Another Economic Perspective on "Social Class Warfare"

 I believe that Progressive messaging, and the hope to make real "progress" requires a more nuanced approach. It is not just about the wealthy [and super wealthy] versus the poor [or middle class]. A "social class war" creates a superficial enemy. There is a structural problem of huge wealth shift to the wealthy. That structure needs to be revamped. But not all wealthy people are monsters like Musk and Bezos. To change behavior, however, requires changes in attitudes and incentives.

Consider an example. Taylor Swift has a net worth of over $1.5 Billion. She gave away more than $19 Million to food banks, charities and foundations. If only 1/3 of those contributions were paid in additional taxes, it would yield $6 million in tax revenue yet make NO difference in her lifestyle. Now multiply $6 million times the more than 400 persons with similar or greater wealth, and it would generate about $2.4 Billion more in revenue WITHOUT any negative effect on the daily lifestyles of those persons. Indeed, their respective wealth would increase by more than the $6 Million in less than a year.

It may be admittedly naive, but this shift in attitude provides a potential for shared decision-making on how money the wealthy were already likely to give away. Those unwilling to make charitable contributions like Swift would be "incentivized" to do so, but still with NO adverse impact on their lifestyle. Similar shifts in thinking would prompt lifting the cap on Social Security Tax contributions. There really is no rational justification for an upper cap on tax contributions unless those above a certain income level would be disqualified from receiving benefits, which they are not. Again, continuing to pay Social Security Tax on income above $250 K would have little or no impact upon lifestyle. This does NOT mean that benefit levels should shoot up dramatically, but it would end the quarrels about fund insolvency.

And there are even broader potential implications for a shared contribution, or "wealth tax," if it were implemented. More wealthy people would be inclined to support candidates and representatives who were willing to make equitable and constructive legislative and executive decisions in the best interests of ALL citizens, instead of contributions to PAC organization whose only function is to support candidates seeking to increase the wealth and power of their benefactors - perpetuate the wealth shift.

A central point or argument here is that the raw and superficial rhetoric of a "class war" creates a narrative in which the "poor" will always come out worse, mainly because the wealthy already have the resources they need to "win." The wealthy already have a community bond with the poor and middle class, who work in their factories, buy their products and services, and provide police and public services to protect that wealth. The problem is that the wealthy have too long been enabled to consider only their own insular needs and pleasures, without giving due regard for the "community" resources that generate and protect that insular circle of interests and lifestyles. It may be a challenge to persuade those who think only of themselves. But a shift in rhetoric and narrative, along with some practices, toward a sense that the wealthy help themselves when they participate in helping others.

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.

The Supreme Court as a Independent Branch of Government? The Colorado Ballot Question

 

There will doubtless be a lot of analysis and nattering, about the Supreme Court of the United States ["SCOTUS"] ruling on the Colorado ban of Trump on the presidential ballot. But the decision, in essence, remains a bad one that is largely indefensible. While the ruling may be rationalized as “convenient” or “pragmatic,” because it comes on the verge of a presidential campaign, it nevertheless represents an abdication of the role and responsibility of SCOTUS as supreme arbiter of the language and principles of the Constitution. SCOTUS shifted that responsibility to Congress, though nothing in the Constitution or the 14^th Amendment states that its proscriptions and requirements are “subject to the enforcement or interpretation” of Congress. A longstanding principle of jurisprudence is that wording in the Constitution and legislation is to be given its "plain meaning" where the language is clear and unqualified. This SCOTUS ruling would have us accept that the Constitution may not mean what it explicitly says, unless Congress agrees with that plain meaning, and is capable of acting* to confirm that plain meaning.

Indeed [and I may be a stickler here to make a point], the SCOTUS has previously recognized and ruled that 14^th Amendment equal protections under law are enforceable even as against - not subordinate to – laws passed by Congress that infringe upon such rights. The SCOTUS ruling also states that Congress, and not the states, may enforce the 14th Amendment provision. But state courts routinely make rulings that enforce 1^st, 5^th and 14^th Amendments to the Constitution. So, the rationale that states cannot interpret the Constitution is a doubtful one. And the fact that SCOTUS must make difficult rulings on Constitutional issues does not justify deferral to Congress.

Democracy is admittedly a messy process, but that untidiness does not excuse SCOTUS from making legally sound and coherent decisions, even when the result might be "inconvenient." The Brown v. Bd of Education [14^th], Lemon v Kutzman [1^st], Miranda v. Arizona [5^th] and many other SCOTUS decisions interpreting and enforcing the Constitution all created significant “inconvenience” for governmental, educational, police, judicial, and other institutions when their practices were at odds with Constitutional principles.  While SCOTUS has a traditional caution about deciding “political questions,” this case did not present an essentially political question, until SCOTUS chose to make it one for political reasons. The question was simply: if “A” is an established judicial fact, then does “B” necessarily follow?  The Colorado Supreme Court confirmed that Trump's actions met the definition of an “insurrectionist” and someone giving aid and support to insurrection [“A”]. The 14^th Amendment, sec. 3, states that anyone who has previously sworn to uphold the Constitution and has engaged in insurrection cannot hold office [“B”]. The 14^th Amendment says nothing about equivocation based upon a potential candidate’s popularity or political party affiliation. The twisted SCOTUS ruling says that states can only apply the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3, to state offices. But the 14^th Amendment doesn't say anything about limiting authority of states to apply its restrictions only to “state” offices. That was a convenient and dishonest SCOTUS artifice.

There are two additional points of concern relating to the SCOTUS as an institution. If the designated third branch of government, tasked with final authority of deciding the meaning of language and principles contained in the US Constitution, cannot or is unwilling to uphold that responsibility, what is the need for such a body or institution? And when an abdication of that duty and role occurs specifically with regard to a question concerning fealty to a political strongman or party, can SCOTUS any longer make a legitimate claim to “independence?” The options for remedy might only be to abandon SCOTUS, or to remove justices who are incapable or incompetent to uphold its Constitutional responsibilities. Again, this is not a matter of differing opinion on legal principles or doctrine because there is no jurisprudential grounding for the ruling. 

Finally, it is disappointing that Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson-Brown participated in the ruling, even as a concurrence in the result. If they were going to concur in the result, while distancing from the majority, there was an obligation to provide a sound legal basis and explication for such action. Moreover, judicial integrity would have called upon them to refuse to sign on to any ruling relating to the Jan 6 Insurrection in which Clarene Thomas was a participant. His participation destroyed the integrity and impartiality of the ruling. It does not matter what side of the ruling Thomas was on [though that aspect was a given], because his wife was an active participant in the fake electors plot and also attended the Jan. 6 Rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol. 

* Deferral to, and dependence upon, the current Congress that cannot even pass legislation to keep the government running or to provide essential foreign aid to allies is a dim hope.

Regulating or Holding Accountable the 4th Estate?

 I have faith in the US Constitution, but that faith has been sorely tested, and many interpretations so distorted that it is sometimes challenging to tell that the source was supposed to be the constitution.

Having said this, I have to question the expanded interpretation of freedom of the press. The principle is valid; but when it is so abused, I wonder about the limits. For example, consider the daily news reports of GOP "investigations, "inquiries," and Trump "attacks" and "claims" about misconduct and attempts to impeach political opponents.  Whether it is Jordan, Comer, Smirnov, Trump, Gaetz, or whoever, we repeatedly see assertions highlighted in the "news" go down in flames. Often, we later find clear evidence that the claims and evidence were KNOWN to be false before being publicized. 

I don't approve, but don't condemn the GOP prevarication. They either don't know any better or cannot help themselves. But the problem for me is the media which, negligently or intentionally, fails to vet or corroborate the claims BEFORE using the powerful megaphone of the public media to broadcast the falsehoods. Doing so for sensationalism and ratings distorts the purpose of the constitutional protection. And we are not talking about occasional errors. This is a daily occurrence; it has become the norm.  Democrats are not immune from such prevarication; it's just that it does not appear to be their typical practice, as with the GOP.

Perhaps the case against FOX and Murdoch could be a productive starting point. When a media outlet broadcasts false claims and stories that it knows [or should have known with minimal reasonable inquiry - such as corroboration], that media outlet might be held accountable. In other words, any media outlet claiming "freedom of the press" protections should be able to demonstrate that it follows procedures to ensure accuracy and objectivity of its reports, generally and in the specific instance. In the past, this distinction used to separate legitimate news organizations from tabloids and rags. One expected tabloid reports to be sensationalized and unreliable. They were "entertainment," not news. In the current environment, with internet outlets, blogs and the proliferation of so-called "media outlets," the distinction is lost.

This could turn into a mudslinging brawl with accusations of "fake news" competing against sloppy and irresponsible "journalism." But I wonder if that would be worse than the current situation. It has always been important to check multiple news feeds and compare the sources, basis and reasoning of the various reports before coming to any position. But have you ever tried to find an object of real value in a garbage dump? Trying to discern reliable factual information from the current slag heap of sensationalized and often incomplete or inaccurate "news" is a real challenge. We have "freedom of speech," but some speech becomes actionable, and some statements can be defamatory. The point is not to eliminate freedom of the press or free speech. The idea is to require that such "rights" be exercised responsibly and not with impunity.   

The Embarrassment that is Clarence Thomas - Requiem for the Sixth Amendment

When very public acts by notable public figures occur, we sometimes feel a sense of pride or embarrassment because of their actions. Some people expressed both regarding the public confrontation between Actor Will Smith and Comedian Chris Rock at the Academy Awards. But it is vital to note that neither Smith nor Rock is "representative" of Black men or Black folk. The case of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas is another matter. He holds power that represents and can greatly affect the lives of citizens, and should be expected to vote on important Constitutional cases while mindful of the history and perspectives, as well as the implications, related to people of color under the US "rule of law."

Some people take umbrage at the characterization of SCOTUS Justice Thomas as "Uncle Thomas.” Yet sometimes a sobriquet is quite fitting and earned. The archetype character of "Uncle Tom" was a slave sitting at the foot of his "massa," making clownlike apologies while doing the oppressive bidding of white slaveholders. Clarence Thomas sits on the SCOTUS as the only current Black citizen. [Thankfully, the SCOTUS will soon seat a highly intelligent, experienced, and culturally aware Black female jurist.] 

Like Uncle Tom, Clarence Thomas has disavowed or completely forgotten his heritage and history. His lead opinion in the recent ruling in the Arizona Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Case shows not only a disregard for the Sixth Amendment guarantee to criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel, but also the history of abundant criminal justice system abuse, particularly against Black citizens, that makes that Constitutional guarantee so fundamental.  

For decades, state level courts have imposed convictions on criminal defendants of color, while ignoring due process, abuse of procedure and misconduct by prosecutors, reliance on circumstantial evidence [if that], while so-called “defense counsel” sat by and did nothing to protect the rights of those defendants. Federal court intervention has often been the only effective means of redress for the wrongly convicted. But “Uncle Thomas” opines that the same state level abuse and bigotry that has produced such practices must be deemed paramount and prevent correction or relief by federal courts. Moreover, federal courts cannot even conduct hearings to consider whether ineffective assistance of counsel was evident, even in cases where the consequence may well be execution of the criminal defendant.  Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, properly described Uncle Thomas’ opinion as “perverse” and “illogical.” And that harsh assessment was tempered by a level of customary civility among justices. 

Neither the rest of us nor history will be so kind in assessing Uncle Thomas’ ruling. It is likely to be considered as infamous and as inhumane as prior SCOTUS opinions of Taney in the Dred Scott Case [that African Americans “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”] or the Holmes opinion in Buck v Bell approving involuntary sterilization of the disabled [“Three generations of imbeciles in enough.”] Such perfidy might be expected from Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito, who deftly positioned Thomas into the leading role of authoring the majority opinion.  Thomas ought to be embarrassed by his actions, but all of us should be embarrassed to have a Supreme Court of such character as to issue such a ruling. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/23/supreme-court-decision-makes-it-tougher-for-inmates-to-win-release-from-prison.html

The Hate Mongers Among Us - From Buffalo Forward

We do not have the luxury of fatigue. But I confess that I grow weary of listening to talking heads braying on about how "horrible the senseless deaths" in Buffalo, NY were. All the while their prattle serves to normalize and rationalize behavior that is neither civilized nor rational. The deaths were not "senseless," as every person of color sensed loss and dread upon hearing of the incident [yet another one!] And we know that the attack was not mindless, as it was well planned and intentional. And we now know that more attacks were planned and would have been deliberately executed, cheered on by the likes of Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and their ilk for profit and notoriety. And we, as a society, lack the courage or commitment to call it out, to condemn the conduct and those who traffic in such hate and violence.

We miss important distinctions when talk shifts to “free speech.” The law makes clear that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not protected “speech,” it is an act of terrorism intended to cause serious harm. Yelling to an assembled mob to go and attack the seat of government is not "free speech," it is a treasonous act of violence. And broadcasting messages to white supremacists to take up arms to “defend” the “white race” by massacre of people of color is not free speech. As those who lie dead in Buffalo have paid the cost, and the many persons of color who have preceded them will attest, such actions are far from “free.”  Yet we lack collective fortitude and commitment to condemn and hold accountable those who would engage in such acts. That lack of courage is evidence of the distinction between the “America” we talk about and hope to build, and the "Amerikkka" that we now HAVE. Is it a tacit concession that the elements engaged in such hateful and violent beliefs and conduct reflect a significant faction of “normal” Americans?

Beyond standing or sitting around shaking heads, wiping tears, and wondering, action is required. We believe in a system of government and collective “representative” action. Thus, we must both look to and demand that the government begin to seriously address such behavior as domestic terrorism. No one of us can draw the line, but we must collectively define it and make clear that which is NOT normal or acceptable behavior in OUR society. We rue deaths of innocents slain because of the color of their skin or their ethnicity, after the fact. Yet there were clear advance signals, opportunities, if not encouragements, for the Buffalo shooter and like-minded individuals to plan and execute such terrorism. The Governor of New York throws up her hands and wonders why the Buffalo shooter was not “red flagged” and prohibited from purchasing the semi-automatic weapons used, or the materials to modify ammunition clips. But we know how easily they were acquired and how.

We do not need to adopt an Orwellian pre-emptive state. A free society does entail risks associated with open expression of ideas, including unpopular ones. Rather, the point is to regain rationality. We accept that police can recognize the difference between someone driving safely and someone driving wildly and erratically. The latter needs to be stopped, whether the cause is inebriation or a mental or physical disorder. The police may even prohibit such person from driving. Otherwise, imminent danger to the lives of others is at stake. It is no less a sign of impending danger when a group assembles in an online forum and goes beyond ranting to discuss specific strategies for mass murder and how to acquire equipment for such actions. There ARE warning signs. Is it a sign of what we "tolerate" when police can and do engage in surveillance if a group is planning to rob a bank, but are unwilling to use surveillance when a group is planning a race based massacre? 

We cannot prevent all such incidents, and it is not a simple matter to do so, but we do have intelligence that enables us to observe when controversial “speech” crosses the line to become action and conspiracy to commit violence. We have the capacity to address the hate speech that precipitates violence, and we have the capacity to restrict guns from acquisition by those who engage in such plans. What we lack is the courage and commitment to reject such elements as part of an acceptable society and to employ that capacity to intervene. Those deficiencies define our society. 

Put Aside Cynical Theatrics and Get Serious: Case of Kanye West

 Recent articles in the media surrounding Kanye West have highlighted the cynical and morbid penchant of the media []and public] to exploit virtually any situation, often without any regard for moral implications. The ostensible "public interest" angle was his apparent "stalking" of Kim Kardashian, who is getting a divorce from West. Certainly a split of a high profile celebrity couple is nothing "new" and not really newsworthy. But the Kardashian "brand" is built upon publicity rather than talent or substance. What that also means is that, although West's continued pursuit of a relationship beyond a connection to their children is inappropriate and a bit pathetic, there is likely no actual danger to Kardashian. She has had a virtual army of assistants and security personnel for many years.

The problem lies elsewhere, and it is with West. There is an obvious problem with his bipolar disorder and mental instability. On the positive side, he has demonstrated that he could be successful displaying his artistic talent while simultaneously suffering from a mental condition most might find debilitating. But it also appears that he has experienced various periods of stability, perhaps while on his medications, and other periods of serious instability. He was in such an unstable period when he was persuaded to do an interview with Donald Trump, which was not only cleverly exploitative by the Trump Camp but also portrayed West as a lunatic. That ploy was successful for Trump in suggesting to his "Base" that Black folk, even very successful ones, need not be taken seriously. The event was a media frenzy when there really was nothing substantively newsworthy. Yet it appealed to political theater and to morbid public curiosity. But where were the mental health professionals, and where were the supposedly responsible aides West should have had to advise him against such behavior, especially when obviously off his meds.

Fast forward to recent days. West buys a house almost across the street from the Kim Kardashian home. Yes, he has the money and an ostensible desire to be "closer" to the couple's children. Other celebrity couples have resolved similar issues with more civility and common sense. Tiger Woods has a home in the vicinity of where his ex-wife Ellen Nordegren and their children lived. But it was at a respectable distance and not deliberately intrusive. However, West's motive became much more apparent when he chose to make public threats of actual violence against men Kardashian has dated. And, of course, in the Hollywood arena such pairings and activity become media fodder, especially for one who parasitically thrives on media attention. This is not to say that a man who refuses to accept an end to marriage might not be jealous of attention paid to his former partner. That is not "irrational" or mentally ill. How one deals with such jealousy, within the bounds of the law and civility is another matter. The threats West has made against Davidson are beyond the bounds of law and decency. Moreover, the behavior again highlights the fact that West apparently has no staff or "assistants" willing or able to restrain his impulsive and mentally unstable behavior.

When media personalities of color, including Trevor Noah and D.L. Hughley tried to call out West's behavior, not to ridicule him but in a more fraternal vein to try to offer the advice he was obviously not getting from his staff, West publicly threatened them as well. This is a clear and obvious sign that West is both out of control and dangerous. Finally, some public media has taken action to suspend access to platforms he has used to make public threats of violence. But that is not enough, media should take the responsible step of a media embargo of West until it is evident that he has gotten some help from mental health professionals. The man is in serious need of help. No matter how "entertaining" it might appear to witness his meltdown, many would also feel sad if and when his uncontrolled behavior resulted in serious harm to Kardashian, Davidson, Noah, Hughley, or anyone else. And this would also be a dereliction and a tragedy with respect to West's children who will have to live with the consequences. 

Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Putin's "Retaliatory" Export Ban in Response to International Sanctions

While I see the response by Putin to international sanctions as predictable and retaliatory, like a schoolyard bully, they also appear to be more emotional and symbolic than they are likely to be effective. Banning exports is a symbolic statement, but not likely to have major lasting positive outcomes for Russia. 

It may be true that stopping export of some raw materials [aluminum and phosphates] may cause a rise in some prices as other nations adjust to alternative supplies. [None of the raw materials banned are available exclusively from Russia.] But to keep Russians working, those materials need to be sold to somebody. And the list of allies needing and able to buy such goods is shrinking daily. Most of Russia's  manufactured and finished goods are exported to Russian puppets like Belarus. So other nations are not really going to be “punished” by this “shoot yourself in the foot” strategy. Moreover, manufacturing of such exports keeps a lot of Russians employed. So curtailing exports hurts Russian economy. At the same time, previous buyers of such goods will find other suppliers they deem more reliable. As for consumer goods companies like Starbucks and McDonald's, their model is light on investment in land and buildings, while heavier on disposable goods and service workers. Their withdrawal will mean loss of many Russian worker jobs. And nationalizing "goodwill" assets will be a pyrrhic victory for Putin.

Finally, Russian threats to nationalize assets of foreign companies that withdraw because of the invasion of Ukraine are likely to have longer term negative effects. Initially, those companies will have to balance economic losses because of continuing business with Russia with the value of investments in Russia. [Real risk of boycotts based upon public reaction.] Mid-range effects will be the loss of jobs in Russia from withdrawal of international companies. The greater long term effect will be that international companies will have to think very hard about even attempting to re-enter Russia. Caterpillar can build tractors in Mexico, Poland, and other nations with lower long term risk. Certainly, that is the case as long as Putin is in control of Russia.  Major capital investment tends to be risk averse, and Putin is anything but “stable.” For every manufacturing plant Putin nationalizes, the corporations should simultaneously announce expedited plans to build and maintain alternative plants and supply lines in other nations. The obvious message to Putin is that his move will have long lasting consequences.

At the same time, Russia's ban on exports, even if Putin claims it to be temporary, will have effects at least as long as memories of the brutal and genocidal attack on Ukraine is remembered. [Parallels are already circulating about similarities of Nazi invasion of Poland.] The practical result is opening of new opportunities for other nations and economies to enter the gap created by Putin and to establish long term and lower risk business relationships that attract capital investment. China is already pushing influence via  "investment" as a strategy in Africa and elsewhere, as the Chinese economy expands globally. So, while Putin sees China as his "friend," it is likely that Xi is smiling and encouraging moves like this "export ban" because it give China a welcome advantage. Contrary to his egoistic perception, Putin is definitely not "the smartest guy in the room." 

For the EU, NATO, and Western nations, the response should be to continue to pressure their allied international businesses to withdraw from Russia, and citizens should reinforce that strategy with consumer boycotts of companies that maintain ties with Russia. Those companies will attract goodwill for their corporate conscience position. That goodwill will later be rewarded by average Russians, if the companies are able to re-enter Russia, or to business investments in other nations if Russia becomes a closed door.

See: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60689279

Amy Coney Barrett and the Fallacy of Adoption as "Answer" to Abortion Ban

In recent arguments relating to the Mississippi anti-abortion law, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett demonstrated her elitist and racist beliefs and perspectives. She may even have done so unwittingly, as a result of implicit bias, which could be even more dangerous. Barrett questioned whether adoption laws could “ease the burden” of parenthood and justify overturning Roe v. Wade. Roe has preserved for women a reasonable control over their bodies and reproduction for almost a half century.  Her arguments are not compelling enough to overturn decades of stare decisis, though such rulings can be appropriate where the basis lies in facts, experience, social justice and rationality as in the case of Brown v. Bd of Education. [Not based upon politicized whims and payoffs by Justices for political support that enabled them access to the Bench]  The rationale of Barrett's argument, however, is not fact based, is inhumane, and is immoral on many levels. 

One need not turn immediately to subjective analysis.  Go first to objective evidence of the demographic profile of women who will be most affected by a ban on abortion vs a demographic profile of adoptive parents. The former are women who lack the economic and social resources to travel to another state and secure a safe abortion. These are the women who historically and very predictably will turn to what OB/GYN professionals euphemistically call “alternative” and “self-managed” pregnancy terminations. [Picture in your mind the coat hanger or back-room abortionist scenarios] Their “option” under the abortion ban laws would be to carry the pregnancy to term, often without adequate medical care and support, and then give the resulting child up for adoption. Objective studies show that 61% of abortion patients are non-white, and 75% are in poverty or low income. [Guttmacher Institute] About 59% of women seeking abortion already had other children [which would complicate giving child up for adoption].  About 60% of abortion patients are women in their 20’s. The NIH reports that, although abortion rates have decreased, the group with the highest rate are women below the poverty level. There are other statistical details to report, but the profile is evident.

As for adoptive parents, the US Census tells us that 92% of adoptive parents are white. The large majority of those adoptive parents are from middle class or higher economic status. Many of those are international adoptions, which directly undercuts Barrett’s notion that adoption could mitigate the problem of forcing birth of children in the US who are unwanted or for whom the parent could not provide economic support. In contrast, adoptive parents of color are more likely to adopt from foster care, but only about 35% of adoptees of color from foster care wind up in households of color. 

In her questioning, Barrett appears to harken back to the Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” mentality. She suggested that: “pregnancy, and parenthood by extension, is no longer burdensome because of many economic and social developments that make pregnancy safer and parenting easier.” That may have some practical validity only as to safety and only for women with substantial economic means [putting aside that the psychological and emotional aspects of parenting are never “easy,” unless you can afford, like Barrett, to hire a nanny.] The reality in which most of us live clearly reflects that those “economic and social developments” to which she apparently refers are not equitably distributed or available, especially to women who are poor and of color. The "remedy" she postulates is unavailable to most of the women who would be harmed by her proposed decision. Barrett appears oblivious to that ironic distinction. Or if she is aware, her argument is cruel and malicious.

Let us turn to credibility of Barrett to speak to the subject. She has adopted children. However, Barrett has never been in a position to be forced to address the question of abortion due to economic or lack of family support. Indeed, as a “mother” it is a fair question whether Barrett can speak credibly to the “burdens of parenthood” felt by women in poverty. [Obviously, she has no idea what the circumstances and pressures of a poor woman of color might be like.] Speaking to the “burdens” however, Barrett has had economic circumstances that allowed her to acquire and provide childcare services [nanny services] which women of color seeking abortion do not have. Nor is it available to women who believe that they cannot sustain an additional child in an already struggling family. In that regard, Barrett’s argument could come across as condescending, elitist and racist. She has no credible basis for voicing the concerns about what the experience of most women who will be affected by the demise of Roe v. Wade or what can be done FOR them. She only has the voice of those who are concerned about what will be done TO women who are in circumstances where they believe abortion is traumatic, but the appropriate decision regarding their own bodies and reproductive rights.

In historic institutions of slavery, women of color were forced to bear children, and those children [if allowed to live] were taken away as a commodity by white slave owners. Rather than “adoption,” they were often sold off as chattel to a very uncertain future. In the history of Indigenous peoples, children were forcibly taken away by whites from their families and sent to boarding institutions designed and determined to extinguish their culture and languages. Sadly, the current push to ban abortion services has too many parallels. Not unlike the slave owners and Indian Boarding School authorities, elitist whites have decided to exert power to control women’s bodies and compel childbirth without regard to safety of the wellbeing of the children. This is about control, not about parenting or even preservation of life.

Since the high percentage of adoptive parents are white adoption of white, one might expect that white babies from the US would be adopted at a high rate, if Barrett’s argument were rational, even if racist. But the percentage of international adoptions indicates either a racial selectivity or that US adoption laws are inadequate to the purpose Barrett suggests. Arguments presented to the SCOTUS highlighted that adoption has been available throughout the period Roe has been in place and has not had the impact Barrett suggests. Either way, Barrett’s argument does not stand up to critical scrutiny. So, the objective reality is that more affluent white adoptive parents with resources seek to force childbearing to produce a pool of babies from which they can select only those they deem valuable. Only a fraction of those of color in the US have been deemed by these abortion ban advocates worth adopting. Note that even public figures like Angelina Jolie who chose adoption of children of color sought children from another country. Again, this is about patriarchy, control, and racism, not about "right to life."

It is very unfortunate that Barrett sits on the Bench of SCOTUS with a voice and position of authority, voicing pretentious empathy for the women and children who will be not just “burdened” but seriously harmed by her elitist, paternalistic and racist beliefs. The hypocrisy is amplified in that Barrett does not seem to have a record of speaking out, advocating, or DOING anything about the plight of children in foster care and the fractured adoption system upon which she would seek to shift unsustainable burdens  even in the best possible scenario resulting from overturning Roe v. Wade. It is shameful and not worthy of a nation that espouses Constitutional rights and social justice. Barrett's argument, and its lack of rational grounding, reeks of politically infused payback to her GOP supporters rather than independent jurisprudence.  But, as the saying goes, here we are! 

Smoke and Mirrors! "Lies and Damn Lies"

 Smoke and Mirrors. “Lies and Damn Lies” [Franken].  HHS Secretary Azar challenges the Biden [and Obama] assessment that the PUTHOP Administration planning for distribution and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines has been woefully deficient.  Like PUTHOP, Azar publicly announces that his group’s effort has been laudable. But lets examine a few undisputable facts.

Despite public claims of planning, the Administration has not announced any coherent plan. Such information could hardly be deemed “classified” so as to conceal it from public scrutiny. More likely it is simply a lie to mask the fact that no coherent plan exists. The UK has a plan, announced it and has begun implementation, so effective planning IS possible if competent individuals are involved. Russia and China have begun mass vaccination programs, all before the US has even begun. We can question the efficacy of their vaccines and the manner of distribution, but the fact remains that they HAVE a substantive plan.

The US government has pledged $9.3 Billion in advance for purchase of the vaccine once approved, and touted that there would be 300 Million doses. However, the drug manufacturers have announced the capacity to deliver less than 10% of such doses, due to manufacturing capacity and availability of essential ingredients of sufficient quality. If there had been coordination with the government task force all along, as was claimed, would such issues not have been anticipated? We have all seen the joke in movie scripts when the character is in a tight spot with no idea what to do, and the others ask what comes next. The reply is: “I have a plan!” When called upon to disclose and deliver their “plan” the PUTHOP Administration is nearly empty handed, and far behind other countries with fewer resources. The ONLY thing reliable we have repeatedly seen from the PUTHOP Administration is LIES, dishonesty, and unreliability.

A Veterans' Day Reflection

 Veterans’ Day is an apt time to honor and reflect upon the service of those who gave of their time and, for some, their lives, to honor a commitment. That commitment was to defend the nation and all its people and to preserve our democracy. Focus upon that commitment is more important at this moment than at most other times in our history. The threat to the people and to the democracy is not some foreign nation or interloper terrorist, but a “domestic” threat of large proportions.

Those who have sworn to serve and those who gave their lives for that oath were NOT committed to follow the whims of a self-absorbed, infantile, mentally unstable would be autocrat. This is someone who has metaphorically spit on the graves of our fallen, calling them “suckers” and “losers.” Our veterans and military personnel have sworn to protect the nation FROM such dangers. All service personnel are sworn to protect the Office of President, not an occupant who has lost re-election and hints at use of the Military to stage a coup. This week, PUTHOP has filled high posts in the Military and National Security structure with sycophants and toadies who have previously been rejected by both Democrats and Republicans as unfit to hold such positions. Their only current qualification is that they are “loyal” to PUTHOP and will follow his directives without thought or question, and certainly without regard to honoring any Oath of Office. Such moves may appear desperation, but they also signal an attempt to seize control of the Military in a bid to overturn election results and retain power despite the democratic process. No other president in the history of the nation has ever tried to employ the government and its offices in support of a coup as PUTHOP is doing.

On this Veterans’ Day we honor and place our faith in our Military personnel to protect and defend the Nation, all its people, the Constitution, and our democracy. We hope that ALL veterans, whether they were deluded into voting for PUTHOP or for President-elect Biden, will remember that oath, the oath that so many have died to uphold. We hope and expect that all military personnel will support a peaceful transition to a new Administration which has been chosen by a very substantial majority of voters in accordance with the principles and processes of our representative democracy.

American Reconstruction 2.0

 Although the correlation can be attenuated when reasoning by analogy, such analysis can be helpful to illustrate key concepts and common issues. I have previously observed that the deliberate and strategic divisiveness orchestrated and exhorted by the White House occupant and his sycophants has brought the nation to a point of psychological and spiritual depression, what President Jimmy Carter would call a “malaise.” The division we see today, however, is not driven by concern for the future of the nation and its people, as was the case during the Carter Administration. Instead it is driven by incitement of deep fear, distrust and even hatred toward fellow Americans. That fear-mongering and hatred is directed primarily against people of color grounded in bigotry and racist policies. There are also calls to demonize anyone who speaks out in support of measures supporting social justice, community, and sustaining welfare of the public. These advocates for a representative democracy are being branded as “radicals” and “anarchists” even as they call for repair and fidelity to the rule of law and preservation of democratic institutions and values being undermined by the current Administration.

We have not seen a society so riven since the apocryphal Civil War. At that time, the nation was hopelessly divided based upon a racist ideology that people of color were “inferior,” and that exploitation and inhumane treatment was excusable, if not “justified.” The nation was pushed to the point of war in an attempt by the slave holding populace to retain that prerogative of owning persons of color, controlling their lives, and exploiting their labor. We should be mindful of the long and tortuous road the nation had to travel to recover a sense, even if tenuous at times, of a “union” and a “common good.”

Currently, the nation is faced with a level of division advocated by the president and his administration as forcefully and as consistently as leaders of the Confederacy sought to divide the nation in the 19^th century. Some groups are attacked directly because of their ethnicity or gender, while others are attacked via equally identifiable “dog whistle” vernacular used to avoid explicit naming. The purpose seems to be to solidify irrational and almost cultist loyalty of adherents who can be persuaded to ignore their own self interest when given a target to hate and vent their frustration toward. That the “leadership” they support is actually causing them more harm that the targets of their hatred speaks to the irrationality of such bigotry. And so, as in the Civil War, the “common enemy” is not some foreign power or some economic crisis, it is a divided segment of our supposed union. “We the people” has transmogrified into “I the people.” The goal for many has changed from what makes “us” stronger, to what gives an individual power to exercise individual rights and privileges without regard to the harm such exercise may do to others. No where is this ethic embodied more clearly than in the character of the White House occupant.

To effectuate this self-centered and inhumane ethical persuasion, policies and practices have been employed that ignore the rule of law and domestic legal prohibitions, and frequently violate international norms of human rights. Immigrant and refugee families are being targets by race and ethnicity, with family members separated and abused while children have been put in cages, which for some has resulted in death. Legacy manifestations of the Civil War and Reconstruction “Slave Patrols” in the form of emboldened and unrestrained police forces have unleashed mayhem and abuse on citizens of color, with a death toll any civil society would consider unthinkable – but for the issue of race. And even the very core fundament of a democratic government, the right to vote, is being assailed and undermined through suppression of certain groups. The effect is not dissimilar to the concept of the 3/5 person strategy employed surrounding slavery to deliberately diminish human value. If people of color can be systematically denied or discouraged from voting through racist policies of redistricting and closing polling stations during elections, then only a fraction of their numbers will have access to the right to vote and disenfranchisement succeeds.

The core question is what will it take to recover from the depth of this division and distrust, even after the primary public figure acting as catalyst is removed form office? President Lincoln gave a stirring and inspirational Gettysburg Address to advance the healing process. Will we have an inspirational leader step forward who can promote a rapprochement and at least respectful dialogue that can lead to unity of purpose and interests? Right now, it seems that “Trumpists” do not believe in science and objective facts or reason; and they are driven to distrust anyone who disagrees with them no matter how much opposing arguments may seem in their own best interests. In addition, “liberals” do not believe in the intellectual capacity of most “Trumpists” to grasp concepts firmly grounded in factual evidence, scientific research, and logical reasoning; and they do not trust that the motivation of “Trumpists” to be supportive of any common good or principle of social justice. The existence of a global COVID-19 Pandemic which demands a cohesive and strategic response designed to protect the people and promote “public welfare,” antagonizes and exposes the demoralized and weakened state we are in because of the division, deliberately wrought.

This assessment analogizes our current divided nation and peoples to the rift of the Civil War, with destruction brought by militarization of “peace officers” and “public safety” representatives and through gross distortion of journalistic media, vicious deployment of social media and use of disinformation instead of rifles and cannon. To begin the process of healing the division, there must first be a cessation of the public “leadership” that fosters and incites division. The First Amendment would not support silencing such voices, but the political process [if allowed to work] can remove the mantle of authority and take away the megaphone being used to promote such hatred with amplified volume and effect. The past four years have demonstrated how quickly and easily the nation can slip back into that primordial cesspool, yet we can also look back to examples in the past 130 years when the nation has sought to rise above such base instincts and reveal a higher and better version of itself and the values to which we aspire, even when unable to fully attain them. But I would contend that an important first step on that journey of recovery must be a recognition and appreciation of how truly far we have been led astray and how far we have fallen from those values of humanity, social justice, and decency. We cannot fix a problem we refuse to acknowledge.

Essential Qualities of a USA President

I recognize that some may regard my critique and negativism toward the current Oval Office occupant as personal and categorical animosity. I reject that characterization for a number of reasons and base my critique upon objective measures of performance in relation to the high office involved. In my estimation, the American public does not demand a great deal from its presidents. Contrary to popular mythology, we do not really expect superheroes and average persons can rise to the level of very good, if not great, presidents. But placing individuals in such high office gives us the right to objectively judge them and hold them accountable for their performance. What is expected in such a leader are four essential qualities: honesty, integrity, principled decision making and human compassion.

Honesty is the quality for truthfulness in communications and actions. It does not require omniscience or superior intellect. It does require the ability and willingness to speak and act consistently with what one knows or reasonably should know to be factual; and to avoid misrepresentation and deceit by making statements or taking actions one knows are untrue. In PUTHOP’s case, the fully documented volume of untruthful statements and actions is so large that it is unfortunately reasonable to expect that his statements are lies rather than assume they are honest. He has been described as a “pathological liar,” one who may be incapable of honesty and truthfulness. Not only does PUTHOP fail to tell the truth, he suppresses those who are willing and able to tell truth to the public. Witness the number of whistleblowers fired by PUTHOP, and the tenuous post of Dr. Fauci whose expertise and evidence based disclosures are regularly contradicted by PUTHOP.

Integrity is the quality of accepting responsibility for one’s own actions and for tasks undertaken or assigned. No one is required to take on the role of president, but doing so involves accepting a great number of responsibilities. No reasonable person should accept the job who is unable or unwilling to perform the necessary tasks as well as possible and accept responsibility for failures as well as successes. When there are shortcomings, one acts with integrity by owning the deficiencies and vowing to do better. Integrity is not about “looking good,” but rather about “doing well.” Here PUTHOP’s actions show lack of integrity. When faced with major challenges, he has ignored fundamental tenets of the problem and acted based upon egoism. This is true with regard to trade and foreign policy. It is starkly apparent in his choice to place persons who are inexperienced, corrupt, or clearly incompetent in positions of high official capacity in nearly every federal government agency. [EPA, Commerce, Justice, Treasury, SCOTUS, Education, Housing, etc.] And it is currently evident in his clearly incompetent response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, in which he ignored the impending threat to the American people and economy and refuses to follow advice from experts who DO understand the problem and have proposed reasoned solutions.

Principled decision making is the quality of grounding decisions and actions upon evidence and logic in a manner that is consistent with some moral and ethical construct geared to accomplish responsibilities of the job of president. The job entails representing the public good and best interests of ALL Americans, not just those who one likes or who agree with the president. It also involves fidelity to established fundamental principles such as the rule of law and not abusing the power of high office for personal gain for self or family. Here too PUTHOP has repeatedly acted erratically and in an unprincipled manner. His abuse of office to promote his political campaign led to impeachment, and his position was protected only by similarly unprincipled action by a GOP controlled Senate. His response in marshaling testing resources for all Americans in response to the Pandemic has been tainted by his statement that states are “on their own” and that those who showed “appreciation” to him would get aid while others who did not grovel and supplicate would not be favored. Now he has reversed himself by throwing away criteria for relaxing social distancing restrictions grounded in research and evidence in favor of a push to “reopen the economy” which he apparently thinks will improve his personal chances of re-election. And he has rejected the rule of law in directing the DOJ to drop felony charges against Gen Michael Flynn, a move that has confounded legal experts of all political parties. More examples are easy to find.

Human compassion is the quality of empathy and the acknowledgement of pain and suffering of fellow human beings, even when powerless to prevent or alleviate their suffering. It also involves a personal commitment to prevent such suffering to the extent one can. There are numerous reports and studies that document the failure, and perhaps inability, of PUTHOP to express empathy and compassion for anyone other than perhaps his family. He has repeatedly used racist dog whistle claims and sought to demonize immigrants of color. His choice to adopt policies that will inevitably lead to more suffering and deaths from COVID-19 in order to promote potential profits for the “economy” is another example of lack of compassion. Keep in mind that the “economy” being privileged in his action involves wealth disparity at historic levels, so those being “rescued” are the wealthy 2% at the expense of disposable lives of the other 98% of Americans.

This extended explanation involves only a small sample of the large volume of evidence supporting the arguments and analysis of PUTHOP’s deficiencies in those essential qualities needed in a true leader. His supporters are prone to disregard those same qualities and “make up” facts in attempts to defend PUTHOP. They also try to deflect scrutiny by pointing fingers at others, but no one else sits in the Oval Office so such dissembling is ineffectual. Their arguments must be subjected to the same standards and analysis: honesty, integrity, principled decision making and compassion. Otherwise they simply reinforce arguments indicating PUTHOP’s deficiencies. Those arguments and evidence supporting them are not “personal,” and they are based upon performance relating to the high office involved.  And I am fully open to hearing honest and evidence-based arguments that may contradict my analysis.

Perils of the Posh

I am a believer in property rights, and do NOT condone theft. Yet I just read how "traumatized" the Ecclestone heiress [translate: did nothing to earn wealth] feels about the theft of jewelry valued at more than 50 million pounds [Over $66.6 M] from her 55 room Kensington mansion. I can understand that this is a "news" story, but find little that moves me emotionally.

First, anyone keeping jewelry of that value around the house [instead of a bank safe deposit vault] is not very bright and responsible, or has lost all perspective as to wealth and value. No doubt a sense of entitlement has blinded the heiress to the reality that "real" people do not have such valuables at hand, and if they did they would take steps to secure them. Second, this example of wealth inequality and flaunted consumption warrants little sympathy, particularly when one has done nothing to earn or create the wealth. How great a "loss" is it truly for someone who invested nothing, sacrificed nothing nor contributed anything to the generation of the value of the items stolen. Third, the heiress will doubtless recover insurance funds for unrecoverable jewels and likely go right out an spend the money on similarly useless and unproductive baubles. While a few of the trinkets may have sentimental value, it is difficult to believe any protestation of "loss" when one has demonstrated so little sense of "value." Inconvenience, perhaps, but a deep sense of loss is hard to envision.

I might be a bit proletarian in outlook here. I do not resent wealth, but believe that with such wealth comes responsibility. To borrow from the Christian Bible [Luke 12:48]  “For of those to whom much is given much is required.” The Muslim faith calls, in one of its five pillars for "zakat" or the duty of the wealthy to contribute to community and charity. I could feel more sympathy if the heiress had a miraculous "epiphany" and decided she did not need to place such wealth in idle pieces of jewelry. She might be moved to self-reflection and to instead invest at least a part of the insurance proceeds into productive channels creating jobs or charitable purposes providing support for those not born with a silver spoon. But we should not hold our breath awaiting such revelations. 🧐

Tamara Ecclestone: '£50m worth' of jewellery stolen from heiress