What happened to the "Red Tsunami?" The Democrats bucked past precedent for parties in power.

 

December 24, 2022

The recent runoff decision for the United States Senate seat in Georgia, between incumbent Rafael Warnock and former NFL player Herschel Walker, completed the last of the elections for the 2022 Midterms.  Senator Warnock was re-elected by a razor-thin margin. It put a definitive exclamation point on results that upended conventional wisdom. Usually, the incumbent President's party loses seats during their first election cycle. This has been the norm for decades.  How did Democrats prevail despite the political winds heavily favoring the Republican party?

________________________________

The 2022 Midterm elections were shaping up to be a celebratory year for the GOP in Congress, with an uninspiring Democratic President, inflation, fluctuating oil prices on the open market, an embarrassing withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, and Americans unhappy with the direction of the country overall. Things were looking up for the Republicans.  How did the Democrats lose only the House (barely) and hold onto their Senate majority with an equally slight advantage despite most people believing it was going to be a good night for their opposition?

I think the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade played a very large part in public sentiment, despite conservatives believing that a large percentage of Americans agreed with that ruling. I am of the belief that while some women would never terminate their own pregnancy under any circumstances, a good number of others would prefer it was an option available to them if the need arose.  A large reason for success during non-presidential year elections is voter turnout, and voters turn out if they are motivated to do so.  While overturning abortion may have been on the wish list for Republican voters for decades, it possibly proved pivotal in turning out Democratic voters.

Another factor in the Democrats' favor was poor candidate selection by the Republican National Committee (RNC) in the Georgia senate race between Herschel Walker and incumbent Rafael Warnock.  Mr. Walker had a myriad of personal issues (abortions for his past girlfriends, his openness about his multiple personalities, not believing in evolution, and poor debate performance) and it did not instill confidence in Republicans in that state that he could win.  Doctor Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania was another problem candidate.  Despite his high-profile name recognition, his personal wealth, his relationship with Oprah (who endorsed his opponent), and fundraising prowess, he failed to beat his Democratic opponent, John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke before the election and embarrassed himself during their one and only debate.  The Fetterman campaign was smart in scheduling the debate a month after early voting began, thereby reducing the chances for Dr. Oz to change the minds of undecided voters.

The Republicans did see the presumptive frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President in 2024, Ron DeSantis get re-elected easily in Florida.  Additionally, the Democrats saw some of their candidates win high-profile statewide executive positions (Gavin Newsom in California, Gretchen Witmer in Michigan, Katie Hobbs in Arizona), and the party was able to prevent Republicans win a large number of governorships.  In some of those races (Witmer and Hobbs), the Republican candidates were closing the polling and enthusiasm gaps, and it appeared that the GOP would gain those seats, but in the end, the Democrats eked out those wins on election night.  

While the 2022 Midterms were not a total disaster for the Republicans, the party's leadership was clearly not happy with the final results.   The Democrats, however, didn't exhibit any tactical mastery in strategy nor did the outcome reinforce President Biden's popularity.  A lot of it came down to Republican mistakes and poor candidate choices as previously stated.  Additionally, the public embrace of former President Donald Trump (Kari Lake in Arizona), and other candidates did not have the draw or appeal that many Trump supporters thought it would.  I think the American people are tired of constant claims of "election fraud," or "re-instating" candidates who lost.  I believe that Trump's time as the power broker in the Republican party is coming to an end, and the sooner the GOP realizes this, the party can move on and find new candidates to carry the torch for their political platform.   

The 2022 Midterms were really a message to the Republican party, in that voters were tired of the antics of Donald Trump, and the drama he brings with the national media, including those who wish to monetize their animosity towards him.  The American people want their government to be competent and improve and protect the quality of life for their families.  

Conservative candidates and incumbents didn't provide any solutions for current issues either, such as illegal border crossings, and how to stem that flow of illegal migrants crossing into the United States in large numbers.  Nor was any serious thought given, with policy initiatives, to improving the economy or giving Americans hope for the future.  It's no wonder the party was not able to make any inroads with disaffected voters or gain new voters for the party.  In order to win, you have to give people something to vote for, rather than vote against a President that half the country doesn't dislike (even though his policies do not seem to win over too many people).  Candidate selection is part of it, and the other key element is proving solutions that Americans can get behind.  I believe the GOP "phoned in" their strategy for victory, which simply means they thought supportive polling and a political environment for the taking would take care of itself.  Hollow slogans do not push political parties over the finish line. Rather, it is fulfilling promises with hard choices that warrant victory.

Will the Republican party learn from the lessons of the 2022 Midterms? Will they move on from the Donald Trump era and coalesce behind a new face of the party?  Will they be better at choosing good candidates and providing them with the tools to be successful?  Time will tell what the party does to prepare for the pivotal races in two years.  The 2024 election will be a monumental election, and one whose results with have consequences for many, many years.  If the GOP is smart they will take stock of where they went wrong, admit their costly errors and come back a better party.  For if they do not, the shock of losing winnable races will culminate in losing the party's most coveted race in 2024, the White House.

Immigation Wars come to Martha's Vineyard

 

November 5, 2022

Last month Florida governor Ron DeSantis transported immigrants who entered the United States illegally and were sent to his state by the federal government, to Martha's Vineyard, a wealthy enclave where elites have weekend or summer homes, in the eastern part of Massachusetts.  Was it a brilliant move, or a shameless attempt to win points with supporters, at the expense of migrants and the immigration debate?

_________________________

The immigration war between the two rival Republican and Democrat parties and the activists for and against this contentious issue was given a new twist in this conflict. Governor DeSantis of Florida sent 50 migrants, mostly Venezuelan citizens, to the very wealthy and exclusive community in Massachusetts, Martha's Vineyard. It received a lot of coverage on national networks, especially conservative outlets like Fox News, and has drawn attention again to the impasse of what the country should do for its immigration policy.

Whatever your opinion is of the plight of these illegal immigrants, and their relationship to our broken immigration system overall, they are sadly being used as pawns between these political parties and their donors for political gain. This is unacceptable.  The United States has a myriad of problems, and finding common ground for solving this contentious issue should be a priority.

There is urgency for a resolution to this challenging issue. It is not productive for both political parties to go back and forth, placing blame on the other without trying to find a more pragmatic and humane treatment of these people. This vacillation, the lack of initiative, non-cooperation, and deferring legislation is causing serious conflict between various citizens, organized groups, and large companies. It has generated anger and conflict between American citizens who want to limit immigration rules and activist groups that argue on behalf of their desire to enter by any means necessary. It will generate vigilantism amongst those worried about the "invasion" from our southern border, where over 2 million have come across during the first two years of the Biden Administration, based on reporting by national media outlets.  Under the Trump administration, curbing illegal immigration was not successful, but inexplicably it did reduce legal immigration, according to the CATO Institute.  It seems neither party has any real or substantive record of dealing with this problem and seems to paradoxically reduce the right kind of immigration in favor of uncontrolled immigration.

Activists seem to bypass and ignore government regulations and laws already on the books and try to change those laws to bring in more illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America, in my opinion. Ignoring this aspect of the immigration issue is not healthy, or useful. It is essentially "gaslighting" (pretending a viewpoint does not exist) those in favor of sound immigration policy,  and could lead to great discord and violence if there is no resolution.  That is why hammering out a pragmatic official U.S. policy is a priority that will bring down the temperature of disagreement for all involved. More importantly, it brings about fairness for those wishing to emigrate to the United States while protecting their dignity.

Why does this problem persist with no reasonable resolution? My belief is that donors to both parties enjoy low-cost labor that does not require benefits and livable wages that rise with the cost of inflation.  This results in larger corporate profits and does not incentivize the Democrats or Republicans to work out a solution.  Listening to podcasts, national media, and reading online print publications, there is an argument made by conservatives that Democrats promote this policy because they want to provide benefits (social entitlements) to new immigrants and build relationships to promote party loyalty that produces predictable and dependable voters.  

This "demographics is destiny" idea does have weight, especially when you see it being promoted loosely on MSNBC and CNN by their media personalities and paid contributors. Fox News opposingly scares citizens into a fear of immigration from regions different from the early 20th century (people fleeing famine, war, and religious persecution in Europe) such as Central and Latin America, the African continent, India, and Asia.

What are we to do about immigration? Here are some of my suggestions:

• "Remain in Mexico" policy: Any persons seeking entry into the United States from nations south of the U.S.- Mexico border should adhere to the "remain in Mexico" policy, which would require submitting a request to the U.S. government and stating the reason for being granted entry before entering the United States. Those immigrants would then have to wait in Mexico until their own case is ruled upon by a U.S. government asylum officer. This would alleviate any issues at the border and prevent any future humanitarian crises similar to what is happening now along sections of the U.S.-Mexico border. In countries where there is a stable democracy or human rights are upheld, perhaps those seeking immigration into the United States can get on a waitlist, or seek special consideration for an expedited process? Another solution would be to send any immigrant back to their country of origin to begin a legal process to emigrate to the United States. This places the onus on Mexico's government, which may lead to discouraging illegal entry from other Central and Latin American countries to that country as well.
• Enforce indefinitely "Title 42:" The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) instituted an emergency regulation, pertaining to health law in the country. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it was enacted to prohibit persons who may have a communicable disease from entering the country so they can be screened.  I think this should be applied to all persons who seek entry into the country so that in addition to requiring it of American citizens, new immigrants are held to the same standard. This can be done at a country of origin rather than at the United States border.
• Give priorities to high-skilled workers: Continued importance should be given to any persons seeking entry into the United States who have a skill that can be useful and productive to the communities where they will live (IT professionals, physicians, engineers, lawyers, etc.) as well as serving the American economy. Anyone who can improve their communities and bring an important, necessary skill should be streamlined against those who have no persecution as their primary reason and have lower skills. This idea should be incorporated into any new and updated immigration policy. Seeking a better life for the less fortunate is fine, but there needs to be a limit on how many of those qualify under that standard so the system of the social safety net is not excessively burdened.
• Updated Immigration Laws: Republicans and Democrats in Congress must work cooperatively for a decisive and fair immigration law that the country can use as a uniform policy, where there are definitive directives and U.S. codes that federal agencies and state governments must strictly adhere to. Anything less will incite anger and conflict.  Rules, such as "Remain in Mexico," and Title 42, must be incorporated into any new policy for it to be humane and effective. Taxpayers will likely agree to fund if this legislation meets their goals.
• Find where taxpayer money can be used for greater effect: Most immigrants who come, both legally and illegally, from Central and South America usually have family or friends already here who can provide them with some assistance (housing, food, resources, etc). I don't think housing is the real problem.  The crux is where to best spend taxpayer funds, and I think that is for healthcare, education, and job skills training. Perhaps states or municipalities can provide better data on where tax money can better be used to help immigrants assimilate and become productive in American society.
• "Encourage" nonprofits who support illegal immigration to help finance costs through taxation: One of the many problems with illegal immigration is the massive financial costs that are paid with taxpayer funds.  Since these activist groups are in favor of this type of immigration, perhaps they can be taxed and those funds used to help provide shelter, food, and any other forms of assistance to better assimilate into our communities?

The general public must push members of Congress to work on any new bills since corporate interests and activists for undocumented immigrants will be against any proposed immigration law.  The American people need to be aggressive in reminding their representatives that fixing the corrupt and broken immigration system is of enormous importance, and needs to be done in the near future.  The sad part is that for either political party, anything that is done is usually based on a two-year political cycle and whether it will affect individuals, their professional, and the party's fortunes at the ballot box, rather than what will protect our border and improve immigration for all.  Pragmatism and common sense are never motivators for progress in the halls of Congress, and that needs to change.

What is the real purpose of the January 6th Committee?

 

September 6, 2022

Over the last few months, Americans have been given the opportunity to witness the hearings of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Various witnesses have been presented to a committee hand-picked by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with only two Republicans (Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger), both of whom have been ostracized by the GOP caucus for their participation.  In an angry and divided country, where Republicans and Democrats both trade using the power of the government for their own ends, what is the ultimate purpose of the committee itself?

______________________________

According to various media personality opinions, the committee's main goal is to bring justice to those who unlawfully entered the United States Capitol on January 6th when the 2020 election results were being certified by Congress.  It was truly a shameful day in American history, and those who were trespassing, and causing property damage while the Electoral College results were approved should be prosecuted under federal law. I fully agree with that.

However, the committee's goal does not appear to seek prosecution of those who committed any crimes.  The members do not seem to investigate the root causes of why Trump Supporters decided to storm the U.S. Capitol and voice their anger and opposition to certifying results. For the 9/11 Congressional Commission, which sought to make public errors on the part of the government, the foreign policy establishment, and domestic security entities, leading up to that fateful day in 2001, this January 6th committee isn't by comparison interested in finding the primary motive for what transpired that day. It appears that the goal of this committee does not seek out answers so this episode never happens again. I don't see any effort to put out any simmering fires of voter resentment, or mistrust in how we conduct fair elections since that day.  The committee must do more in their transparency, to strive to make assurances to a divided electorate about why our elections have become so violent in their opposition to either dominant political party, and what things can be done to lower the temperature and enforce civility for future election outcomes.  That is the most important message and purpose in my view.  

The January 6th Committee has called several witnesses, some of whom have worked in the White House at different levels of seniority, (including Mark Meadows and aide Cassidy Hutchison), and journalists embedded with the groups in the crowd (Oath Keepers, Proud Boys), election night workers, former Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, all to gather what took place in the months, weeks and days leading up to election night.  Some of the testimony that I have watched or listened to, and questions from the committee members themselves, seem to paint or imply a direct line to one person, and one person only, former President Donald Trump.  The committee doesn't seem to want to find out why people stormed the Capitol but instead wants to gather evidence to directly blame Mr. Trump.  To be fair, former President Trump played a significant role in creating the tinder for this whole affair when he made ludicrous statements that the "election was rigged," and that his rightful victory was taken from him. Is he the sole cause or the largest, most visible participant in the immense damage done to American democracy and a politically convenient figure to target?

One complaint from conservatives and Republicans is that there was no cross-examining of any of the witnesses. Since this is not a trial per se, I don't think there is any reason for cross-examination.  Witnesses provided their testimony and then were excused.  People watching the hearings may assume what happened, but since it is a Congressional, and not a civil matter, there is no requirement that any witness has their testimony challenged. Since the committee is largely skewed toward Democrats, with only two Republicans represented in Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the GOP complaints seem valid.

What is the actual purpose of these hearings?  Will there be criminal charges levied against Mr. Trump by the DOJ?  Was the committee trying to tie some sort of Constitutional technicality on Mr. Trump to what happened on January 6th? I believe there is language in the United States Constitution that implies disqualification for anyone from running for federal office that leads to any sort of "insurrection" against the United States government (14th Amendment).  Many political pundits on television seem to tie the words "Trump" and "insurrection" together at every turn. I believe this repetition is geared toward creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and will eventually come to fruition, either through evidence unearthed through these hearings, or other factors, such as the DOJ seeking certain "classified" documents from Mr. Trump. It is to eventually convince Americans that there was something truly nefarious about his actions, and he imperiled democracy, with the smallest amount of implication and inference.

If there is evidence proving former President Trump's guilt, then let him receive justice. However, if after time, it is obvious that this is shown to be an exercise to damage or remove a prospective challenger with a real chance of defeating President Biden in 2024, then it will only further enrage his supporters and make it even harder to have impartial election results. Additionally, it could cost Mr. Biden any moral sympathy and support from independent voters.  Attorney General Merrick Garland and the DOJ must provide sound reasoning (as well as evidence) as to why they are using these drastic methods.  

In light of the recent developments where the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided former President Trump's Florida residence at Mar-a-Lago, things certainly have become more interesting. This event has raised the stakes, and according to national media and many online publications seem to believe that there were secret nuclear documents or sharing of "classified documents," which, if true, is most damaging to the case against Mr. Trump. The Affidavit that the DOJ used to get a warrant was released on Friday, August 26th.  Most of the text was redacted, but from what remained, there did not appear to be any incriminating behavior from former President Trump.  That could change if the redacted words are available for public viewing, but for now, the DOJ needs to make a concerted effort to show the country that there is a serious case to charge the former President.

So far, the January 6th Committee has done nothing to show who was actually behind the riot at the Capitol or provided any evidence as to what was the primary cause to get so many people to charge inside the building illegally.  I find what the committee has done so far as mostly window dressing.  For the country to approve charging a former President with a crime, the evidence must be damning, overwhelming, unequivocal, and most importantly, not for political gain. Anything less will not suffice and could damage Mr. Biden's chance for re-election.  Most importantly, the DOJ, Merrick Garland, and the White House may have charted a path that will take generations for the country to recover from, or not at all.

Will "Wokeness" cause division and conflict in American society?

 

July 22, 2022

During the period before and during the civil rights era in America, the phrase "stay woke" was to instill in its supporters a commandment to remain vigilant and not lose sight of the prize, racial and gender equality.  Additionally, it was softly spoken so as to be aware of the deception and malice by anyone toward African-Americans in general. 

Today, that has morphed into an extreme and fanatical version of political correctness. It is an over-emphasis on empathy and understanding of those marginalized communities (LGBTQIA, African-Americans, Native Americans, and others who are on the periphery of American consciousness) which has turned into a type of militant, conformist coercion from those who are the "enemy."  In many cases, the anger is directed at white people and men in particular.  This era of "wokeness" is a danger to our country.

_________________________________

Over the last few years, the term "woke" has come into formal and informal discourse amongst Americans.  The term has existed but has not been used regularly, even in the mainstream legacy media, until recently.  From what I had read, the term was spoken about by African-Americans during the fight for racial equality, and to protect future generations about the dangers of deception from outside the community.  I believe over decades the term slowly started to matriculate into the consciousness of the university system in America as well, which is the fuel for today's incarnation.

However, it wasn't until the shooting death of Michael Brown by a Ferguson (Missouri) police officer in 2014 that brought the term into the national discourse of race relations. At least, that is according to an October 2020 Vox article by writer Aja Romano. In it, she detailed how the term was used by activists to warn black people to be prepared for police violence toward African-Americans by mostly white police officers. Ms. Romano states that the term "woke" was then taken over as the main political ideology of the progressive Left, but also used as a negative connotation by the Right.  Her article goes on to imply that "wokeism" has been incorporated into progressive social justice platforms and the introduction of critical race theory into the public consciousness. This has been steadily building over time.

I believe what pushed this ideology into its current aggressive, coercive militarism was the collision of multiple political hurricanes in the form of the Trump presidency, a once-in-a-century pandemic, Americans losing their jobs and financial security, and a need for an outlet after almost two years of social isolation.  The explosive charge for all of this was the video of George Floyd being killed under police custody for a drug-related incident.  

While I feel there was a genuine sense of outrage at how Mr. Floyd was treated by the Minneapolis Police Department, and Americans generally wanted to show their displeasure against what happened, the rioting and civil unrest that followed through to Election Day in November 2020 was encouraged by hidden, monied forces in our political donor class. There were images caught on television that showed rioters leaving bags filled with bricks for other miscreants, which were intended to be used as projectiles against police in cities where riots were happening.  I remember seeing news reports of U-haul truck rentals that had shields and other weapons that were purportedly paid in cash intending for a battle by the protesters.  In my opinion, the national mood was turned into an opportunity for political gain by the Democrats against an unpopular President Trump. I feel the media took advantage of the tragedy to further inflame public sentiment against the President when in reality the political pundit class should have initiated a national dialogue on better policing, instead of pushing "defund the police" narratives.  Alas, an opportunity was overlooked.

Wokeism has led to the rise in "cancel culture," in which ordinary Americans who shared unpopular or uncouth opinions, are summarily fired from their places of work. Potential university students who were accepted at their college of choice were told their acceptances would be revoked due to their right-leaning, or unpopular, non-conforming positions.  Additionally, college professors who refused to grade students of color on lenient grading curves were chastised by students and some of their colleagues.  Some have even left the profession entirely rather than go against the idea of being able to argue their positions with students and being forced to bend the knee to the mob without any sort of protection.  Even protection in the form of tenure is being used as a carrot for coerced acceptance of woke positions.

Critical Race Theory posits that through all aspects of American life, there exists a historic systemic racial oppression by white people, especially ingrained in fields of medicine, law, engineering, and other professions especially.  The belief is that in order to dismantle these supposed obstacles to racial equality, certain racial groups (Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color-BIPOC) must be given preference, or outright bias in terms of promotion, hiring, and other support in their careers, whether they be in Fortune 500 companies and government service, including the military.  While I do think certain measures can be taken to ensure more people of color, women, and members of the LGBTQIA are given opportunities for career advancement and acceptance into prestigious universities and companies, I do not think merit should be removed entirely.  Talent, hard work, drive, and persistence should still be the characteristics that allow people to succeed in this country.  To remove merit would pose serious damage to how we as a country view ourselves affecting our prowess and would place an undue burden and resentment, on those who were given preferential treatment.  Race and gender should be considered as a tie-breaker if you will when there are many qualified candidates for career advancement,  but they should never be the primary vehicle to reward and promote talent.

Finally, wokeism has led to a trend called Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, which are ideas and value systems that evolved from wokeness into a set of standards that companies use for their internal policies (pay structure, equal pay, relationships with suppliers, partners, etc), their business model (how they do business, mission statement), and safeguarding the environment against climate change.  It works in conjunction with ideas similar to "diversity, equity, and inclusion," which are race and gender metrics used to determine hiring, promotion, and retaining memberships in exclusive organizations. For example, Blackrock, the huge hedge fund, publicly said they will look into who they do their business with based on their ESG score, and whether race and gender barometers meet their acceptable threshold. Salesforce, a cloud computing company based in San Francisco, explained on 60 Minutes to explain the value of paying men and women the same.  These large companies are not charities or non-profits but rather, they are in the business of making large amounts of money.  I seriously doubt these practices will ever stop them from making money, and they certainly will not lose money based on this principle.  While the public relations strategy hides the profit motives, for example, Blackrock buying large swaths of real estate in concentrated neighborhoods, thereby pricing out average Americans from home ownership is not discussed on a large scale.

Even the Department of Defense favors the woke movement, creating and promoting programs to "educate" members in the usage of personal pronouns, promoting the idea of systemic racial oppression, and creating tribalism within the ranks (literally and figuratively).  A large percentage of America's military personnel hails from the Midwest and the South, and as a result, the Pentagon announced recently that they will miss their recruiting targets for the 2022 calendar year. It's not hard to fathom out why people are reluctant to serve in a military that promotes this nonsense which disregards that their lives have equal value.
 

After these tumultuous last two years, I see a backlash growing as a result of these shameful policies.  After comedian Dave Chappelle made a controversial comedy special on Netflix, protests within the company ensued to cancel his production.  Senior management sent a surprising company-wide letter informing those who were upset that creative people must be allowed to express their own ideas and thoughts, and if anyone was offended by that policy, should work elsewhere.  I was shocked when I read about the decision. Hollywood movies with an agenda to promote this idea did not seem to make money, and some were downright failures (Lightyear, from Disney's Pixar Studios, for example). Despite Netflix's brave stand, the company released data that showed the company had lost one million subscribers (although that was lower than the projected two million subscribers).  Time will tell if that pushback grows into an unstoppable force or retreats.

Wokeism is not a sudden sensation but rather, built up slowly over many decades by proponents and activists but exploded into the country's consciousness with the trifecta of Covid-19 (with isolation and depression and anger that followed), loss of jobs, and financial security due to the pandemic, and the trauma of Democrats view of the Trump presidency.  It is now fully ensconced in all aspects of our society.    

Removing deleterious aspects of wokeism is not a quick fix but must be slowly removed one day at a time and will take years, if not decades.  If the Republicans take control of both houses of Congress, they must work with President Biden to promote more opportunities for Americans, while making merit, hard work, and persistence the cornerstone for individual success.  The Biden administration or a future Republican administration must reassess Critical Race Theory, stop demonizing Americans for their personal views or their race, and return the military to an elite fighting force that focuses on mission success.  

I would recommend including race and gender as tie-breaker when selecting candidates for promotion and hiring, but it should not replace a character, moral values, or those who are deserving based on impartial criteria.  If things don't change, wokeism will become something similar to theocracies or autocratic governments in other parts of the world.  This will involve a small, exclusive group of people who will benefit, live large and happy, and determine who is rewarded with success, while the vast majority of citizens spend their time fighting, spying, and arguing with each other. The quality of life will deteriorate and the American experiment and its Dream will end.  As a country, we Americans must fight to protect what made it great while trying to constantly evolve for the better.  Wokeism is not the answer, but a blueprint for failure and must be avoided at all costs.

 

Roe v Wade Supreme Court Ruling: Why It Was Not a Shock

 

July 10, 2022

On June 24th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) voted to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling, which protected a women's right to medical privacy, which included the ability to terminate her pregnancy.  Although shocking news, many Americans were aware this was likely to happen when someone associated with the court mysteriously, but purposely, leaked a draft of the majority opinion to a sympathetic news outlet.

_______________________________

For innumerable women across the political spectrum, this was a sacrosanct procedure.  For Republicans and other conservatives, this judicial ruling was the outcome of efforts stemming from the strategy for presidential candidates to nominate strong Constitutional judges to the senior bench. Overturning this precedent and law through a court case was paramount to their passion and beliefs as conservatives.  For Democrats and liberals, protecting this precedent was vital to win the voting preferences of women, who tend to be regular, loyal, and dependable voters for the party.

When President Obama was a candidate for president in 2008, during his campaign he promised, that as one of his early endeavors, he would push through the Freedom of Choice Act, which "declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability or terminate a pregnancy after established viability when necessary to protect her life or health.  This Act prohibits a federal, state, or local government entity from denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits facilities, services, or information" (Congressional Research Service).

After the recent ruling, many Democrats in Congress and their supporters want President Biden to "codify" abortion, which simply means to enshrine it into law or create a systemic federal code that protects women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. It would carry onward the language and spirit of the Freedom of Choice Act.  It is unsure at this time if Mr. Biden has the votes for this to happen.  Trying to do so before this year's midterms has high risk and reward for the Democrats at a time when their majorities in both chambers of Congress hang in the balance. In my opinion, party insiders and senior leadership feel that something needs to be done since women comprise an important demographic in the Democratic coalition, and not doing anything would jeopardize their valuable voting power.  On July 8th, President Biden signed an Executive Order which sought to protect access to abortion medication, and emergency contraception, protect patient privacy, launch public education efforts, provide legal advice pro bono, and security at facilities that provide those services (CNN.com).

Republicans felt vindicated and joyous after the ruling since it was a culmination of almost 50 years of dogged determination on their part to force Republican presidential candidates to nominate "contextual" Constitutional judges from the federal bench to the Supreme Court.  Conservative dogma belied that the 1973 ruling was not in accordance with any Constitutional protection and that it was a matter for states to determine this through their voters.  Their mission succeeded, although no one knows how this ruling will affect the political futures of Republicans and Democrats. I feel that while Republicans approve of the Supreme Court referring the matter to the states, their ultimate goal is to outlaw the procedure throughout the country.

Some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine) felt publicly betrayed by recent Supreme Court appointees, nominated by President Trump (Judges Gorsuch and Kavanaugh), who stated during their confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade was an accepted precedent. Some, such as Representative Ocasio-Cortez, want to impeach those judges who went against what they said in their testimony, but this is a tenous idea.

Conservatives made the case that their opposition to abortion was the protection of human life and that babies and the unborn need advocacy for their "rights."  Democrats counter that if Republicans truly cared about children, they would support government services and programs for prenatal and postpartum care, childcare, maternity leave, and educational services through young adulthood to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Supporters of Democrats also point out that there is a lack of clarification (also from some corners of the GOP) of what happens when complications from pregnancy arise: such as an ectopic pregnancy (fertilized egg growing in the fallopian tube outside the uterus), or miscarriage, when terminations of pregnancy are necessary to preserve the health of the mother, would it violate the recent SCOTUS ruling?

Some conservative online platforms, such as the Dailywire.com, state that any medical procedure to protect the life of the mother for those procedures would not be classified as a violation of the overrule of Roe v Wade rule and provided proof that medical websites such as WedMD, Mayo Clinic, and Planned Parenthood do not classify those options as "abortion." Ideally, having Democratic and Republican parties work out agreed-upon language and for medical indications and procedures that are protected by law would be a good thing for the country and demonstrate insight and clarity on a passionate issue for many.

Ultimately the fight over abortion is really a conflict between "two Americas" that have been growing apart for at least a generation. There are opposing viewpoints that eschew compromise, and empathy with those who don't share their worldview.  For some Democrats and liberals, abortion is viewed as a desired option so as not to interrupt the younger generation's ambitions to achieve professions and careers.  I think if companies provided and protected maternity leave, it would alleviate fears that careers may be put on hold or ruined by having children. That is my opinion. 

Anything that infringes on that purpose, is deemed sexist or misogynist.  Conservatives and Republicans feel that abortion is a vile procedure that violates the sanctity of life, biblical orthodoxy where they believe our morals originate, and the U.S. Constitution. Conservatives believe that the Constitution does not provide any language protecting the termination of a pregnancy.  Additionally, in this endeavor, they oppose teaching of sex education, the promotion of condoms and other safe sex methods, and promoting of abstinence, an essentially ineffective and impractical alternative.  The issue of abortion is really a proxy war between two diametrically opposed and unrelenting national views, and there seems to be no going back.  One side will be victorious, one side will lose, and American will never be the same.

One hopes that a new generation of Americans will take both views and come up with a fair compromise.  Those states that allow abortion will be protected and anyone who travels from a state where abortion is prohibited is ensured a safe procedure and avoids criminality.  In return, there must be some consensus in terms of how many weeks in a pregnancy will qualify for the procedure. Preliminary polling data shows that a segment of Americans wants to protect the procedure, but restrict it to 15 weeks, which seems generally accepted at this time. For abortion advocates, there should be no limit.  I feel, however, that there must be a medical basis to avoid indiscriminate procedures and to ensure safety and compliance.

If compromise is not reached, then the abortion battles will be part of a long war (abortion, guns, peaceful transfer of power after elections, etc.) where Americans demonize each other over issues they do not want to compromise on, and which will lead to a further unraveling of the American ethos.  Absolutism is not achievable in the American experiment in democracy.  Finding realistic solutions may not make everyone happy, but gives some hope of progress toward reconciliation.  From a national viewpoint, utilizing effective methods to tackle complex problems in a collaborative effort is likely to lead to greater agreement and acceptance.  That is my hope.

Uvalde, Texas: Turning Point on America's Conversation About Guns?

June 14, 2022

On May 24, 2022, Salvador Ramos, an 18-year-old troubled teen, shot his grandmother,  crashed a family truck near a school, took a large cache of weapons, and killed 19 precious kids, and two heroic teachers in the third most deadly mass school shooting. Is now the turning point for a serious discussion between effective and pragmatic gun laws, while threading the needle of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution?

___________________________________

With the images of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in 2012 fading from memory, another horrible and tragic mass casualty event at an elementary school has brought the contentious gun debate into the American consciousness front and center again. This tragedy took place at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.  These types of shootings happen in America with troublesome regularity. The sad part is that Americans have become numb and it doesn't shock our country anymore. Before Uvalde, the nation absorbed the shooting outside of Buffalo, New York at a supermarket patronized predominately by African-Americans, which killed 10 people. Will this shooting be the episode that forces entrenched members of Congress into a serious, bipartisan movement that brings about change?  If there is change, what does it look like?

The shooting in Uvalde, Texas was made all the more jarring after the initial shock wore off, because of intense scrutiny of how law enforcement officials behaved, and it was not good.  

It appeared that Mr. Ramos started shooting after he crashed the pick-up truck, across the street from a funeral home and when staff attempted to come to his aid, he opened fire on them with his AR-15.  One of the employees contacted 911 about an active shooter.  After that incident, Salvador Ramos found a way to enter the school through a malfunctioning door that would not close.  Eventually, he locked himself inside two-adjoining classrooms and proceeded to kill 19 students in those classrooms, along with their beloved teachers.

Texas Governor Greg Abbot, after initially praising law enforcement, was angry when the timeline was exposed since it appeared that local law enforcement, including the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District (UCISD) police department, told the responding police officers to stand down once a perimeter was set-up.  The school district police chief, Pete Arredondo, who had tactical authority, believed the shooting had moved from an "active shooter" to a "barricaded suspect," and law enforcement officers did not breach the 4th-grade classrooms where the carnage took place until roughly 78 minutes later.  

Mr. Arredondo later stated through his attorney that he didn't bring his police radio with him so he could apparently use both hands for this weapon.  His actions will be continued to be scrutinized and hopefully, the truth will come out after a comprehensive investigation. It was gut-wrenching to hear that wounded students were trying to get the police to enter the classrooms as they were bleeding out but to no avail.  

One of the teachers, Arnulfo Reyes, who was part of the 18 people wounded heard his students pleading to get the police to enter the classroom, which never materialized, only to have the shooter come back and shoot additional students. Mr. Reyes said that law enforcement outside the classroom was trying to negotiate with the shooter that if he gave up and came out that he would not be hurt if he did that. Finally, a decision was made to engage Mr. Ramos.  Among the many branches of responding law enforcement to the crisis, the U.S. Border Patrol's tactical special response unit (BORTAC) decided on their own to enter the school grounds, locate the shooter and end his life.

The aftermath of this heartbreaking event brought intense scrutiny to how this tragedy was handled by local and state authorities.  Some questions to ponder:

1) Despite the overwhelming law enforcement response and numerical superiority over the lone gunman, why was there no serious attempt to locate the shooter, breach the classroom, and eliminate the threat in a shorter time frame?  

2) Why did Pete Arredondo arrive at the school and not use his police radio/scanner, which prevented him from making decisions (including coordinating with other law enforcement agencies) in real-time that could have saved more kids from death?

3) Numerous police officers, at different intervals, had opportunities to engage the shooter and save lives but waited for backup, and then still did nothing?

4) Why was the troubled young man at the center of the tragedy not given the mental health support he obviously needed?  I know it is hard to know everything about a family member or peer, but there were signs (harming cats and small animals, self-inflicted facial wounds, being bullied) that were known by residents of Uvalde, and a school official, police officer, or mental health person should have reached out to him and got him to receive mental health care.

Where do we go from here? What are the steps that members of Congress and school officials around the country can do?  While politicians, media personalities, and self-interested activists argue about who or what is at fault, for clicks, viewership, and their own sanctimony, I offer some suggestions that could improve protection for kids while trying to minimize these incidents to happen in the future.

Provide police presence at schools.  If you cannot assign an on-site police officer to a specific school, then the local police department, sheriff for cities and towns, or even state authorities must find money in their budgets to have a visible police presence, even at random times of the day throughout the week, so that potential gunmen can see that schools are no longer soft targets. Make it national law that any officer, regardless if there is backup, must engage a single shooter, and will be held accountable if they do not.  In the event there are multiple shooters, I  support that even a single police officer must challenge the shooters because there is no one else to protect those kids.

Structural reinforcement of elementary schools and high schools.  There should only be one or at most two main single-person entry points (gates or turnstiles that can lock, for example) for schools.  I know this might not be that popular, but it should be done to eliminate multiple points of entry with easy access for those who wish to cause harm. People must enter and leave through those specific locations because it forces anyone who wants to go inside to be given or granted access by school officials alone.  If it is too difficult to enter any campus, then that becomes a deterrent, albeit a small one.  Having those entry points, along with fencing that is difficult to climb over, is necessary, in my opinion.  It can be done aesthetically, and not have the school look like a prison.  Find smart people who can work together to make this happen.

There must be school programs that provide mandatory mental health for young people (especially boys).  In order to find the root causes of why young men seek gun violence against others, local communities must identify what is causing that pain, which manifests into anger that can lead to grave harm to the most vulnerable, destroying their communities. It could be a lack of positive role models, absent fathers, lack of self-worth, or numerous other reasons, but studies need to unearth the psychological reasons and solve this problem.  This must be done at the earliest stage of a child's development, formulating a plan to monitor troubled youths through cooperation between parents, school districts, and police departments as they matriculate through any school system. This would require the collaboration of the medical profession, the educational system, and lawmakers to find the best possible methods to achieve this.  It can be done.

Volunteer Guardians.  If it is not possible for local police departments to assign either an on-site resource officer or minimal presence of any kind, then I think it might help to have volunteer parents or members of a community who are licensed gun holders, with required certification for special "active shooter" training, to guard schools with the blessing of the community.  However, they must register with the local police department, take part in "ride-along" programs and any other sort of necessary collaborative training with that community's police department, and cede any directive/tactical authority to law enforcement once they engage a hostile gunman of a school shooting.

Increase the legal age to purchase a firearm. Although there will be legal challenges to this idea, I think it is good to raise the age to purchase firearms to 21 years of age.  Advocates for this position say that if you need to be 21 to buy alcohol in public, then you should also need to be 21 to buy a gun.  Since there is a serious problem with young men and violence in this country, in my opinion, I tend to agree. It might be a good idea to run a pilot program in certain states to see what type of empirical data can provide support for long-term solutions and legislation. I feel that this would be a workable first step.  

In a case like the Sandy Hook shooting, the gunman stole guns from his mother, killed her, and then proceeded to enter the school grounds.  I believe what happened with shooter Adam Lanza tends to be rare, and in most recent school shootings the gunman either bought weapons legally or was gifted them by a family member.  Perhaps anyone who wants to give a firearm as a gift to an immediate family member must accept some responsibility?  Just a thought.

In the aftermath of what happened at Robb Elementary School, emotions run high and politics ruins any potential for pragmatic solutions. Americans become too tied to shared ideological opinions and do not think anyone else has a workable solution that can protect kids.  It is possible to support the 2nd amendment and find ways to protect the lives of children in our public schools.  Some of the ideas mentioned in this blog post are just that, ideas.  The best way to find what works best is to gather as many ideas as possible, find which ones might work the best, test them out and evaluate those results.  Until this method is attempted, nothing will change too dramatically, and the declining mental health of our young men and subsequent targeting of vulnerable children in schools will collide with the same effects.

 

Ukraine is not worth the price of war with Russia

 

January 22, 2022

The last few months have seen major saber-rattling between nuclear powers Russia and the United States, not over world domination, but instead over a former member of the old Soviet Union, Ukraine.  Since its independence, the country has tried to become a semblance of a free-market economy, but that has proven difficult and it has also sought membership in the ever-expanding trans-Atlantic military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  Russia, to no one's surprise, is vehemently opposed to this idea because it would bring that alliance to its own border.

___________________________

Ukraine was the crown jewel, the centerpiece, if you will, of the large network of socialist states that made up the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), during the heady days of the Cold War and the Iron Curtain that fell between the liberal democracies of the West, and those countries. Collectively they became the obedient states that adhered to whatever Moscow wanted.  After the disintegration of the USSR, Ukraine became an independent state, one that sought to be part of the European community, rather than a client state of the new Russian Federation.

For most of its independence, Ukraine has trundled along its new chartered path toward democracy, but that has been difficult, rife with disputed elections and the removal and ouster of elected presidents.  Corruption is rampant and a stain on their international aspirations. Nevertheless, the Ukrainians have persisted with their European dreams, both to be part of the European Union (EU) and for security purposes, desired membership in NATO, and follow in the footsteps of their Eastern Bloc brethren Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Russia, having lost the ideological battle to keep those Baltic states within its sphere of influence, absolutely will not contemplate the fearful idea of losing Ukraine to NATO and American influence, which is why 100,000 Russian troops are stationed across the border.  It sends a strong message of intent.  Those are the battle lines that have been drawn, and one I think Russia will come out ahead, for many reasons.

For one, most Americans are not sold on the idea that American lives are worth any conflict with Russia.  Ukraine is a beautiful country, with citizens one can root for who seek a higher quality of life and better opportunities after decades of living under socialism.  However, America has ended two long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where trillions of dollars have been spent attempting to turn those countries into less volatile, but newly emerging democratic countries with rights for all.  With the recent Taliban takeover of Afghanistan (after a twenty-year absence), and Iraq being turned into a client state of Iran, due to its 69% Shia majority population, those endeavors have failed on a large scale.  A conflict with Russia, which has better trained and equipped soldiers than the Iraqi and Afghan fighters, will be far more difficult to defeat.  Not to mention, more financial resources and better planes, tanks, and artillery pieces.

The United States has been arming the Ukrainian military with mostly defensive weapons, including the Javelin anti-tank missile launcher. However, the Russians have in large supply their best weapons with offensive capabilities, and it appears the Ukrainians will be outmatched and outgunned in any armed conflict.

On another level, despite winning the Cold War, the United States and NATO are still searching for what defines their membership and its goals for the 21st Century.  During the Trump Administration, the former president chastised member nations who were not spending at least 2% of their aggregate GDP on military expenditures.  President Trump was able to get some of them to increase spending to fund their own defense and shared funding of the alliance (as of this writing, 10 of the military organization's 30 members have increased their expenditures close to 2% of their GDP, according to Stars & Stripes Magazine-10/21/20). I suspect that increase was less to do with Mr. Trump, and more to do with Russia's aggressive behavior over the last few years, which includes the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and control of the Donbas region (southeastern Ukraine), including cities like Donetsk and Luhansk (see map).

Additionally, many European countries have good diplomatic relations with Russia and do business with Russian companies including Gazprom, which exports natural gas to Western Europe.  What complicates matters is current American President Joe Biden, who recently waived proposed sanctions on a Russian company building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, connecting Germany and Russia. Although some in the president's party and most Republicans were against it, Mr. Biden made this decision so that he would be able to curry favor with Germany (Europe's biggest economy), at a time when he needs their support, and avoid any serious public rift with an ally.  The U.S. Department of State felt waiving sanctions against the Russian company and a notable Russian executive was in the best interests of the United States (BBC-5/20/21).

Finally, I suspect the powerful Department of Defense (DoD) and the military-industrial complex are pushing a more aggressive stance since any short conventional war will reap large profits before a cease-fire is introduced.  Who else would be pushing for this? Having Ukraine join NATO provides no desirable asset to the alliance.  The country brings nothing to the table and increases the anger and steadfast opposition of the Russian Federation. In my opinion, the most logical reason for the push to admit Ukraine into NATO is that it will bring about a continued increase in the American defense budget.  Since most of the countries in NATO require the Americans to provide the lion's share of the money, force projection, and power, the obvious "follow the money" analogy is to find out which companies will produce the weapons, which are the influential members of the military-industrial complex: Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Electric Boat, and Northrup Grumman.

Let the Russians and Ukrainians work it out.  If that means Ukraine loses the Crimean Peninsula (which has a large percentage of Russian speakers, in addition to those who have deep ties and loyalty to Russia), and the coveted Russian naval base at Sevastopol, it is a small price to pay for peace.  The United States Congress will find other ways, means, and potential conflicts to scare the American public into supporting larger defense spending.  A war over Ukraine is not in the interests of the United States, its military personnel, or NATO membership.  America should sit this conflict out, and signal to Russia that the United States will be pragmatic about this issue, something its foreign policy establishment has not done in quite some time.