Rule of Law Revisited

While in the process of my grand plan to update all my posts to a larger font, I found three posts from 2018 about the Rule of Law. Rather than provide links to them as I usually do, I decided to revisit them, and with a few tweaks, present them word for word in this post, then comment at the end.

Here is the first, and again, these were all posted within about three weeks of each other, two in June, one in July, 2018, about two years into Trump's first term.

-- 

There has been a lot of talk lately about the Rule of Law, how it is fundamental in our democracy, and for some, how the Trump Presidency seems to be a threat to both the basic tenets of its importance and the underpinnings of the ideals which created our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Heady stuff!

But after reading the Lapham's Spring edition, called Rule of Law, I find my belief in the founders perspective that all men are created equal, their insistence on the three branches of government as a protection against tyranny, and the noble concept that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, somewhat questioned.

This is not to say that I doubt the importance of the founders' grand experiment with democracy, nor their belief that rule by the people is preferable to rule by divine right.  It is clear, that some form of democratic rule in which the people have a say in the direction of their country is a far better system than one without such inclusion.

But what, exactly, were the founders' main concerns when they created those incredible documents during the tumult of our nation's birth? 

We often forget that most of those great men were land owners and/or men of business, with education and wealth beyond the vast majority of their fellow colonists.  They understood the history of property rights, were well versed in the meaning of the Magna Carta, and knew very well that commerce, personal property ownership, and laws which protected one's ability to create and sustain that wealth, were threatened by a government that found it all too easy to take without asking and tax without representation.  Was it merely about money and land?  Certainly not, but lets not be naive to think that they did not abhor taxes, at least partly, because it cut into their profits, and less so because of the morality of the issue.

In Lewis Lapham's preamble, he describes very succinctly the distinction between values which enable a democratic society to prosper as compared to values which embody a capitalistic society, especially those capitalistic values reflected in the various forms of trickle down economics that basically say that "money ennobles rich people making them healthy, wealthy and wise;  money corrupts poor people, making them lazy, ignorant, and sick."  It is this driving force that exults in tax cuts that transfer upwards of 80% of the advantage to those already rich, while justifying cuts to the safety net programs that stave off poverty, starvation and death of the less advantaged.

This is not to say that the framers wanted our country to fall to a state where only the rich have power and influence, but it is a result of their core belief that possessions and wealth must be protected from the government's grasp, and it is perfect justification for a populist leader who can manipulate that message to turn the everyday citizens against any government regulation that restricts individual rights regardless of whether that restriction protects them against polluted air and water, the destruction of the environment, or the creation of a "corporation" that has all the power of a person but no responsibilities for those people who create it when that entity breaks laws or engages in immoral acts.

When the government becomes the enemy of the people, there must be recourse for the citizens to retake rule and create a new form of government.  It is a rallying cry that was as apparent and powerful today as it was 242 years ago.  

But what do we do when the government is run by people who have perverted the rule of law to only favor those with wealth and influence, who set themselves above the law while using its tenets to control the population?  And, who do so, not through force or deceit (Mueller's probe not withstanding), but by convincing the citizenry, through attacks on the free press, government run propaganda outlets, and a constant stream of divisive tweets that divert our attention by demonizing those who disagree, are of different color or country of origin. Who then use the foundation of our unique government, the executive, legislative and judicial branches, to create a fortress of laws that will protect their wealth at the expense of the people.   

What do we do when the rule of law has been altered so insidiously that it no longer seeks justice for the many, but prosperity for the few?

----

I ended my last post with the following question:

What do we do when the rule of law has been altered so insidiously that it no longer seeks justice for the many, but prosperity for the few?

Some might think it is specifically directed at the policies of the current administration, and certainly there is reason to be alert when one considers the changes that have been implemented in the area of environmental protection, consumer fraud protection, and worker's rights, to name a few.

But, after reading The Rule of Law edition of Lapham's Quarterly, it is painfully obvious that the law has been fashioned far too often to benefit those with the most, to the detriment of those in the minority or without resources.  In other words, that this is nothing new.

Two effective illustrations to that point are Lie of the Land from I Saw the Sky Catch Fire by T. Obinkaram Echewa, and an excerpt from Jill Leovy's Ghettoside.

I Saw the Sky Catch Fire consists of memories told by the grandmother of the narrator about the Women's War of 1929 in Nigeria.  It details the process by which the residents of the small villages in Nigeria slowly lost their rights, both as landowners and citizens.  To put it bluntly, "the while man made and broke laws as he went along, shook hands to treaties he had no intention of keeping, violated oaths the same day, week or month that he swore them."  Similar to how we treated the native American Indian here in North America, the law was used without concern to gain whatever those with the power and the arms wanted to gain.  When the law was violated by a native to the land, he was punished swiftly and violently.  When it was violated by someone in power, the law was changed to provide justification for whatever atrocity might have been committed.

(I could mention here the recent justification of separating illegal immigrant children from their parents, a cruel and horrendous policy that has been defended by citing, not only the rule of law but the Bible as well, but I will resist the desire to pick such low hanging fruit.)

Jill Leovy's piece reflects the research she did in the early 2000's while working as a crime correspondent for the LA Times.  For me, it addresses two salient points.  First, the wonderment of many in the white community about why law abiding citizens in minority communities, especially African American communities, do not more actively help the police turn in those criminals that live among them, and second, how those in minority communities perceive the law and the police. 

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a white, right leaning pundit dismiss statistics about the disproportionate representation of blacks in the judicial system who are arrested, charged and incarcerated with the statement, "well, they are criminals, so they should be put in jail", I would have a bunch of nickels.  The fact that most research shows a race bias in our criminal justice system, from the perception of the everyday officer, straight through to the judges on the bench, seems easily ignored.  

Sadly, there will not be a time in their lives when a white man will be transported back in time to his teenage years as a black man, to live the same life he did again with a darker skin.  Assuming he was an average youth, he most likely will have 2-3 brushes with the law, only this time his parents won't be called, he will be arrested, his bail won't be met, he will be remanded to await trial, and his sentence will be executed to "send a message", not suspended since "boys will be boys".   

Is it any wonder then, why some in black neighborhoods who have experienced first hand the effect that having a darker skin has during a police interaction, not to mention the very real possibility that they have heard family stories handed down by their parents and grandparents which describe the Jim Crow laws of the early 20th century and the complicity of the police in the lynchings of that time, might be less than encouraged to cooperate with the police? Past history indicates less than positive future results.

Leovy came to believe that inner-city violence was occurring at the level of a "public health catastrophe" and began a website to track the murder victims, which listed over 1100 in the LA county area alone in 2004.  Truly an epidemic!  But, rather than doubling down on efforts to address the problem, cops patrolling these areas often heard the phrase "one time" to reflect the fact that they seemed to prefer one short visit to a black neighborhood, along the lines of "been there, done that" as opposed to making a real effort to address crime.  One might even conclude the white majority who controlled the law, preferred a high murder rate; less of them to worry about.

Contrast that, and the crack cocaine epidemic of that time which claimed the lives of still more African American young people, or the HIV epidemic of the late 20th century that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths in the gay communities, with the current opioid epidemic which is getting so much more attention since it is effecting white communities, and perhaps we might get a glimpse as to why minorities not only distrust white laws and its corresponding system of justice, but, as Leovy discovered, might gravitate to a ghettoside "law" which while also ruthless at times, better reflected the everyday existence of the residents of the area.  Or put more directly, was one they understood and felt was consistent, as opposed to the white man's system that always leaned towards a prejudiced and impersonal result.

Attempting to govern a free people via the Rule of Law, is certainly progress over a ruling class limited by birth or income or political ideology.  But we must not forget that the rules are created and enforced by people, and thus subject to the best and worst of our species.  History is replete with laws that seem barbaric today, and there are undoubtedly some current laws that will be viewed by future historians with befuddlement, just as I (hope) we view white only bathrooms and water fountains of the mid-20th century today.

The challenge is to walk that tightrope between obedience of the Rule of Law so as to avoid chaos and anarchy, while always staying alert to those laws which demonize other humans, create or encourage non-equal treatment of those in the minority, and which are used to justify crimes that violate the Big Rule that transcends religion and nation; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

-- 

This will be the last post on this topic, at least for now.

First, there were a few more amazing essays in the Lapham's spring edition called Rule of Law.  One was by Joan Cocks, professor emeritus at Mount Holyoke College, called Immune From the Law? and the second by Ralph Nadar called Land of the Lawless. 

Cocks' essay discusses various outlying organizations that reject the most basic understanding of our society and the rules which have been established by society, which admittedly, attempt to balance the level of individual freedoms with the need for laws that limit such freedom.  She details a few of these organizations using history to describe other times when tectonic shifts in society created an environment that produced philosophies and reactions similar to that which we are seeing today in light of the growing fear of globalization.  As I read my summary, I realize I am not giving her essay true justice, but found it extremely fascinating and helpful in understanding the wave of nationalism (populism) that exists in the world today.

Nadar's essay focuses on what I can only label as a rebuke to the belief that America operates under "the rule of law" and that "nobody is above it".  Again, an enlightening piece, notwithstanding the possible scenario should Robert Mueller subpoena President Trump.  Nadar delves into many examples of how the rule of law is skewed most severely to benefit those with resources which the average person does not have access to, resulting in laws that do more harm than good, if good is measured as the most benefit for the most people. 

As a connection to this essays, and perhaps, a way to illustrate how the points made by these two thinkers can be linked to current events, I did some research on illegal immigration.

First, are you aware that President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)?  And, that this law, among other things, required employers to attest to their employees immigration status, made it illegal to hire and recruit illegal immigrants as workers, legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and (hold on to your hats) granted amnesty to about 4 million illegal immigrants who had entered America before 1982, lived continuously in America since then, had committed no crimes, admitted their guilt of illegal entry, paid a fine, and possessed a minimal understanding of English and American history, etc.  Then, as a follow up to address the children of said illegal immigrants, signed an executive order in 1987 legalizing children whose parents qualified under IRCA, thereby creating a blanket deferral of deportation for these children.

The law was intended to address the illegal immigration problem by focusing on one of the main reasons people were entering America - jobs - with some of the onus placed on the employers who, it was thought, would significantly help stem the tide of illegal immigration if they stopped hiring the immigrants.

That law is still on the books.  It is still illegal to hire an undocumented worker, or help an undocumented worker obtain false identities so as to obtain work.  And, since then, E-Verify has been created, which is an internet-based system that compares information entered by an employer from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to records available to the US Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to confirm employment.

Unfortunately, the law is unequally enforced.  The recent images which were splashed all over the media, while embarrassing the president to back off the separation of children from their parents did not change his belief in a zero tolerance immigration policy.  After all, those people were breaking the laws his supporters are all too eager to note.

But what about the employers who are hiring undocumented workers?  Most estimates put the number of illegal immigrants working in our country at 8 million individuals.  How many of those employers are in jail today, separated from their children?  Where is the zero tolerance policy on them?

You see, the law was not meant to punish employers.  There were some years under Bush (1) that an aggressive approach to identify businesses was employed, but the simple fact was that some industries are dependent on employees who will work long hours for low pay and no benefits.  And, of course, some of those industries have friends in Congress so the actual working of the law only requires a "good faith effort" by employers.   If someone produces a SS card and driver's license and is willing to work 12 hour days in the blazing heat or close quarters of a meat processing plant, the employer can quite easily avoid the  responsibility of checking the employee's eligibility to work by blaming the employee who presented false documents, especially since there has been no federal law passed to make E-Verify mandatory. 

President Trump does support E-Verify, and has indicated he would sign a bill making it mandatory.  Such bills have passed through committee, but as far as I can tell, have never received a floor vote.  Democrats have resisted its passage without addressing a path to citizenship for those who have lived and worked productively in America for multiple years, without criminal activity, and those children who were brought to America illegally by their parents.  Similar to the handling of illegal immigrants by President Reagan and Congress in 1986.  I am not sure why some GOP representatives do not support it, but could conclude that their votes are effected by campaign donations from industries that depend on undocumented workers to turn a profit.  Or perhaps they represent the constituents in the states whose economy is more dependent on undocumented workers.

Why our elected officials can't do both, help stem the tide of illegal immigrants by removing one of their main reasons for entering illegally, while also establishing a path to citizenship for those who have proven themselves to be productive law abiding people since their arrival, speaks to the essays mentioned above.  

The fact is, there is a small but vocal minority of Americans who wish our country to be white again, and resist granting citizenship to so many brown skinned people, while there is even a smaller but far more powerful group of people who have lined their pockets via the sweat and blood of workers who allow them to avoid paying certain taxes (or worse, collect the taxes from the workers but don't turn them in), that there are far too many Americans who seek simple answers to complicated questions, and too many politicians, who are more concerned with getting re-elected, or making pretty speeches, than they are with actually solving the immigration problem.  And, sadly, that a partisanship wall has polarized our country into an us vs them mentality.  It is as if cooperation has become a bad word.

So, employers are generally immune from the law while undocumented workers and illegal immigrants are treated with zero tolerance.  Our President calls for cooperation from the Democrats while demonizing them personally, and ridiculing them at every turn for their past efforts.  And, those with the most continue to reap the benefits of our great country as demonstrated by the recent tax reform effort and the ongoing attacks on programs that help the least fortunate.

Certainly, justice has never been blind, and perhaps will never be as long as humans are in charge of the system which determines right and wrong.  And, if my choices are having a system of rules and laws that are followed by most people, at least most everyday people, rather than no system, then I choose the former.  Thankfully, we have people who will continue to remind us that the Rule of Law is a concept that requires fairness in the creation and execution of the laws which encompass it, and that we need to be always on guard when our body of laws tilts too far in one direction or, worse, viewed as a method of controlling the populace while rewarding those in power.  

---

OK, that's the three posts, with a few alterations. 

First, what a stark revelation to be reminded that Reagan was president when some humane immigration laws were passed, policies that treated immigrants, legal and illegal, as people, not vermin, as our current president likes to call them.  

Second, the good news is that we are still talking about the Rule of Law in America, still debating why people who knowingly engaged in, or knew about but ignored the activities related to Jeffrey Epstein have generally not paid any price whatsoever for their immoral and illegal abuse of young women. 

That we are still debating why people who attacked the Capitol building of the United States of America, caused millions of dollars in damage and threatened the lives of the VP as well as all the members of Congress, were pardoned by the president.

That we are still discussing why the current president was never put on trial for his alleged misconduct in taking classified documents that did not belong to him, then lying about having them, and for his role in instigating the January 6th riot which was intended to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election. 

That we are openly weighing the legality of the firing of hundreds of FBI agents and DOJ lawyers simply because they investigated those "patriots" who attacked the Capitol.

Of course, the bad news is that we don't seem to have made much progress since the posts I wrote in 2018; in fact, we seem to have regressed. Far too much illegal activity in which this president has and continues to engage in, has been normalized so that there is very little chance for accountability. He has worn us down through a shock and awe program of grifting, lying, and abuse of the norms of what we previously deemed to be presidential demeanor.

In fact, I would argue that we have taken a step backwards considering how much influence is being afforded to the super rich in America today. When the most visible people at a presidential inauguration are the richest people in America, one might rightfully assume that their presence indicates who has the ear of the president, who will most profit from the soon to be executive order onslaught, and who will be left bearing the cost of allowing those with the most control the reigns of power. 

In some ways, and despite Trump's obvious affinity to autocrats and strongmen, we seem much closer to an aristocracy than an autocracy, although in this case, the autocrat is one of the aristocrats.

As I said in one of the above posts, the Rule of Law in America has always been applied unequally, always favored those with the most resources to find loopholes and skirt justice. But, while there was some progress in this area, some recognition that people born without a Y chromosome, or with darker skin, or who were placed on Earth by God to inhabit a country not called America, we seem to have stalled in that progress in the last decade. 

While that regression does somewhat align with that famous escalator ride in 2015, it is only because the voters of America chose to elevate such a person to the White House. Whether history will prove this decision, these two decisions, as a just another step in the decline of America, or the ultimate expression of an electorate which has lost its way, lost its moral foundation, lost its belief that America succeeds when we all succeed, not when just a small minority does, may one day be known.

For now, there is no time but the present to revisit how the Rule of Law should work, how it was conceived by the founders, and how it should continue to evolve so that justice, while not completely blind, still results in some form of accountability for everyone.   






 

Is It Enough?

I've had the idea for this post rattling around in my head for about a month now, since the last No Kings protest at the end of March. In fact, there are a number of embryonic posts percolating in my brain right now, which I take as both a good and bad sign.

Good, because despite my often stated waning hopefulness in what I interpret as the decline of America, clearly I haven't fully given up or I wouldn't bother thinking about things, or posting. 

But bad because that means there is a plethora of topics that I would like to comment upon, and in general those comments tend to be less than complimentary.

----- 

So, is it enough?

My primary reference is to the protests that have occurred, and will continue to occur as long as this administration continues to enact immoral, and just plain cruel policies.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer an electorate that assembles every once in a while to vent, to express their dissatisfaction, to commune in their mutual dislike about the direction that Trump is taking us. And, while I would also prefer that those with the most, the super rich class, would grow a spine and put America before their personal wealth, I know not to hold my breath waiting for people to reign in their selfishness when it is that very trait that has enabled them to become so rich. 

So, while at least there is a faction of America that sees how Trump and his philosophy of selfishness belies our alleged Judaeo-Christian values, it seems crystal clear to me that walking around with clever signs is not going to change much.

In other words, sacrificing a few hours on a weekend is not enough if we want real change.

So, what will make a difference?

Of course, voting is a start. Remember, America does not vote in overwhelming numbers. In the last presidential election, less people voted than in 2020 as a percentage of eligible voters, although there has been an increase in voter turnout since 1988. Here is a link to some interesting info concerning the difference between Americans who are eligible to vote (Voter Eligible Population or VEP) and registered voters, and actual people who voted. As you can see if you access this link, even our best election, 2020, only resulted in 65.3% of the voter eligible people to vote. Pretty sad. 

https://www.factsoverfeelings.org/pages/us-voting-data.html

The silver lining of these low numbers is that we are, as a nation, becoming more politically connected and active, but since the bar was so low coming out of the 1980's, that number is still shockingly low.

The reasons for our lack of civic responsibility require another post. Obstacles to a higher VEP are not hard to discern, and, unfortunately, we are seeing an increase in attempts to stifle voter participation, due, primarily, to Trump's big lie about voter fraud. 

What is really stark from the Presidential Candidate Performance Summary which is part of the link I provided, is the actual percentage of VEP attained by each presidential candidate since 1988. I point this out to provide proof of another of Trump's many lies about elections, his oft stated "I won in a landslide" rhetoric which will often include the phrase "like no one has ever seen".

A quick check of that Summary, demonstrated that the best performance in terms of popular vote since 1988 was Bush 1 in 1988, followed by Obama in 2008, Biden in 2020, Obama again in 2012 then Bush 2 in 2004, all of whom earned over 50% of the popular vote. Of the 20 candidates listed in that chart, they are the only candidates to surpass the 50% mark. Trump's 2024 mark of 49.8% puts him 6th. 

As for the percentage of VEP for those 20 candidates, only one candidate received more than 33% of the actual eligible voters, Joe Biden in 2020. In other words, all of the last ten presidents were voted for by 1/3 or less of the eligible voters in America, due to a woeful percentage of eligible people who actually vote, and the closeness of the races.

In other words, there is no such thing as a presidential mandate, so anyone telling you otherwise is ignorant of the numbers, or lying.

So, while I certainly encourage Americans to, A) register to vote and B) actually vote, and while I certainly disagree with the current trend to make it harder to vote whether by eliminating or restricting early voting, mail in voting, etc, I am hesitant to believe that voting is the answer to our problems.

Although it does point out a symptom; our seeming nonchalance in exercising our precious right to vote. 

But it is more than that. Even those who vote do so with less concern for America than with selfish motives, and/or a focus on one issue. 

Rather than evaluating a candidate on their overall platform, many voters focus on one issue and vote for that candidate, regardless of whether the other priorities of that candidate make life better for them. Even worse, we frequently only vote for a candidate that promises better outcomes for ourselves and our families, whether those outcomes improve life for the majority of Americans or not.

This is especially true for those whom the current system has benefited the most; the super rich. 

It amazes me that everyday Americans who struggle to balance their checkbooks, provide for their children, save for a comfortable retirement, also defend the super rich who offshore vast sums of money to avoid paying taxes, use a myriad of tax loopholes (which they helped write through their "donations"), to pay a minuscule percentage of taxes, and generally use and abuse those very same working class people by squashing attempts to unionize, to gain a livable wage, to have health insurance, to garner even a sliver of the profits that these super rich individuals and corporations are "earning". 

It has never been as clear as it is in this exact moment that Wall Street is a totally different world from main street. While the rest of us are experiencing the highest energy costs since the start of Russia's invasion into Ukraine, not to mention the tight labor market which is being exacerbated by large corporation layoffs, those very same "titans of industry" are racking up record compensation packages while paying even less taxes. All the while, bending the knee to the wannabe king in the White House.

But that is the big rub. The stark separation between the haves and have nots is being widened, significantly, by one identifier; having investments. If you don't have an IRA or some type of money in the stock market, you have a much smaller chance at financial security, now and in retirement. But if you do, you are contributing to the very same system that is driving the divide.

Don't get me wrong, I am part of the problem as well. While my wife and I attempt to direct our investments into companies and industries that do not manufacture or sell weapons, that are not involved in fossil fuels, we do have AI investments such as NVIDIA, Google, Alphabet.

I feel good that we sold our Amazon stock after Bezos' complete sell out, and we do not buy anything from Amazon, yet we are still supporting men and corporations who are actively inventing ways to eliminate jobs, and who kiss up to the president so he will suppress legislation that might control the inevitable cycle of more automation, less workers.

But, as long as our quarterly statements reflect growth, we seem willing to let our drive to the future be controlled by people who, while brilliant, seem to also have loss some humanity.

It is not enough to spend a few hours on the odd weekend waving at passing cars while holding a No Kings sign. 

It is not enough to complain about the direction of our government yet not research the candidates and be an educated voter.

It is not enough to rail against the rich while the Prime truck stops at your house three times a week.

It is not enough to separate your own personal investments from the reality of who is hurting, who is gaining, by those investments.

It is not easy to live in this world, to want the best for yourself and your family, while being cognizant of how your desire for happiness may reduce the happiness of others.

Is it too late to go back to the days of small businesses dotting the streets of one's city or town, a day when shopping at these places also meant chatting with a neighbor, or someone whose kid played on your own child's sports team? Perhaps.

But it is not too late to seek out small businesses, brick and mortar or online. To stay away from the big box stores who have put all those small businessmen out of work.

It is not too late to understand where your investment money is going, and how those companies treat their employees and the environment.

It is not too late to understand how your news sources evaluate the news they present, how they fact check. 

And it is certainly not too late to go beyond the words of those we elected to lead our country and analyze their actions, the policies they support, the laws the approve, the push back they demonstrate under the pressure of big money donors. 

We have gotten so far away from "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", it is startling. 

But more than that, we seem to have forgotten what will make our country better. We seem lost in the Make America Great Again slogan but have surrendered our ability to distinguish between what made us great to begin with, and how we define greatness in the first place.

 

  

     

 

 

The Sign from God

The day started like any other day. People all over the planet awakened to the sun rise, sent their kids off to school, went to work, walked for their daily water, logged onto their computers, made love to their partners, prayed for strength to get through another day.

Nations too, in the form of their leaders, their policies, their laws, greeted the new day, some with proclamations against their global neighbors, some to detail a natural disaster, how many died, how many missing, some to condemn the actions of their own citizenry, and to name the names of those who needed to be purged.

For better or worse, it would be the last day that began in that fashion.

-------------------------

Millions of miles away, so far away that their existence was unknown to the inhabitants of that planet, a conference was about to end. The attendees had reviewed the troves of information that had been gathered about that planet, called Earth by its inhabitants, a name which came into use only 1500 or so years in the past, a mere blink of an eye in terms of the age of the species of the men who lived there, not to mention as compared to the age of the planet itself.

Earth, which derived from words used to convey dirt or soil which themselves indicated an understood difference between the solid ground below and the heavens above.

A primitive understanding for a primitive species, yet a species that had developed exponentially in terms of its technological advances, its ability to escape its atmosphere, and had begun a rudimentary exploration of the skies. 

As the attendees of this gathering were reminded, along with the spark of ingenuity that had been implanted there all those centuries ago, the true nature of life's purpose was also embedded through a similar spark as provided by a number of teachers whose lessons were used to create manuals from which guidelines were distilled into simple instructions, simple enough for even a species still in the early stages of their evolution.

Sadly, like many other species, far too many had institutionalized the lessons of the teachers by creating organizations that used those lessons to control rather than inspire, for material gain rather than spiritual advancement. 

So now, as had been done for millennia, a decision had to rendered. 

To intervene.

But more critically, how to intervene, or to be more precise, which of the approved interventions to utilize.

While fierce, the debate was civil, as the participants understood the gravity of their decision, and the responsibility that generations of their ancestors had placed into their hands.

And while the options were limited, the degree of each was varied so there needed to be consensus, not just on the overall action plan, but on the specific details of that choice.

In the end, compassion ruled the day, as it so often did with this conclave. But a compassion that included an alteration of the dynamics which drove the nations in their interactions with each other. A modification that would not be easy for those on Earth to accept, especially those who governed countries that had strayed the furthest from the main principle, the universal principle, that had been revealed via the most spiritually advanced of the Earthlings.

------------------

Sometime around mid afternoon on the continent they called Europe, the first effects of the intervention were felt. There had been an ongoing conflict on that continent between two neighboring countries whose populations had far more in common than not. It was at the various fronts of this conflict that the weapons stopped working, from the most powerful missiles to the smallest of hand guns. Suddenly, nothing that could be used to injure or kill another person could be fired. 

As news spread in all geographic directions, nations as disparate as those where the sun was most strongest thereby creating a darker version of the species, to the most powerful one which was currently engaged in destroying small boats as they left the shores of a far less powerful nation, suddenly faced the prospect that all the munitions they had accumulated were now useless.

That might makes right was no longer a viable philosophy.

As was the custom, time to process this new development was afforded. Those on Earth were unaware that this time was part and parcel to the ultimate decision, since how a species employed the time dictated the final step of the intervention. The fact that there were influential voices on Earth which interpreted the elimination of the power of weapons as the possibility that this was divine in nature, amused, but did not factor into the group's deliberations.

The polar opposite of so many of the depictions of the end times which so often included mass death and destruction brought on by man's folly, the prospect that this event, this rendering of weapons as useless, might be the divine intervention that was anticipated, even longed for by those so arrogant to believe that they were among those to be "saved", also amused the members of the conclave, but only so far as an indicator that this species was similar to so many in its interpretation of what was occurring. The final decision was already coming into focus.

At first, those in charge of the great nations who had most enjoyed the privilege of might makes right, experienced denial that the impotence of weapons was real. Some actually fired those in military positions as if it was their fault, and that somehow a new general or cabinet level department head might change reality. Many pointed fingers at their perceived global enemies, which, oddly, seemed to admit that those enemies were so much more powerful and militarily advanced despite the trillions of dollars that had been spent in the past few years to prevent just such an occurrence.

Anger also rose to the surface, anger that the rules of the past where the strong always ruled, were suddenly undercut. Again, a response not unexpected, not outside the range of responses that had been provoked in the past with other nascent species.

Soon, but not as soon as had been witnessed with other species, acceptance of this new reality was faced. While the various religious institutions debated the meaning of what was certainly divine intervention, there was grudging acceptance that a more powerful force was at work. 

Proof of God.

There were some, especially those who had used religion for profit and power, who attempted to twist this new reality to their advantage, but in general, Earth's inhabitants slowly began to come together, to begin thinking with a global perspective rather than with a national or ethnic, or racial viewpoint. 

There was a peace, if you will, although some of the world's leaders, especially those who led the countries which had been the most powerful, had spent the most resources on war (although they called it "defense"), who shook the hands of their counterparts and smiled for the cameras, some of those leaders convened behind closed doors to discuss plans which would guarantee that their vision of this new reality would win the day. Even in this position of weakness, they plotted to hold all the cards.

Is a peace born of mutual dread of an external threat as valid as one which emanates from a spiritual awakening? 

Can a plan which merges disparate cultures, values, priorities to reduce, perhaps even eliminate violence as the overriding tool to tout one's superiority, be judged the same as one which espouses an elimination of violence through mutual respect, even if its success masks the real intention of those concocting it? 

Of course, the members of the conclave, present and past, had vast experience with the myriad of reactions that such interventions provoked, could tell which were steeped in honesty and integrity, and which hid secret plans within plans. But still, they waited, gave h]the Earthlings time to adapt to their new reality.

And then, as pre-determined by the conclave, the weapons came alive as suddenly as they had ceased to function. 

The head secretary of the sub committee formed after the initial conclave, noted the day and time, then closed the book on Earth. There would be one more entry, sometime in the future, depending on how the inhabitants of Earth responded to regaining the power of their weapons. 

That entry would note the beginning of a new reality for Earth's people, the start of a journey where they would be recognized as a community within the universe's alliance of species which had disavowed violence, which had finally learned the lessons bestowed on them by their own advanced spiritual masters, themselves inspired by the Force which provided that spark of spirituality for all species.

Or, and this was at best a 50-50 possibility, the last entry would mark the destruction of this iteration of the inhabitants of Earth. Not because there would be a purging of humanity through an edict of the conclave, but because that was the inevitable fate for an species that did not learn the lesson, did not heed the warning that the use of weapons, and the philosophy of might makes right, always ends in self destruction.     

----

As a rule, I don't believe that humans are all that perceptive when it comes to recognizing divine intervention. Frankly, I don't believe in it, but were I to put any credence to whether there is an Almighty presence in the universe that intervenes in the events of the planet, let alone one person out of eight billion, I would bet that humanity would not recognize what were actual intercessions. 

And, if there was a consensus that an action was divine in nature, as many believed in the above story, I doubt it would be interpreted properly.

A case in point is climate change. All the data is there. All the signs from nature or God are screaming at us, the once in a lifetime weather disasters that seem to occur every year, the record heat, the dramatic swings in temperature, the ever increasing instances of wild fires, droughts, massive storms. 

Perhaps all of those events are indications that God is warning us to do better, yet are ignored by so many, whether that ignorance is tied to protecting the status quo which has benefited a minority at the expense of the majority, avarice above all, or whether it belies the fact that many Earthlings talk a good talk about believing in a god but don't believe in a judgement that goes beyond earthly possessions, as if your seat in heaven is determined by how many toys you have, not by one's humanity.

If so questioned, I might even conjecture that COVID was an intervention by God. Certainly there is a wide-spread belief in the story of Noah, and how God washed the Earth clean of those who did not believe, saving Noah, his family and a pair of each animal species. While I am fine with the Noah story as a lesson in faith, I don't believe it is real history. 

Which makes the idea that the COVID pandemic which killed over 8 million people across the globe, could have been sent our way by God as a warning. Or perhaps as an opportunity for everyone on Earth to unite, to act as one to reduce the spread, reduce the death. 

As it turned out, we couldn't even do that in America, let alone across the globe. 

Were there some who considered COVID a divine intervention, perhaps a punishment for turning our backs on the Almighty? Yes.

Sadly, many of them used the disease as a way to separate us, to blame COVID on certain people for their behavior, or skin color, or even their version of religion. 

So again, a chance for unity was destroyed by those who only wish to use god as a way to control, to accumulate power, to tell us who to hate.   

To be brutally honest, I am certain that if Jesus came back today, were there stories of a virgin birth emanating from the middle East, and a man who claimed to be the Son of God, stories of his sermons, possible miracles, his goodness, his compassion for the less fortunate, he would be treated even worse than he was 2000 years ago. And could you imagine if God decided to send his daughter this time?

No, signs from God, even if they exist, would have no chance at being interpreted today as the real deal. 

That being said, this is not the first story I have written where Earth experiences an external intervention, or is united through the belief that an extraterrestrial force requires all countries to band together. 

Over 15 years ago, I wrote a story called The Archives which described a society that had achieved a level of global peace through a lie. A story in which the powers to be understood that without an external, planet wide threat, Earth would never be united. And so they created one. Here is a link to that story.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/archives.html 

Then, about seven and a half years ago, I wrote a story in which there is a perceived divine intervention. A switch in which a percentage of Earthlings suddenly wake up to find they are a different gender and/or race than when they went to sleep. 

Here is a link to that story, The Switch Back 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-switch-back.html 

Perhaps, in the end, it doesn't matter if our species ever evolves past the use of violence as a conflict remediation tool. Only that individuals do so. Which may mean the "the meek shall inherit the earth" is more about the next life than the present one. 

Righteous Terror

I have mentioned a number of times that I have been upgrading all my posts to a larger font. I am happy to announce that I have finished this task. 

While altering my efforts from May 2011, I encountered two consecutive posts that seem relevant considering our current war against Iran. (Yes, as I write this, a ceasefire is in effect, but the points are still valid).

In the first one, link below, I discuss the relief and dare I say happiness that permeated the nation after then President Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden. I mentioned that, despite the time lapse as almost ten years had passed since 9/11, there was a catharsis expressed by many Americans, especially those who had lost a loved one on that horrible day. Obama described it as justice finally achieved.

Beyond that, I broached the subject of the cost of the special forces excursion which ultimately captured bin Laden, and the fact that, at the time, America was spending 700 billion dollars a year on the defense budget. (As a side note, bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, an interesting tidbit of info considering that it is Pakistan that has helped broker the United States/Iran ceasefire.)

In that post, I also questioned whether America should still be in the world police business and why we had so many soldiers stationed overseas in so many countries, as opposed to spending more money on domestic issues such as improving our aging infrastructure, improving our (inner city) school systems, and providing more people with affordable health care, a goal which was attempted to be addressed through the Affordable Care Act.

Sadly, it seems that so many of the problems we faced 10, 12, 15 years ago have not only not been addressed, they seem to have become worse. America continues to get a poor return on our health care dollar, our students continue to rank below far too many or their cohorts from other countries in Math and Reading, and the latest budget proposal from the White House is asking for a 1.5 trillion dollar defense budget (over 40% more than for fiscal year 2025) while slashing 10% across the board on other domestic spending. 

Makes one wonder which country Marc Rubio was referring to when he chastised the leaders of Iran that perhaps they should have spent more money on their people and less on their military.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/05/osama-bin-laden.html 

The other post was a story I wrote called the Energy Conundrum. In a nutshell it depicts the leaders of America visiting the Saudi Arabian king for access to his country's energy reserves. As it turns out, the energy source we were seeking was being generated by vast arrays of solar panels. You see, the Saudis had taken all those petro dollars and invested in solar energy, which turned out to be prescient given that fossil fuels has run its course as the dominant source of global energy.

Here is that link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/05/energy-conundrum.html  

I think fondly of this story when I read that we continue to spend untold billions of dollars to keep oil flowing in the Middle East. To me, the Iran war is mostly about oil, and a bit about Israel, proof being that North Korea has nuclear weapons but no oil and strangely, we don't seem to care about their nukes.

In the meantime, the DOD is asking for another $200 billion on top of their already outrageous budget after only a month of hostilities. Clearly, the cycle of our addiction to oil which became starkly apparent in the 1970's, has not abated, and that not only have we not learned why it is foolhardy to continue to focus on fossil fuels, this administration is idiotically squelching green energy projects, and bragging about doing so.

The only real question is will Trump complete the cycle and name Lee Zeldin as the next Attorney General, thereby cementing his legacy of gutting the EPA, continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industry and creating DOJ investigations out of whole cloth towards retribution against his political enemies. A trifecta of atrocities that will set America back decades, and just possibly result in my story coming true in the 2030's.  

As for my title, Righteous Terror, that is all just icing on the cake for two men in particular, Trump and Hegseth, who pray to a god who celebrates death and destruction. Not the same god that the Iranians pray to when they wish harm on America, but the same perversion of a belief in the idea of a righteous terror that their god supports. At least the pope has called them out on this, not that they ever really believed in Christ.

The Rules of War

An interesting article in the March edition of The Atlantic about prisoner of war camps during the Civil War. Here is a link.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/03/civil-war-pow-camps-american-prison-system/685762/ 

Without going into too much detail about the article, the main point was that so many Americans died in prisons run by other Americans, some estimate up to 10% of the overall deaths, that rules were developed towards the end of this horrible conflict which were refined and then codified, not only into the laws of America, but through international agreements like the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, many consider "rules of war" to be an oxymoron, as many war campaigns focus as much on breaking the spirit of the citizens of the country being attacked as the capability of the enemy's military. As for housing, clothing, feeding, not torturing, providing medical care to those unfortunates taken prisoner, there is no lack of evidence to condemn any warring country, America included.

Additionally, it is not uncommon to hear people in the military complain that they were "held back" from attaining victory by civilians who were too focused on trying not to kill innocents, or by limiting the use of torture to gain intel, or by not using the most deadliest of weapons (nuclear) to gain the advantage and crush the enemy. 

One might even say that a majority of Americans are OK with collateral damage if it means killing the truly bad guys, especially once they have been told who those bad guys are, over and over and over again. 

Krauts, Japs, Russkies, Commies, Towel Heads, etc, it has been far too easy for the general population of all countries, not just America, to be convinced that the "enemy" of the day threatens our way of life, or our culture, and so must be contained, defeated, destroyed. Or perhaps bombed back to the stone age, which I find rather ironic considering that humanity itself emanated from the very areas of the world that we would now wipe out to protect "civilization".

Perhaps then we should eschew the illusion that there should be rules of war, and, like our current Department of Defense head we should "show no mercy" towards Iran, or whomever the enemy is determined to be. Of course, we are outraged that Iran is attacking our military installations in neighboring countries, or the tankers as they navigate the Straight of Hormuz, or the energy infrastructure of those same neighbors, but, hey, they are barbarians who deserve whatever the death toll might rise to, military or civilians alike, while we are just doing the work of the god that Hegseth and his ilk pray to for help in vanquishing their enemies.

Is Iran an enemy of America? I doubt you will find many Americans who would not say yes, undoubtedly, so from that standpoint, reducing Iran's ability to harm Americans, the war is popular. While I don't believe that Iran was weeks away from lobbing a nuclear weapon our way, I certainly admit that they have been a threat, although much more so to Israel than America. 

But if that is our criteria, North Korea has nuclear weapons which many believe could reach North America, yet they are not in Trump's crosshairs. Cuba, yes, North Korea, no.

And let's not forget that as of this very moment, there are nuclear missiles pointing at every major European and American city with made-in Russia labels. Yet Putin seems to be one of Trump's best friends, although I believe Putin only sees Trump as a useful idiot, at best.

The rules of war are certainly nebulous, not applied equally in all circumstances, although it certainly seems that under this administration, excursions, law enforcement operations, regime change, the blockade of goods, or whatever name is applied from one day to the next to describe our forays into Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, it seems that we only apply them to countries we can easily defeat. 

Not to mention our previous failed interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Some might say we have acted the bully consistently since WW2, although covertly as much as militarily. I counter that America was instrumental in saving the world, then extended a hand to the Axis countries, Germany and Japan, rather than kicking them when they were down. We told them we would protect them through treaties and organizations like NATO, and while we certainly meddled in the affairs of many nations, especially those with oil, we did more good than bad. 

I don't feel that way now. Instead we actively support the bully who runs Israel and tacitly support the one who runs Russia. And just elected our own bully who now believes that the Western Hemisphere is ours to take, that might makes right, and that our allies of 80 years are on their own.  

America has on the books various rules of war that we are now violating everyday, from bombing speed boats in the Caribbean to attacking another country without provocation to actively denying the people of Cuba the food and energy supply they need to live. America, under Donald J Trump, is committing international war crimes, all approved by the now fired Attorney General Pam Bondi and encouraged by the head of the Department of Defense that is executing this war as if he is playing a video game in his basement, as if those who die, enemies as well as Americans, are not real people, the rules of war be damned. 

 

Killing AmerIcan Citizens

In my ongoing project to increase the font size of all my posts, I encountered one today called A Death Less Noticed. It was written towards the end of 2011, the third year of Obama's first presidential term. The post was a response to a news article about the killing by Obama of an American citizen in a foreign country. Here is some of that post.

---- 

While not as heralded as the death of Osama bin Laden, there was another assassination of a key al-Qaeda leader this past weekend when Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike.  Al-Awlaki was the very visible leader of the Yemen faction of al-Qaeda, a branch which has upgraded both its reputation and its activities in its violence against America.  To some, he was the heir apparent to bin Laden, as the center of the radical Islamic movement has shifted away from Iraq and Afghanistan towards Yemen.  He was fluent in English which enabled him to penetrate an audience not easily reached in the past.    

And, al-Awlaki was a US citizen.

For most people, killing this terrorist was a no brainer.  He had long ago dissolved his connection to the United States by calling for violence against our country and its citizens.  He has been linked to various terrorist plots and actions including the Ft Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber.  All crimes that say treason in big, bold letters.

Yet, he was a US citizen.  This simple fact was enough to cause the Obama Administration to request the justice department's Office of Legal Counsel to issue a memorandum (same office that, under Bush II, ruled that water boarding was not torture). In the end, it was decided that there was no way to arrest and try the man so that in his case specifically, assassination was legal.  Of course, we all know the power of precedence so to me it opens the door for other overseas killings of American born enemies of our country. 

The danger is whether such a precedent could be used to authorize the killing of an American for other reasons that might be considered treasonous.  Perhaps someone plotting a cyber attack on our financial or military computer systems.  That would be pretty serious, so would it also justify suspending the constitution?  How about using it to authorize the killing of an enemy with American citizenship within our borders?  Someone who has been linked to a credible attack on a nuclear reactor?  Do we kill him/her outright also?

What is ironic is that most people who have been quoting the constitution when attacking Obama are generally quiet on this one, even though, clearly, due process of law as guaranteed by the constitution has been waived for this particular American citizen.Although I did see that Ron Paul was quoted as saying that Obama could be impeached for this act; could be but shouldn't be was his statement, I believe.  Another reason that Mr Paul can not win the Republican nomination as he will be pilloried when his opponents bring up that he once defended the rights of an American terrorist.

Obviously, in an ideal world, we hunt down the likes of al-Awlaki and bring him to justice through a military or civilian trial.  Perhaps he is killed in the process of that arrest so our legal conscious can be clear, but there is no middle ground when we target and kill someone with a missile shot from hundreds of miles away.  There was no intent to capture, only kill.  And for those killed with him, whether guilty by willing association or merely the driver who drew the short stick, I guess we don't even blink an eye as they were not Americans.  (One was a Saudi national; funny how so many terrorists are Saudi Arabian by nationality or supported with Saudi money). 

State sponsored killing to insure the survival of the state.  

If you were against state sponsored torture to insure the safety of Americans, should you also be against killing?  If not, then are you not accepting the premise that it is OK to kill but you can't beat them up?   And if you are OK with torture and killing because they are obviously our enemies, then are you OK with suspending the right to trial for other "obvious" miscreants?  Mass murderers?  Child molesters?  How about admitted frauds, like Bernie Madoff?  Everyone knew he was guilty of massive financial fraud and was responsible for the loss to hundreds of people of millions of dollars; should he have been convicted and sentenced without trial?   

------

Clearly, one can make a case that the assassination of an American citizen who actively works to hurt America and Americans is the exception to the rule. Obama and his legal advisers certainly did, and I imagine, most Americans would agree. 

But if we fast forward to the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, two American citizens killed, not due to a series of suspected terrorist attacks, or a history of anti-American rhetoric, but because they objected to the process by which deportations were being carried out in their neighborhoods and were murdered in their own home towns, not on foreign soil, and that within minutes or their deaths, the now fired DHS head Kristi Noem, as well as the current president justified their killing, merely by labeling them terrorists, is that not too far?

While Obama was concerned that killing an American citizen in a foreign country without even attempting to honor his constitutional right to due process, despite his obvious anti-American activities, our current president dismissed the killings of Renee and Alex by government employees without even batting an eye.

At the time, I questioned Obama's decision despite the obvious reason for his actions because I feared that someone with less scruples might use that precedent for other, less obvious killings, and I cautioned my readers to be careful what we wish for as related to turning a blind eye when our own government chooses to ignore our Constitutional rights, since it could lead us down a slippery slope that we could not foresee.

In about 10 days there will be another mass protest against our current president. Millions of Americans will take to the street to voice their concerns about immigration policies that are cruel, about the Iran War, about the chaotic tariff policies, about the arrogance of a man who thinks he knows more about everything than anyone yet denies culpability when his decisions lead to poor results. 

Will that be enough to label all of us terrorists? As improbable as that sounds, there has already been an executive order which has instructed the DOJ and FBI to go after antifa groups. Remember, antifa stands for anti fascists. Aren't we all against fascism? Do you know someone who is pro-fascism?

My point is that the administration is using this term so they can justify arresting people who are exercising their rights, who disagree with this government's actions. An administration that has refused to investigate and hold accountable ICE agents who killed American citizens.

I titled this post "Killing American Citizens" knowing that very few people would be in favor of such a thing. And to make the point that the problem arises when the government removes "American" from a person or group of people and replaces it with terrorist. 

We see the same thing in war. Krauts or Japs, Gooks, Towelheads, whatever the pejorative term, they are no longer people. 

And we certainly see it is so many discussions of immigrants. 

First you demonize them, label them as less than human, perhaps call them vermin or people with inferior genes, certainly calling them anti-American, or people who hate God will do it. Then, all bets are off. No more Constitutional protections, no more rights.

What is truly alarming, is that in this current war against Iran, we have the head of the Department of Defense claiming that we will no longer fight our wars without constraint, that our enemies will be given no quarter. The Geneva Conventions are now woke agreements that shackle our military from achieving its goals and the justification for ignoring those international agreements is that Iran has violated them, would violate them again, so we should drop to their level and act in the exact way that we condemn.

A race to the bottom that threatens all of us yet seems to be outside the concern of far too many people, in addition to an entire political party.

And so the decline continues. 

  

   

 

A Post From 2012

As I have said before, I am revisiting all my previous posts and updating them to a larger font. Today I checked and revised all the posts from 2012 that needed the change.

I encountered this post which originates after the two political conventions that selected Obama and Romney to run for president. It was part of a number of posts I did about that election. As I read it today, I was reminded of what I perceive as the decline of America, how we are going backwards, away from confirming the ideals of the founders.

I touched on the horrible Citizens United decision that has only made things far worse than when it was first rendered, made our politicians even more beholden to rich donors and corporations.

Next I expressed my anxiety that the next Supreme Court Justice to retire (or die) might be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which meant that the next president will have to nominate her replacement. As the Court, at the time, was more evenly split than now, I called it 4 left leaners, 4 right leaners, 1 flip flopper, it was starkly clear that an Obama victory in 2012 might maintain that relatively even split, while a Romney victory might tip the balance to the right. As it turned out, Justice Scalia died unexpectedly in February of 2016 but the GOP led Senate did not even give Obama's selection a vote (too close the the November election they said), so Trump got to nominate Scalia's replacement, which basically kept the statue quo. 

But, when Kennedy retired in the summer of 2018, the justice who I described as the flip flopper, was replaced with the conservative Kavanaugh, and then when Ginsburg died in September of 2020, the GOP Senate rushed through Amy Coney Barret's nomination only ten days from the 2020 election (so much for it being too close to the next presidential election), which produced our current 6 to 3 Court dynamic.

As it turned out, I was wrong at the time in thinking that the 2012 election would matter to the Court, as it was the 2016 election that mattered far more.

But I was right when I expressed concern for Roe v Wade, as was evident when the court backtracked on its previous history of defending a women's right to reproductive freedom. I was also concerned about the possibility of granting person hood rights to a fetus, which, again, is happening at the state level now that Roe V Wade has been scuttled. 

The last part of this post discussed the need for more civility in our politics and political rhetoric. 

In that area, we are a long way from achieving that goal, even further than in 2012. We now have a president who belittles anyone who disagrees with him, who routinely calls Democrats and liberals evil, bad people, America haters. Civility isn't just unattainable at this point, it is part of the attack on woke, and reflects a harmful, and even amoral belief that treating others as you would want to be treated is a sign of weakness. 

As I said at the end of that post, politicians will react if we use the power of the vote to reject messages and campaigns that depend on cruelty and scapegoating. Trump's victory in 2024 demonstrates that the electorate prefers such messages. 

And so the decline continues. 

Here is that post.

----  

Romney and Civility

Sorry it has been a while.  I just finished a 12 day in a row work schedule this past weekend.  In addition I took a part time job about a month ago so my blogging time has been limited.  Hopefully, I will still be able to post once a week but...

In a previous post I listed reasons why one might vote to re-elect President Obama, vote for Mitt Romney, or vote for "none of the above".  For this blog I would like to emphasize the importance of voting for President Obama, or rather, the importance of not voting for any Republican nominee.

I believe I have been consistent in detailing my displeasure at the recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited funds to infect our election process.  There is far too much money being spent on these campaigns, on both sides, and it seems clear to me that the more money that is "donated" by large corporations and wealthy individuals, the less likely our government will do the work of the people.

By and large, the Supreme Court justices who ruled to equate money with free speech are conservative, and nominated by past republican presidents.  While there are certainly surprises, at times, in how justices will vote, it is not usually hard to guess which justices will rule which way on important issues.  (Justice Roberts' recent vote for the individual mandate section of the Affordable Care Act, is certainly the exception to the rule).

My concern is that there is a reasonable chance that the next judge to retire will be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg due to her ongoing health issues.  That being the case, it is of great concern to me that the next president nominate a liberal leaning candidate to maintain the current balance of 4 left-leaners, 4 right-leaners, and one who moves between. 

My ultimate fear is that a right leaning judge will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.  Already, many states are weakening this important precedent through work around laws that are making it harder and harder for women to have abortions.  Inevitably, a challenge will be presented to Roe v Wade that will make its way to the Supreme Court so it is imperative that either Judge Ginsburg still be there to vote for women's reproductive rights, or her replacement be someone who would not force the next generation of American women to be reduced to second class citizens. 

If you think I exaggerate, there have already been attempts to pass legislation under the guise of  "fetal rights acts" which would grant person hood to a fetus at the moment of conception.  In other words, abortion would be murder, as would a few of the most commonly used forms of birth control.  And, in case you missed it, Mitt Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, was a co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009 which declares that a fertilized egg is entitled to the same legal rights as a human being.  Fortunately, the first attempt to pass such a bill was defeated in Mississippi but I do not think that will deter its advocates.

As I said in my last post, please vote.  And, when you are in that voting booth, remember that in many cases, a president's mark on our country is effected as much by his Supreme Court nominees as that which happens while in office.

My other topic of the day, Civility, comes from the movie Troy. 

The scene in question occurs after Achilles kills Hector and, rather than allowing Hector's body to be properly prepared for the afterlife, Achilles binds Hector's legs and drags him back to the Roman encampment.  Of course, this is the Hollywood version of Homer's Iliad, but after the battle, the King of Troy sneaks into the Roman camp and walks unscathed into Achilles tent.  There he makes an emotional appeal to Achilles to allow him to take Hector's body back to Troy so he can follow the normal customs and traditions of death.  Achilles agrees, not because his hatred of everything Troy has abated, or because he did not relish killing Hector, but because he respected the king of Troy and his bravery in making the appeal.

Of course, this emotional scene made me think of our current political situation.  Dems vs GOP.  Conservative vs Liberal.  In the movie, there was a nine day truce so that Hector could be properly mourned.  Wouldn't it be nice if we could have such a truce during this election campaign?  No more lies.  No more innuendo.  No more "what he said or did 20 years ago". 

Is it so hard to realize that regardless of your political affiliation, we are all Americans?  We all love this great country and want to see it prosper.  We need to DEMAND that our elected officials stop the blame game tactics and work together to solve our nation's problems.  And, just as important, we need to teach them this lesson through example.  Politicians are nothing if not students of popular sentiment.  If we chart a course of civility as we debate the issues, they will do the same for fear of being cast as a rigid ideologue, or worse, for fear of losing an election.


    


       

Sam Shepard

"The sides are being divided now. It's very obvious. So, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're suddenly anti-American. It's breeding fear of being on the wrong side. Democracy's a very fragile thing. You have to take care of democracy. As soon as you stop being responsible to it and allow it to turn into scare tactics, it's no longer democracy, is it? It's something else. It may be an inch away from totalitarianism."

One of the wonderful rewards of reading, especially reading non-fiction, whether it be actual historical fact or the perceptions of real people as they react to the issues of the day, the day being defined as 10, 20 even 40 years ago, is that it can offer buffers, guardrails even, to our reactions to what is happening today.

The above quote is not from a current essay or opinion piece, but from an interview with Sam Shepard in 2004, just before the Bush - Kerry presidential election, and just after Shepard's release of "The God of Hell", one of Shepard's' few plays with political overtones.

Understanding and acknowledging that the dangers of someone like Donald Trump have been with us for the entire history of our country, does not mean we should merely throw up our hands in defeat, or shrug our shoulders with the knowledge that America has had many instances of presidential overreach just in the last 60 years, let alone in 250. 

Our misguided attempts at nation building and regime change offers a litany of failures, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, among others, while lies upon lies as told by the Johnson Administration about Vietnam, the Bush Administration about Iraq, the Trump Administration about immigrants and elections, could be considered just another act in the same bad play.

What amazes me is that the very same people who protested against the Vietnam War, who helped break down the systemic barriers that kept minorities and women from equal opportunities, the baby boomers, in other words, are now the people who support policies that are even more odious that the ones they marched in the streets against when they were young.

They say that we become more conservative as we age. I guess the boomers are the ultimate example of a generation that lived their ideals right up until those ideals conflicted with their ability to accumulate, and protect, wealth and privilege.

I encountered Sam Shepard in the Just Kids biography I recently read. While I certainly knew of Shepard as an actor, Patti Smith's collaboration with him in writing the play Cowboy Mouth was a complete revelation to me that Shepard had not only written plays, but that he is considered one of the greatest American playwrights in history. As a result, when I saw the book Coyote: The Dramatic Lives of Sam Shepard reviewed in The Atlantic, I requested it online from the Chester County Library System.

As with Patti Smith, Shepard's life reminds me what may have been had I been born 6 to 10 years earlier. Of course, Shepard was a product of his family life as much as one of his time, so my being born in the late 40's or earlier 50's is certainly no guarantee that I would have had the experiences that either Smith or Shepard did. His life, the demons he battled, his struggles with his identity, all combined to make Shepard the person he was, just as the ease of my life in comparison, created the basis for who I am.

Conversely, Shepard's life could not have been lived today, given his addiction to sex and women, his bouts with alcohol, the extremes of his personality. It is another reason to question whether being born in a different time or as a different gender, or in a different country, can be considered a realistic thought game if we assume that what makes a person who they are is precisely all those factors that would be different with different circumstances.

At the end of "Coyote..." there is a reference to Shepard's last book, "Spy of the First Person", which he finished not long before his death in 2017. For some reason, I interpreted the mention of it as a biography, of sorts, and thought it might be interesting to read about his life from his own perspective rather than that of a biographer. That, perhaps, the darkness that was so much a part of Shepard, that was part and parcel to what made me him such an important playwright, might come through. 

Unfortunately, my assumption was incorrect as, while "Spy of the First Person" is certainly revealing in a personal sense, it is not very specific, does not refer to many of the details of Shepard's life as  "Coyote..." does.

Still, it is an interesting, curious book.

I read about six pages when I first brought it home from the library, then let it sit for a week, then picked it up again today.

Coming in at only 82 pages, I sat down with my lunch and began reading it again.

Sometimes I read, sometimes I ate soup, sometimes I ate grapes, sometimes I sipped my pink lemonade drink. 

Within an hour I was finished both my lunch and the book.

As I said, it is a curious book. Not really about anything in particular, yet it touches on many of the things that are going through Shepard's mind as he deals with his failing health.

There are some reminisces, some references to his past, but then again many are presented as someone else's life, the man in the chair on the porch across the street. Yes, this man is Shepard himself, although it takes a bit (or at least it did for me) to realize this. 

In some ways, many might shrug their shoulders as they turn the last page, and wonder, is that it?

I was recently watching "Reds" with Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton in the starring roles when my wife passed through the room and recounted how her and her cousin had stayed up late one night to watch it, and when it ended, had that same feeling, is that it?

"Reds" ends with the death of John Reed (the Warren Beatty character) after having accomplished very little, at least as it applies to his goals of organizing the American labor force and aligning it with Russia's  Bolshevik revolution, so it is easy to have that WTF feeling.

Similarly, one might have the same feeling after reading "Spy...". as there is no great realization or revelation, no profound pronouncement by the writer or his character as they face death.

But perhaps that is the point.

Shepard displayed many different personas throughout his life, despite the success of his plays. Or maybe because of them. He often seems as surprised as anyone that his work is admired, while also being devastated when his plays did not translate to the big screen. 

He seems to best describe this seeming contradiction on page 22 when it begins to become apparent that the man in the chair across the street is himself when he finishes a short paragraph about how similar they seem with "The way the eyes look confident and lost at the same time."

"Spy of the First Person" is an attempt to observe his life from a distance, yet ultimately ends with a description of a big family get together at a local Mexican restaurant in which he names each of the family members who were there, a scene as personal as there could be, finally ending the book with this paragraph which describes the family as they head home.

"The moon is getting bigger and brighter. The Strawberry Moon. Spotlighting our literal troupe. The full moon. Two sons and their father, everyone trailing behind. Going up the middle of East Water Street and it's really bright now. The full moon. We made it and we hobbled up the stairs. Or I hobbled. My sons didn't hobble, I hobbled."

If nothing else, Shepard treats his life as a series of plays, each an illustration within itself of what he is thinking, what he feels, where he is in understanding his own nature and the nature of people in general, yet he also seems to want us to know that the connection between those plays, those personas, is less important than the realizations that occur within each part. 

Almost a "be here now" kind of philosophy that acknowledges the accumulated knowledge of one's life with the recognition that it is the individual scenes that should be valued because it is within those specific moments that real happiness, companionship and contentment derive.

Or perhaps, that is just me talking. 

 

The SAVE Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) legislation that was recently passed by the House of Representatives and is being touted by the president is being presented as a law which will prevent voter fraud, specifically voter fraud being committed by undocumented aliens. 

Before presenting my opinion, I tried to find a factual summary and opinion of the new requirements that this law would create, just to make sure that I was not reacting to opinions about the law as opposed to the actual law itself.

Here is a link to an article I found helpful.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/

On the face of it, there is a common sense reason to require a photo ID to vote as without that picture, anyone could show up and claim to be the person on the voting rolls. Of course, if you are not that person on the voting roll, I guess you would have to make sure you got to the polls before the "real" person whose ID you are stealing. I know that in the fifty years I have voted in Pennsylvania, I was required to give my name, a poll worker would page to the "P" section (first letter of my last name) and I would have to provide my signature as it was printed. At first I had to show my driver's license, which in itself is not proof of citizenship but does have my picture, but as time passed and I voted at the same precinct year after year and saw the same people processing the voters, I was recognized and not asked for ID. 

Five years ago, I moved to a different county, but same state. However, had I moved to a different state, the new requirements of the SAVE Act would have required me to prove my citizenship with a birth certificate to register to vote in that new state. 

Same for my wife but she would have had to provide a third document, our marriage certificate, as the name on her birth certificate does not match that on her driver's license. So, while she did not have to navigate this hoop for our move, she did have to go through this step last year when we applied for new passports. As it turned out, we both had to apply for new birth certificates ($30 each) as our old ones did not include the birth city of our parents, as required by the passport application. 

This is the kind of obstacle that people are referring to when they advocate against the SAVE Act, as it creates obstacles to voting that may discourage people, or worse, require a document that is not readily accessible, in particular, a marriage certificate. To be honest, I was surprised that we had ours as it had never been required for anything in our past, not needed to buy a home, to access the benefits of a will, to create investment vehicles, etc, yet again, had we not found it, would have required another request (for a fee) from the state.

Of course, if you are already on a voting roll for your local poll site, you will just need to provide a photo ID to confirm that you are the person listed on that voting roll, again, something that is fairly common already in our country, at least as far as my experience goes. However, if you were placed on that voting roll illegally, just showing a driver's license will not change the fact that you should not be voting, so unless we decide to re-register every eligible voter in our country by requesting documentation that many people may not have, I am not sure what this new legislation will do except place obstacles in the way of legal voters who do not have documents at hand that prove their citizenship. 

This is one of the main points of the article I linked above. The other main point is that there is no credible evidence that undocumented people are voting in mass numbers as detailed in the findings by the vast majority of the research into this claim, including the results of the very conservative Heritage Foundation. 

Here is a link to an article that discusses that particular study.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/heritage-foundation-77-undocumented-voters-claim-true-or-false-e33e6f

In other words, it appears that the SAVE Act is a law in search of a problem that doesn't exist. 

But more insidiously, it is a piece of legislation that has been created to back up the Big Lie that our current president has touted ever since his loss in the 2016 presidential election, the same lie that inspired hundreds of his supporters to attack the Capitol building in an attempt to prevent the (normally) perfunctory confirmation of the electoral college results, the same lie that led to calls for Vice President Pence to be hung for not rejecting the electors of a certain few states, and/or to allow fake electors to replace those legitimate electors. 

What truly saddens me is that within my own family, before Trump, we often debated how to get MORE Americans to vote, even though we represented different political beliefs. We were united in our hope that by making it easier to vote, America would someday break the 70% voter participation rate, a rate, by the way, which represents the percentage of registered voters, not eligible voters defined as all American adults over 18 who have no other obstacle to vote other than lack of being registered. We all believed that the more people who voted, the more our government would represent the citizens.

Now, some of those very same relatives, believe the lies from Trump, and support the SAVE Act, even when presented with evidence that there is no mass voting by the undocumented, and that a significant percentage of Americans would struggle to prove their citizenship if required.

The fact is, it is already illegal to vote if you are not a citizen, and the penalty for doing so is a felony which would put the illegal voter on the fast track to deportation. So why do it? 

Similar to the research that indicates that non-citizens commit less crimes than those of us who are citizens, people here illegally know NOT to draw attention to themselves for the genuine fear of being deported. They want to be here, so why do anything that will threaten the continuation of staying? It is one of the justifications behind sanctuary cities. If a victim of a crime is undocumented but afraid to go to the police to report it, that crime, and future crimes will not be prevented or investigated. And, since undocumented people are more likely to be victims of crimes that to be criminals, it makes sense.

Of course, any crime committed by someone here illegally, needs to be investigated, and, if judged to be guilty, that person should be deported. It was the basis behind the idea that the "worst of the worst" would be identified and removed from our country that drove so many people to vote GOP last November. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening because, again, some of the rhetoric was based on the lie that illegal immigrants were driving up crime rates, that some countries were opening their jails, and that people from certain countries had faulty genes, all lies that Trump has repeatedly stated since his emergence on the political scene.

All that being said, I just read an interesting article in The Atlantic that attempted to turn the reasons each side of the political aisle support or reject the SAVE Act, on its head. The author believes that it may actually work against the GOP by requiring proof of citizenship to vote since the percentage of Americans with passports (and no, REAL ID is not acceptable to prove citizenship), the best proof of citizenship, are higher among people with more education and those that live in metropolitan areas, lower among the less educated and rural voters. Of course, this is just one person's opinion, but it is an interesting perspective on the debate concerning the SAVE Act. Here is a link. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/02/save-america-act-turnout/686145/?utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20260226&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&lctg=67f130672e8e571a90087893&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily 

Not withstanding that article, which in some ways is trying to extrapolate a change in the demographics of the American electorate, which demographics moved towards Trump and away from Harris, and what they might do this November, with or without the SAVE Act, it seems that the Senate will not pass the bill, assuming the GOP does not attempt to kill the filibuster. There just isn't 60 votes. 

And, while Trump is threatening some type of executive order, it is unlikely that even today's conservative Supreme Court will allow him to create national voting rules when the Constitution clearly assigns that duty to the states.

The real question is, when will the mass hypnosis that has altered the viewpoint of so many Americans be broken? When will the lies about illegal voting, undocumented people, and stolen elections, stop being believed? When will America wake up to the simple fact that before Trump, we were actively creating new ways to vote, via mail, extended in person voting days, etc, and now we are actively trying to make it harder to vote purely due to the fact that Trump is a sore loser. And perpetual liar.

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why undocumented don't vote 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/02/save-america-act-turnout/686145/?utm_campaign=one-story-to-read-today&utm_content=20260226&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&lctg=67f130672e8e571a90087893&utm_term=One%20Story%20to%20Read%20Today