Monday, August 20, 2018

August thoughts 2018.







“The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults." 

Alexis de Tocqueville 


As the summer winds down,  America remains in the grip of a silo-bound public, each faction or tribe unable to converse with the other.    The cultural polarity now extant forebodes a grim future for political discourse in the land.  Democrats on the left fear that Trump will be reelected and Republicans fear that there will be a wave election and an impeachment of the man 77% of them support.

Friends who disagree with one another are suffering a  sort of paralysis, a frightening stasis that many think will never disappear.   As a child of the 40s and 50s, the worst possible scenario then was the menace  from the USSR, the other superpower left standing at the conclusion of World War II, the US providing Marshall plan dollars for the recovery of a decimated Europe and to fight the spread of communism in places like Greece, Italy and even France.   For a few years, actually, the United States was the most powerful nation in the world, indisputably the king of the hill from 1945, until the Russians exploded their first H-Bomb around 1954 with information garnered from Atom spies, including Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who were electrocuted at Sing Sing prison after a sensational trial, in which the prosecutor, the judge and defense counsel all were Jewish. The prosecutor, Irving Kaufman, sought and won the death penalty (My father said he wanted to demonstrate Jewish Loyalty). The Rosenbergs were the only spies in the history the Untied States who were executed during peacetime.

Around that time,  Joseph McCarthy and others, including the House Unamerican activities committee, probably the most Unamerican activity of all, summoned artists, writers, and political opponents of the government before it, to investigate whether they were infiltrated by Communists.  People lived in fear of being denounced to paranoid J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, which would then participate in reporting citizens to the House committee, engaged in a true witch hunt.  A blacklist of many good writers and artists soiled the careers of many good Americans, their livelihoods indiscriminately destroyed.

This, of course, was a dark stain on our country.  McCarthy ran wild, intimidating other members of congress, and even President Eisenhower remained silent while McCarthy paraded frightened witnesses in front of his Senate committee.  Eisenhower said almost nothing until McCarthy was exposed by a courageous Boston lawyer named Joseph Welch, who, at a hearing in which McCarthy had besmirched a young associate of Welch’s at the prominent old line Boston law firm of Hale and Dorr.  “Have you no decency, sir?  At long last…” cried Welch.
It was all downhill for McCarthy from then on, and journalists such as the iconic Edward R. Murrow exposed McCarthy for what he was—a demagogic fraud.  However, this persecution of Americans had gone on for a long while, until the truth emerged.

In those days, there was no social media, no Facebook, no Twitter, only Television, the force of which was moderated by responsible journalists at CBS, the doyenne of broadcast news.  CBS had in addition to Murrow, Eric Sevareid, Harry Reasoner, and Walter Cronkite, who later emerged as “the most trusted man in American journalism.”   These journalists, many of whom were print journalist veterans, checked their sources and had editors who checked them over again.   Generally, with minor mistakes, the truth shone.  The public knew that what they read had some veracity.  The New York Times was then a more conservative organ, but still retained credibility and integrity.  Today, Trumpists state it is a left wing rag.  People on the left still believe it is the newspaper of record.  The Wall Street Journal remains conservative, but now bears the imprimatur of Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, which many believe is now a propaganda outlet for the GOP and for Trump.

The point of all this is that each age has its difficulties, and many of them at the time seemed just as bad as our current administration.  The noted historian Jon Meacham argues that in 1924, the Klu Klux Klan had 400 delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention.


These days,  CNN and Fox News are competing for audience; print journalism is in jeopardy, local papers going out of business throughout America.  Large news organizations are carrying the burden of reaching the public with a similitude of fact.  

And the McCarthyesque President of the United States tells us that the press is the “enemy of the people.”

Making America great again is a relative term.  On the one hand it has shown greatness. On the other, at times, it was not so great.   A President who shows evidence of racism, who tweets hateful vituperation is not making America great again.  He is returning us to our not so great days.  I remember them well.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Losing Friends and Not Influencing People


The most important of all revolutions, a revolution in sentiments, manners and moral opinions. 

Edmund Burke

Since the 2016 Presidential race, I have confronted, argued, wheedled, and passionately advocated against Donald Trump.   Among my various friends and acquaintances I have managed to shed many people, who, not because of simply my opinion of their misguided political principles, but instead, their inability to argue policy in a reasoned manner.

I maintain that people of different opinions can debate their ideas, but the risk often outweighs the reward.   If, as Edmund Burke rightly said that evil triumphs when good men say nothing, then the moral obligation to call out our friends for what one thinks are dangerous ideas that threaten our democracy, is it not a moral duty to do so? Or do we place friendship above honest intellectual intercourse?  Do we further isolate ourselves from those with disparate thoughts?    After all, the world is not Manichean.

I have one life long friend, with whom I have not spoken for a year.  I have written about him in the past, but still am pained by  the toxicity of ideas that are said either to enrage me or are simply a manifestation of a personality disorder.  Texts are unusually disturbing, so telephone conversations might be better were they not to devolve into an argument not based on facts, and perhaps made up facts.
After all, if one argues that the world is governed by a cabal of pink flamingoes, how does one argue against that?

Another friend (or close acquaintance) told me to get lost and that he did not wish ever to see me again.   I disputed his ideas, but perhaps not as delicately as I should have, because he is an intelligent yet an observer of events through a not very good understanding of humanity and if he wants to play economist he has to account for the psychological aspect of the science.  I think his motivation, as a wealthy individual is to preserve his estate in perpetuity, and that there are untermenschen and ubermenchen.  Moreover, he argues that people of different political persuasions do not understand economics.  He believes that those inhabiting the upper 1% belong there, are “job creators,” by virtue of their passive investments in companies that make money.  Maybe so, but many economists do not agree with this discredited “trickle down” philosophy.  Credible arguments say that the exponential technological revolution will create a need for a universal basic income when robots eventually replace the need for human labor.  It is already happening.  Looks like there will be no long distance truck drivers in 5 years. Algorithms already are more efficient than radiologists in reading x-rays.

Another former friend, is an unreasonable, bullying, yet ignorant know-it-all.  As far as she is concerned there is no reason and no wish even to hear any another point of that does not coincide with her world view.  Any attempt to advance an argument is rudely  interrupted .  Try to finish a sentence?
Not gonna happen.  Seems to me that people who do not wish you to speak are so insecure of their own selves that they instinctively suppress conflicting thought.

Another sends me Fox news articles with pithy sentences (indicating a short attention span), I tried a reasoned dialog with him, to no avail and have decided to call it a day.  I have known him since elementary school, we were raised in similar circumstances, but he has moved to Palm  Beach and perhaps visits Mar-A-Lago too often and listens to Fox propaganda.
He fancies himself a student of history, but his scholarship is questionable at best and ignorant at worst.   So another dialog down the drain.


I have found it harder and harder to befriend Republicans.  I do not know if that is just me, but a product of our increased tribalism, egged on by a miserable liar
in the White House, who, from my point of view, cares nothing about the country and is probably indebted to Vladimir Putin in both money and Kompromat, judging from his performance in Helsinki.  Cannot wait to see the peepee tape.

My wife, always practical, tells me to keep my mouth shut.  But I am unable to help myself, good men keeping silent and evil triumphing and all that.  But what to do?  I still believe that reasonable people, even with different opinions, but not different facts, can discuss politics.   If it were not possible to do so, how do we maintain our democracy?  Do we slide down the slippery slope as they did in Russia, where the leader controls all the media and enjoys a 90% approval rating?  Where people do not have an opinion other than that which pervades state media?

How does one navigate these perilous times?  Are the times worse than ever?  Is it the new normal?  Is our country devolving into authoritarianism?  Is the western alliance under threat?  How do we believe a leader who lies constantly, sometimes apologizes and then doubles down on the falsehood?  Are our institutions strong enough to sustain attacks on our law enforcement agencies, and will Russian meddling, the lack of Democratic leaders who can put forth a plan to appeal to voters, who are increasingly turned off by the whole process, floods of money from special interests and PACs?  Politicians who only care about perpetuating their power?

Now we are in a crisis.  The President of the United States believes that children should be separated from their parents, and now cannot find the parents.  If ICE had any brains, they could have used wrist bands with ID numbers, dates of birth, etc.  But no one thought of it or even cared.  The toxic atmosphere created by this president is one of cruelty.  The President also believes,  people from black countries—bad.  People from white countries—good.  Muslims—bad.  Christian fundamentalists—good.   Rich people—good.  Poor people—bad.  Brown people—bad.  Immigrants fleeing oppression, starvation and hunger—bad.   The FBI, CIA, NSA—bad.  NATO—bad. The murderous Vladimir Putin and other dictators—good.   Russian meddling in our elections—never happened, because there were more people at his inauguration than ever before in our history and there were “others” who meddled.

Have we reached a tipping point?  Will Republicans in congress stand up and ask this loathesome madman to leave as they told Nixon, who by the way, now seems a bit  Lincolnesque.


Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Immigrants All




In 1923, my father, Bernard Wieder stepped off the boat at Ellis Island, having fled the Rumanian Army where his older brother died in World War I.  Dad did not wish to suffer the same fate for a blatantly anti Semitic Austro-Hungarian Empire.  He was of military age and he would have none of it.
Bidding a sorrowful good bye to his parents and five brothers and sisters, he took a  train from Budapest travelling to Hamburg and boarded a ship for America, in below deck steerage class.  As a child,  reading "Nick Carter" mysteries centered in New York, he had decided that was where his future would lie.
People rode in Automobiles, dressed in fancy clothes, and lived in heated houses with indoor plumbing. And Nick always found the murderer.

The following year the US Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924, discriminating against Eastern Europeans (Jews) who wished to come to America, frustrating Dad's plans to bring the remainder of his family to America.  Every year, he returned to Hungary for the Jewish High Holy Days, and dutifully throughout his time here until 1939 when the war erupted, he sent his diabetic father insulin.  Dad married in 1939 and planned to take his bride to meet his parents that September.  After the war started, his Dad, my grandfather, died of diabetic shock in 1940, unable to receive the life saving medication from his son.  Dad said his father was lucky.
All of the rest of his family, his mother, and brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins all perished in Auschwitz, except for two sisters who survived and also came to America as immigrants after the war, in 1945.   They lived into old age and had children, my cousins, who married and lived, as did I, the American dream.

Dad used to quote the well known, Emma Lazarus who talked about the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the tempest tossed," words found at the base of the Statue of Liberty. And from his first days bought and read the New York Times to learn English and of America

Dad made a success of his life, working industriously in Miami Beach and in New York City in all manner of jobs and in his own businesses.   His first job was at the Nemo hotel on 1st street here in Miami Beach as a busboy.   My mothers parents, landed in 1900 also having fled Hungary.  So I am really only a first generation American, born in New York City during the darkest days of World War II.

Many of my friends tell  a similar story, although I do have some friends who grew up in Georgia and whose ancestors employed slaves, but had a relative who fought in the Civil War, although on the Union side over the darkest stain in American history,  involving African Americans who travelled here in suffocating below deck slave ships, their arms and legs in shackles.  They too were immigrants.

Some clichés bear repeating.   We are and always will be a nation of immigrants.  It is just that some of us have conveniently forgotten our heritage, and seek to exclude others who are currently fleeing the same deprivations their ancestors did decades and centuries ago.

The economic forces that have created migrations are people who seek a better life--that is what America represents.

It does not stand for leaders ripping children from their parents.  It does not stand for values that are un-American.  If we are a nation of immigrants, we should be taking in as many as we can.  No matter what  price we pay, no matter what the cost.  History will look kindly on us if we do.  The economic benefits bestowed on this country by immigrants has always been positive.  We remained Ronald Reagan's shining city on the hill.  We remained Roosevelt's arsenal of democracy.

Edmund Burke said that evil triumphs when good men say nothing and Republicans in congress should remember who their first President was and what he stood for.  They should re-read Lincoln's second inaugural address.  They should read the Constitution, and the lives of our founding fathers who understood deeply what we should be as a nation.   Alexander Hamilton was an immigrant too.



Thursday, May 31, 2018

Intolerance Writ Large





I would dearly like to discuss with Trumpists, their ideas, beliefs, and understanding of policy without rancor, bitterness and the need to be completely right.  I personally may be guilty of some of this, too.  Listening was never my strong point and I have a tendency to dismiss those who seem to have lost their senses.  But then I must surely admit, they probably share the same disposition toward me.

Some people are hysterical Trumpists who believe that mainstream America is not giving Trump the chance to be a good President. "It's only been a year and a half," they say. Discussion suffers a devolution to a to a netherworld of alternative facts, fire-breathing Obama or Clinton deprecation as justification for their diversion, obfuscation and ultimately, a seething intolerance.  Attempts at reason seem as elusive as understanding with complete clarity the nature of the universe.  They do not listen at all, so intentionally dismiss arguments contrary to their own worldview.

They are true believers, card-carrying members of the Trump base. A frustration settles over me, unable to overcome their confirmation bias.    Among their thoughts (from a recent vitriolic email) include the inherent anti-intellectualism of the Supreme Soviet or a book burning in a square in 1936 Munich.  Last week, I received the below rant:

"I am always amazed by the amount of advice being given to the President from people no where(sic) near the negotiating table.
I truly believe the left will cheer if North Korea walks away. They, including you, hate Trump so deeply that if he cured Cancer you wouldn't release the formula.
Please do not email me trash from intellectuals who pray for a sitting Presidents failure.
I believe in giving a duly elected President a chance with the support of the country(sic). You don't. (sic)
In the article there was not, and never is, the solution or even an alternate solution to any problem. 
If this summit doesn't happen, it doesn't. But please save your personal dignity and don't go out and cheer for North Korea but Trump, (sic) as every President before him since 1954 has been unable to accomplish. If Trump didn't try, he would further be condemned. Damned if you do, etc.
You, with your loss at the election will.not rest (sic) until he is out if(sic) office by ANY means. 
God bless America, because a group of Americans would cheer for any misstep no matter what.
We are in a sad state of affairs and you, my friend, are hoping for this President's failure. 
I am glad I have never felt the degree of hate that you are living with. It must be a depressing state of affairs to wake up daily hoping for devastation."

Their hatred of Hillary and Obama apparently does not count.  And who said I was not sad about the self-destructive tendencies of this erratic, unstable president?  And why would I wish him to fail?

The above screed in response to an article I had sent from the Washington Post of the vicissitudes of negotiating with Kim Jong Un who has conducted an on again off again agreement to negotiate, and has a completely different understanding of what denuclearization of the Korean peninsula means.  Kim, a demonstrably ruthless murderer, is probably no trustworthier than Trump, who, do not forget, seeks not to develop a condominium project in Atlantic City based upon illusory revenues from a gaming table.  A few days later I sent an article from The Wall Street Journal pointing our similar difficulties.  That resulted in a threat to have my email blocked.   "Good," I said to myself, I no longer have to deal directly with this person, whom I can only regard as detrimental to my blood pressure.  Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon your point of view, I am intolerant of injustice and of people who refuse to respond to rational argument by instead responding with anger.

Apparently, as of this date, our exalted leader is not doing so well with Little Rocket Man.

However, the email above heretofore quoted verbatim:

1. Calculated that I was rooting for the President's failure.
2. Cheering for a Trump misstep.
3. Am consumed by hatred.  
4. Hope for "devastation" for the nation or for the world.
5. Explicitly states that anti Trump people live in a depressing dystopia.
6. Thoughtful people are "pseudo-intellectual" and worthy of contempt.  A nswers are simple and easily analyzed.
7.  That Trump is a good negotiator a priori and should not be questioned. (Evidence has proven otherwise.)
8.  Wished to receive no further discourse.

I mistakenly thought I was sending inoffensive articles, calculated to point out the difficulties of negotiating with North Korea on what North Korean leadership regards as an existential issue. (Think about Gaddafi)  Previously, during a telephone conversation containing a good deal of shouting at me about Hillary's emails and how Obama destroyed America, I desired to impart my point of view against some of other stated beliefs including how poor people (except women starving in the streets) should raise themselves up by their bootstraps and be purged from welfare eligibility.  This person's economic position, it seems, allowed them to condemn most others who have not so similarly found themselves in a very secure circumstance, those circumstances not entirely of this person's own doing.

That distasteful conversation cemented my long held understanding that our nation is ideologically imperiled.  If Trump were to open a concentration camp for Mexicans and people from "shithole countries, " Trumpists would defend him by saying that Trump has not been given a chance and that the Democrats lost the election, "get over it."  We who criticize the president are not loyal Americans. (that dreadful 1st amendment)  And the newspapers (except Fox News) are all purveyors of fake news.  Fox news has garnered millions of viewers, and is a true competitor to Joseph Goebbels.

So how does the average moderate deal with such blindness?   Do they try to convince antagonists?  Do they try to converse with them?  Is it useless or is it a premature surrender to unjustified obduracy?  Or is it that some people are so ideologically ossified that they will not even entertain contrary ideas?   I can understand politicians who must pander to their base.  But what of friends who can no longer speak politics to one another?  Political discourse has always been the essence of the American experiment, leading to compromise and laws to help us all.  That seems to be gone with the vanishing middle class.  A brilliant article in the Atlantic this month, by Matthew Stewart, "The Birth of a New Aristocracy,” deals with that shrinkage.  Well worth reading, it argues that the new aristocracy "has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege along at the expense of other people's children."  and that consists of the 9.9% of the population.  Doctors, lawyers, engineers and white collar workers who have grabbed the middle of the income scale.  The rest of the people are stagnating in a fetid, Dickensian future, unable to climb the ladder.

The maxim that one should never discuss politics or religion does not carry water for me.   Politics for news junkies such as myself is the bread of social interaction.  But the problem is that social media has placed us in small groups that only see a Manichean world.  People have divided themselves with the sources of information that they use.    Now places like Facebook are finally attempting to verify some of the misinformation and perhaps raise the accuracy of some of the misinformation that is virally corrupting.

But wait.   I have another Republican friend who does not like Trump, concedes his vulgarity, lack of dignity, but argues that the presidency should be dignified, but that since thugs run the rest of the world, we need a thuggish president who can fight fire with fire.  This Palm Beach 1%er knows the answers and spells them out in short, pithy expressions reminiscent of people who consider themselves wise based upon superficial knowledge.  Yet there is an air of tolerance in his responses and a begrudging concession that some of the positions that Trump espouses are racist, and vulgarly repugnant.  On the other hand, he says, that the entire world is racist, implying that that is an inherent justification for Trump's behavior, ignoring our nation's past foundation of slavery.  At least, in my view, he sets the bar very low for American values, by supporting an unfit president.  He, however, is not irredeemably fanatical, but still his ideas come close to justifying the ends justifying the means, a clear abrogation of utilitarian morality.

Another two Republican friends do not argue, they simply base all their support on whether their taxes have decreased, whether the economy is doing well, and whether their bank accounts balloon.  They care not a fig about social issues, nor the less fortunate, nor a wit of social responsibility for those who have not achieved some criterion of their respectful ideation.

Flummoxed is the wrong expression, I must say, of the difficulty in navigating the rocky shoals of political discourse in this time of inordinate schism.  The expressions of frustration linger mightily on the conscience, the always excruciating challenges of attempting to communicate with one's political adversaries.  The better angels of our nature do not prominently appear; they lurk in some shadowy hollow under a rock of hatred, misunderstanding and polarity of the polity of our great Republic, which, none the better for this situation of antipathy and misunderstanding, is exacerbated by an unforgiving social media, televised propaganda, irresponsible talking heads and people whose wealth clouds their humanitarian judgment of themselves and of their fellow citizens.











Thursday, May 10, 2018

The Iran Deal is not so Clear-Cut




Numerous editorials have either condemned or saluted the deal. The President is clearly taking a chance that the Iranians will succumb to pressure by the invocation of additional sanctions against them.

Iran has been aspiring to hegemony in the Middle East since the 1979 revolution, its "death to America and to Israel" playing upon the minds of American intelligence officers as well as the Saudis, Israelis, Syrians, and all other antagonists who fear that the Middle East tinderbox will explode into another war.
Just last month Russian and American warplanes almost clashed over Syria.  The Russians are supporting Hezbollah against Israel; rockets and missiles abound in Syria, pointed against Israel.  But mainly the nefarious mischief of the Iranians is producing these untenable conditions.

Barack Obama and John Kerry negotiated a deal that omitted the considerations of Iranian duplicity in its promulgation of weapons to the Syrians, the Houthis in Yemen, and all those who are warring against the Sunni majorities in Saudi Arabia, the Jews in Israel and all those who do not believe in the religious fundamentalism of the Iranian clerics.  They expect that they will control Syria through their puppet--the murderous Bashar Al Assad.  Deal proponents argue that the Iran arrangement  is working because the IAEA, the Europeans, and the UN believe that Iran is complying with its obligations under the deal and that America pulling out is a grave mistake.  How are they complying?  That is a matter of great question.  Religious theocratic fundamentalists do not comply with anyone but their preconceived notions of Allah, heretics and infidels threatening their power.

Susan Rice, former National Security Adviser argues that Iran relinquished 97 % of its enriched uranium stockpile and dismantled 2/3 of centrifuges as well as its plutonium and that inspections have verified the same.  She also argues that the US unilateral withdrawal from the agreement demeans trust in the word of the United States, also ascribing Trump's decision to a matter of ego, by jettisoning the Obama agenda at every opportunity, as well as sending a signal to Kim Jong Un that the US "cannot be trusted."    What she neglects to say is that Kim will never trust us anyway and we will not trust him, because nations always follow their own interests.  Rice's naïveté is evident in her piece in yesterday's New York Times.  Also questionable is her premise that in entering the deal, the US never intended to address Iran's other malign expeditions.  Perhaps it should have.

Iran's economy is in a ditch, and President Trump believes that they will be pushed over the edge by additional sanctions.   The jury is out on that one.  We simply do not know how the European actors will handle the American sanctions or even secondary sanctions.  What is clear, however is that European business given a choice between the United States market and the Iranian market, are hardly challenged by such a choice.

I am a progressive democrat and an anti-Trumper.    I have believed that he has demeaned and been destructive of the office of the Presidency.   His animus for Obama is eroding, by a thousand cuts, health care for many Americans.  His immoral acolyte Scott Pruitt is decimating years of environmental protections.  Trump is a proven liar and narcissist.   He has pushed for a ruinous tax cut with possibly dire economic consequences exploding the deficit and fooling his base.

Whatever his motives may be: forestalling Mueller, dancing with porn stars, employing thuggish lawyers, threatening and bullying those below him, inability to think and read, this withdrawal from the Iran deal may be the right move, if perhaps for the wrong reasons.  But maybe not.

The funding of Iranian terrorism through the return of billions to enable them to assert further hegemony, promulgate proxy wars, and cooperate with malign forces, stuck in the President's primitive craw.  Moreover, as Bret Stephens of the New York Times argues, that under the deal Iran would have been able eventually to enrich as much uranium as they would wish, an insane dénouement.

Young Iranians are fed up with theocracy and intolerant clerics running their country.  This bold gambit by the United States may push them over the edge.  Already there have been violent episodes in the streets.  More may be coming and regime change might happen or at least threaten the existing status quo.  But maybe not.

At the same time, the risk of war has grown; Israel is already at war in Syria and the U.S. must brace itself for a time of turmoil including war; and upon turmoil Trump revels.


Thursday, April 19, 2018

The Titanic is going down.




A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare.

The Titanic was  "unsinkable."  Sporting 52,310 tons, which by today's standards was not the largest of ships. but by 1912 standards, was a leviathan, a iron riveted monster, with 16 water tight bulkheads and carrying lifeboats sufficient for 1,178 of its 2,234 passengers. A North Atlantic Iceberg ripped a gash through five of the sixteen watertight bulkheads,  the  unsinkable sinking inside of three hours, resulting in 1500 dead.

World War I started with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Serbia, triggering a chain reaction of alliances causing the great war, killing over nine million combatants and seven million civilians.  Nations of sleepwalking leadership plunged the world into not only that war, but also the Treaty of Versailles, setting the stage for the rise of fascists and the Second World War, involving over 100 million people from over thirty countries and ultimately involving 50 to 85 million fatalities.

The Korean War, fought from 1950 to 1953, begun as a UN "Police Action" ended in a stalemate, insuring the establishment of what ultimately became a thriving democracy in the south and a totalitarian dictatorship in the north.  The war was never ended with a peace treaty, but a semi-stable armistice for the last 60 years or so.  Korea had been occupied by imperial Japan since 1910 until the end of World War II.  The Korean war cost 178,000 lives including 37,000 American soldiers dead and 103,000 wounded.   America feared the spread of Communism and the result was favorable for the South.  But the remnants of that war haunt us to this day, with a ruthless dictator threatening to post missiles to San Francisco, among other American cities.

The Viet Nam war started on a waterfall of misinformation, including the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, based upon an erroneous report that American ships were attacked first by North Vietnamese forces.  58,000 Americans died in the misguided conflict, tearing our nation apart.  In fact we thought we were stopping the fall of Communist dominoes, but the Vietnamese thought they were fighting a war of national liberation in a country previously dominated by the Japanese, the French and the Americans, all of which supported corrupt regimes.

In World War II to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan, we allied our country with a totalitarian Stalin against a totalitarian Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, hoping to create a better world, a world free of dictators and despots.   Between Hitler and Stalin, 50 million people were killed (by their hands alone.)    At the fall of the Soviet Union, in 1993 Francis Fukuyama wrote that History had ended, arguing that the advent of liberal Western Democracy may signal "the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and heralding the final form of human government--liberal democracy."

The arc of history is long. The consequences of what is happening in the Middle East are now in the hands of US President who understands neither foreign policy nor history.

Despite the efforts of educated, sophisticated policymakers such as George Kennan, Dean Acheson, FDR, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower, subsequent presidents and leaders were perfectly capable of destroying the building blocks of a world order of pax Americana and the alliances that have essentially made the world a safer place since the end of World War II.   The United Nations, has nobly attempted to create a better world, but has failed in many respects, including the inability to foster world peace through its own devices.  It must rely on the largesse of the member states, many of which only  look after their own interests.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, Fukuyama thought, was the end of history.  It was to be the rise of liberal democracies throughout the world.    How wrong was Fukuyama?  How difficult is it to predict the future?  Essentially the best of leaders, with the noblest of intentions are winging it, but now we should all be especially frightened.   A President caught in scandal, possible criminality, and obsessed with his own narcissism faces uncertainties, befuddling the best of statesman.

This president knows all the answers.  But is not a statesman.

When our founding fathers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Constitution, they designed an elaborate system of federalism dividing the powers, checks and balances among the states and the three branches of government, decided that they did not want a king and determined the term of office for the President as four years.   They wrote a second amendment guaranteeing a "well regulated militia" insuring the right to bear arms (flintlock muskets, not AR 15s.)  They decided they did not want a parliamentary system nor a prime minister.  They provided a provision for impeachment of the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors."   But they did not provide for a vote of no confidence nor a special election to put in place a new president for an administration gone haywire.  Two presidents have been impeached, but none ever convicted and removed.  They provided an electoral college that misapportioned power among the states, and allowed for the election of a minority vote getter.

This is the 21st century, not the 19th. It is time for a new constitutional convention.

Monday, March 26, 2018

The Second Amendment meets Musical Attorneys



The chairs keep revolving at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, like some horrible, warped Alice in Wonderland fantasy.  John Dowd quits, John Bolton the new national security adiviser and a new face appears, willing to attempt to tow the line for the boy king, now a caricature of himself.  Even Joseph de Genova, mob attorney, doesn't want to work for the sun king.

John Bolton aka Dr. Strangelove, wants to bomb North Korea preemptively and withdraw from the Iran deal is to be the new National Security Advisor.  No senate confirmation necessary.

Even the most conservative of Republicans are free traders.  The stock market gyrates, shakes and tumbles, resurging and gyrating, affected by the President's economic ignorance and fecklessness, him now busy with trying to bury the Muller investigation by demeaning the FBI, the CIA and the other national intelligence services, the heads of which, normally taciturn, are now speaking out against the scalawag President, the evil Chauncey Gardner inhabiting the office where the leader of the free world usually resides.  Stormy tells all on 60 Minutes.  Spanked the Donald, and told him not to blab about himself, and he shuts up and tells Stormy, "You are special."  Do you think that Evangelicals might care?  Probably not. Has our country been in worse trouble?  Yes.  We had a Civil War, a Cuban Missile crisis, 9/11, the Great Depression, World War II, Viet Nam and even Watergate.  John Dean, special counsel to the White House told Nixon that Watergate was a cancer growing on the Presidency.   And now, as an analyst for CNN says "that the Russia probe and Trump is Nixon on steroids and stilts."


At least during the Watergate crisis, involving all three branches of government, the Republicans in congress were represented by people like Howard Baker, and Lowell P. Weicker, who had a modicum of integrity and called for their President to resign or that they would have recommended impeachment.
Nixon knew the jig was up. but Trump, cannot see beyond his own mirror.  "Mirror, mirror on the wall, I am the smartest one of all. Only I can fix, fix for all.  Let's have a war with Iran or Rocket man."

Now, the pusillanimous Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, who fear Trump's wrath and the base that supports him, are cognitively dissonant remnants of  how America has changed since the 1970s.  Cultural diversity has incited a backlash of racism fueled by ignorance and fear, mobilized by Trump and his ilk, spouting hatred and a simplistic notion of how the world will be a better place if only immigrants and brown people were deported, making America white again.   Well it will not happen. "Get over it," to quote the late Antonin Scalia from an interview on 60 minutes when Lesley Stahl asked him whether he was bothered by the court throwing the election to George W. Bush, who ultimately invaded the wrong country, destabilized the middle east and ranks just above Trump on the Presidential scale of incompetence.   But at least he had some dignity, and is peacefully imitating his idol Winston Churchill by painting as a pastime, as encouraged by the great one's essay.  The comparison ends there, of course.
This circus has not been relived in my lifetime.  Young people, afraid to go to school march in Washington to the deafened ears of congressional acolytes of the NRA, their pockets bulging with cash from donations of gun toting miscreants who really believe that the second amendment allows them to carry assault rifles to go hunting, in this case, with human children and students as their quarry.

The second amendment should be repealed as argued by Bret Stevens, hardly a liberal, who writes that
"From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass."
His essay also argues that regulating guns from a "prospective right" Constitutional guarantee than from a privilege point of view, such as a driver's license, is an easier task.  No one wants to stop legitimate hunters, and farmers from shooting rodents and hunting Bambi or protecting themselves in their homes.
Turning schools into shooting galleries does not seem a wise solution either.

The young people who march will soon be voters, hoping to chase from office those who insouciantly treat their lives as fodder for gun-toting lunatics.