Taking a Stand - In Defense of A Civil and Humane Society

I will borrow words from Keith Olberman to make a point. Commenting on the transformative advice he derived from words of his dying mother about character and integrity, he said:

"It’s been 27 years since she spoke those words. I had to start paying attention. I had to truly learn to walk away from toxic people that I loved dearly. It didn’t matter anymore who you were. If you hurt me, betray me, use me, disrespect me or cause me physical harm or others etc. I will walk away from you. You can no longer treat my life and well-being in a cavalier manner. Yes! I will forgive. And yes my heart remains soft. But I can’t help others if I stick around with those who may be harmful to my well-being! So I now wish them well. Move on! And continue my journey to help others....Walking away from you may have been painful ...But its more painful to pretend your behavior or actions weren’t harmful to me or my family! They were! ...You watch Trump everyday harm others and our country. And you don’t care. You just go about your business. Your lack of empathy is disheartening and disturbing!

To my friends and acquaintances who support or even condone the policies, actions and rhetoric on PUTHOP and this Administration, I say this. I will not attack you personally, though I reserve the right to challenge your actions and ideas. Neither, however, will I respect you or presume that your beliefs and actions come from empathy, compassion, good will or love. Those assessments must be EARNED by you, as you have rejected the foundational premises by your words and deeds. I may intellectually understand your position as based upon logic, sometimes perverse, bigoted and often mean-spirited. Or I may acknowledge that your arguments make no logical sense at all. We CAN have dialogue and discuss issues of the day, and I am open to credible arguments and ideas. But know that you begin on a position of "0," without privilege or credibility. To establish such credibility, you must advance your arguments upon facts, logic and evidence as well as alignment with commonly accepted values and notions of human rights and decency, social justice and respect. These are the essential criteria.

For example, separating children from parents and jailing and psychologically traumatizing them for weeks in cages without adequate food and sanitary necessities is a non-starter. It cannot be justified in logic, factual necessity or humanitarian grounds. If you condone such actions and policies, or the person who is responsible for imposing such conditions, then you OWN the actions and their implications. You may claim to love your own children, but if you condone such treatment of ANY child, you are a hypocrite undeserving of respect or credibility.

Some may find my stance harsh or even intolerant. However, I believe that humanity entails tolerance of difference, but does not entail tolerance of inhumanity. One who stands with the chanting crowd watching a lynching is no less inhumane that the one who places the noose around the victim's neck. One does not have to agree with my opinions or proposed solutions, but the criteria by which I assess your credibility and worth of your arguments are implacable.

You may have fiscal capital, but of moral and intellectual capital you have none! Having abandoned integrity, self respect and humanity, you are at "0" with nothing to lose. You may choose to remain in your self-serving and insular cabal and continue to support hate, division and bigotry. If, instead, you do not support or condone the inhumane, hateful, duplicitous, racist and destructive policies of the PUTHOP Administration, you can establish credibility and integrity by DOING something to remove the blight and cancer from the nation's body politic. In this case, silence does equal consent. Where you go from point "0" is up to you. 🤓

Irony Abounds!

When trying to listen to impassioned arguments based upon strongly held “beliefs” and “values” it is admittedly difficult to escape the notion that these zealots never actually listen to their own arguments. If they did, the evidence that they are so full of holes as to make a screen door seem opaque. This morning a so-called leader of the “Pro-Life” movement went on NWPB to explain and “justify” the new Alabama Anti-abortion Law, touted as the most restrictive in the nation in the eyes of her “value” driven sect. The statute was designed to put Alabama in the lead as the case most likely to receive first consideration by the Supreme Court, and lead to overturning Roe v. Wade precedent. The ironies abound. The woman appeared educated, despite the incoherence and illogical positions she espoused, and it was not clear whether her inconsistent arguments were borne of sheer ignorance or callous hypocrisy. I address here only the arguments she presented, not the larger debate.

To begin, it is ironic that a woman would be put forward to carry the flag for a piece of legislation enacted by middle-class and upper-class white men in the Alabama legislature. That ploy could hardly be ascribed to coincidence. Her argument began with the proposition that "all lives matter equally," and so abortion that kills “people,” in her view, allows for valuing one person over another. There are so many flaws in this argument that it is hard to choose where to begin a response. First, the argument assumes that one can define the moment at which “personhood” begins for there to be a differential valuing. Regardless of where one argues that critical point should rest, the very existence of the argument supports the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that the “Pro-Life” sect attacks. If we are dealing in absolutes, the existence of parthenogenesis in nature, and in mammals even though not documented as occurring in humans, would classify every ovum [human egg] as a potential person. Thus, every ovulating woman would be a “potential” murderer simply through menstruation.

Going less far afield, the logic of the Pro-Life sect would certainly classify any miscarriage as manslaughter, even if a defense could later be proven that the event was a bodily defensive reaction to the fetus [self-defense], rather than a failure of "duty of care" to properly nurture the tiny “person.” An even more concrete discrepancy arises considering that the Alabama law does not allow exception for abortion procedures when the fetus threatens the life of the pregnant woman, unless a physician deems the procedure required by a medical emergency. Since there is no definitive prescription for what does and does not constitute a valid “medical emergency,” any doctor would risk being second guessed and risk losing license and career by making a choice. This puts a doctor’s personal interests  inescapably in conflict with the best interests of the patient, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

The argument that the basis for Pro-Life anti-abortion legislation rests in concern for “all” life is, at best, cynical. That the burden falls only on women smacks of Augustinian notions of punishing and subordinating women because of the mythical failings or “sins” of Eve. Far too many examples of poor women whose lives have been destroyed through excessive childbearing, through the trauma of sexual assault and rape exist to deny that the Pro-Life movement is valuing potential life based upon conception over women and their right to control their bodies and reproductive processes. Moreover, the so-called “pro-Life” sect has done nothing demonstrable to address the impoverishment, poor health, starvation and abuse of children whose births have been and would, of necessity, increase as a result of the anti-abortion legislation. Societal reality is that there are circumstances in which a woman is incapable of caring for a newborn. Only a vile hypocrite could advocate for compelled birth of children and then swiftly turn one’s back on the child born in such circumstances.

Interestingly ironic is that the same demographic that supports this so-called Pro-Life sect are supporters of the president and his policies that separate immigrant and refugee families, place children in cages and offer them up to “agencies” that include organizations that are tied to child trafficking like the one in which Department of Education DeVos has a financial interest. This flies directly in the face of the argument that “the circumstances of conception do not determine the value of one’s life.”

The Alabama law does not include exceptions in the case of rape and incest. The Pro-Life argument is that sexual assault and violent rape are deplorable, such events do not justify pregnancy termination. This group stands behind the Ohio law that will, unless a court intervenes, require a preteen girl impregnated by rape to carry to term the product of that criminal assault. This is the result they seek, even if the pregnancy threatens to physically or psychologically destroy the life of the young girl. Again, such logic may only be supported by some notion that the female is guilty of original sin and deserves whatever circumstances [punishment] that may befall her.

The interviewer questioned the spokesperson about statements by longstanding evangelist Pat Robertson that the Alabama law “goes too far,” and raised the issue of risks to women from illegal abortions. After dismissing Robertson as not “speaking for” the Pro-Life sect values [likely news to Pat Robertson], she launches into argument that sound, at best, nonsensical. She does not refute the assumption that illegal abortions will occur [as they always have]. But counters with the absurd argument that “the former Director of Planned Parenthood stated that prior to Roe V. Wade most illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians, and penicillin makes such procedures safer.” In other words, her claim is that the law is not seriously harmful because licensed physicians would perform illegal abortions in clean and safe environments. The Alabama law would impose prison for up to 99 years for any physician performing a procedure that violates the law. She also argues, ironically, that the small number of women who are maimed and may die from back-alley illegal abortions is outweighed by the “lives” save by criminalizing abortion. [Not my interpretation – her argument].  The Pro-Life speaker did not address how the number of pregnancy terminations would presumably drop significantly just by turning the procedure from legal to illegal. Nor did she address why the number of deaths and maiming from illegal procedures would not increase substantially, when licensed physician services and access to appropriate antibiotics would be cut off by the new law.

Perhaps the most far-fetched interpretation of the Pro-Life argument might be that technology has advanced. It assumes that all women have clean and safe places to live where they could perform self-induced home abortions. This is the privileged lifestyle of the spokesperson and most of her comrades. After all, pregnancy tests can be done at home with over the counter products. If it is accepted, as they appear to acknowledge, that women who feel they need to terminate pregnancies will find a way to do so, then such actions should be confined to the privacy of homes and not allowed in facilities such as doctor’s offices or clinics. The irony, of course, is that their arguments would compel them to push for making pharmacists criminal accomplices if they sell over the counter products to induce abortions and medications that would make home abortions safer. Irony abounds!

#WeToo in a Quagmire

The arena of claims of sexual assault is a very messy and indefinite space. Clouded by evolving social mores that have condoned sexual violence as well as suppressed the voices of victims, the current environment makes navigating the issues perilous as well as uncertain. The situations that have recently arisen with Virginia Lt. Governor Fairfax presents a case study for analysis, even though all the facts are not yet known. Accusations and counter-accusations, both plausible, are being tossed about in a context of political motivations beyond mere exposition of truth, holding wrongdoers accountable or vindicating victims.

Fairfax is accused of sexual assault by Vanessa Tyson, an associate professor of political science, that allegedly occurred nearly 15 years ago [2004] at a Democratic Convention in Boston. At the time, she was a graduate student working the convention with presumed political aspirations and seeking advantageous connections. Fairfax was, at the time, an aide to North Carolina Senator Edwards with a position of influence that would be attractive to aspirants such as Tyson and which he might be disposed to use for personal gratification. These factors apparently converged as Tyson admits voluntarily accompanying Fairfax to his hotel room and engaging in consensual kissing. Here the stories diverge in current day iterations. Fairfax claims that the encounter was consensual. Tyson claims that an initially consensual encounter became sexual assault and that Fairfax allegedly coerced her to perform oral sex. There was no official complaint or report of criminal assault at the time, which is not unusual for such alleged events. Victims of sexual assault have historically been reluctant to come forward because of potential shaming or fear of disbelief in their accounts. They usually remain silent and shy away from discussion of such topics.

This situation can be contrasted with recent high-profile cases. In the case of now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, there was evidence of contemporaneous behavior that gave circumstantial credibility to the allegations of past sexually inappropriate behavior, including allegations by more than one woman and testimony of sexually predatory behavior. Though allegations were not a manifold, a similar hyper-partisan political shield was erected to protect the nomination of Clarence Thomas. Indeed, the vigorous tactics by his supporters to truncate and circumscribe investigation would suggest that a thorough investigation would have revealed potentially damaging corroborative information. In the case of Bill Cosby, there were allegations of misconduct and similar allegations from multiple women allowed to come forward to tell their accounts. There was no political shield to prevent investigation of evidence and testimony.

It should be noted that Fairfax has not requested or suggested the need for any obstructive protection from investigation of events alleged by Tyson. In fact, he has stated that he welcomes a “fair, impartial investigation.” Fairfax has been through at least two comprehensive FBI background investigations and been cleared, despite awareness of allegations by Tyson of sexual misconduct. On the other hand, Tyson has come forward at a time when she is doing research and writing a book on allegations of sexual violence against women and children. She claims to have come forward now, as a public service, because of “falsehoods and aspersions of my character” she claims Fairfax has made. This seems unclear, as she is the one who has advanced the allegations and aspersions against Fairfax, who has responded with denial.

There is more substance to be gained by an objective and fair investigation, despite the invitation by the Massachusetts Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins to investigate and possibly prosecute. Rollins has campaigned on issues of advocating for female victims of sexual violence, and so her objectivity may reasonably be placed in question. But there is information that Tyson was active in women’s rights organizations and a Speakers Bureau in 2005, after the alleged assault by Fairfax. These were events in which she encouraged women to share their stories of abuse. She spoke at one event in 2005 in which she alleged having been sexually abused by her father. Given this posture of stepping out of the shadows and such activities advocating honesty and disclosure, an investigation should reveal whether she raised the allegations of assault against Fairfax she now raises. If not, then it is legitimate to question why she waited until 2017, and a potentially political and profit-making context, to surface these allegations.

Fairfax has a political career to protect and his denial is also a contextual factor. Validation of the allegations by Tyson would seriously damage his political future as well as potentially removing him from office in the ambiance of the “#MeToo” movement. Unlike Kavanaugh, Cosby and Weinstein, no evidence has yet surfaced of a demeanor of arrogance or sexually predatory behavior. One other woman has come forward with allegations of rape arising from a consensual social encounter when she and Fairfax were both undergraduates on college years before the alleged Tyson incident. However, no evidence of any official report of that event has surfaced to date. Again, survivors of sexual violence deserve to get an open and fair hearing of their claims, without peremptory dismissal. But those allegations may also be subjected to scrutiny and validation, as accepting such claims without scrutiny would be equally unwise and unfair. But in a fight for his political career, Fairfax has the motivation to paint his past and present as that of an honorable, law abiding public servant who respects women and their rights. If that picture is flawed by evidence to the contrary, then a fair and impartial investigation should expose those defects.

One of the concepts I stress to my students when exploring historical accounts is “historicity.” As an attempt to reach authentic accounts, it is important to view past events in the context and through a lens of the time in which they arose. By the time of the alleged events in the Fairfax dispute occurred, feminism was in its third wave and moving into the fourth wave. The notion of a woman speaking out against a violent sexual assault was far less radical, as was the social acceptability of a woman going to a man’s hotel room in the context of what would otherwise be deemed a business event. As “equals” both man and woman would be equally responsible for their choice to be in such a situation, and arguably free to leave if the situation changed. It is clearly conceivable that each participant could have been seeking to exploit their respective position, the other person and the situation, beyond the simple notion of a recreational sexual encounter.

Problems can obviously arise when attempting to reinterpret those past events. Both participants may have a motive to suppress or hide their motivations for going to that hotel room in 2004, and what took place. Both participants may now have very different motivations to shape the facts and the interpretation of that past event which bear very little resemblance to the motives that existed at that time. Moreover, those competing motives may have less to do with exposing the naked truth than with positioning each disputant for maximum political and financial gain in the present. Even the District Attorney Rollins is not without motive and agenda in this call for a “fair and independent” investigation.

It is a rare dogfight in which both participants do not get bitten. If a thorough investigation ensues, then revelations will come. If the allegations by Tyson are credible and corroborated by reliable evidence and testimony, then he should be held accountable even if it destroys his political career. Equally so, for that is the point of the women’s movement, if the allegations are not substantiated and are shown to have been advanced and characterized for the purpose of destroying the career and reputation of Fairfax, then Tyson should be held accountable. That might include either prosecution for malicious prosecution or a civil claim for defamation. All these high stakes consequences would probably not be present if the allegations had been raised years ago when Fairfax was not in such a prominent political position and Tyson was not in an obvious position to gain financially and politically from publicity arising from the allegations.

Whither "Education" in an era of Anti-intellectualism?

Major challenges of education have long been to teach youth [and others]: to respect factual evidence; to critically examine such evidence with regard to its reliability, relevance and weight; to apply rigorous logic to such evidence leading to reasoned inferences and conclusions; and to discuss and debate the inferences and conclusions to test their probity and strength. The application of evidence and reason to govern the affairs of society has been employed since at least the time of Hammurabi (c.1792 BC) through Socrates (c. 469-300 BC) to the adoption of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution and into modern times. Societal evolution has advanced and become more inclusive [with significant setbacks] over time largely as a result of this reliance upon critically evaluated and reasoned evidence.

Yet the PUTHOP Administration appears to mock and discard these processes and values. ["What you are seeing, is not what is really happening!" - PUTHOP] A cornerstone of US representative democracy charged with ensuring an informed electorate [gathering and disseminating information to be critically evaluated and used to form inferences and conclusions] is now under attack. [Labeled "the enemy of the people!" - PUTHOP] Substantial factions of the electorate disdain facts and reason, almost in cult-like fashion and embrace declarations by Administration and Congress that are deceptive, unreliable and often insupportable by evidence. The declarations often obscure actions designed to undermine the rights and well-being of the very public urged to embrace the deceit. These members of the public also encourage their children to ignore facts and reason and follow the lead of their parents and "leaders."

These "leaders" are now advocating for diversion of public taxpayer funds to support "choice" schools in which generalized principles of learning are supplanted and subordinated to insular and myopic versions of history and the world that align with this anti-intellectual trend.

What, then, should be the direction and future of education in a discursive context that not only devalues, but openly attacks evidence and reason as a basis for constructing knowledge? In the past [as well as in the present], pre-service teachers have expressed concern about attempting to address issues of inclusion and cultural responsiveness when parents with bigoted and privileged viewpoints might be antagonistic or disapproving. Now that perceived "risk" may extend to processes of teaching children to think critically and to research and support their conclusions and positions. [To be continued....]

Prediction of a New Civil War?

A recent poll indicates that almost a third of likely voters are fearful that the United States will experience a new civil war within five years. Polls are remarkably unreliable as predictors, but they can gauge levels of public sentiment or mood. Similar polls have indicated fears that opposition to the current Administration policies might result in violence. That is not, of course, the same a open rebellion and civil war. It does, however, gauge the level of division and polarization among the populace.

I believe that it is hyperbole to predict that an open civil war is on the horizon. However, a tacit civil war over the soul and substance of the nation may well have already begun. We have an insular group invested in white supremacy and oligarchical capitalism holding reins of administrative authority. From this bastion, they issue policies and exercise brutal police state power and violence. Such actions, despite patronizing pronouncements, are not to protect public or national safety, but rather to preserve privilege and retain power.

Propaganda and false rhetoric are used to goad the weaker minded and the resentfully insecure to engage in attacks on any designated by the insular group as "other." These include people of color, women who believe in self determination as to their actions and their bodies [including reproductive rights], Muslims. The policies are intended to oppress and enslave the "other" and to exploit the vulnerable for political gain. The agencies that function as the infrastructure of government have been placed in the control of ideologues rather than under leadership of experts with actual knowledge or experience in the areas to be guided or regulated. The Fourth Estate, a fundamental component of a functional democracy, has been publicly branded as an "enemy" of the Administration and its followers. And the Administration is poised to seize control of the Supreme Court, the arbiter of the Rule of Law. Cities have had to declare themselves as "sanctuaries" in opposition to abusive exercise of national police state power.

Those who would question the actions of the insular group are either publicly branded as "liberals" [as though it were an epithet-it may surprise you to read the actual definition] or they are harassed and intimidated into silence. The insular group resorts to policies and practices that are patently inhumane [by international human rights standards] and unconscionably violent, often merely to stoke fervor and hatred among followers, to promote a cult like entourage of sycophants. The group invents bastardized interpretations of founding precepts, or else simply ignores Constitutional tenets, and claims such transmogrified notions as guiding principles.

If these descriptions of current affairs appear strikingly similar to the Southern Confederacy, to the Third Reich, and to other despotic regimes, it is perhaps not merely coincidence. When US leadership expresses "admiration" for despots who jail opposition and order killing of dissidents living in exile through use of neurotoxins [Putin], or who publicly executes dissidents, family members who might gain power, or just public servants who "disappoint" the leader [Kim Jung Un], the deterioration of government and society should be less surprising.

The current polarization and struggle for the identity and conscience of the nation is no less dramatic or less consequential than the divide and principles at issue during the civil war. There is still a glimmer of hope that a plebiscite in November can begin to restore some balance and redemption. However, even the electoral process has been compromised and corrupted by the insular group to tip the balance in its favor. So, while I would not predict a civil war in the immediate future, it would be fair to suggest that we are teetering on the brink.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/poll-almost-a-third-of-us-voters-think-a-second-civil-war-is-coming-soon/ar-AAzglF4?li=BBnb7Kz

Let's Review the Bidding, or State of the Union: Midpoint 2018

If one doubts that we are in "trouble" [with a capital "T" that rhymes with "P" and that stands for Pool...sorry, got a little carried away] then consider some basis facts regarding the current state of the Union as "governed" predominantly by the GOP.

There is a president who could be charitably described, based upon firm evidence, to be a petulant, churlish and megalomaniacal narcissist. When arriving for a so-called "historic" meeting between PUTHOP and North Korean Leader Kim Jung Un, the president nearly blew up the entire planned meeting by insisting on a timetable that was convenient for HIM, but would have disrupted the North Korean Delegation and all planning that went into the meeting. Only when his aides explained to him that the change he demanded would mean he would lose worldwide TV coverage did he relent.

Consider that the major agencies of government are run by individuals patently incompetent to manage them. Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy are all run by individuals who have admitted and demonstrated the lack of experience and competency to run these major organs of government.

Consider that the Attorney General, responsible for upholding Constitutional separation of church and state relies upon the "Bible" to supposedly justify actions generally deemed criminal violations of human rights by the rest of the world. Tearing children from their parents using tactic previously seen only in Nazi concentration camps [telling parents that children are being taken for "baths" and then never returning the children to their parents]. Those children are detained in chain-link fenced cages in what are euphemistically called "detention centers."

Consider that the Speaker of the House, who is responsible for oversight committees that supervise government agency actions and budget claims to "know nothing about" major corruption at the EPA. Consider that there is a Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of State that continually insult and alienate our strongest historical allies and initiate trade wars and destruction of major multinational accords.

And Consider that we have a majority in the SCOTUS that appears to condone restrictive practices such as purging voter lists in order to prevent people from voting to overturn the current regime. The current state of the SCOTUS was reached because the Senate, under GOP control, prevented a well qualified nominee legally put forward by the prior Administration from being installed. That same Senate leadership is furiously getting Federal judges seated, including individual with NO significant trial of high level judicial experience, but who espouse right wing ideology.

The Budget Deficit is growing as the non-partisan CBO projected that it would as a result of a huge tax cut that has reduced revenue from corporate taxes and shifted wealth to the top 1%. While the economy seems to be relatively stable, subject to disruption by arbitrary and counterproductive tariffs and trade wars, the healthy economy has not resulted in significant wage gains. Home ownership is increasingly out of reach for the poor and middle class. Disruptions of protections under the Affordable Care Act now threaten the financial stability of millions of families, and financial ruin to families who have substantial health care issues and especially those with "pre-existing conditions."

Even the controlling GOP Party is having major disputes among themselves, one senator accusing the party of acting like a "cult." Others responded by chiding him and demanding that he only make statements that are consistent with the "Party Agenda" or say nothing.

From the lens of the rest of the world, the United States is viewed as being led by an unstable and unreliable president who cannot be trusted or relied upon by allies as they had done in the past, even with changes of Administrations. The united States has pulled out of Major multinational accords, such as the Paris Accord, TPP, Iran Nuclear Agreement. NAFTA is also in grave danger. At the same time, personal insults and threats by PUTHOP are accompanied by imposition of tariffs on countries based upon false "justifications." The President cites "national security" as a justification primarily because no one can explain what the term means. However, it is clear that the countries and trade attacked have no relationship to what has historically been thought of as a "threat" to national security, military or
economic.

With the foregoing [and the recitation is by no means a complete list] issues we see dysfunction in virtually every branch of government and a lack of a clear path to make course corrections. GOP candidates for local state and federal office include white supremacists, a formal brothel owner, openly racist and homophobic individuals who not only hold beliefs antithetical to decency and democracy, but feel fully enabled to espouse such discriminatory, hateful and amoral attitudes and opinions as campaign slogans.

And the media, the Fourth Estate that is charged with supporting an informed citizenry, act like trained seals barking and flopping about at whatever the PUTHOP Administration or the aforesaid extremists toss them, without significant professional judgment as to whether what is being reported and newsworthy. Indeed, many stories are posted that include claims that the media outlet KNOW are false and misleading. Yet they fail to act professionally and reject publication that would place them in the position of a propaganda tool.

In all of these dire observations there is at least one ray of hope. Students who have survived horrible attacks and massacre of their classmates have recognized and called out the failure of "adult" leadership to address these basic responsibilities of government officials to act for the public benefit and support the common good. These young people are mobilizing to register and VOTE. And they are aware and focused upon voting out individuals who reflect the problems described above. So "open up the pool halls, let the young people gather" and enable them to reclaim the values of the nation that current "leadership" has abandoned or lost sight of. But our Union and our fate rests on the shoulders of each one of us. WSe OWN what we will CONDONE.

Dangerous "Leadership"

Certain things are very difficult to reconcile or explain, except in the most extreme cynical terms. They defy logic, common sense, common moral standards and social justice values. When such behaviors are exhibited by the occupant of the Oval Office, it constitutes dangerous leadership.

The president's decision to walk away from the Iran Nuclear Agreement is one such event. This was a campaign slogan, but most people do not take such rhetoric seriously, least of all the politicians who assert them. There is no substantial evidence that Iran has violated the agreement, PUTHOP claims of violations have no credible grounding; but he has been described as "untethered from the truth." All of the remaining participants, including close US allies, are at odds and in disagreement with the US action. Most experts with actual experience in international relations and specifically in the Middle East, agree that there is NO realistic chance that the attempt to bully Iran will be successful in yielding any significantly different agreement from Iran. And as noted, other participants to the Agreement see no need for any major revision, certainly not sufficient to walk away from the deal or to support the US in doing so.

Of course, the action could be cynically attributed to PUTHOP's bigotry because Iranians are Brown people and Muslims. Moreover, the agreement was realized under the Obama Administration, the accomplishment of a Black President that PUTHOP strives to dismantle. But it does not reconcile with the tens of thousands of lost jobs that Boeing and other companies' employees will suffer as a result of the revocation of licenses for Billions of dollars in aircraft production deals. It cannot be reconciled with increased costs to American public from oil price hikes due to disruption from renewed sanctions. All of the pain an sacrifice that the action would inflict cannot be rationally justified by petty and virulent bigotry.

A similar analysis would apply to curtailment of the TPS Program for disaster refugees and the cut in funding to CHIPS medical support for vulnerable children. PUTHOP would destroy these programs, not because they fail to provide necessary relief, but because they are achievements under Obama.

But another even darker theory emerges. PUTHOP appears to display characteristics of megalomania, a psychiatric malady marked by delusions of greatness and power. His delusions manifest in viewing himself an autocrat with absolute power to indulge any whim, whether benevolent or deeply malicious. This is evidenced not only by arbitrary decisions described above, but by his actions that impose broad tariffs and then controlling suspension of the penalties [relief] only for those nations with whom he personally finds favor. Rejection of the Iran Nuclear Agreement fits this analysis because, unlike general legislation, it is a measure where US participation was subject only to PUTHOP's judgment or caprice.

The degree of his egocentrism, narcissism and delusion is displayed daily, such as publicly stating and tweeting multiple times that he thinks HE deserves a Nobel Prize. [If anyone else truly believed this, PUTHOP would not need to be the one trumpeting the absurd notion.]*

If this analysis of psychopathology and arbitrary behavior is accurate, the implications for when the 25th Amendment to the Constitution may be invoked should be seriously discussed. The "Ship of State" is clearly in uncharted waters and at serious risk of a shipwreck with such a person at the helm.

*https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-everyone-thinks-i-deserve-nobel-peace-prize/ar-AAx0Vdm?li=BBnb7Kz