. 

I hesitate to raise the argument, in light of the insanity of the current gun rights zealotry. But I will do so, purely hypothetically, to show the absurdity of such positions.  If automatic assault weapons, which were never contemplated in terms of use or public safety risks at the time the Constitution was drafted, cannot be banned because of the 2nd Amendment, then the same argument would apply to hand grenades, RPG launchers, and armed drones. None of these were conceived when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, but all are weapons that could be owned and used by an individual, potentially for self-defense. There would be a very long list of similar very lethal weapons that were technologically developed beyond the single shot rifle and pistol that existed in 1800. [Ironically, no one apparently has argued that the 2nd Amendment protects possession and use of a cannon, which did exist at the time. This would support an argument that original protection did not extend to EVERY type of weapon.]

A more honest and rational analysis would have to consider whether the legal restriction on assault weapons possession is rationally related to the legislative purpose of public safety. If not, it would be potentially "arbitrary and capricious" regulation. The assault rifle has no purpose or function other than to maximize killing of persons. It is not a hunting instrument, and if target practice were a function, then there would be no objection to restriction of their use to licensed gun range facilities, rather than personal possession at home and elsewhere. Even police use of assault rifles is regulated by restrictions on when and where they can be used in a quasi-military operation. So, reasonable restriction on assault weapons should only be contested by whether the restriction is related to a public safety purpose, and the extent to which the restriction rationally supports that purpose. 

To perhaps belabor the point. consider that the "right" to liberty and control of one's person and property was contemplated in the Declaration of Independence and multiple Amendments to the Constitution [including 1st, 4th, and 5th for example]. A woman's right to control medical decisions regarding her own body could not be infringed if using the "historical precedent" argument. Of course, a potential flaw in the argument might be that women were not considered first class citizens in the archaic 18th century US. Although abortion did exist at the time, the fetus would presumably be the "property" of the man, as was the woman, who cold control such decisions. But by 1919, the right of women to vote solidified the shift from property to person that had evolved over the preceding century. Multiple states have adopted constitutional provisions establishing a woman's right to control and make decisions about her body and reproductive health. Thus, whether using originalist or evolving historical precedent, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is inconsistent and dishonest. The only potential "public safety" issues would be a scientific determination of "viability" of an unborn child, which Roe v. Wade addressed, or medical malpractice in performance of abortion. The latter was already regulated, and statistical evidence and experience showed that banning legal abortions only INCREASED morbidity and reduced safety.

The 7th Circuit ruling may well be appealed to the SCOTUS. Let us hope that the high Court will avoid reliance upon the inadequate and dishonest trope of "historical precedent" and allow the ban on public possession and use of inherently dangerous assault weapons, and especially including "ghost guns" that are not even registered.

Court Hands Down Crucial Ruling on AR-15s (msn.com)

The Current Systemic Problem with the Judicial System

 It is truly unfortunate that recent events have given weight to criticism that the judicial system is corrupted. The actual corruption relates more to the systemic foundations and operation than the individual dishonesty of certain venal judicial officials. 

Let me explain. The problem with Justices Thomas and Alito goes beyond their acceptance of gifts and bribes from parties with disputes before the SCOTUS that impugn their independence. The real problem is the systemic rot that PLACES them on the bench with the express and implied goal of slanting rulings and undermining confidence in the SCOTUS. 

In Georgia, the judge holding hearings on what should have been treated as a frivolous motion to disqualify prosecutors has ruled that there was no proof of ACTUAL conflict [which is the legal standard for disqualification], but that some vague "appearance of impropriety" justifies disqualification of Willis or Wade from prosecution. The reason for the ruling has nothing to do with substantive LEGAL justification for his ruling, but rather that the judge is facing re-election is a conservative region. Justice and professionalism is thus sacrificed to systemic corruption. If he found no actual conflict of interest, the judge should have simply and clearly dismissed the motions.

In New York, so called "independence" of the Offices of the US Attorney for SD of New York has led to a fiasco and delay of trial because that office failed to turn over a trove of over 100,000 pages of documents requested a year ago. IF the US Attorneys' office had a legitimate reason for withholding documents, then DA Bragg's office would have been alerted. But his office was apparently surprised to learn of the handover. No doubt, as in other instances in the myriad Trump cases, many of the sensationalized pages will turn out to be copies of documents already identified or disclosed. But the petty politics that undermines confidence in the system has created a fiasco.

These are but a few examples of how degradation of the system has cast the Judicial system in a bad light and undermined confidence. It is, in my opinion, that systemic rot that enables criminal intent, as with Trump, to place unethical, incompetent, and biased individuals on courts and in positions of responsibility for operation of the judicial system. It also opens the door for Trump to make largely unfounded claims that prosecution for his crimes is a "liberal plot." It does not require that there actually BE any conspiracy, as long as confidence in the ability of the system to deliver justice is impugned.  And that is a problem that all legal professionals, whether considering themselves liberal or conservative, ought to be concerned about and work to remedy.