Israel, Palestinians and Hamas

I have been thinking of this post for a few days now, both in terms of whether to compose one, and, if so, what to write. At this point, I would be negligent to not comment, as this story is the most compelling situation in the world today, and may remain so for the foreseeable future.

First, as most people have done, it is clear that the actions by Hamas need to be condemned in the strongest terms. Regardless of any perceived justification, purposefully slaughtering families in their homes, and revelers at a music festival is horrific. It not only confirms the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, but it does severe harm to the Palestinian people themselves, who may be lumped together with Hamas by those who do not understand the complexity of their situation, and/or prefer the knee jerk reaction of revenge.

It is extremely difficult to understand how this kind if atrocity can be be perceived by the leaders of Hamas as anything other than a huge step backwards, a PR blunder of the highest order. Perhaps in the bubble of Arab hatred towards the Jewish people, there may be some rejoicing, but, as so many people who prefer to only listen to those who echo their own sentiments eventually discover, to attain sympathy and non-partial support for one's perspective, you must first listen to and acknowledge that not everyone thinks alike.

As is usual in this type of disastrous action, thousands of innocent people will suffer. First, of course, all the Israeli (and other nationalities) people who lived in proximity to Gaza, those on the front lines of the brutality which played out last weekend. Followed by the thousands, probably tens of thousands, of Palestinians who will die during the upcoming ground war.

Will Hamas be eliminated from the Earth as is the stated goal of the IDF? It has been tried before, although not with the expected ferocity of the impending onslaught. But, while it is certain that the Hamas leadership will suffer great losses, the hatred which fuels their group will not be extinguished. If anything, should the Israelis kill as many Palestinians as I believe they will, hatred will only increase, on both sides, as the bodies of dead Jewish soldiers are returned to Israel, and as the bodies of Palestinian women and children pile up in Gaza.

There will be no winners, only losers. And, sadly, the cycle of hate will go on.

In the meantime, in America, I have read many reactions that demand that we side with Israel. Now, clearly, siding with Hamas is not going to result in much agreement, but it is important to separate Hamas from the Palestinians. In other words, to hold two thoughts in one's head, outrage at Hamas, support for the effort to recover hostages, and root out Hamas leadership, while also expressing support for the 2.2 million people who are now taking the brunt of the Israeli response.

There are those who might say that the Palestinians elected Hamas to represent their interests, and so they should have known better than to associate with such a hate filled group. That they should bear the brunt of what their ill advised electoral choice has spawned. Perhaps. 

But for those who think this, I doubt if they are willing to assign blame to the Israeli citizens who knowingly chose to live so close to Gaza, who made their electoral choice clear last year and when they chose the hard right Likud government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Some have theorized that Hamas chose this moment to invade due to the instability present in Israel this past year, due to Netanyahu's attempt to weaken the judiciary (giving himself more power), in addition to his support of continued oppression of the Palestinians while advocating for further expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. 

If it is true that the Palestinians should have known the Hamas was a poor leadership choice, then is it as true that the Israelis should have thought the same of Netanyahu? 

I certainly can not claim to be anymore knowledgeable of the decades long animosity between those living in Israel and Palestine as the average American. Their mutual hatred seems to be part religion, part territorial, part cultural. An endless cycle of fear, killing and revenge. But I certainly do know that if violence is the only acceptable reaction to violence, then this conflict will never end. Especially when the hatred that is so evident in this situation translates so easily into the dehumanization of those on the other side of the fence.

Is there some kind of resolution, or a path to mutual tolerance, if not acceptance?

When my son was in elementary school, he was fortunate enough to participate in the People to People Student Ambassador Program, an organization founded during the Eisenhower Administration in 1956. The goal of this, and other similar exchange programs, is to provide young people with immersive, educational travel experiences so as to broaden their world view and, hopefully, learn tolerance of other people and their cultures.

History is replete with examples of individuals who, sometimes by choice, sometimes by unforeseen circumstance, find themselves living with people with completely different lifestyles and traditions. Most often, those people not only learn about others, they learn about themselves as well.

There is a New Testament quote that questions why so many people can see the splinter in the eye of others but not the wooden beam in one's own eye. In other words, why can we not see our own faults when we seem so sure of others?

The point of seeing life through the experience of someone else, especially someone whose beliefs are different from your own, is not just to understand that our creator has given us the chance for a life experience full of diversity. It is also to realize what restrictions we place on our own lives when we do not reflect on the beliefs which we cling to, and often use as an excuse to mistreat those who are not like us. 

I have commented in more than one previous post, that it can be very difficult, very uncomfortable to go outside one's own realm. That fear of others may in fact, have been part of the human condition that allowed us to survive in those first thousands of years. But it seems clear now, that this preexisting condition, if you will, is waning. Some humans seek out new experiences with people of different backgrounds, seemingly from birth. Others learn by doing, or getting the chance to do so as we provided to my son.

Are there such active programs between Israel and Gaza? I tried to find some examples and did see a few mentions, so at least there are some people trying, but clearly not enough. 

I stopped writing at this point as we had old friends to dinner. Before returning to my computer to finish, I read an article from the current edition of the Smithsonian, an article which I did not know was in the magazine until this morning when I opened to it.

It is called "Songs of Survival" and it recounts a small part of the history of the Terezin concentration camp in Poland. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this camp, I would suggest you do some research on your own, or at least read the article. 

In a nutshell, Terezin was a stopping off point for thousands of Jews, a place where they were sent before being transported to the death camps. In other words, the Nazis used places like Terezin to store Jews who were forced from their homes, before sending them off to die. The concept is almost as evil as the end result.

It also happened to be that most of Europe's Jewish artists, musicians and intellectuals were sent to Terezin. The point of the article is that while there, these prisoners tried to maintain the slimmest of connections to their humanity by engaging in painting, writing and composing. And, fortunately for us, some of those efforts, specifically some of the music which was composed, were salvaged. And, are being performed today. 

It is an inspiring story, one which reminds us that the human spirit is capable of surviving unspeakable horrors.

But incredibly sad as well when thought of in the context of what is lost when humans choose to dehumanize "others". It is easy to imagine the wondrous music and art that was not completed due to the slaughter of Jewish artists, writers and composers during the Holocaust. 

But is it any less horrible, when we consider the possible accomplishments that will not be achieved due to the indiscriminate murders which occurred at the hands of Hamas terrorists, and the loss and destruction that is about to occur as the IDF begins its ground war in Gaza?

Is it always necessary to enact revenge when we are wronged? Clearly there are examples of individuals who have chosen forgiveness to break the cycle of violence begetting violence.

Here is a link to an article about 10 everyday people who experienced horrible loss yet chose to forgive those who committed the acts.

https://listverse.com/2013/10/31/10-extraordinary-examples-of-forgiveness/

And of course, a very famous quote by someone who died an excruciating death on a cross:

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

I am posting this entry under the heading War and Forgiveness. I previously posted something under that title about 9 years ago. In that post I mention an event which was going on in the Middle East although I am not specific about it, although the point of the article was about Jackie Robinson, how he was treated, and how he responded. Still, it would not be hard to conjecture that the Middle East reference was related to the current crisis, as this situation has been with us for decades. Here is that link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/08/42-and-hopefully-counting.html

Revenge stories are as old as written history. When I googled greatest stories of revenge in history, there was no lack of response. It seems as if multiple people and organizations had compiled their own lists of horrific examples of revenge. Perhaps some day, it will just be as easy to find a plethora of examples of the greatest acts of forgiveness in history. Wouldn't it be inspiring if in 20 years, Israeli forgiveness of Hamas brutality, were on the list? 

The Irish and the Choctaw

As I stated in my last post, there are many facts that we have been taught that, while true, are not truly presented. One of those is the famine that occurred in Ireland between 1845 and 1852. I remember learning about the Irish Famine in school. A potato blight was generally blamed, potatoes being the food staple of the rural Irish of the time. 

I don't recall ever asking the obvious question "why couldn't they eat something else", although I wonder if the answer might have been that while the potato was the food mostly effected, other crops also failed, an answer I probably would have accepted. After all, why would a poor harvest of one crop cause over 1.5 million people to die?

Anyone who has spent any time researching this disaster knows a significantly different truth, unfortunately. It was that truth which was referred to in an article I just read in the September/October edition of the Smithsonian Magazine.

The Irish famine was not caused by just a potato blight. As I stated above, how could a poor harvest of one crop cause so many people to starve? You see, the Irish farmers of the time grew many other crops, mostly to sell to pay rent, buy clothes, etc. The potato was the staple of their diet because it was easy to grow and so could provide the basis for their meals. 

Remember, at the time, Ireland was a British possession. To that extent, most Irish farmers did not own the land they farmed, they rented that land from their (mostly) English landlords, who then sold the foodstuffs produced by these tenants. 

So, the real truth is that the Irish famine was not caused by a lack of potatoes, but a lack of food. Food that was readily being produced by those same farmers but was turned over (sometimes at gun point) to be sold by the landowners from whom they rented.

How awful, you might say. I guess it is no surprise that this inconvenient fact was left out of the history lesson taught to elementary and middle school students. 

How could so many people be left to die when there was actually food available? Well, when you do not consider certain people human, when you have been indoctrinated all your life, your parents life, your grandparents life, etc, to consider the Irish farmer as not worth considering, then their death, even of their children, does not register. 

When empathy for other is lost, all sorts of disasters and travesties follow. One might even say that a lack of empathy, whether from an overt refusal or merely a lack of reflection, is the cause of all of the genocides that humans have perpetrated upon each other.

It always begins with code words like "them", or "others", or perhaps we label them as barbaric or illegals or lacking in adoration of a certain deity, but in the end, once we dehumanize a person or group of people, horrific treatment follows.

Sadly, we are are not immune to our own versions of this behavior. The story of a certain Florida governor who tricked immigrants from Texas into boarding planes so he could make some sick kind of political point, is one such example. And, the fact that more than one TV personality on that "news" channel that rhymes with Pox, laughed about it and thought it was a great ploy to own the libs, or whatever crazy justification they posited, makes it even sadder, because whether the pundits agreed with treating other humans so shabbily or not, they knew that their audience would applaud such an action, never even considering how they would feel if someone treated them with such callousness.

Or those who stand behind the American flag and decry providing arms and money to the Ukrainians in their fight against an invading army. So what if civilians, children, the elderly, pregnant women, are being killed, we should take care of our own first. As if working against bullies who try to take whatever they want is not a shared belief that makes us human, makes us "great". 

For all those who revere the greatest generation for defeating Hitler, sounds like they are ignorant to what makes a generation or country great.

Which brings me back to the Smithsonian article. You see, its focus wasn't about the real causes of the Irish Famine. It was about a little known story about how the Choctaw nation, upon hearing about the starvation in Ireland, sent money to the impoverished people to assist. 

Talk about self sacrifice! The Choctaw themselves lived in poverty, having been forced to leave their land via the Trail of Tears. They barely had enough for themselves, yet donated precious money to help another people, people they had absolutely no connection to. 

So, add this little tidbit to the history that most people don't know about.

Perhaps it is better that we not know how horribly we have treated the indigenous people who were here before the arrival of the Europeans, or how we enslaved generations of Black people to work our plantations. That way it is easier for us to consider suggestions about rounding up immigrants who have come here for a better life, and expelling them, violently, if need be. Or even better, arm American citizens and line the border, shooting anyone who tries to cross.

After all, once we cross the line of dehumanization, there is nothing we can't due to "those" people. Once we have jettisoned all aspects of empathy, no inhumane treatment is off the board.

The truly incredible thing about our current immigration morass, is that so many of those who are the loudest about the dangers of these "others", are very recent descendants of those who were the others in the late 19th and early 20th century. 

Unlike the Choctaw and the Irish people who still celebrate the incredible gift that was sent to Ireland when they were in such terrible need, far too many Americans have forgotten their own personal history, as well as our national history so well stated on the Statue of Liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

As emblematic of the meaning of empathy as anything I could conceive of or write.

Here are four other posts discussing Empathy.   

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/bo-knowsempathy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/10/empathy-and-evolution.html

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7395038039066334365/4086742329331846297?hl=en

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/farewell-peewee.html

Life Changing Events

First, some house keeping. I had my best month ever in September, in terms of "hits" to my blog. Over 8100, which exceeded my previous best by 1500. The vast, vast majority were from Singapore, as I have previously mentioned. So, again, please feel free anyone from that country to leave me a comment telling me why the interest.

As this will be a philosophical post, I checked some that I have written before. Here are links to four that I thought might generate some interest.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/09/idealism-vs-realism.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/11/intellectual-leprosy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/04/opinions.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/atlas-shrugged.html

Most people, when asked to retell events which they recall as life changing, can come up with a few. Perhaps the day they met their spouse, or their wedding day. The birth of a child or their children. Maybe graduation from high school or college, the purchase of their first home, a special trip. For some, world events such as D-Day, 9/11, the assassination of a world leader, or world influener. Perhaps even the day of a particularly exciting sporting event.

I commented once, many years ago, that discovering Laphams Quarterly was one such day. Not that I can recall the actual day, but the fact that this wonderful magazine existed without me having the least inkling. It was life changing, in that in the intervening years I have read and been exposed to ideas, concepts, opinions, and facts (this is especially important) that have altered my perception of the world and its workings.

I recently began reading a book that is replicating this feeling. A book whose title I found in that wonderful 2021 Christmas gift from my daughter who filled a glass jar with 100 titles in order to provide me with new reading material. 

"The Dawn of Everything; A New History of Humanity" by David Graeber and David Wengrow is the title.

At this point, I am about two thirds of the way through it. I find I can only read so much at a time so as to absorb its mind blowing words, but I also don't read it everyday because I don't want to finish it. As if, by putting it down, and away, I will lose the importance of its meaning over time, as I read other works, and as I am bombarded with the endless nonsense that we must wade through, nonsense that so easily passes for news, so easily is thrust upon us as if the world of data and information is experiencing a massive bout of diarrhea, with no end in sight.

It is hard to summarize what I have read so far. The 2 Davids, as I like to refer to them, are relentless in demolishing virtually everything I have been taught throughout my life. 

For instance, there is a lot of interest in aliens right now. Not just as to whether they are with us in secret today, but how many times they have visited in the past and which of the unexplained man made wonders of ancient times must they have built. Since we can't seem to build a house or a road to last more than a few decades, how could pre-industrial man have built the pyramids, etc, which have lasted thousands of years? Must have been aliens!

Now, the 2 Davids don't necessarily address this phenomenon, at least not yet, as again, I still have many pages to go. But what they do address is the idea that men who lived thousands of years ago couldn't have accomplished these tasks alone. That they weren't smart enough, or didn't have the right tools, or the right math. 

And it isn't just the building of great architectural structures that they address, but philosophical concepts of equality, social structures, gender relations, government, justice and fairness. 

In other words, this book takes on the entire sphere of propaganda that we have been taught via all our current institutions, religious, political, national, social, cultural, etc, and turns them all on their proverbial heads. 

But don't get me wrong. I don't view the author's purpose in a negative light. They are not anarchists trying to upend our very existence, or back to nature freaks who think we should go back to living in caves. I view them more as educators trying to explain that its the conclusions that we have been taught about history, especially humanity's progression from hunter gatherers to farmers and city dwellers, that is off base. And, that this progression should be considered with less of a value judgement (ancient men were less smart, more barbaric and violent, not capable of complex thoughts about life, for instance) and certainly not as a function of inevitable evolution where today's version of man is "better" than previous ones. 

Or not worse for that matter. Just different.

We have been indoctrinated (a loaded word in today's 24 hour news cycle) to believe all sorts of "facts" about how men lived before the miracle of modern technologies, how men interacted with each other, how the genders valued each other. But regardless of the teacher (religious, political, cultural, national), we are always taught that we are evolving towards a more egalitarian existence. That we are becoming more enlightened in terms of recognizing the value of diversity in man, as well as the environment.

Well perhaps that is too strong, but that certainly, we are more kind to each other than our ancestors of 10,000 years ago were to each other. That concepts like democracy and freedom and equality didn't exist before the Europeans crossed the oceans to "civilize" the barbarians they "discovered".

Graeber and Wengrow address these kind of conclusions, and attempt (successfully, so far, for me) to provide some different conclusions that fit the facts just as well, even better in some instances.

Pick up the book, if you can. I will share more thoughts about it when I have finished.  

Reagan vs Biden

I recently saw a Facebook post from one of my acquaintances which portrayed a man with a shovel approaching the grave of Ronald Reagan. When asked why he would want to dig up the ex-president, he replied something like, "even dead, he is better than what we have now."

Since my friend is of similar age as myself, I wondered if he remembered that all these statistics about inflation and mortgage interest rates that reveal 40 year highs, reference the early 1980's when, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan was president. In other words, it was during Reagan's two terms, from 1980 to 1988, that these new high numbers are being compared. 

So, assuming that their may be other interesting facts, as opposed to rose colored glasses memories, I thought I would research some economic data, comparing Biden's current term to Reagan's first term and the overall administration from 1981 to 1988. 

Here is what I found.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/inflation-rate-cpi

Since 1960, inflation exceeded 10% only 4 times; 1974, 1979, 1980, 1981 with rates of 11.05%, 11.25%, 13.55%, 10.33% respectively. Nixon was president in 1974 (he resigned in August of that year), Carter in 1979 and 1980, Reagan (elected in Nov 1980) in 1981. The 1970's. as a decade, featured horrendous inflation, averaging 7% per year during that decade. In comparison, from 2010 to 2019, inflation averaged less than 2% (about 1.8%) each year. 

Since 2020, inflation has increased, 1.23% in 2020, 4.7% in 2021, and 8% in 2022. Now, we can debate how much influence Biden's policies had on rising inflation. Certainly, injecting lots of money into the economy to keep average people afloat during the pandemic, and afterwards, was a factor. But, considering that high inflation was not specific to the US these last two years, then clearly outside factors, supply chain disruptions, war in Ukraine, among just two, also led to higher inflation world wide not just here. 

Like Biden, Reagan inherited economic problems from his predecessor, high inflation being one of them. From that high of 13.55% in 1980, inflation under Reagan declined to 10.55% in 1981, 6.13% in 1982, 3.21% in 1983, then, other than 1986 when it was only 1.9%, inflation ran between a low of 3.55% in 1983 to a high of 4.3% in 1984, finishing at 4.08% in 1988. During Reagan's 8 years in office, 1981 to 1988, inflation averaged about 4.6%. A good achievement when compared to the 1970's 7% per year.

We only have 2 years for Biden, 2021 and 2022 which have averaged over 6% each year. If 2023 comes in around 4%, that would equate to about 5.3% for the first 3 years. Comparable to inflation during Reagan's first 3 years which averaged about 6.4% but we must give Reagan a partial pass since he inherited such a high rate from Carter.

Using the same source, macrotrends, GDP growth for 1981 through 1983 (1982 was a negative year) averaged 1.7%. But, beginning in 1984, GDP growth averaged almost about 5.4%. Overall, GDP growth for the 8 terms for Reagan averaged around 3.5%. As comparison, GDP growth for Obama's 8 years averaged under 2% while during Clinton's 8 years GDP increased an average just under 3.9%. 

Since Clinton's GDP growth was better than Reagan's and inflation only increased an average of 2.6% during those 8 years (compared to Reagan's 3.6%) perhaps that cartoon I referenced earlier should have shown the man asking Clinton to come back rather than digging up Reagan...

Again, with only 2 years of GDP growth for Biden, 5.95% and 2.06% which averages to about 4%, that is comparable to Reagan's 8 year average, much better than his first 3 year average but less than those last 5 years.

How about unemployment?

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506

While Reagan inherited high inflation and lowered it during his first term, unemployment, while high at 7.2% in 1980, increased during Reagan's first four years, averaging 8.725%. While it gradually came down during his 2nd term, the lowest rate was 5.3%, and the overall average unemployment during his 8 years was 7.43%.

As comparisons, unemployment averaged around 5% during Clinton's 8 years, about 5.5% during Bush 2's presidency. Even during Obama's 8 years which started with the 2008 economic meltdown, averaged less than Reagan's 2 terms, at just about 7.2%, although the last 3 years averaged only about 5%.

Under Trump, unemployment continued to drop, averaging only about 4.5% for his 4 years, even including the pandemic year of 2020. But again, with only 2 years data, unemployment under Biden has averaged below 4% which far outpaces Reagan's first 3 years (about 9% average). In fact, there has not been a presidential term with a higher unemployment rate that Reagan's 8 years average since the Great Depression years ending in 1941.

I wonder if that guy with the shovel would still want Reagan considering that data set?

In 1980, having voted in my 2nd presidential election, I was not a home owner, not all that focused on economic issues. Hey, I was an irresponsible young man. But by 1989, I was married and looking for our first house. The only thing we qualified for, mortgage wise, was a variable rate negative amortization deal. In other words, the interest rate was to change yearly, and, even if it didn't go up or down, our payment was less than the actual interest which was accruing which meant our debt was increasing every month. As it turned out, the 11% interest rate gradually lessened, and we were able to begin increasing equity in the home within 2.5 years as opposed to the original 5 year estimate. 

I don't need stats to know it was tough going then, and while home interest rates are over 7% now, after being under 3% for quite a while, they are not 11% as they were in the 1980's. 

I have a theory that in 20 or 30 years, the Biden presidency may be compared to Reagan's. Both were considered too old when in office, both inherited a mess from the previous president, both came across as the steady, grandfatherly type, a form of stability needed in a time of turmoil. 

Whether Biden's economic numbers fare well should we end up with 8 years to compare, is unknown, but I imagine that in terms of inflation and unemployment, I would favor Biden having the advantage. Should the economy break out after inflation gets back under 3%, he may end with a clean sweep in the three areas I have detailed. 

And then, who knows, perhaps a cartoon of a man with a shovel approaching Biden's grave will be circulating on the internet in 20 or 30 years with the caption, even a dead Biden is better than the current resident in the White House. Let's hope that the source of that cartoon has actual numbers to justify the sentiment.

   

 

What We Seem Willing to Give Up

First, a quick update concerning my last post, A Plan and a Plot. I received an encrypted message from the Genius whom I named in that post, in which two other topics were brought to my attention which I failed to mention.

The initial issue concerns book banning. Using the vaguely defined, and purposefully unspecific term "woke", the GOP is justifying the censorship of thought by associating the treatment of all American citizens equally, with big government and establishment thinking. In their narrative, parents should have the right to ban books from their local schools and communities just because they don't want their children to read that particular book. It doesn't seem to matter if other parents prefer there be choice in the matter (freedom), or, in some cases, if the offended adults even have children attending the school district, their "parental rights" allow them to choose for everyone, even those parents who are OK with a particular book. What is clear is that what the majority thinks isn't the point, just that when a vocal, or even one might say, tyrannical minority, protests, all must follow their preferences. 

The idea of telling their children they must not access a particular book, or even informing the school's librarian that they prefer their children not be exposed to a book (or idea, which is really the point), doesn't seem to occur to them. Just, I don't like it, therefore no one should. Arrogance in its highest form.  And, of course, since there are many politicians who, lacking the ability to make strong leadership decisions, prefer to pander to the most vocal and visual, these "righteous" parents are successful in controlling the content that ALL children can access. After all, what do school librarians know about literature, and books, and what children like to read?

But again, President Joe smiles, knowing that the growing majority of voters, those aged 30 to 50, who will be determining future elections, do not want one or two parents deciding what all children should read. 

The other topic is guns and the 2nd Amendment. The NRA and GOP have successfully sold the idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only right that should never have restrictions. That possessing as many guns with as much firepower as you want, is a protected "God-given" right, (I don't recall Jesus packing a weapon during any of his sermons, but hey, perhaps he carried a big stick and we just were never told), and so any law that requires a background check to make sure the applicant doesn't have a history of violence, mental instability, etc, or requires a gun to be registered, or even places limits on guns which are only used to kill people, is somehow anti-American, or against the founders intent.

A friend of mine, who is a grammar geek, recently posted her review of using apostrophes, commas, etc. Well, perhaps her lesson should be mandatory for all citizens in respect to interpreting the 2nd Amendment, which says

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Perhaps I am missing something, but the comma after the word Militia, and described by the phrase "being necessary...", is the reference noun for the phrase that finishes the statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". It is the Militia that should be well armed, perhaps a national guard unit, or the actual US military which acts on behalf of the citizenry. Remember, those words were written when America was a fledgling country, trying to divorce itself from England, one of the most powerful nations on earth at the time. Everyone, or almost everyone, possessed a gun to hunt, or for personal protection, both in the colonies and in Europe. England did not care about personal muskets being owned by farmers, but they did care about organized community militias with semi-trained soldiers and stores of munitions. It was that scenario they wished to control, and it was that right that the founders were addressing, which is why they specifically referred to Militia, and not citizen, or the individual.

So again, in face of the fact that death by gun violence is the number one killer of children, not disease or accidents, President Joe smiles when he hears GOP candidates rally around the flag in one voice against gun (I call it violence) control, because he knows, again, that the upcoming majority of voters, many of whom either personally experienced active shooter drills while in elementary school (yes, those same places where a book and its idea should be banned because it might make a child uncomfortable), or certainly know their children have, consider gun control measures a good thing, a logical thing, and not another example of government overreach. 

OK, so to today's post.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I went to a Reading Phillies minor league baseball game. Very pleasant, a nice evening, reasonable prices, free parking, fireworks afterwards, and even a 4-3 victory. During the game, we couldn't help overhearing part of a conversation between the two women sitting behind us. They were most likely of our generation, 50+, but still working so probably not over 65. 

The conversation which struck us revealed that one of the women was not close to one or some of her children. She literally remarked that she didn't communicate with them very often, and was not only resigned to the fact that they were estranged, even seemed proud in that she was OK that if they didn't want to share their lives anymore, she was too old to care, or let that bother her anymore.

Now, I don't know the source of their problem. I do know that there have been many stories in the media about boomers who either do not, or rarely talk to their children. Certainly, our toxic politics is one reason, along with religion and economics, and I am sure that arguments about lifestyle, marriage choice, work life, how to raise the grand kids, etc, are also reasons for disagreement.

But for Nora and I, never seeing our kids, or not seeing (or communicating for years) seems unfathomable. No child (and certainly no parent) is perfect, everyone makes mistakes and poor choices, but to accept that those differences mean losing touch with your children is not only a shame, but indicative of how our society is crumbling. They say all great civilizations fall from within. I imagine that this must be a symptom of such a fall.

I hope those reading this do not share this unfortunate circumstance, but if you do, I strongly recommend that, parent or child, you reach out to your family member, and do everything you can to find common ground, agree to disagree, forgive or apologize. I can't imagine a worse fate than to wake up one day an orphan or having lost a child, knowing you were not only not there for them at the end, but weren't there for them during life.

On a lesser, yet almost as important, related note, there is an article in the September National Geographic about the disappearing bald cypress trees and the swamps in which they live. The truly alarming part of the story is the knowledge that bald cypress trees can live for 2,000 years and more, yet are being slowly wiped out from their native habitat by rising seas and other effects of climate change. In other words, another example of man's destruction of the natural world. 

But, it is even more than that. Because these trees tend to reside in swamps, it is a purposeful eradication. In our arrogance of what we believe to be important and valuable, swampland is down at the bottom of the list, forever considered worthless. Now, of course, we are beginning to realize the importance of these trees and this ecosystem, but it probably won't matter, as the decisions we have been making for the last hundred years may be too ingrained to reverse. 

As the coastal storms become more intense, the rising seas more invasive, the lack of natural barriers more obvious, eliminating the millions of hectares of swamp land for more housing developments and huge agricultural farms, may be one of those under the radar decisions that we regret the most.

Like accepting an estranged relationship with our children with a shrug and an oh well, we communally continue to hide our eyes from the destruction of our environment, as if there is a backup plan.

Perhaps that is the true definition of a declining society, when we casually allow our relationships with our children to disintegrate while continuing our policies of environmental degradation so as to destroy the world in which our grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to live.

A Plan and a Plot

First, I have seen a resurgence of interest from Singapore in the last 2 weeks. At this point, and including the bursts which have occurred in the past six months, I have received more hits from Singapore, twice as many in fact, than from the United State. I would be curious to know why, and encourage someone from that country to post a comment indicating the reason behind the attention.

Per the Oxford Dictionary, plan is defined as a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something, whereas plot is defined as a plan made in secret by a group of people to do something illegal or harmful.

In essence then, a plot is a plan with an insidious goal, at least as defined by someone looking from the outside.

The purpose of this post is to reveal both the plan and the plot which has been carried out by the democratic party in the recent past. In other words, I have decided it is time for a democrat to fess up and reveal the elaborate conspiracy that has been in motion for quite a while.

The conspiracy I am about to disclose is far reaching, and while I am privy to many of its details, no one knows them all, save, perhaps, the architect. Even then, he has been so clever, so careful, so intuitive in how various aspects of The Plan should unfold, that it is certainly possible that even he does not know all the specifics. As is always true of a successful and hard to unravel plot, it is best that no one know all the details. Best that the network of those involved contains the full strategy yet with no one individual knowing the exact litany of who did what and when.

The threads of this intrigue stretch much further back than you might imagine.  One might even say that the earliest inklings of how the future could be made to unfold, lie in the early days of the Obama presidency, although in reality, much of the foundation was laid by the victims themselves beginning over a half century ago.

Most of us did not enjoy history when we were in school. It was often presented in a dry fashion with too much emphasis on facts and dates but not enough on the lessons that could be gained from understanding how big events changed the course of society and culture. 

For instance, for the first few decades after WW2, the average  American citizen expressed full faith in the United States government.  And why not? We had defeated the Axis powers, saved Europe, and had re-established the clear line of who was good and who was evil, specifically democracy good, communism and socialism bad. Freedom had won the day, and the United States of America, its government and its people, were the main reason why.

But as the children of this "greatest generation" began to look about, they saw racial inequalities at home, and an unjustified war abroad. The boomers, as we were labelled, wanted to double down on the ideals of our American experiment, which meant that all citizens should gain the benefits of opportunity and freedom, not just those born white and male.  

Freedom marches by minority leaders looking for equal rights in reality, not just in words, protests against the Vietnam War, women burning bras to symbolize their upset at their second class treatment, all filled the airwaves and newspapers in the 60's and 70's. 

But the baby boomers, like all young groups, did not vote in blocks large enough to counter the propaganda which was controlled by the generation who, while winning the war against the Nazis, did not believe in the kind of equality that their children clamored for. And so, as long as they called the shots, politically and in the media, the protesters were portrayed as an anti-american element. Calling them hippies, communists, radicals, etc, the establishment of the country, represented most vocally by the GOP and various religiously affiliated organizations, portrayed these ungrateful citizens as disillusioned, at best, traitors, at worst, and the average american agreed.

Proof? 

From 1953 to 1993, the Republican candidate was in the White House for seven of the ten presidential terms, 28 of 40 years. And many of the contests were not even close. Eisenhower won the popular votes for his two elections by 10.5% and 15.4% respectively with well over 400 electoral college votes to boot. While Nixon's 1968 victory was close (Humphrey was within .7%, less than 1 million votes of Nixon), almost 10 million votes were cast for George Wallace (not generally known as a liberal). With Wallace out of the  presidential race in 1972, ( he was shot while campaigning in May of 1972) Nixon won the popular vote by a whopping 23.2%, almost 18 million votes.  

Reagan won the popular votes for his two elections by 8.6% and 18.2%, gaining an unimaginable 489 electoral votes in 1980 and 525 (out of 538) in 1984. While not as big of a landslide, even the first Bush won by 7.7% and garnered over 400 electoral votes.

Of the three democrats who won the White House, only Johnson's 1964 victory was republican-esque although there are some who will argue that his Vietnam War policies and the trauma of watching Kennedy die in our streets, may have played a much bigger part in his victory.  Kennedy's win over Nixon, was by less than 150,000 votes out of 68 million cast, and Carter's win over Bush, while closer in terms of the popular vote (2%, 1.65 million votes), the electoral count was 297 to 240, basically a 2 state margin.

Which brings us to 1992. The democratic party has lost 3 straight presidential elections, by an average electoral count of 480-58 and by an aggregate popular vote margin of 32 million votes. 

So, I repeat, a majority of Americans identified as conservative during this time.

Some might say that this marks the birth of the conspiracy I am revealing. I have no absolute proof of this, as I lean towards the theory that the Dems just got lucky with Clinton in 1992 for a number of reasons, but most certainly because Ross Perot ran for president in both 1992 and 1996 as a third party candidate who leaned right. While Perot did not win any electoral votes, Clinton's margin of victory, in 1992 was 5.8 million votes while Perot received over 19.7 million votes. Without Perot, perhaps the GOP would have extended their streak and Bush 1 would not have been a one term president.

Not withstanding Perot, Bush didn't help his cause after his read-my- lips, no-new-taxes-pledge, whereupon taxes were raised in his first year, and that America had just been led for twelve straight years by a republican president, and one might say that Clinton and his party were in the right place at the right time. 

Again, was Perot's entrance in the race the first act of this conspiracy? I do know that he ran on an anti-establishment platform, and as I have asserted in the above paragraphs, it was the GOP which represented the establishment at the time. That being said, the 1992 election marked the beginning, not only of the democratic party turning their seven losses out of ten into five victories in the next eight presidential contests, but also the start of a major reversal in how the american electorate votes, for not only did they win the White House those five times, they won the popular vote seven times out of eight as Bush 2 lost to Al Gore by about 500,000 votes and Trump lost to Hillary Clinton by about 2.9 million votes. 

What can explain such a turnaround in popular votes cast for the two major parties, from a 32 million vote advantage from 1980 to 1988 to a 34.5 million disadvantage from 1992 to 2020 with over 24 million of that disadvantage occurring since 2000?

I have a theory about how being the "establishment party" is generally good for a party, the example of Perot's popularity not withstanding. When the boomers were protesting but not voting, the GOP represented the establishment (as defined by big business and monied interests), and won those elections from 1980 to 1988. As the boomers began to vote, they leaned left, but only as long as their portfolios and possessions stayed average to middling. So, no surprise, Clinton wins twice because he is an outsider, but also because he leans towards business and the monied interests just enough. He is no Bush 1 or Dole, but he is certainly no Mondale of Dukakis. The perfect candidate for a generation that aspires to future wealth and material gain but likes a guy who plays the saxophone on late night talk shows.

And remember, the federal budget was actually balanced for a year or two and there was no overseas wars to speak of. Clinton and his advisers were able to read the tea leaves of what would turn the baby boomers and generation X voters, who now represented a much bigger voting percentage than the outgoing generation, towards a new definition of the government establishment. 

Whereas the older version, the one created and desired by the greatest generation wanted stability as reflected by the oft rose colored belief that the late 40's and 50's were the "good old days", this new version recognized women and minorities as real people, while still holding fast to the idea that law breakers needed to be punished. I often say that Clinton was the best republican president of my life, as reflected in his free trade agreements, crackdown on "crime" which was code for inner city folks (usually black and brown) who used drugs and ruined schools and neighborhoods, and revisions of laws such as Glass Steagall. 

Unfortunately, Al Gore was no Bill Clinton. Now gaining wealth, the boomers look to a candidate that doesn't want them to take responsibility for their selfish actions. Climate change, petro wealth, growing income inequality, no thanks. Give me the candidate who reflects the establishment, the Bush name, but who did drugs in college and drinks beer. Bush barely wins the 2000 election, in part thanks for the Florida Supreme Court, and widens his victory over Kerry in 2004, with help from the 9/11 terror attack because nothing says establishment like big military excursions into poorly armed third world countries.

In other words, the boomers voted like their parents. The Plan took a hit, although, again, the days of huge GOP presidential victories were in the rear view mirror.  The dynamics of the changing composition of the american electorate was still a fact. 

And so, this retro pattern was short-lived.  The economic meltdown of 2008 was linked to those old establishment policies that the boomers had protested when they were young. Income inequality, along with multiple, wasteful overseas wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not too mention a real hit to the boomers 401K balances, tipped the balance even further towards the Dems. 

And then along comes Barrack Obama. Young, intelligent, articulate, an outsider in terms of Washington politics, and Black. Clinton without the sexual intrigue. In 2008 and 2012, boomers remember their roots, while the idealism of Generation X and the Milennials, give Obama overwhelming victories. 

It is my basic tenet that the voters of America seek alignment with the establishment. The key is understanding how establishment is defined. As I stated earlier, the greatest generation's definition was different than the boomers and early Generation X voters. Similarly, establishment today as defined by the later Generation X and Millenial voters differs as well. 

This is the key to the Plan which the democratic party has adhered to, while the GOP still clings to the old definition which was so successful in the 40 years prior to 1992. 

Unfortunately, it was this very plan that resulted in the 2016 loss for the dems and for Hillary Clinton. Her nomination still reflected social change (the first woman president!) but failed to take into consideration that a swath of voters, mostly older, would never vote for a women, but instead would identify with Trump's virtually complete rejection of anything establishment, including establishment as identified by social and cultural change. Trump told his followers that returning to the mores of the 50's would return America to the time when the country itself represented goodness and greatness and that it was the new message of the dems, the message that reflected the attitudes of the voting blocks just beginning to flex its muscles that was ruining America and that we needed to take our country back from.

Trump trumped the Plan. But, there was an unknown segment of The Plan that even Trump could not foresee. And this is where The Plot begins to emerge.

Most people recollect Joe Biden as the VP who generated as much news by his gaffs as his policies. He was the old time politician who had peaked, and was now riding the coat tails of the new force in DC, Obama. But what most people do not realize is that much of that persona was planned. Biden acted the side kick, precisely so that some measure of attention could be diverted from Obama as he learned the ropes of governing. A planned distraction, so to speak. And, as it turned out in 2020, just in case...

If the DNC and democratic voter wanted Hillary as their next president, Biden was on board. But as the 2020 election neared, it became clear that The Plan was not enough to continue the dems recent presidential victories. Biden, ever the underestimated politician, continued to solidify his relationships in Congress, while working with democratic strategists to better understand how to counter Trump's inroads with the electorate, inroads that eventually resulted in his presidential election victory.

Biden knew that an anti-establishment platform was only successful in the short term, and was difficult to maintain because eventually, voters, want more than just being told what is wrong. Biden knew that Trump did not have any real moral or political guideposts. His main strategy was to break down all norms, attack all institutions, and convince enough people that only he could fix our shared troubles. A great strategy when things are going well, but when a true challenge appears, one which requires leadership, strong decision making, and an ability to explain what is being done, Biden knew Trump could not succeed. 

And so when the pandemic began in the spring of 2020, Biden knew Trump would fail to address the situation because he would find himself stuck between his medical experts who prescribed social distancing and temporary closures of business, and his own narcissist belief that money and business are more important than people. Trump knew that people would die if nothing was done to prevent the spread of the virus, but also knew that the economy would suffer, as would his chances of reelection. 

And Biden knew Trump would do anything to not lose, even if it meant repeating conspiracy theories about treatment and cures for Covid. Trump went all in with his anti-establishment message, but in this case, that meant attacking vaccines and established medical science, and then, rather than creating a national response, he abdicated his responsibility to the states then attacked those whose policies he didn't like, even when the mortality rates of those states flattened out sooner, while the rates of the states led by those governors who ignored the science surpassed those of the East Coast states where the virus first wreaked havoc.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Biden realized that most Americans, while maintaining a reasonable distrust of the pharmaceutical industry, did not believe that the Covid vaccine was dangerous, did not believe that their DNA was being altered by the vaccine, did not believe that there was a tracking device now floating in their bodies from the immunizations. 

In the meantime, gun violence continued to kill Americans at an alarming rate, gun violence now being the biggest killer of children in our country, but Biden knew that those same old fashioned values that said guns are more important than lives, that Trump continued to repeat, did not reflect the values of the new generations of voters, later Generation X, Millenials, and Generation Y voters. Add to that the resurgence of anti-abortion laws, again backed by Trump via his Supreme Court nominations, and the onslaught of attacks on mail and machine voting, and Biden and the democrats had created the perfect triad of issues.

At this point, the GOP in general, and Trump specifically represent the anti-establishment party but the establishment values they rail against are the ability to vote by mail, to vote early, to vote more efficiently by machine, reproductive freedom for women, and attempts to reduce access to weapons whose only use is to kill people. 

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Donald Trump boasted of the huge crowds at his rallies while Biden stayed in his basement. If you recall, there was not much push back from Biden concerning his reluctance to expose fellow democrats to the virus, the obvious reason being that if people leaning Democrat were hospitalized or died before the election, that would reduce his chances of winning. But more than that, Biden knew Trump didn't care if people got Covid at his rallies and died, only that he could brag about the thousands of people who attended.

And when Trump blasted mail in voting, claimed it was rife with fraud, Biden just smiled and encouraged the electorate to vote in whatever way was best for them, because he knew that the more people who voted, the better for him since history had already turned to where all but one of the previous six presidential elections had resulted in a democratic popular vote victory.

And when Trump promised the evangelical community that he would create a conservative majority on the Supreme Court (and make abortion illegal), Biden just smiled and said that reproductive freedom for women was a cherished right that he would not support removing because Biden knew that women now make up more than 50% of the voters in our country.

By now, you may have realized that Joseph R. Biden Jr, is the architect of The Plot.  That now only was he not "hiding" in the basement during the summer of 2020, he was meeting with various members of Congress, governors, pundits, newspaper moguls, and influencers, both democratic and republican. 

He spoke to them about the ultimate values of America, respect for differing political opinions, the importance of a peaceful transition of power, the changing demographics of the American electorate, and the inevitable result of any presidential election if one party told our country that limiting voting participation, enacting policies that put more guns on our streets, attacking our nation's capital and then calling for the pardons of those who beat up police and ransacked the halls of Congress, restricting women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies and allowing Russia to invade another country was patriotic or moral or the future of America.

Some people he was able to convince with just his words. Some, especially those on the other side of the aisle, he had to promise that they would retain their personal power as Governor or Party leader, as long as they allowed contested voting results to remain in Biden's column. Some he had to simply pay off, as we all know that there are far too many public servants that answer to money above all us. 

Too old? Hardly. Joe Biden is a genius who bided his time as VP for eight years, allowed Hillary her chance in the Big Seat, then took over the mechanics of the democratic party to not only save America from an individual who would rather destroy american democracy than admit he lost an election, but also fed into the media frenzy surrounding Covid, mail-in voting, abortion rights, gun control, with very specific stories and talking points to create an environment that the GOP and Donald Trump would misread into thinking that the American public wants abortion restrictions, automatic weapons for everyone, stricter voting laws, an emboldened Russia and pardons for terrorists who attack the seat of our law making body.

When in reality, most Americans are against those ideas, have rejected them in the last 3 elections, in 2018 when the GOP lost the House, in 2020 when the GOP lost the Senate and White House and in 2022 when the red wave was a trickle.

And, if everything stays the way it is, with Trump leading the GOP primary field by 35 or 40 points depending on the poll, and having now been indicted four times on just a bit under 100 counts, Biden continues to work under the radar, prodding the right people and pulling the right levers all to convince Trump and the GOP that the American people are willing to elect a four times accused felon. As if the voters of America want a guy running the country from federal prison. 

But, if for some reason the electorate makes the wrong choice, The Plot will engage the next phase, whatever genius Joe has created, and Biden will serve another 4 years.

  

On a More Positive Note

It can be challenging to discuss our shared problems, whether they be local, national or global, without being negative, or even out-right depressed. The news is full of what appears to be insurmountable issues, from partisan politics, to ideological wars, to actual wars, to climate change. It is virtually impossible to find positive spins on our shared obstacles but plenty of comments on who is at fault.

So, certainly not being blameless in this area, I thought I might create a post with a more hopeful message. To start, I reviewed some of my past posts that were upbeat. Here are links to four of them that I enjoyed writing, and rereading.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/06/happiness.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/01/seeking-silver-lining-2.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-future-of-politics.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/05/celebrating-milestone-and-future.html

Next, I turned to the July edition of National Geographic which featured a cover page with the words "Chasing the Unknown" and multiple articles on people who are doing just that, including another chapter in the ongoing Out of Eden Walk being conducted for the last ten years by Paul Salopek.

Within its pages are inspiring accounts of people who you will never see on a reality show, never see on the front page of a tabloid newspaper, perhaps never even read about despite their unique accomplishments, yet who never the less are adding to the data base of human knowledge in ways that may not be popularized yet may still effect generations to come. The literal unsung heroes of our time who toil in obscurity, yet accomplish such great achievements.

Men and women who spend large swaths of their lives researching the very first cave paintings, painstakingly unearthing the delicate bones of our unknown ancestors, or living with endangered animals in hopes of learning enough about their ways and needs towards reintroducing them into their native habitats. 

What is especially uplifting is that so many of these people are young, meaning under 35, with an incredibly diverse set of traits. Whether born in the US or abroad, they represent a wide range of cultural backgrounds, and a plethora of experiences upon which to improve their environments or those of the people they have chosen to help.

Reading about them, and realizing that despite their differences, gender, race, ancestry, etc, they share the belief that by making a positive impact, person by person (or even animal by animal) they make the world better, if even by just that much. It is both heartening and energizing. Imagine if that was the ultimate goal of every human. 

Have a problem with your government, imagine living in a country where education itself is illegal for girls over 12 years of age, as is true in Afghanistan. Now imagine spending your life teaching those young women, both surreptitiously in Afghanistan, and in a Rwanda where you have founded a school for that precise reason. Makes all our efforts seem insignificant!

There are times when I think that those who control the media, our political parties, even our religious institutions, prefer that we are always on edge, nervous, more attentive to the negative. As if, once they have convinced us how bad things are, they can tell us how they hold the only truth, how only they can lead us to happiness. Which, if it were that simple, would be one thing, but it seems that most of those in power at our media outlets, political parties, and pulpits, are more interested in telling us who to blame, as opposed to who we can help.

At the end of the movie Evan Almighty, "God" defines the ark as an acronym, Act of Random Kindness. It is His message and task to Evan, and one which he hopes Evan will share with the world. 

It seems that there are more people who are in need of assistance, physical, emotional, spiritual, than who offer such assistance. Wouldn't it be great if the opposite were true, that there was just not enough of those in need as compared to those willing to give? 

It all starts with that person you see in the mirror everyday. Help convince that image that helping someone, even if just by bringing a meal to an ailing neighbor, or getting a grocery item from the top shelf for a shorter person, or simply just smiling and saying hi to people you encounter as you navigate your life, creates positive energy and shifts the balance ever so slightly. You never know when such a random act of kindness will domino itself into a truly remarkable act of humanity towards someone you may never meet, but who will be grateful none the less. 

   

Trump and the First Amendment

It came as no surprise to me that ex-president Trump was indicted yesterday on charges related to January 6th. While not a constitutional scholar, or lawyer, or election rules expert, it seemed obvious to me that Trump worked tirelessly to overturn the 2020 presidential election through various methods. From lies about massive mail and election machine fraud, to exhorting a number of state legislatures to create "alternative" electors, to pressuring Vice President Pence to ignore the will of the people and disregard the election results, to encouraging an attack on the Capital then sitting idly by while rioters beat police officers, broke windows, and vandalized the building where our laws are created, Donald Trump, in plain sight, became the first president in our history to subvert the peaceful transition of power, and did so with no concern about America, our democracy, or our constitution. All because he is so insecure that he can't accept that he lost.

As I said, no surprise, other than it took over two years to get here. What did surprise me is that Trump's lawyers are talking First Amendment protections as his defense.

I have posted a few times under the banner of the First Amendment, so I searched my blog and read four of them before beginning this entry.

The first one listed was from just last year, in January. Within this post are references to the other three I just read, but I decided to provide a separate link for each anyway. The second is from August 2018, and the last two are from 2010. I thought it interesting to read my thoughts on the subject from 2010, to see if there was consistency in my perceptions as compared to the 2018 and 2021 posts, and as compared to my current position today. Feel free to check them out. You might be surprised at whose first amendment rights I defended. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/01/freedom-of-speech.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/08/opinions-lies-and-responsible-speech.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/09/testing-strength-of-our-freedom.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/03/hateful-speech.html

As for Trump's defense, that everything he said about the election, everything he did to subvert the will of the people, everything he and his minions offered as justification for his return to the White House, well, as I always tell my wife, there is always a grain of truth in every statement.

While in this case, the grain is microscopic, able to be seen only with an electron microscope, I agree that Trump has the first amendment right to tell all his followers that he won the 2020 election, and therefore all the machinations engaged in are the result of that opinion. Unfortunately, only an idiot would believe such drivel, and as Trump himself often says, he is the smartest person in the room at any given time.

If we assume that intelligence, of which he is chock full, is generally based on facts and an accumulation of knowledge, then after close to 60 judicial decisions against the various lawsuits filed by his carousel of lawyers, denials of election fraud from a host of GOP state election officials, his own federal election administration and Bill Barr, his hand picked attorney general, someone as smart as Donald Trump knows full well he lost the 2020 presidential election.

But denial is a powerful thing, especially when your self image is as damaged as Trump's. So, rather than listening to his staff and white house lawyers who told him there was no fraud, he sought out those who would tell him what he wanted to hear, even if it meant making up wild conspiracies about Chinese bamboo, dead South American dictators, and any other crazy scenario that justified him staying in office.

If Donald Trump knew he lost but tried to find a way to remain president, he is guilty of all the charges filed, and then some. If he truly believes that he lost due to massive fraud, then he is delusional, and should certainly not be elected to any future public office.

As for his first amendment rights to say whatever he wants, regardless of the veracity of his statements, as long as he believes them to be true, well, I for one think that the president of the United States should be able to distinguish what he wants to be true from what is actually true. 

But even more importantly, the president should be even more concerned about presenting the truth, based on facts, than any other person, because, as the leader of the nation, his words matter. He should be more responsible with his opinions, more discerning with repeating beliefs that are unproven, more cognizant of the fact that his statements are read by millions, tens of millions, which means they have even more impact and effect than most any other person's.

He should be more responsible with his words, yet Trump thinks it is in merely the simple act of utterance that he gains power and influence, regardless of facts. 

In essence, Donald Trump has subverted one of our most precious rights, the right to free speech, to mean that he can say whatever he wants because he was the president, as if that title makes his words more true.

The ongoing debates about the extent that the freedom of speech allows is an important one. But like everything else he effects, Trump has now lowered the bar in this debate to how many lies can be told, how far from the truth a statement can be, and how free a president (because remember, if you or I were accused of his crimes, there would be no debate), can be with his words, regardless of how much truth those words reflect.

The really sad thing, is that when an ordinary person says something about Trump, the truth of the statement, is never the issue. If Trump doesn't like the opinion, it needs to be suppressed. He doesn't give a whit about the real issues of the first amendment, he only cares about what he can get away with without any consequences. 

I am not necessarily all in for Trump to be dressed in orange in the near future. At this point, I feel sorry for him, and for all those who continue to kiss his ring, too far down the rabbit hole to find their way back to reality. 

I would prefer that he be pardoned (once convicted), allowed to renounce his American citizenship, and granted to right to emigrate to Russia or Hungary or Belarus with no return possible, where he can hobnob with people like him who crave power. Where the opinions of only the guy in charge matter, and first amendment rights (or any rights) are for the autocrat to decide. 

In a previous post I said that only in death would Trump be held accountable. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/04/accountability-finally.html

While I still believe that, I would settle for him leaving America forever, to become someone else's national problem. In the meantime, we can only hope that enough MAGA republicans actually read the latest indictment, and realize that it is time to jettison their once and future king and return to at least a semblance of democracy.

Hannah and Anna

Poignant article in the June Smithsonian concerning Anne Frank and her childhood friend Hannah Pick-Goslar. The article contains excerpts from Pick-Goslar's memoir, published last year after her death, which retells Anne Frank's early life, before the two years she spent hiding from the Nazis. It is a stark reminder of how Anne and Hannah were typical young girls before the dark days of the Holocaust. From stories about their schooling, birthday parties, and the instant friendship that was born on their first day of nursery school, Pick-Goslar depicts Anne before the evil which was perpetrated upon her and her family.

While I am sure I read Anne Frank sometime during my years in elementary or high school, I didn't remember that Anne and her family experienced the horror of the Holocaust while living in Amsterdam, Holland. They had fled Germany when it became clear that Jews were no longer welcome, only to find that as time passed, the disease of antisemitism knew no national boundaries.

I won't recount the details of the excerpt, suffice it to say that through the eyes of a young girl, we experience the slow change from carefree school days, birthday parties, and walks to the local ice cream store, to harassment, home invasions, and ultimately, children being removed from their parents. It seems as brutal and surreal as any fiction story might present, except it was all too real.

While Anne's story, as reflected through her famous diary, depicts the horrors of her situation, for me, Hannah's is even more horrific.  For her, there was no logic behind the prejudice. As she begins to realize her only crime was to have been born Jewish, (can you say birth lottery), we see the hate being made manifest against a young girl and her family, and it is heart wrenching. To say what was happening to her was unfathomable, is an understatement of the nth degree.

I mention this story, for two reasons.

One, in the current trend of erasing difficult history, and unflattering episodes in our own American story, I wonder if those same people would be lobbying German schools to remove Anne Frank's story from their libraries if they lived there. And perhaps closing down the places where Jewish people were slaughtered in the name of saving our children from being uncomfortable. It seems that rather than facing the evil, and I don't use that word loosely, that we exhibited in our treatment of the Native populations of America, and then the humans brought here as slaves to help build our economy, we have many people who prefer to pretend that those affronts to our creator didn't happen. 

As if erasing those events might allow us to live in the false reality that nothing bad ever happened in our country, and that God loves us more than those who reside elsewhere. 

The sad thing is, America is a great country, a place of hope, of opportunity, of freedom, not because those things didn't happen, but because, at least some of us, have learned the lessons of our mistakes. We can have two thoughts in our head at the same time, that we haven't always followed the golden rule of doing unto others as we would want done to ourselves, but that we still strive to achieve that lofty goal. And understanding and confronting our misdeeds is part and parcel to that process.

The danger, as it has been proven time and time again, is that by ignoring our past evils, by pretending they didn't happen, or that by not teaching them, our children will be "safe", we place those same children in danger of repeating those mistakes, not having learned the lessons that hate and prejudice can turn even good people into instruments of the kind of beliefs that create the environment for casting "others" as enemies. And even worse, caching that bias while using religion and "god" to justify the atrocities.

Which brings me to point number two, the current assault on LGBTQ and trans people's rights. Like Anne and Hannah, many of the victims of this assault are children who have gender identity issues. Rather than listening to these kids, and their parents, certain legislators and presidential aspirants, choose to demonize them. The kids are no more guilty than Anne and Hannah, yet are being treated by some within the institutions that are supposed to protect them, as anomalies, at best, unnatural and unworthy of God's love, at worst.

When I engage with young people I know through my children and those I work with, I have hope that this anti-human behavior will lose its luster and momentum as today's 20 and 30 somethings become tomorrow's parents and leaders, just as those preaching anti-gay rhetoric in the 80's and 90's were replaced with a generation that helped legalize gay marriage and improved equality in the workplace. 

But in the meantime, I wonder how many diaries are being created by trans kids who are suffering under the yoke of prejudice, and how many biographies will be published in the future which detail the everyday lives of these children juxtaposed with the overt hatred that they are experiencing.

The truly sad part is that some day there will be books which demonstrate how stupid we were in how we treated the LGBTQ and trans community in this time. The question is when your children and grandchildren ask you about your actions, will you be keeping silent in shame at how you participated, or wonder, just as we do now about how the Germans could have attempted the genocide of the Jews, how an alleged civilized society could treat other people, especially children, so grievously.   

Oh, and by the way, it light of the Saudi Arabian government's attempted takeover of the PGA and professional golf, I am waiting for those who are boycotting Bud Light to boycott professional golf, and any sponsor who advertises during its tournaments. Why, you ask? Well, I imagine most of you remember that little incident called 9/11 in which 19 terrorists high jacked jet liners and crashed them into the Twin Towers in New York, and the Pentagon in DC. Have you forgotten that 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi nationals? 

Not to mention the killing of the Washington Post journalist in the Saudi consulate in Turkey in 2018, a murder sanctioned by the Crown Prince himself according to US intelligence.

Or how about the Saudi regime's notorious misogynist policies?

To me, selling a sport to the highest bidder, in this case the Saudis, a country with a history of human rights violations, and a regime with little compulsion in authorizing the assassination of a journalist critical of its policies, in addition to training and funding the 9/11 attack, should inspire far more outrage as compared to a private company sending a commemorative beer can to a trans woman celebrating her ability to live freely (which she couldn't do in Saudi Arabia). 

Just goes to show you that money, the driving force behind all of sports, it seems, not to mention our politics, is the only thing anyone seems to care about anymore, including the golfers who flocked to the LIV for bigger paydays, shame on them. And don't forget that Donald Trump is making money hand over fist from these very same people, and that Jared Kushner received $2 billion (that is billion, with a b) from the Saudis after leaving the White House.

Where is the outrage, Kid Rock? Fox and Friends? Governor DeSantis?

Kind of makes you wonder if the whole trans people controversy is less about American values, and more about homophobia and hatred. 

Perhaps if it was NASCAR being bought by the Saudis?

That other SCOTUS decision from last week

Last week I discussed the major decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, student debt loan forgiveness, Sunday work rules for those seeking religious exemption, independent state legislative theory and affirmative action. See link below.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/06/todays-scots-decisions.html

There was one I did not touch upon, as it also came on Friday after I posted and it is the decision concerning the Colorado web designer  who refused to provide a wedding web site for a gay couple due to her religious values.

Now, not withstanding the news that the email which was sent to her requesting that web design, may have been faked, the Court seems to be hanging its judicial hat on the First Amendment's protection for religious liberty. In doing so, they are saying that, in this case, someone whose religion does not recognize gay marriage, has the religious freedom to deny their services from a gay couple. 

Since I do not have access to the justices, specifically the six who formed the majority opinion, I would like to ask these questions.

Is the web designer now required to state that gay people need not contact her for her services? Some kind of disclosure like, gay people need not apply?

And, more critically, does this religious freedom apply to other situations? Housing? Jobs? Education? Clearly, it is far less innocuous for someone to design a web site from their home and provide a link for a gay couple to access it, then get paid, all which could be done without direct interface, than for someone to work, live or go to school with a member of the LGBTQ community. 

I imagine that the Court would not go so far as to allow prejudice to be legal in the case of housing and labor, but why? One could posit that it is easy to find another web designer, but then again, there are other jobs, other places to live, other schools. What is the line here? 

Also, just like sending the abortion question back to the states, didn't "calm the waters" as Justice Alito expected, but instead emboldened the anti-abortion crowd to make abortion illegal for those in blue states also, I expect we will see other suits brought by "Christians" who want to eliminate all contacts with the LGBTQ community by removing or watering down the various discrimination laws that don't allow them to refuse work, housing or education to that community because it goes against their religion. Don't be surprised if some attorney general in a southern state decides to challenge gay marriage in their state, in hopes that this new Court will reverse the previous decision, just as they jettisoned precedent in the Dobbs decision.

When I was younger, I had long hair. During a job interview at a candy manufacturer, I was told I could have the job if I cut my hair. I didn't, there were other jobs. But what about people who don't have the luxury of a visit to the barber, people who can't change their skin color, gender identification, or attraction to same sex individuals. We have seen many SCOTUS decisions protecting the rights of this group, yet, in this case, they are saying too bad, you will just have to find another provider.

Also, isn't gay marriage legal in America? And, isn't there a separation of church and state clause in the Constitution? Why do those who practice a certain religion get to discriminate against an individual who does not share that religious belief, especially when those people are engaging in a legally defined right?

I have read many articles in the recent past about the decline in religious affiliation in America. Upwards of 40% of Americans under the age of 35 belong to no church compared with just 15% of older Americans. Perhaps the exodus has everything to do with hypocrisy, man made religious rules, and an inconsistent message, more than a lack of spirituality or belief in the message of Jesus, Muhammad, Budha, etc.

What is truly sad, is that many Christians celebrated this decision as an affirmation that they don't have to be forced to talk to, work with, or engage with those who don't share their beliefs. Wow. I imagine that had they been alive during the Jim Crow era of separate drinking fountains, schools, buses, etc, they would have celebrated those Supreme Court decisions that allowed such onerous laws, as it wasn't uncommon back then for the bigots of the day to use religion to defend their bias.

I am old enough to have seen this movie before. Social progress followed by a pendulum swing back to prejudice. While the makeup of the current Supreme Court does not provide much hope that future decisions may also endorse legal discrimination via religious beliefs, it is also true that two of the older justices were part of this decision.

Should Alito and Thomas decide to retire during the next presidential term, it is of paramount importance that we elect a democrat, and that we maintain a Democrat majority in the Senate so that any nominee gets a hearing and vote (unlike the dirty trick pulled by McConnell which resulted in Obama being denied his nominee), and that we might move away from the current 6-3 conservative majority, which is no where near a reflection of the electorate. 

Also, just a note here which reflects my bias, we must make sure any new justice is not Catholic, as it appears that the Catholics on this court are not capable of separating their religion from the law.

Speaking of which, my post from last June after the Dobbs decision seems appropriate to reread again. Here is a link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/one-step-forward-for-american-theocracy.html

Finally, The Debate, written about eleven years ago. Funny how the topics change in detail but not in substance.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/04/debate.html