It's Been A While

Last year an acquaintance of mine reminded me that our 50th high school reunion would be this year, and suggested that we go. I met Bill in grade school, although not sure which grade. Suffice it to say that I have known him longer than anyone else in my life, excepting my own parents. Bill and I were in cub scouts together, my mom being the den mother. We were the best of friends until 6th grade when my parents moved us from Fayette Street to the suburbs. 

As fate would have it, just two years later we were both enrolled at LaSalle College High School, eventually graduating as bicentennial graduates in 1976. To be honest, we did not renew the friendship we had in grade school, not finding ourselves in even one class together. We had gone our own ways, as they say, both developing new friendships. And, once high school ended, we did not stay in touch. In fact, I am a bit fuzzy on when we began contacting each other again. Perhaps when my father passed, as I remember him sending me condolences. 

Since then, just over 13 years, while not getting together in person, Bill and I shared Christmas greetings, emails, and the occasional comment from him on one of my posts. As it turned out, we did not agree on many of the topics of the day, but we were able to discuss them with civility.

So, again, after his suggestion that we go to the reunion, and actually be in each other's presence for the first time in 45 plus years, I agreed, although tentatively.

My high school experience was not a highlight of my life. By junior year my teenage rebellion was beginning to emerge, blooming fully by senior year. The teachers at LaSalle did not encourage my talents, often seeming to desire to squash them, particularly when it came to creative writing. I had friends at school, but less so outside of the school grounds. Upon reflection, of course, it was mostly my fault that I did not thrive there, but at the time, all I could think of was ending my career there. Graduation day was, and is not memorable as I recall nothing about it.

Which is why I was tentative to attend the reunion. Plus, my experience at the one I did attend, the fifth year, ended with a physical threat by a classmate over a perceived slight that had occurred while in school, a slight that I didn't even recall as it was something he said someone told him, not something that occurred face to face.

This doesn't mean that I haven't thought about the guys I met there, hadn't occasionally googled a name when a name popped into my head. In fact, even as recently as a few years ago, I have dreamed about high school, sometimes struggling with a locker combo, or forgetting my schedule. Ok, yea, mostly uncomfortable dreams. Clearly an indication that I had some latent issues to resolve, even all these years later.

But, Bill was consistent in reminding me about the upcoming reunion, and, after receiving the schedule, events spread out over three days, I decided to attend pieces of the reunion on two of the days. Tuesday featured a tour of the school (completely different) and a mass, then a social afterwards, then last night a dinner at a country club in the area of the school.

Back then, 1972-1976, class sizes in public and parochial high schools where I lived were three, four hundred, some even bigger. At LaSalle we had less than 200. Some might say the cream of the crop, although I am sure those loyal to St Joe's Prep might disagree.

I happened to be a scholarship kid, that partial financial assistance being the only reason my parents could consider sending me there. As it turned out, being a big fish in the small pond of my elementary school did not prepare me for actual work to keep up with the smartest kids I would ever go to school with. It wasn't that I couldn't match their intellectual prowess, or come close, it was more that I didn't know how to do the work, and by junior and senior year, didn't want to do it.

A perfect example was a Psychology class, senior year I believe. Now, I did very well in these type of classes, perhaps could have been an effective psychologist or psychiatrist had I possessed the proper motivation and ambition. For this particular class, the syllabus was very clear in that the majority of the grade would come from the various tests, the midterm, the final, and 10% for an end of year paper. 

As the end of the year approached, I had a solid A average and determined that I could get a B even without the 10% for the paper. I don't recall the exact conversations I had with the teacher, but it was made clear to me that the paper must be done. I refused, and received a D for the class, even though the math for a B was on my side. While I can assume that this was supposed to be a lesson in work ethic, in trying to do your best, in seeing things through, perhaps even in doing things you don't want to do because that's what adults do, I perceived it as a power play by a teacher who couldn't stand the thought that someone would calculate that a B was good enough after doing A work all year. And I perceived it as just another example of those in power, changing the rules, just because they could.

I know, immaturity, right?

Another bit more insidious reason for not attending, was that I might have to face the fact that I was just not "present" all that much in those four years, even invisible in some respects. Which meant that I might not be recognized or remembered if I were to show up now and who needs that kind of confidence smasher.

Believe it or not, Facebook helped me a little bit at this point. I had begun to search for the names of those who might remember me once I started leaning towards attending, wondering if I would have anything in common with them now. As it turned out, I reconnected, albeit loosely with a few, and armed with the knowledge that Bill and I could catch up, at the least, I was actually looking forward, well, was less filled with trepidation, as the day approached.

I was hoping I would not feel like an interloper, as opposed to a classmate, that I would get at least, the same amount of "Hey Joe, it's been a while, but I remember you", as blank stares of total non recognition.

Perhaps at this point you are thinking that it must have been a positive experience, or else I wouldn't be writing about it. Perhaps then, you don't know me as well as you think, if you believe I wouldn't tell a story of disappointment, considering my expressions of hopelessness with the state of affairs in America today.

But, yes, as it turned out I had a wonderful experience, perhaps even a bit uplifting. Don't get me wrong, I still think we are up to our necks in sh**, as a country, and a few nights of feel good reminiscing will do little to change the trajectory.

Whether some of the greetings I received were just men who preferred to pretend to remember me (which in itself is a good sign of fellowship) as opposed to actually remembering me in a class or from a good conversation, doesn't really matter. For just those two nights anyway, a group of 50 or 60 men from a variety of upbringings who had lived a myriad of experiences in the last half a century (yikes), were able to come together and have a fu**ing good time. No fighting or arguing or remembering past slights. Just a bunch of guys glad to be on this side of the ground, able to remember, at least for a night or two, their young lives when anything was possible, when the world was their oyster, as they say. Even the fact that I hate oysters did not matter!

And, full disclosure, I had longer conversations in those two days with many of the guys than I had in four years in high school, a sentiment which I heard repeated a bunch of times by other attendees. 

As I was driving home, I imagined that it would have been good if I had been able to put into words what I was feeling. If I had been able to say to everyone that despite our differences, and I am sure that the gamut of political and social perspective was present in those rooms, we shared a common experience, and that even though that common experience was for only four years (4 out of 68 being less than 6%) of our lives, it was powerful enough to create the tremendous environment of good will that we experienced.

The power of common experience.

In these days of extreme partisanship, in these times when what separates and divides us seems to drive every single conversation, it would certainly be helpful if we could concentrate on what we have in common as opposed to what drives wedges. 

The power of common experience could be just the force that counters the tribalism that pervades our communities, our state, our country, our world. After all, we all share the label Earthlings. 

  

Birthright Citizenship

On January 20th, 2025, days after being inaugurated, Donald Trump signed executive order 14160 in which he redefines the interpretation  of the 14th Amendment, section 1, which defines birthright citizenship. Here is that Amendment which was passed by Congress in June of 1866, and ratified by the states in July of 1868.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

The argument for this alteration was that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to address those born in America to slaves who did not have citizenship, not to mention any rights normally associated with human beings, and that it was not meant to include children born to people here illegally. (I guess all those slaves brought here against their will were here legally?)

A quick aside. The reason why people born to slaves on American soil were not automatically granted citizenship before the passage of the 14th Amendment was because the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, which were passed to grant United States citizenship for all people living in the colonies at the time, only granted citizenship to white people. Some might argue that if the founders had true divine inspiration they might have included all people regardless of skin color.

Anyway, what is being debated here is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which I underlined in the above reproduction. In the minds of some people, anyone born to a person who came to America illegally might be said to be outside that requirement, the idea being that the parents of that child do not have allegiance to America, hence their breaking of immigration laws to gain access. 

I am not immune to the logic of this point although, considering that the vast number of Americans who are citizens today, are descendants of people who came to America when there were no immigration laws, seems rather petty. Certainly, we can debate how many people we should allow entry into our country, how easy or hard it should be to become a citizen, but do we really want to punish the children of those who work around the immigration laws? 

Not to mention, we don't withhold or remove citizenship for those children born to Americans who blatantly violate our laws.   

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to identify those who are here illegally, register them as prospective citizens, provide a path to achieve this designation which would include some form of payment, all the while removing the minority of those who commit violent crimes, or who are repeat offenders of non-violent crimes?

Considering the budget for ICE is tens of billions of dollars, it seems very cost ineffective to spend money tracking down people who have only the blemish of entering the country illegally, but have since been upstanding, productive non-citizens.

Speaking of non-citizens, my paternal family line, the part of my family that a few of my Trump voting siblings are extremely proud of, includes non-citizens. Neither of my paternal grandparents were United States citizens when my father was born. It was only after the third of his children were born did my paternal grandfather apply for citizenship, and not till after all her children were born did my paternal grandmother become a citizen. Perhaps my father, uncle and two aunts were not anchor babies in the strict sense, as my paternal grandparents were here for 15 plus years before applying for citizenship, but they were certainly born to non-citizens. 

I sometime will ask those who favor this new interpretation about their family tree. Many have only a faint idea about their ancestry while being so adamant about who is American and who isn't.  

Of course, some people might say it is not about crimes, or jobs, or resources spent on people here illegally rather than on Americans, it is really about prejudice. It is not hard to make the case the president and some of his supporters are racist. He has made it abundantly clear that he prefers immigrants be white, and conversely, that he believes people from "those" countries are vermin, less than human, have bad genes, etc.

Notwithstanding the prejudice of Trump, I could understand someone whose family history included ancestors born in America for 150 years or more, making a case for "American" to be defined as a person with an extended lineage of people born here, but two of Trump's three wives are immigrants and his mother was born in Scotland. As is true of so many Americans today, a large percentage of us are first or second generation Americans with much longer family histories in Europe. I guess what I am saying is that it seems very disingenuous for so many first and second generation Americans whose ancestors came to America when the borders were truly open, to be so hung up on punishing today's immigrants who, like our own grandparents, came here looking for opportunity and freedom.

Another thing I ask people who defend this new interpretation of the 14th Amendment is, what did you do to earn American citizenship?

Unless they happen to be recently naturalized citizens, most either say that they were born here, without the added reference to their parents, such as "I was born to American citizens", or they say nothing because they know they are Americans precisely because of birthright citizenship. In either case, they had no control over who their parents were or which country they happened to be conceived and birthed in. They are the winners of the birth lottery which is as random a chance as there is, yet are adamant in punishing the losers of that same lottery, the babies who were born to non-citizens.

When I further dig in and say, "I guess God doesn't love them enough to have allowed them to be born to American parents", I mostly get silence. 

You see, that's the thing. Trump has convinced millions of Americans that people who want to come to America today are criminals, rapists, people left out of insane asylums, etc, so they are OK with denying the children of those people the exact same citizenship rights that they enjoy, even thought they did nothing to earn that right.

Finally, on multiple occasions, Trump has said that America is the only country that has birthright citizenship. This is, of course, just another lie that he tells people who prefer to live in ignorance, and prejudice, rather than googling the question which would reveal that many countries, especially those in North America, have the same birthright citizenship rules as we do.

I don't know how the Supreme Court will rule on this issue, although there was some sense during the oral arguments that they were skeptical of the arguments for the executive order. 

Frankly, the fact that they had the oral arguments in the first place, is a bad indicator of just how obsequious this Supreme Court is towards the whims of Trump. Once the executive order was deemed unconstitutional by lower courts, SCOTUS should have refused to take the case, especially considering the decisions which have already been rendered by the Supreme Court in the past, most importantly the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark. Feel free to google it for the details, but in essence, the Court ruled that a Chinese child born to non-citizen Chinese parents, a young man who was refused re-entry into America because of anti-Chinese prejudice at the time, was deemed an American citizen by rule of, you guessed it, the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Let's just hope that the Roberts Court rebukes Trump in no uncertain terms. They owe us that after their horrendous decision to gut the Voting Rights Act.   

 

 

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.