Shutdown Showdown

January 25, 2019

President Trump allowed the government to "shut down" again for the second time during his presidency, mainly due to his intransigence for a border wall in specific locations.  Democrats did not want to negotiate with him and give any political victory before the 2020 election.  So, the government was again at an impasse, which now seems to be an annual tradition. 

____________________________

The United States government had been shut down for a record 35 days.  This political farce has become a yearly event, one in which one party refuses to give any sort of political victory to the president's party that controls the White House.  When President Obama was trying to pass the Affordable Care Act of 2010 ("Obamacare"), the Republicans, led by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, vowed to block any success by Mr. Obama and wanted him to serve only one term.  Subsequently, the ACA was to take effect in 2014 and the Republicans forced a shutdown in 2013 over funding for Obamacare and raising of the debt ceiling. Now, with President Trump in the White House, Democrats are riding the wave of shock, surprise, and anger of Hillary Clinton's defeat to rob Mr. Trump of any major legislative triumph in his first term.

This pattern may win political points with the ardent supporters of each party, but the long-term effects are extremely damaging to the country as a whole.  The United States government has accrued massive debt each year, and each subsequent year adds to the burden future generations of Americans will have to deal with.  Foreign governments and conglomerates who buy American debt will eventually get spooked with the precarious state of our financial health.  The constant shutdowns of our government are going to move America in a dangerous direction, and this practice has to stop.

The current mess is the result of a refusal by President Trump, a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate to negotiate a settlement of policy differences relating to immigration and the building of a large border wall to restrict the illegal entering of immigrants into the United States.  The Trump administration asked initially $1.7 billion for the building of the wall but changed that amount to $7 billion.  The Democrats approved the first amount, but then balked at the larger number, which despite what the federal government spends on other programs, is a pittance. One wonders why the president did not push for the wall funding when the Republicans had control of both the House and Senate in 2017.


I suspect Speaker Pelosi and her caucus did not want to give President Trump any sort of political victory, even though the amount all parties are fighting over is trivial compared to what the federal government spends on the whole. The Democratic base hates President Trump and is very supportive of this confrontation with the President. Compounding this conflict are 800,000 federal workers who are struggling to make their mortgage, car and other payments because of their lack of a steady paycheck.  They are simply innocent players in a damaging, petty war between two political parties who grow more and more warlike in their fight with each other.  Those workers, along with the general public, continue to lose trust in American democracy and government institutions.

Recently, President Trump unveiled a proposal to protect (meaning delay) any action on so-called Dreamers (the DACA bill, which is known as the "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). This would allow Dreamers, or children of undocumented immigrants, along with war-torn hopeful refugees (assigned Temporary Protected Status), a chance to live in the United States without fear of deportation for three years.  In return, the Democrat-controlled House would provide the requested funding of $5.7 billion for the border wall.  Democrats refused any consideration of this, and the government shows no signs of returning to business.  At some point, these federal workers, whose knowledge of the federal government and its intricate processes, will leave the federal workforce.  This will be an epic loss for our country. Regardless of how you feel about the government, having knowledgeable people who help a government function, one as large as ours, will not make things better.  

Conservatives have never been a fan of government, since their ideology promotes less government intrusion into the lives of citizens, and empowers those individuals to determine their futures, with religious and political viewpoints.  I feel that they are not too worried about the shutdown, which could be an excuse to see the government (and its power, basically) shrink to ineffective levels and not be a bother to Americans, especially wealthy citizens and large corporations, who want less taxation and intrusive and cumbersome regulations.  I do not share this belief.  At this time, the United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world.  It needs a strong government to administer functions of a western-style republic: provide funds for national defense, transportation infrastructure, support for education, focusing primarily on colleges and universities, effective law enforcement, a fair and ethical legal system, and opportunities for citizens in lower socio-economic backgrounds to move out of poverty and into the middle and upper classes.  

Democrats, I feel, use government too much to pander to their base by using the government to enact social engineering, such as, through laws that force companies to adhere to environmental regulations (some are good, like fuel efficiency for automobiles), and hinder corporations from their own goals, for gender and diversity agendas.

What is the best way forward from this crisis?

I think the Democrats should give President Trump his requested amount for the wall, even though it would anger their base.  If the government was open, and the Democrats were fighting Trump on other legislation, I could understand their intensity.  However, in this case, hundreds of thousands of federal employees will go into debt, miss mortgage payments, not have money for food, since many of them are like most Americans, and live paycheck to paycheck.  The amount both the Democrats and President Trump are fighting over is minuscule, but the ideological victory and the voter enthusiasm that comes with it is too great to avoid for either side.  

One of the sad parts of this fight is that many intelligent people who serve their country by working as federal employees could drop and that would not serve the country well.  A federal government that is staffed by mediocre people does not bode well for the preservation of those government institutions (such as the IRS, Department of Justice, Department of Defense).  

The Democrats should play the long game. They should allow President Trump his "victory" for border wall funding because, in reality, that amount would fund the amount needed for the wall in specific high-traffic areas where border crossings were frequent. During the next two years, the Democrats can stop the majority of the president's intended agenda, including the possible nomination of a third Supreme Court Justice.  Allowing federal employees to suffer in order to deal the administration a legislative defeat that can be used against them in the 2020 presidential election year.  Focusing on the minor amount is a hill the Democrats should not die on.

As of today, January 25th, President Trump announced a deal to end the shutdown. Perhaps in the future,  a session of Congress can pass legislation to prevent government shutdowns longer than two weeks? A bill could be introduced to not pay members of Congress until the shutdown is over (like many federal workers endure) and government resumes its core functions?  That could be one way to limit the number of shutdowns every few years.  I firmly believe something good can come out of this sad episode of our democracy.

Is this the beginning of the end for Facebook?

December 18, 2018

A recent New York Times article has shown that Facebook shared its user data, especially messages to friends, to over 150 other companies, including many in Silicon Valley.  Does this new piece of information start the beginning of the end of a tech giant?

________________________________

In a recent December 2018 New York Times article (Dance, LaForia & Confessore), it was discovered that Facebook, while creating its own protective information wall, shared user data (including messages to friends) to other tech companies such as Amazon, Spotify, and Microsoft.  It comes on the heels of founder Mark Zuckerberg testifying in front of a congressional committee, regarding the alleged hijacking of its site by foreign actors trying to influence the 2016 election,  discovery of data sharing, and accusations that it censored ideas and comments by conservative personalities.  The sharing of its user data did not have the best protection and was not as strong as it could have been.  After media reporting and user backlash, this doesn't improve the perception among some, like me, that Facebook has a serious crisis on its hands that could irrevocably ruin its high trajectory and profitable business model over the past 15 years. 

Personal user data and preferences have become the 21st century's most powerful commodity, especially in the proliferation of tech companies most of which are located in Silicon Valley.  Purchasing choices are the new "black gold (oil)," which companies desperately want so they can better provide items that people want to buy. In other words, if you know what people want to purchase, a company can tailor any type of production to what is selling well. It improves efficiency, reduces costs and increases profit margins. Knowing what people have the interest to buy is the intelligence that modern companies increasingly want to gain a market edge. Facebook realized this. Since the company did not manufacture a product, it had to generate revenue somehow.  Collecting the meta-data of its users, then packaging those characteristics and selling that information to advertisers and other companies allowed Facebook to generate positive cash flow.  As a result, billions of advertising revenue comes into the bank account of Facebook, buoyed by expansive user growth.  One can understand why their users' information is so precious to the company.

The New York Times article provided insight as to how the company took advantage of this information and sold it to other large Silicon Valley companies, who then tailored it to their advantage financially as well.  Privacy was not a major issue when Facebook began its rapid rise.  Only after investigative reports and complaints from users did the company enact the way it operates, at least on the surface, to change public perception.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) created a consent agreement with the company in 2011 to structure a better model in terms of protecting user data and to not share user data without explicit permission.  The recent revelations could threaten the purported agreement with the government, but Facebook has stated through its spokespersons that all companies who enter into contracts with the company must abide by Facebook policies.

One of the most troubling aspects of Facebook's agreements with other companies is Yandex, which is a Russian search engine.  The fact that a foreign-owned company, a Russian one to boot, was allowed to extract meta-data from Facebook users is cause for immense concern.  It is not too far to imagine that the country's intelligence services were probably given access to the data that Yandex collected.  If the Democrats were concerned with Russian "meddling," then this discovery should get the Intelligence Committee in the House to go into overdrive.  If any connection is proven between Yandex and the Russian intelligence community, then it could spur Congress into more investigations into Facebook, and this could drive company stock to dangerously low levels.  It might lead to Zuckerberg's ouster as CEO.

Facebook could be a test case for privacy, data collection and informational transaction laws that will determine the level of regulation for Silicon Valley tech companies in the future.  Since the company and its founder are an American success story, some legislators could be tepid about their desire for investigations.  However, providing transparency for tech companies will give their users confidence that their data will be treated with respect, much like a person's health records.  Here are some ways Facebook can provide that comfort to their users:

1) Provide all Facebook users with an upfront method to protect their data, a list of things to do so that each individual can determine on their own what information can be viewed, what is hidden and who can access that data.  Facebook has options in "settings" that have been around, but this needs to be done through a public relations initiative or a firm specializing in privacy, and have its employees in an official company capacity provide assistance to users to make these changes.  This will give the company positive impressions amongst its legion of users, and keep open the lines of communication and to build on that relationship.

2) Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg should step down from the management of the company.  Both have played an integral part in obfuscation of their intention to providing users information to outside companies and withholding those key relationships with Congress, including Mr. Zuckerberg's testimony in front of a Senate committee. Their fingerprints are on the approval of working with and sharing user data with these companies, and their resignations would send a clear signal that Facebook is serious about making significant changes in how the company's business model functions.  Additionally, both Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg should testify in front of the committee again, and be honest and candid in terms of what they did, and how they plan to make changes before their removal from day to day operations of the company.

3)  Congress should introduce legislation to regulate the powerful and influential tech sector, including protecting the free speech for everyone. These protective rules must show that popular companies in Silicon Valley must be adherent to specific and open terms of relationships with their users, and how if any information that is shared with outside firms, it must be made public and what type of information can be shared.  I believe that this type of legislation can have strong bipartisan support, and it can go a long way to show that Congress does care about the privacy of American citizens, and for those who choose to conduct business with these influential companies, especially Facebook.

I feel that Silicon Valley companies must protect their users from manipulation, unfair business practices, and treat them with respect so that their associations with these companies are valued. New rules will introduce better management of those users. Hopefully, the future will make online interactions better for everyone involved, and provide a blueprint for new and emerging companies to properly seek the business of every citizen in this country.

How to solve the sad and tragic riddle known as gun violence in America?

December 8, 2018

As more and more of the country's citizens have experienced and survived mass shootings, many around the United States are trying to solve the gun violence epidemic.  What is the best way forward?

_______________________

Thousand Oaks, California becomes the latest city to experience the horror and tragedy of a mass shooting.  A former Marine (who shall remain nameless) walked into a country bar in Thousand Oaks and starting firing indiscriminately with a Glock semi-automatic pistol.  Many of those inside the Borderline Bar and Grill were college students enjoying a night out, as many their age do so around the country. The shooter fired more than 50 rounds into a crowded bar, killing 12 people, and later himself.  Once he arrived at the location, he immediately shot the security guard and the cashier at the front.  When he was close to the dance floor, the shooter proceeded to fire randomly into the crowd, while also throwing smoke grenades to sow chaos and confusion.  Many started to scatter and hide once they identified an intruder was firing on them.  A local Ventura County Sheriff, Ron Helus, responded to the 911 dispatcher and when he arrived on the scene, proceeded to enter the bar and find the shooter. Recent media reports state that a responding CHP officer, who either mistakenly made out Mr. Helus as the suspect, or in the confusion of gunfire, shot and fatally wounded him. It was an immense show of bravery considering the Sheriff's deputy did not know how many attackers there were and did his best to save as many people as he could. By the time other deputies arrived on the scene, it is believed that the shooter shot himself in the head.

The days that followed the national media went through their rehearsed motions, talking about acts of bravery, despite heavy confusion amongst the first responders.  Survivors were interviewed, and viral clips of anger, despair, and sadness were replayed over and over again.  Additionally, questions were asked about this epidemic ad nausea. Liberal (CNN, MSNBC) and conservative (Fox News) media took their usual positions and accused the other side of sowing division and inciting emotions from their respective viewers. Nothing new was brought to the discussion. 

As with many Americans who watched with sadness, I wanted to know how to move this issue in a different direction.  Liberals want more effective gun purchasing legislation, while conservatives dig in their defense of the 2nd Amendment.  The starting point should be that many Americans, who support the amendment, have guns themselves and for the most part, are respectful and law-abiding gun owners.  It would be foolish to think any member of Congress will introduce legislation to overturn the ability for Americans to purchase and own firearms.  At the same time, those who are responsible gun owners should listen to see what both sides can agree on and work out a sensible solution, something most Americans support.

Some surveys show that Americans are open background checks on ALL gun purchases, regardless of where they are purchased.  Gun shows are a point of contention with gun control advocates.  Gun owners who support the 2nd Amendment proclaim that even at gun shows, there are forms of regulation.  While increased background checks for all purchases are necessary, both sides of the debate do not focus on the facts that there are many problems that are part of the gun tragedies.  On one level, society is changing, with more women entering the workforce, and so men's roles are changing too.  While most men have grown up with and have experienced women in the workforce, there are some that cannot transition, and so they act out against a society that does not recognize them or feel their pain.  Secondly, many of the jobs men dominated, such as construction, manufacturing, and trucking, are slowly being phased out, and for many men, the future is not so optimistic.  Politicians in both parties do not seem to care about solutions and are more attentive to the Silicon Valley tech companies, whose advances in certain industries could be a reason that many male-dominated jobs are being eliminated.

American society is coming to grips with a myriad of problems that are causes, in my opinion, of gun violence.  Including the aforementioned job losses and difficult life transitions for men, there are issues relating to opioid drug abuse, thousands of (mostly) men returning from drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Internet voyeurism and expanding interactive video game usage (where gun violence is common).  These issues are some of the reasons America is producing thousands of emotionally stunted and broken people.  Women use other means (sex) to combat low self-esteem and lack of worth, while men tend to use violence as a means to an end. This is compounded by the relative ease of purchasing firearms.

That is where the discussion amongst Americans needs to start. It is not about more gun legislation or protecting the 2nd Amendment.  It is the confluence of damaged people (mostly men) who have easy access to firearms and using that weapon to exact vengeance on society.  A frequent subject mentioned is more access and treatment of mental illness, but I feel that is only part of the problem, and may not be the best way to handle this problem.

The core issue is that American society at large is not very forgiving.  If you struggle, financially, emotionally, physically, the United States can be a daunting place to live.  The massive influx of social media in our lives, the ease of commerce through online purchases, the commonality of both parents working, the lack of after-school options for kids all lead declining contact with other people and which lead to breakdowns on all levels between family members, teachers, and leaders in the communities around the country.  In fact, when five police officers were killed by a deranged gunman in Dallas, Texas, a few years ago, the former chief of police said that one of the problems in his community was that his police department had to be social workers, counselors, law enforcement officers, and therapists.  It was overburdened in terms of what the community was asking of his police force. A small group of people was expected to maintain order for millions. This may be an important factor contributing to gun violence in the United States of America.  When society breaks down, compounded with the ease to buy guns, and a large supply of those guns in society, mass shootings is the end result.  Enacting more gun legislation or infringing on the 2nd Amendment, which many people are passionate about, will not make inroads into the gun violence problem.

Some pragmatic solutions that can be implemented are offered below:

1) Mandatory mental health reviews for students (all school districts should find a discreet way to implement this.  If health officials are able to keep tabs on troubled students and collaborate with local law enforcement, hopefully, future Sandy Hook massacres can be avoided or diminished).

2) Better coordination between social workers, local law enforcement and federal agencies like the FBI when noting experiences with troubled students and individuals who have been known to cause trouble, or make troubling statements online through social media, so that those individuals can be dealt with.

3) Establish a free national hotline for those persons who want assistance, or have psychiatric issues and need an outlet.  This channel should also be available for those who know of loved ones, or individuals in the community who could pose a danger to society due to their behavior.  Friends and family should be able to refer loved ones who exhibit warning signs, were bullied in school, are dealing with trauma of any sort, and have their referrals investigated when manpower allows. This hotline must have certified negotiators, trained medical staff and also have the ability to contact local law enforcement and first responders to coordinate emergencies.  These measures will cost taxpayers more for the near future, but in the long run will be worthwhile.

4) The NRA and Congress must work together to provide legislation that warrants serious investigation and background checks for ALL gun purchases (and individuals too) in the United States.  Public opinion supports this measure, and it is up to the powerful gun rights organization to work with members of Congress to get this legislation passed.

5) American society, in general, must seek ways to provide a safety net or a network of support for the care of our returning veterans of foreign wars, opioid and general use drug addicts, and those who are lost in the fabric of American life.   Job programs, available mental health options, and counseling must be provided to those individuals who pose the greatest risk to themselves, and society.  This will allow dangerous people to either have options to address their grievances or help the police apprehend those before crimes are committed.

I think of most of these ideas can be implemented, the number of gun massacres will decline to a point of rarity. Every American citizen can play a vital role in helping to solve this dreadful problem.

What has happened to USC Football?

November 22, 2018

On the eve of the latest installment of college football's greatest inter-sectional rivalry between USC and Notre Dame, the question that has to be asked is what is going on within the football program at USC?

_________________________

During the early decade of the new century, USC, a long-dormant college football Blue Blood, returned to glory under NFL castoff Pete Carroll.  During a stretch run that began in 2002, USC was the dominant program in college football.  The team won several Rose Bowls, its players won three Heisman Trophies in 4 years, and the team won 2 national championships and had several final Top 4 finishes.  It was one of the best years during the program 115-year history.  I don't remember the program having so much success within a 10-year span in its history.  Eventually, "All Good Things Must Come to an End."  Reggie Bush, a megastar on the team which won 34 games in a row, was found to have accepted money and gifts from two aspiring agents. They also provided his parents with a house to live in that was far larger than his family's original home.  

After a protracted NCAA investigation, Mr. Bush was stripped of his Heisman, and the program saw its 2004 BCS title vacated.  It was an inglorious end for USC players, coaches, and alumni.    The result was 4 years of being banned from post-season bowl games, including any Rose Bowls.  Additionally, the school was stripped of 25 scholarships for the team over the same span and put on NCAA probation for the same period.  This gutted the program and saw it dip to a difficult time in terms of wins and relevance.  Many recruits who had accepted commitments to the school de-committed and enrolled in other prominent schools.

After Pete Carrol left, former assistant coaches were hired to guide the program including Lane Kiffin and Steve Sarkisian.  Both were fired under comical and sad moments, which included Kiffin being fired at the airport and not being allowed to return with the team back to the school. Mr. Sarkisian became the butt of jokes during a pep rally when cameras caught slurring his speech and he was eventually fired. He attempted to sue the school for wrongful termination but lost his lawsuit. The current coach, Clay Helton was a former assistant under Sarkisian. His first two years brought initial success, which included a memorable win against Penn State in the 2017 Rose Bowl, and a Pac-12 title and a Cotton Bowl birth against fellow Blue Blood Ohio State in 2018.  The current season has the team at 5-6, which includes a shameful loss to a weak UCLA team. USC coaches are measured by their wins, but most especially, their record against their most bitter rivals, including UCLA and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

The current UCLA team is 3 and 8, and the loss to the Bruins was uninspiring, mostly because of the high caliber of players on its roster.  It should not be seen as listless and unable to move the ball. The Bruins were not a good team, and are at least 2 years away from contending in the Pac-12 conference.  On Saturday night, USC played Notre Dame tough and was leading at halftime. However, like every game this season, the Trojans hurt themselves with bad penalties that killed momentum on offense and gave up big plays on defense.  Ultimately, the Irish prevailed 24-17.

What is the cause of this latest malaise?  In my opinion, USC is like many major programs who constantly search for a return to their best years, in terms of winning and championships.  Why has the program seen long periods of mediocrity?  The program generally does not seem to be run very well, based on my years following the team.  For a university located in one of the most desirable locations (Los Angeles), how can a football program be run so poorly?  The athletic director and coaches are chosen by the Trustees of the school, most of whom are prominent in the greater Los Angeles area, and are extremely wealthy and successful.  With this group of alumni, why does USC give the impression that it is run in such a comical manner?  The previous athletic director, Pat Haden and the current one, Lynn Swann are former players, and in the case of Mr. Swann, was also a legendary NFL player and Hall of Fame inductee to boot.  What is the reason for their hires?  USC, like many college football programs, want former players to run their programs because of their on-field success, and who make program boosters and alumni happy.  I don't see why this is such a good idea.  Just because you had success as a player (and with Mr. Swann a successful post-career businessman as well) doesn't provide any reason you can run a wealthy college program, nor have any expertise in finding the right coaches.  That goes for the school's Trustees too.  

What the program needs instead of hiring former players is to go in a different direction.  USC should find successful people who have run large organizations with large budgets and have proven to be exceptional leaders and can hire the best people who can bring their own success once given the tools to succeed.  The Trojan football team and its history can sell itself.  What the football program needs are visionary people who can run the athletic department like a well-oiled and efficient machine.  USC Athletics should be focused more on the big picture and be the envy of those in and out of college athletics.  I understand that USC wants people who have close ties to its football team, which is the highest priority of the athletic department and the thousands of former alumni.  I hope Mr. Swann does well (as do other alumni as well), but I don't see this happening.  He has not run a football program anywhere else, nor is there any success in pro football on an administrative level.  The Trustees put their faith in popular former players for some reason.  I get the feeling that USC will have more mediocrity for the foreseeable future.  What can be done to improve USC's football program?

I suggest they hire a former CEO for the athletic director position.  These executives have experience with large organizations and can institute proper formats for hiring football coaches, and the best methods in the daily operations for running the department as a whole.  It should be run like a small corporation, with an image that projects success, finding the right person for specific jobs, like fundraising and marketing.  I want the program to be seen by those on the outside as an organization that many want to imitate and try to copy.  This means the athletic teams do not always need to be dominant but are examples of what it means to be a USC Trojan: dedicated, strives for success, never gives up, honors their school through competition, and brings financial riches to a prominent program.

In addition, prominent boosters for the football team should understand that while USC is a great program, it won't always be the best job available.  Popularity and success ebbs and flows, even for the best programs, and those boosters should not assume that everyone wants to be a Trojan, or are jealous of the history of the football team. A more humble and respectful tone should be shown to any prospective coach.  The school should seek a coach who is successful at a program that is not well known for its wins but seems capable of shouldering the burden of being USC's leader. Especially with its demanding alumni.

If the school follows this format, I think USC Athletics can be seen as an impressive organization within the collegiate community, but also to those in the business world.  Having the right person at the top trickles down to everyone and everything else.  The CEO-type person sets the standard for those employees of the department and is the point person for how it carries itself and what goals and objectives it must reach to be successful in all aspects.  I want USC to return the glory years in the early years of this century, but it needs to jettison the way it has been run for the better part of the last century.

Post-Election Review: What happened?

November 20, 2018

Armageddon: Part II is complete, and now we can read the tea leaves.  A review of what happened.

______________________________

Well, no one ever said that politics in America lacks the passion and conflicting emotions that you see in other countries, like South Korea, Japan, and parts of Europe! Tuesday, November 6th was a continuation of the proxy war that started with Donald Trump's surprise victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Pollsters, pundits and former politicians on cable channels were under the belief that the Democrats would regain control of the House, and the Republicans would hold onto the Senate, just barely.  Which is what happened.  However, depending on where your political allegiances lie, the parsing of the results makes for good copy.  The Democrats can claim that winning the House is a check on the agenda of President Trump, while the Republicans can claim that in statewide elections for the Senate, candidates who supported President Trump's agenda won big.  Additionally, the GOP can show that Senators who supported and voted for Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court won, while those who opposed it (Senator Heitkamp), lost their election bids.  Both parties may be right, and that overall, voters preferred divided government.  For the next two years, the House will provide a check on the President's agenda, and open investigations into alleged Russian interference and meddling, and the Republican Senate will confirm more conservative judges onto the federal bench.

Many of the progressive Democratic candidates won impressive and surprising elections.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her general election race, which doesn't surprise political observers since her district is reliably Democratic.  Two native American women won: Deb Haaland (New Mexico), and Sharice Davids (Kansas), who is openly gay as well. Muslim women won notable races, Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) and Llhan Omar (Minnesota), that adds much-needed diversity to the lower House. Most of the impressive winning candidates are pro-immigrant, and they will provide staunch support of immigrants who seek to live in the United States.  In fact, I would venture to guess that most of the above-mentioned newly elected women will be given multiple opportunities to go on the Sunday talk shows and push back on Trump Administration policies that affect those who seek asylum and desire to become new immigrants.

I think any proposed legislation or executive orders by President Trump will run into fierce opposition and will have visible platforms to paint President Trump in a negative light.  In fact, Mr. Trump needs to be careful about what he does in regards to "immigrant" issue, or a media that is heavily skewed progressive and liberal will roast his actions.  Congress will not be able to pass an anti-immigration bill.   President Trump's supposed deal-making will have to be in full force.  This might be the best time to pass immigration reform, although, that will infuriate his base, which does not want the United States to allow more immigrants into the country.

As usual with Florida's vote counting, trouble brewed.  The last time controversy erupted, it was ground zero for a low point in American democracy that was during the recount of Florida's Electoral votes which determined the winner of the 2000 Presidential election for George W. Bush. Two high-profile races, Ron Desantis versus Andrew Gillum for governor, and Governor Rick Scott who defeated Democrat Bill Nelson for the U.S. Senate gave premature victories to Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Scott.  Andrew Gillum initially conceded on election night, while Rick Scott just accepted his victory without a concession from Senator Nelson. Both races had seen surprising turns. Mr. Gillum had withdrawn his concession, and took to the media to address his decision, and vowed to ensure all votes are counted. Recently, this weekend, after more votes were recorded, Mr. Gillum realized he was not going to overcome the deficit. Bill Nelson had protested and wanted to see his votes counted as well.  After lawsuits and protests, two counties, Broward and Miami-Dade, tallied more votes. Broward County is the epicenter for another round of drama. Both counties eventually gave the race to Rick Scott.  Bill Nelson conceded this past Saturday.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio alleged there was vote tampering and obfuscation from election officials with a large number of votes for both races.  There were videos (unverified by national media) showing a ballot box in the storage room of a school and another ballot box was shown to be in a car.  The county administrator in charge of validating votes, Brenda Snipes, was admonished by a judge for incompetence and who had in the past destroyed old votes in a previous race before they were legally allowed to be terminated. Florida Republicans wanted her removed from her position. However, she is charged with approving and certifying ballots cast for all elections in the state, and some within the GOP feel that Bush versus Gore ghosts could have cropped up again. Ms. Snipes recently stated that she will resign before Governor-elect Ron DeSantis takes office.

At the writing of this blog post, Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has not "officially" conceded and alleges that all votes have not been counted.  The Georgia campaign was tinged with allegations from state Democrats that the current victor, Brian Kemp, used his position as Secretary of State to try to remove voter rolls that favored Democrats. He had done this prior and was forced by a state appeals judge to end that practice and add names to voter rolls that had been removed. This has increased the air of uncertainty regarding American democracy and adds to the lack of trust in American institutions within government and society in general.  The vote counting will add to the toxicity of our discourse and adds fuel to the fire of conflict amongst Americans.  Perhaps in the future, if a current Secretary of State is running for a statewide or federal race, a law will be passed by the legislature to ensure the perception of fairness and transparency and hand vote counting to someone else?

With the Democrat victory in the House, Nancy Pelosi is poised to become Speaker again, and although her more aggressive and politically posturing members want her to focus on impeachment, she is shrewd enough to know that is not a winning strategy. Democrats Gerald Nadler (NY) and Adam Schiff (CA) will go after President Trump and will look under any rock to sow the perception of impropriety, but Ms. Pelosi knows the key to long-term success and dominance is to remain loyal to the party's wealthy, moderate donors. Additionally, Democrats now share many of the corporate benefactors that Republicans do, so any progressive dreams of Single Payer health care and free college tuition will not gain any traction to become law.

One can fathom that Americans tend to prefer a divided government, especially with a controversial president like Donald Trump.  Considering the lack of progress by legislators to pass needed reforms to health care, pragmatic taxation and defense spending, I doubt things will improve.  Social media has allowed Americans to withdraw from direct dialogue with each other,  and to avoid finding common ground to challenging issues. It will continue to allow citizens to demonize those with whom they disagree.  The recent 2018 Midterms was just another battle in the long political war amongst the two major political parties and their supporters.  Hopefully, as President Lincoln once stated, we can call to our "better angels" and move America forward.

  

2018 Midterm Elections: Get Ready to Rumble!

October 22, 2018

The 2018 Midterm elections are shaping up to be one of the most contested in years. Compounding this is massive turnout amongst voters of all affiliations.  What are the reasons for this?

_______________________________________

America is still getting over the shock of Donald Trump's electoral college victory in the 2016 Presidental elections.  The Democrats especially, cannot let go that their historic and heavily-favored candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost decisively with the Electoral College, even though she won the popular vote. It is meaningless because it does not determine how presidents are chosen in the United States.  What is the reason that so many Americans are taking a keen interest and exude passion for what is normally a low voter turnout election, a non-presidential off-year election? I think for Democrats, the sting and shock of losing to Donald Trump, plus the emotional and heartfelt passion on both sides of the Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation fight, has energized their base. The party's voters want some sort of victory over a person and party that has taunted them for the past two years.  Those 24 months have seen two Supreme Court justices confirmed to the highest court, which has skewed the court towards a more conservative bent, a tax cut that benefited corporations and wealthy individuals (which was very unpopular with Democrats), a high profile summit with nuclear-armed North Korea and its controversial leader Kim Jong-Un, and some Republican victories for congressional special elections.  Democrats and their progressive base want to see GOP losses and Democratic gains throughout the legislative branch, so that could be the reason that there is significant interest from liberal voters.  

What is the reason for the passionate interest from Trump supporters and Republicans in general?  Usually, the President's party loses seats in off-year elections, and while it is expected, this year seems to be different.  While some of the support is due to the Trump policy and political victories, what are the other reasons?  I believe part of it is because President Trump enjoys intense loyalty from voters who swung the elections for him in 2016, and that loyalty has been very hard to break.  His base tends to believe whatever he says and supports all his initiatives regardless of whether it enjoys broad support or not.  Additionally, the president has what is most important right before election day, momentum. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, he has accomplished many of his campaign goals, specifically the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and passage of a large tax cut by Congress, which he signed on his desk. If a President fulfills his campaign promises, and it is promoted during an election year, it bodes well for his base of support.  The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings were emotional for everybody, both for Dr. Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh's conservative allies and supporters.  This has moved the needle as they say, and this upcoming Midterm election into one of the most intense in recent memory.

There are a few races to keep an eye on for November 6th:

(1) Florida Governor's race: Andrew Gillum (D) v Ron DeSantis (R).  This race is too close to call either way (polling gives Gillum a slight edge), but even with the recent debates, the race will appear to hinge on either candidate screwing up with anything they say or do, and their error going viral, shifting the race to the opponent. National momentum from either party will tilt this tough race to its desired outcome for the DNC or RNC. However, after some consideration, I give this race a lean to the Democrats, and Andrew Gillum becoming Florida's first African American governor.

2) North Dakota Senate race: Heidi Heitkamp (D) v Kevin Cramer (R):  A Democrat winning in North Dakota six years ago was a great, but shocking pick-up for President Obama's party in 2012.  North Dakota is a conservative state, but Senator Heitkamp's win was a surprise get for the Democrats.  This year, with her vote against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation for the Supreme Court, along with her mistake of inadvertently releasing the names of protected sexual assault victims in a poorly chosen campaign ad, her run as North Dakota's senator appears to be coming to an end.  Senator Heitkamp has suspended her campaign, and her fatal mistake has made her trail in the polls between 11 points (RealClearPolitics.com) and 16 points (fivethirtyeight.com).  The Republicans will take this seat decisively.

3) Georgia Governor's race: Brian Kemp (R) v Stacey Abrams (D): Both RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight have seen polls go back and forth over the past few months, and it is considered a toss-up.  There have been allegations of voter suppression by Mr. Kemp (Washington Post), who is currently Georgia's Secretary of State.  If the allegations are proven true, or there is an air of convincing impropriety, it potentially could swing the election towards Stacey Abrams.  However, Georgia is still surprisingly a safe conservative state (one which requires voters to show ID), but with the state's growing Hispanic population, coupled with the African-American vote, it may swing the election to the Democrats in the near future (perhaps within 8 years). However, for 2016, the governor's race will be given to the Republicans as a solid victory, barring any serious problems for Mr. Kemp.

Overall, based on my own impressions and projections, I believe the United States Senate will stay with the Republicans.  With Democrats having to defend more seats, and the Republican incumbents doing well, I doubt the Democrats will have the horses to swing this chamber back to their control.  The House is more competitive, and with the history of the past few decades showing that the President's party losing seats, it would be acceptable to project a Democratic House with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.  There is a caveat, based on my discussions earlier in this piece, with President Trump's recent political and policy victories, and an energized Republican electorate, I would not be surprised to see the GOP protect their control of the Lower House, although their margin of seats will most certainly shrink.

If the Republicans maintain control of all aspects of three branches of government, the Democrats could be exiled to the wilderness for at least 4 years.  If the President's party continues to be dominant, I feel the Democrats will have no choice to figure out what kind of party they want to be.  Since President Clinton forced the Democrats to become more business-friendly and moderate, the party of the working class has shunned its responsibility to protect the less fortunate and Americans who are marginalized in a rapidly changing society. One that is increasingly technologically advanced on a microeconomic level but has seen manufacturing and service economies drastically change. I don't know what their new positions will be, or whether they will be effective and popular.

That is why this election is so important for everyone who plans to vote.  It will determine if there is a check on Republican dominance, who will most certainly use their power to dramatically change the political, business and societal landscape for America for at least a generation.  If the Democrats do manage to win the House, they will aggressively use their power to check President Trump's controversial agenda and attempt to provide some relief to the middle and lower socioeconomic groups in America.  Regardless of your political affiliation, this election will be a tipping point for the direction of the country for the foreseeable future.

Exciting Times!

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Apocalypse-Part II

September 19, 2018

The recent, explosive new allegations concerning President Trump's SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh which details an alleged sexual assault in high school and an incident of indecent exposure at Yale, has thrown a massive wrench into the proceedings for his nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

__________________________

The already contentious nomination process for Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's Supreme Court nominee to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy took a turn towards Armageddon.  A letter from California Senator Diane Feinstein detailed testimony from a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh during a high school party at someone's home in 1983.  This woman, Christine Blasey Ford, said that during a party attended by Mr. Kavanaugh and his friends from Georgetown Preparatory School, Mr. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.  The incident allegedly describes Mr. Kavanaugh forcing himself on Ms. Ford, to a point where she feared for her life.  Senator Feinstein knew of the woman, and the letter was submitted to her by Representative Ann Eshoo, Ms. Ford's local member of Congress.  Many are wondering why Feinstein did not mention the letter or the incident during two days of hearings with Mr. Kavanaugh with the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Democratic progressives were upset that Senator Feinstein treated him with a soft approach.  Conservatives are curious why she sat on the letter and did not bring up the issue when she had a chance to aggressively question Brett Kavanaugh's character at the time.

This new development, in the #MeToo era, is new territory for the country.  For Republicans, there are no women who serve on the Judiciary Committee. If they are not careful, this will resemble the Anita Hill questioning during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's hearings before his eventual confirmation in 1991.  The perception of white men interrogating a woman accusing a controversial nominee of the Supreme Court of sexual assault can have a bad outcome for Republicans.  They need to be respectful but firm in their questioning of the alleged incident. As currently planned, an attorney experienced in sex crimes will ask questions on behalf of the Republican majority on the committee. If they are clumsy in how they handle this difficult situation, it will rally Democratic voters and allow the party to portray Republicans as sexist, misogynistic and inconsiderate towards a woman who requires respect and sympathy.   Right now, polls show that Democrats are poised to win back control of the House of Representatives. Republicans and Democrats are both using supportive media platforms to protect their own political positions.  Democrats, however, are attempting to destroy the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and to use this nomination fight as a campaign issue to sway the upcoming election in their favor.

Ms. Ford should be allowed to state her case and give uncomfortable testimony to the alleged incident detailed in the letter.  However,  because America is a constitutional republic, a nation of laws, each citizen has equal protection under the law, and Mr. Kavanaugh should be allowed to defend himself.  The women members of the Senate Judiciary Committee want the FBI to open an investigation in this accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh.  Republicans feel that this is a waste of time since any investigation would include the two people involved in this alleged sexual assault, along with the other person in the room, Mike Judge, who was a friend of Brett Kavanaugh, and purportedly a witness to what happened. Anyone else's testimony would be second-hand, and would not provide compelling testimony other than the people who had been involved.  

In one view, Tucker Carlson, a Fox News commentator, feels that since the alleged incident regarding Ms. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh took place in the 1980s in Maryland, state and local law enforcement authorities should take the initiative to look into the matter.  Mr. Carlson feels that it is not a federal crime, as of now, and that any actions should be undertaken by local prosecutors.  He also feels that since the incident took place nearly 35 years ago, the statute of limitations does not provide cover for any proposed charges.  Conservative activist Ed Whelan has also made public statements on Twitter defending Brett Kavanaugh, alluding to the assault by someone else who lived close to the house where the incident took place and could have been mistaken for Kavanaugh.  This could be defamatory since a person who has not been investigated or charged with any crime is being linked to a sexual assault and is based essentially on conjecture.  For Congress to reach a respectable conclusion, a calm and careful approach is desirable.

I think the Judiciary Committee needs to be careful about how they move forward, though.  Both Ms. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh were not adults at a party where there was alcohol. Accepting testimony from people who were teenagers at the time has to be treated delicately. I also feel that if they rush the speaking opportunities for both Brett Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford to provide details, the Republican party runs the risk of pushing the confirmation of a man whose assault allegation was not investigated thoroughly by law enforcement.  I fully understand the seriousness of a lifetime appointment of a Supreme Court Justice, especially one whose conservative credentials is paramount to getting him confirmed. It is important for the Republican party as a whole.

In addition to Ms. Ford's allegation, per CNN, this one from a student at Yale, Deborah Ramirez, who said Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a freshman dorm party. At this time, these are unsubstantiated stories, but that could later reveal to be a troubling behavior by Mr. Kavanaugh.  If these articles start to carry weight, show merit and discussed at length by the mainstream media, with Ms. Ford and others being convincing and credible witnesses, it could spell the end of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. Additionally, it could energize Democrats to rally their voters to give the party its desired political opening to win back the lower House.

A new plot twist to an already contentious political climate in Washington, D.C. could mark a new era in which a public official's behavior, supported and influenced by online discussion, could dictate a new methodology for future Supreme Court nominees, Brett Kavanaugh notwithstanding. Both conservative and liberal media outlets and individuals are using spin and accusatory language to support or disapprove their preferred candidates.  Consequently, it could also damage the prospects of well qualified and honorable men and women whose life experiences will be dissected and destroyed.  It would be sad for the country if impressive lawyers and judges are turned away from public service. Precisely at this point in our nation's history, these very types of people are needed in America right now.

Will the Democratic Party fracture before the 2020 Election?

September 8, 2018


Even though most Democratic voters are uniform in their disgust with President Donald Trump, will that translate into a solid voice for the November Midterms and the 2020 Presidential Election?

___________________________

The year 2018 has been an interesting one for Democrats.  They saw a young, photogenic and passionate first-time candidate in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and a few other similar candidates who won their primaries in Georgia (Stacey Abrams, Governor), Florida (Andrew Gillium, Governor), and Massachusetts (Ayana Pressley, Congress).  These wins were the first wave of more progressive and socialist-style candidates who are going to transform the Democratic party; perhaps into a more compassionate and effective party of legislators who would advocate for and win legislative victories for the country at large.  The grassroots of the Democratic party is certainly more passionate about issues that the Democratic Establishment give lip service to, such as affordable healthcare, power for organized labor, and restraint with foreign wars and nation-building.  

Although these ideas have a sound background and merit, the Democratic Establishment does not publicly put up a fight whenever one of these issues come up in Congress, such as for Appropriations bills. The party is not the party prior to Clinton who challenged Republican presidents for their foreign policy decisions.  For instance, the investigations into Iran-Contra was due to a Democrat-controlled Congress.  Currently, the Democratic grassroots wants the Democrats to fight President Trump on almost every issue, from investigating Russian collusion with the 2016 election to voting against every Supreme Court nominee.  However, with the current make-up of the Republican-controlled Senate, unless two GOP Senators join the Democrats, Robert Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court, will get approved.  Where does that leave the Democrats and their major factions?

With the upcoming 2018 Midterms, Democrats are poised to win back the House of Representatives, according to several polls.  That being said, it could be an election where the lines of division are drawn within the Democratic Caucus.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the unofficial leader of the Democratic Socialists, and after November, their numbers could grow.  There is also talk that the influx of younger, more progressive Democrats could seek to find a new leader, since Pelosi has been around for quite some time, and she is a polarizing figure nationally. Additionally, new Democrats may push for someone younger and closer to the views of Millennial voters. 

Some of the values and policies that the progressive and socialist Democrats want to pass are Single Payer (Medicare for All), $15 minimum wage, equal pay and narrowing the wealth gap.  Some of these ideas have good intentions, like making health care affordable, and improving the pay for low-income jobs in the food service industry, and trying to find a more equitable pay structure for the workplace, but I don't see the Establishment Democrats forcing any votes for legislation to make any laws in benefit on these policy goals.  The Establishment Democrats cater to the same wealthy and corporate donors that give to the Republican party, and those donors do not want higher taxes or more regulations that police the workplace.  I see a sizable rift between the Democratic leadership and the new progressive and socialist Democrats who are going to push for more policies that the activists and grassroots of the party will want to see.

What will become of this fracture?  Well, I think the same problems are developing within the Republican party as well.  There are grassroots organizations who are even more right-leaning than the current leaders of the GOP (Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell), and some of them have decided to retire (Speaker Ryan), rather than deal with the thought of getting challenges in party primaries by this new wave of ultra-conservative Republicans.   I personally feel that this is a good thing for the country.  Right now, Congress is so polarized that very few items of bipartisanship get handled, outside of support for the military and its operations. 

What this means for both the Democratic and Republican parties is that these fissures will slowly grow, and the only logical solution is the advent and formation of new parties.  Grassroots activists in both parties will find the corporate donors and party establishments cater to a small select group of people and any benefits that result go to those very same people.  This is one of the reasons why Donald Trump won, in that many Americans did not share the spoils of success with those who exploited the government and its spending.  I don't foresee any future bank bailouts (TARP, 2008), especially in the current climate.

I feel it is in the best interests of the country if the two major parties forced the formation of multiple new parties.  This will help with alliances of convenience. Political factions will support other factions who share commonality with specific issues (health care, law enforcement, military spending) and oppose each other on issues they disagree. How does this help run the country?  Well, it will force the Democrats and Republicans to form temporary alliances with smaller parties in order to get laws and legislation passed.  For instance, if the Republicans want a law passed regarding lower taxes for small businesses, the new, more liberal political party (Democratic Socialists) will ask to increase the minimum wage to $15 in order to get support for the legislation to pass.  This type of compromise was done between Democrats and Republicans in the past, but it is not going to change back any time soon.  That is why the formation of new political parties, caused by rifts in ideology and policy goals, that will transform how our government functions for the better.  Wealthy donors and corporations who heavily lobby Congress will fight new movements because the new parties mean more money will need to be spent to protect their financial interests. 

The pushback will be fierce, but the political cracks in the Democratic party will be far-reaching, which will include similar breaks in the Republican party.  However, in the long run, the country will have a working government in which the legislative process fulfills the Founder's intentions:  separate branches of government, with different political parties and individuals, who come together, and pick alliances based on the issue (albeit temporarily) to pass effective legislation. Then the cycle will continue anew with new partnerships that will benefit the American people overall.

Was Tiger Wood's 2nd place finish at the P.G.A Championship a sign of a Tiger Resurrection?

August 15, 2018

Tiger Woods finished second at the P.G.A Championship this past weekend.  It was a stunning performance for golf's greatest showman and performer.
__________________________

For the first time since his scandal-plagued year of recuperating from an injury and public shaming of his wife ( through the disclosure of multiple instances of cheating on his wife), Tiger Woods has captured the golf, and sports world once again through his great run at the P.G.A Championship in St. Louis this past weekend.  Since his record-breaking run to win his first Masters in 1997, Tiger was the most dominant golfer since Jack Nicklaus ruled the P.G.A in the 70's and 80's.  During his previous reign, Tiger amassed millions in endorsements, career earnings, and tour wins, which included 14 major tournament trophies (Masters, British Open, U.S. Open and P.G.A Championship). His success and visibility was the reason many around the world took up golf, a sport played in country clubs by upper-class individuals, and a small percentage of the country who played on public courses.

He was the global athlete who made the most in endorsements, was a cultural phenomenon, and made sure no matter if you were a golf fan, you would turn to the final day of any golf tournament to see if Tiger would cruise to another victory.  Tiger was the single reason that the casual sports fan paid attention to golf, attended tournaments or watched on television.   He was was so dominant on the P.G.A Tour, his fellow golfers who were leading on the final day would wilt under pressure as the roar of the gallery supporting Tiger could be heard. Mr. Woods eventually closed the gap on anyone who had a fragile lead heading into the final 18 holes.  That was the power and mystique of Tiger Woods.

So, with the recently concluded P.G.A Championship at Bellerive Country Club, just outside St. Louis, the golf and sports world was electric with Tiger's completion to the runner-up position to (and current reigning U.S. Open champ) Brooks Koepka.  Many were wondering if the long-dormant Tiger was beginning his comeback to the top of the sports world again.  He shot a final round of 64, bringing along a large gallery of fans hoping to see Woods rise from the ashes of mediocrity and his physical ailments to inspire once again.

His recent form, including at the 2018 U.S. Open, begs the question.  Is this the old Tiger Woods who has found his dominant form and intimidating presence on the P.G.A Tour the past few weeks? Or, was this magnificent run a last-gasp at glory before he rides off into the sunset of his post-career, most likely in business ventures and golf course design?  Sports, but golf especially, needs him to regain his luster, for at least a few more years.  Golf needs to make a financial recovery since the last few years has seen Nike get rid of its golf division, and many public courses have closed due to a drop in interest.  If this was the last hurrah before he permanently fades away, it does give his fans an opportunity to be wistful about Tiger's greatness as a performer.  As Colin Cowherd stated on his radio show about Tiger Woods, "Tiger doesn't move the needle...he is the needle."  He gave the sport of golf its greatest reason for relevance during his reign as the world's best golfer.   The sport will eventually recede back to its pre-Tiger levels once Woods fades from the public eye.  That is why I, like most sports fans, want to see Tiger roar one last time.  

What is the true relationship between President Trump, Vladimir Putin and Russia Intelligence?

The Helsinki Summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent alarm bells in Washington and throughout the country. This meeting has started a troubling discussion of the alleged relationship between Russian intelligence, the Kremlin, and the American President's inner circle.

July 20, 2018

________________________

After a troubling press conference during the Russian and American Summit in Helsinki, Finland, alarm bells went off in Washington, D.C, and parts of the country. First and foremost was President Trump's disavowing of information collected by U.S. intelligence agencies and assets regarding Russian influence in the past presidential election, and President Trump's public support of Russian President, Vladimir Putin.  Donald Trump essentially said that despite what American intelligence has gleaned about Russia's alleged interference in the prior election, President Trump affirmed the honor and integrity of Mr. Putin.  It is, to many observers, the first time an American president promoted a view that the leader of a nuclear power, and antagonist for American foreign policy goals, was vouched for by the occupant of the Oval Office. It made the matter worse when Trump denied the veracity of American intelligence.   It was so glaring that many in the media, including conservative talking heads, publicly rebuked the American president and stated that Trump did a favor for his critics who view him now as a bonafide Russian asset, with Putin as his handler.  In fact, a recent article by Jonathan Chait in New York magazine makes a case that President Trump could, in fact, be doing Putin's bidding in his quest to dismantle Western Democracies and their alliance against his country, both militarily and economically.

Mr. Chait goes on to write that Donald Trump has worked with Russian oligarchs and others who purchase condos and other real estate assets throughout Trump's vast global portfolio.  In fact, many oligarchs overpay for space in Trump Tower, and most of those remain empty.  The articles make an astonishing implication that Trump has laundered money through his real estate holdings going back decades, beginning around 1987.  This was the year that Donald Trump became a public figure, first with the publishing success of his book, "The Art of the Deal," and public comments regarding immense Japanese investment in the United States, through real estate, Wall Street, and purchasing of American name brands.  Additionally,  he was against Japan's reliance on the United States military to protect and defend Japanese territorial sovereignty.  The year is also noteworthy in that it was the year that Donald Trump and his then-wife Ivana visited the Soviet Union, staying in Moscow's prominent hotel, the National Hotel, even staying in the Lenin Suite, which Mr. Chait believes was most certainly bugged.  After his return, Donald Trump began a decades-long flirtation with the Oval Office, which culminated with an aborted run for president in 2011, and ended with his shock win in 2016.  Until his win, Trump had opined through newspaper Op-Eds that America was being taken advantage of by countries (Western Europe and other Asian nations besides Japan) who required American military support. However, he neglected to mention whom the United States was protecting these countries from (Russia), according to Jonathan Chait.

The New York Magazine details how Russian intelligence cultivates their assets, through years of flattery, while making copious notes regarding those individual proclivities relating to ego, money, sexual appetite, stupidity, and greed, all of which Mr. Chait believes Trump has in large supply.  It further makes a case that Donald Trump during his long career in business, felt comfortable working with less-than-stellar segments of the New York business scene, including La Cosa Nostra (organized crime, which controlled cement production in greater New York), and a close associate named Felix Sater, who many believe has close ties to Putin's inner circle of business and intelligence friends, including the Russian Mafia.  One of the most damaging claims in the New York Magazine article is that Trump has received numerous financial loans from Russian banks due to his obsessive desire to litigate against anyone who he feels has wronged him.  American and European banks avoid working with him because of his large volume of litigation against those businesses when he was loaned money for his real estate ventures.  As a result, the vast majority of his recent loans involved Russian origins, and one of his sons, Donald Jr., stated as such, in 2008.  

Other journalists (Michael Isikoff and David Corn) feel that part of what drives President Trump in his policy decisions is his virulent hatred of anything President Obama did, mostly as a result of public humiliation during the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, where Obama had a field day with Donald Trump and his behavior towards him.  In fact, anything that President Obama approved, Trump goes against it.  That is partly why he does things, in my opinion, to spite a black former President, from the current one who many assume is racist and has negative impressions of black Americans.

The article by Mr. Chait provides names of many close Trump associates, including Paul Manafort, a consultant and lobbyist who has worked for Pro Russian Ukrainian politico Viktor Yanukovych, Roger Stone, known GOP operative, and others who have close ties to Russian businessmen and oligarchs, many of whom stayed in contact even after Paul Manafort left the Trump campaign during the summer when the election was not in doubt, and it appeared Trump would lose convincingly to Hillary Clinton.  Robert Mueller has indicted Manafort, whose bail was denied, and remains in jail awaiting trial for money laundering (there's that theme again).  The piece does lay out a convincing case that there could be more than meets the eye regarding the awkwardly weird relationship between the American president and Russia's leader.  

In this frenzied political climate, where both parties want to win national elections and access the power that comes with controlling the federal government, the breathless speculation only amplifies America's deep class, political and economic divisions between citizens of all stripes.  I am not refuting the salient points in the New York Magazine article presented by Mr. Chait, but it would be better for everyone to wait and see what the findings of the Mueller probe are.  If the final report shows that President Trump is overwhelmingly beholden to the leader of a foreign nuclear power, it will be the end of the Trump Administration.  Even if he does not want to leave the Oval Office, if Republicans turn on him after the evidence presented shows massive compromising information, Trump will be impeached.  Whether after all that he still refuses to leave, even attempting to drum up his base, it will cause a conflagration of the American way of life, the status of the Constitution, and whether the United States remains a vibrant democracy.  What compounds the problem is that both the Democratic and Republican parties increase the distrust of government institutions, the rule of law, and the art of compromise because of their desire to win elections at the expense of the opposition. The parties are helped by media conglomerates (Fox News, MSNBC, CNN) who prey on this partisanship.  It would be better for the country if Americans are patient and wait to hear and read what is in the final report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

I do not know if America can recover if the Leader of the Free World is an asset of Vladimir Putin, or at least heavily leveraged in debt to the same person; it will forever damage the credibility of the American President's position in world affairs.  

Supreme Court Confirmation Armageddon

July 3, 2018

The upcoming and explosive confirmation fight will divide the country even more as the new Supreme Court justice will determine the ideological direction of American jurisprudence and affect the future of the interpretation of the Constitution.

________________________________________

The recent announcement by Justice Anthony Kennedy that he will retire from the Supreme Court after the court's term which ends in May of this year has sent shocked court observers, Republicans, Democrats and prominent members of the media and internet bloggers. 

On July 9th, President Trump nominated D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative legal mind, to fill the Kennedy position on the nation's highest court.  This was applauded by various conservative online publications (National Review), but he was not the first choice for other conservatives.  That choice was Notre Dame graduate Amy Cony Barret, who is a staunch Catholic, law school professor, and current judge.  She is favored by religious activists, for her strong advocacy for faith and living with a moral compass.  I think President Trump chose Mr. Kavanaugh for his extensive paper trail and vociferous positions regarding originalist Constitutional interpretation of the laws.  It helps that he is 53 years old, relatively "young" for a justice so that he can serve for a significant amount of time.

While his confirmation fight will be contentious for a multitude of reasons, many of his positions have broad support amongst Republican members of Congress and members of the D.C. Establishment. Some of them include: (provided by the National Review;www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/brett-kavanaugh-trump-supreme-court-nominee)

1) Taming the Administrative State: Kavanaugh has an extensive track record with rulings that put a limit on what the Federal Government can and cannot do in terms of forcing states to comply with specific provisions that go against the type of intrusive government power on state's rights.  Judge Kavanaugh disagrees with the Chevron principle; where there is a disagreement with a state and a government agency, the government agency has final say on behalf of the United States government.  Many states (conservatives) do not feel this type of governance is Constitutional.

2) Enforcing the 2nd Amendment:  As a D.C. Appeals court ruling, he dissented against Washington, D.C.'s prohibition against the owning of semi-automatic weapons.  He will be a strong defender of those who want to own most types of guns.

3) The American Worker:  Judge Kavanaugh is against allowing undocumented immigrants from voting in union elections, and that certain instances companies cannot choose lower wage employees over American workers.  He also sides with domestic farmers and agriculture interests over foreign competitors.

4) Abortion:  Judge Kavanaugh is a devout Catholic, and his personal views go with Catholic dogma.  In a case against the Department of Health and Human Services, he objected to a court case involving granting the right of a female undocumented minor to seek an abortion while she was under government detention.  It is safe to say that any abortion case that comes across the Supreme Court's docket involving any abortion rights, he will provide a vote towards any conservative opinion and majority.  Democrats are going to make this issue the central component of their vociferous opposition to his sitting on the nation's highest court.

Judge Kavanaugh has over 300 court opinions from which Democratic Senate staff will pore over to find flaws in his beliefs that could damage his ascendancy to the Supreme Court. I feel his nomination will not run through too much obstruction when the U.S. Senate gets to vote.  Because of Senate rules that were changed under previous Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, where a simple majority vote in the Senate allowed President Obama's nominees to win confirmation, Republicans now control the Senate.  Democrats will make for great theater in opposing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination unless the judge cannot remove himself from certain positions that might proof fatal, he will soon sit on the Supreme Court.   With two Republican Senators, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who are staunch Pro-Choice Republicans, I don't see those two Senators will vote against Judge Kavanaugh unless he provides any reason why he will not seek to overturn settled law (Roe v. Wade) and precedent regarding future abortion cases.

What the Democrats can best hope for with the remaining liberal judges who are older, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg,  is to pray she remains in good health until the Democrats can regain the upper chamber in the U.S. Congress.   They should also have a good set of judges who a Democratic President, once sworn in January of 2021, can nominate someone who will protect legal issues that the Democrats hold dear.

This is a fight between the ideologies of both parties. The Republicans support judicial originalism, which focuses on any rulings that damage the "original" Constitutional intent of the Founders. In other words, if American voters want something changed with the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or legal precedent, they should use voting and the legislative process to enact change.  The Democrats want proactive judges to use the power of the Supreme Court to overturn policies that will benefit the country (or more truthfully) members of their largest constituent groups (women and minorities).

That is why this Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh will be full of grand theater in a highly partisan political environment.  It will determine the course of how we live, and whether we stray from Constitutional intent or treat the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document which will usher the country into the modern era.

Exciting times.