How long can we live with an unsustainable way of making war?

It's been a while since I've posted in this journal, but I finally have something important to say.

Our special military operation against (read: war) Iran has been going on for several months now, and what do we have gotten for it?  As I write this, we got 18 service members coming home in body bags, a depleted munitions stock, an aircraft carrier coming to port due to an under-supplied, emotionally exhausted crew, and hundreds of billions of dollars deeper in dept.  We did not get regime change in Iran.  We did not eliminate the potential nuclear threat Iran poses.  And we did not vanquish our "enemy".  Instead, we have shown that the US is a paper tiger, and that Iran has the power to shut off 20% of the world's oil supply.

Our president is known for taking action based on the voice of the last person who spoke to him.  In this case, he was suckered into starting a war by the leader of Israel, a fellow crook in his own right.  Previous presidents knew that a war with Iran could not be won, at least, not with the effort Americans were willing to put into the war.  But, by starting this war, we have already lost it.   But, if you ask our president, he'll say we're winning the war, and that the Strait of Hormuz is open for shipping.  Yet, he'll act like a little child when someone asks him a question which holds him to account for his mistakes.  His ego is so fragile, that by not admitting any of his failings, he is unable to learn from his mistakes.  As a result, he keeps doubling down on his lies, and no one trusts him anymore.  Yet, people are afraid of him due to his ability to rally members of his cult to attack his enemies.

America is now $40,000,000,000 in debt.  For the first time in history, we are now paying more in debt service than we pay for defense.  This can not last for long.  This president would cut social spending in order to preserve our war machine.  But what good would that do?  We can't even defeat an enemy like Iran.  Our military is not nimble.  We still act as if we need to fight the wars of the 20th century, instead of those we need to fight now.  Instead of retreating into 1940's military technology, as our president would do with our aircraft carriers, we should be at the forefront of 2020's military technology, as Ukraine has exhibited with its use of drone technology.  I ask the question: why haven't we planned for the use of drones in warfare, given Ukraine's success of holding its own against Russia.

Unmanned vehicles (air, land, and sea) are the future of warfare, as they can enable militaries to fight wars while keeping their service members well behind the scenes in relative safety.  For those near the front lines of battle, they can provide the tools for defense that older, more expensive military tools and weapons can not provide.  Unmanned vehicles are cheaper and more effective than older military technology.  They have allowed Ukraine, a nation without a navy, to defeat the Russian navy and make it an almost useless asset.  Ukraine has developed a new way to fight wars, and all our president did was to say that Ukraine didn't hold any cards.  And Ukraine has proven that it has a stronger hand than our president would admit by being able to attack Moscow with its drones.  If anything, our war with Iran has shown that we hold a weaker hand than our current regime wants to admit.

Given the cost of proven drone technology vs. the cost of our overpriced military technology, I see a potential to kill several birds with one stone.  First, we can no longer afford to enforce a "Pax Americana" as we did for the second half of the 20th century.  So, let's wind it down to areas we can defend, and have other nations form healthy regional alliances for defense.  Second, let's take she savings from winding down the "Pax Americana" and do three things with it: (a) develop drone technology with Ukraine and build up stockpiles which both countries can use, (b) plug up holes in our social safety net (especially in healthcare, and (c) pay down our national debt.

Iran has tactics which it is using that we are not matching.  If propaganda is meant to modify public opinion, it is a cheap weapon in this internet age.  While our president is posting AI Slop on his social media accounts, the Iranians are posting entertaining "Lego Stories" on their feeds.  What's worse, as they are much more factual than the garbage our president is presenting as "Truth".  Truth Social is anything but truth.  Yet, Iran's videos cost almost nothing, spread further than our president's Truth Social posts, and contain more truth.  Who do you think should be believed?  Iran, a country who has said "Death to America" in the past, is no longer saying that (for now).  They are directing their anger (rightfully) towards our President and his regime.  What does this say for the legitimacy of the two contries' ruling elites?

The British empire fell because Britain couldn't afford to maintain it. As a result, it had to deal with decades of national decline. America is well on the same path to a similar national failure that could cripple us for generations.  And yet, our president's incompetency has given us an opportunity if we are wise enough to seize it.  Things are so FUBAR (F'd up beyond all recognition) that radical change may just be possible.  Licensing Ukrainian drone technology might help our military become more nimble and cost effective.  It may help America rebuild its industrial logistics, so that we can again build civilian products in the US, as we did with the aircraft and space industries.  We can learn from the past, and choose to take a different path than those who preceded us.

The big question is:  Will we learn the lessons of the past and make good choices.  I'm hoping that America will follow the lead of a wise woman (Mae West) who said: "Whenever given the choice between two evils, I'll choose the one I haven't chosen before."  It's time for something new, and even a bad choice of something new is better than the continued choices of something old we have been making as of late. 

The Fascists only control SOME of the levers of government - we still have hope

This past month, we have seen the murders of 2 American Citizens by Trump's Gestapo, ICE. His henchmen are labeling these killings as people wrongfully interfering with law enforcement activities in their propaganda releases.  But the public is starting to see through these lies.

Right now, we have both a worthless Congress and corrupt Supreme Court who are more than willing to make this country a fascist state. The rights given to all Americans under the first, second, and fourth amendments to our only apply for our 21st century Nazis.  For the rest of us, the Bill of Rights and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are worthless as long as the Trump is in power.   

What is happening in Minnesota can be seen as cruelty designed to intimidate the American public, something meant to trigger anticipatory obedience to authoritarian leadership.  This is exactly what happened in Germany during the 1930's.  Gradually, laws were implemented so that people wouldn't notice the erosion of their civil and human rights.  We're seeing that in the USA right now.  First, the Snowflake attacked Transgenders and their history.  (Look at what happened to the Stonewall national monument.)  Next, he started to erase the history of Blacks, Latinos, and other Minority Americans from national parks and other federally administered historic sites. And now, he's trying to erase America's "Original Sin", Slavery.  It's as if the White race could do no harm, and that everyone else was a criminal class not fit for America.

Currently, ICE is paying recruitment bonuses of up to $50,000 to new recruits.  This wouldn't be bad if they went through the full training that State Police and the FBI goes through - months of in-person training.  With ICE, it's less than 8 weeks of online training from what I remember.  How can anyone deal with potentially dangerous situations that could escalate to violence by only online training?  It's as if the design of this training is meant to encourage dangerous escalations.

Why is this happening?  The Gurdian has reported that Trump has cut funding for ICE body cameras, as well as for personnel oversight.  Elsewhere, it has been reported that Trump wants control of Minnesota's voter rolls and its public assistance rolls.  So what is really going on at another level?  As I see it, Trump will try and disqualify as many likely Democratic voting Minnesotans from voting, so that he can engineer a GOP majority in the House.  Additionally, he could be waiting for violence to break out, so that he can invoke the insurrection act and make it impossible for people to vote, also preserving the GOP majority in the House.

For the most part, we still can regain control of the House this year if we work for it.  Yes, we will have to keep our cool and stay non-violent even though Trump's Gestapo imprisons and and tries to kill us to force submission.  We need to remember the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, and how Blacks gained de jure Equal Rights, albeit not de facto Equal Rights.  In my lifetime, we've seen people like Martin Luther King Jr. change from being seen as agitators to being national heroes worth honoring.  Trump wants to erase this movement.  We must not let it happen.

How do we stop him?  Simply make sure that as many people as possible see the truth.  Even MAGA loyalists are starting to say - "we didn't sign up for this."  There are some signs that even Fox "News" is souring on Trump as he descends further and further into dementia.  We must do our damnedest to prevent him from invoking the insurrection act, while also preventing him from asserting Federal control over state elections.  Once we gain control over one part of the legislative branch, we can cause Trump a lot of grief.  But first, we have to get there. 

 

Are we still heading towards Fascism?

 

Are we still heading towards Fascism, or are we already there?  That's a question that bothers most of us, as we are seeing the GOP repeat the same old lies.  They feel that is a lie is repeated enough, people will begin to accept the lie as truth - the same tactic the Joseph Goebbels used in Nazi Germany during the 1930's.  Yet, only the unthinking proletarians in the party actually believe this bunkum and act against their own interests, while the cynical elite gains from these lies. 

But why do I ask the question as "Still Heading Towrards" Fascism?  The answer lies in what is being reported by both the mainstream (old) media, and that being reported by "independent" (new) media, such as YouTube videos and Podcasts. Lately, I have found that the quality of the independent media varies greatly, as both progressives and conservatives tend to spin the news to favor their groups.  Yet, these same people are covering things that old media isn't reporting, such as our president's gradually failing health.

Yet, the question still remains: Have we become a Fascist state?

If we haven't become a Fascist state, we are awfully close to becoming one.  High level military officials have resigned, rather than carry out unlawful orders. DOJ Prosecutors have regigned, rather than subject people on our president's "enemies list" to wrongful prosecutions, and people are actively protesting in the streets.  Our president (and his henchmen) have called the recent "No Kings" protests as Anti-American.  What about protest is Anti-American?  Our country was built on protest, and our civil rights were gained through protest.  The ability to protest without fear is essential to a functioning democratic republic.  And we still have that ability for now.

The warning signs of impending fascism are disturbing.  We have a president who has caused major broadcast networks to cancel their late night comedic hosts for skewering him in their monologues.  (Fortunately, public outrage forced the network to restore one of these late night hosts to his platform.) This man labels any network who tries to report the news fairly as "Fake News" and reduces access to their reporters when they ask him embarrassing questions. To make things worse, the president has violated the "Posse Comitatus" law, preventing the use of the US Military for domestic policing activities. This man keeps testing the limits of our republic, and has so far found little push back against him.

So what can be done?

Right now, we need to "force" the old media to report all the facts available.  This will mean write-in campaigns, as well as using the new media to cover our resistance efforts.  Most Americans, including MAGALoonies have a sense of right and wrong.  Expose the crimes being committed by the current regime in ways that get their attention, and that's half the battle of winning their hearts.  Right now, people consume their news within news bubbles.  Find ways to break into the bubbles to get our voices heard.  Once people start to feel how unjust this regime is, its support will fall off.  The war in Vietnam ended because key voting blocks stopped giving the government the support it needed to continue the war.  The same can happen to this law-breaking regime.     

Some modest proposals for Government Reform.

 

Image of Johnathan Swift

Years ago, Johnathan Swift made a "Modest Proposal" to deal with starving related to the Irish Potato Famine.  It was satirical and meant as social commentary.  However, my set of "Modest Proposals" are much more serious, and are related to changes we can make to the United States Constitution to promote a more responsive government that serves the will and needs of the people.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments:

28. Direct voting for President/Vice President.

The current method of electing presidents is imperfect, due in part to the unequal power of an individual citizen's vote.  A voter for "Candidate A" in California has 1/3  the voting power as that of a voter in Wyoming who votes for "Candidate B" due to the nature of allocating electors in the Electoral College.

What I propose is direct popular vote for the presidency/vice presidency.  If no candidate pairing gets an absolute majority, a follow-up vote between the top 2 candidates takes place 4 weeks a fter the general election.

29. Recall Voting.

All elected offices in the federal government will be subject to recall if any one of the following conditions are met:

A. For the president or vice president of the United States:

- If the legislatures of 60% of the states vote for recall.

- If  5% of citizens in each state, 60% of all states vote for recall.

If a  recall election is called for, this official must receive 50.1% affirmative votes to remain in office.  Otherwise, the next in line for presidential succession will take his place for a presidential recall.  In the case of a vice presidential recall, the office is declared vacant, and the president may nominate a new person for the vice presidency.

B. For Congressmen/women and Senators:

                   -  If 5% of the citizens of the congressional district (for congressmen) or 5% of the citizens
                      of the state (for senators)  vote for recall:

          If a recall election is called for, this official must recieve 50.1% affirmative votes to remain
          in office.  Otherwise, a new election for this office must be held within 60 days of recall.

30.  Term Limits for Federal Office Holders.

        Upon enaction of this amanement, all currently serving elected office holders are exempt from
        term limits for the offices they hold.    

        A. No president may serve more than 10 years in total as president.  

        B. Senators and Congressmen are limited to 18 years of service in each office.

        C. Supreme court justices will be limited to 18 years in office.  The longest serving justice on the
             court must retire on 2 year intervals, so that 2 justices will  be replaced in every presidential 
             term.  In cases of death, inability to serve, resignations, or other early departures from the
             court, the president may nominate a new justice to complete the former justice's 18 year term.

        D. The supreme court may have no less than 9 active members or no more than 13 active members/
             If the court is expanded beyond 9 members, a random selection of 9 members must be selected
             to hear any cases before it.

31. All federal office holders must adhere to a code of conduct enacted by congress, and be subject to
      the rule of law.

      A. The president is subject to all laws governing his actions.  No immunity may be given by any
           court for actions which have been prohibited by congress.  

      B.  No federal office holder may profit from inside knowledge of information gathered by the
            government.  All insider trading laws that currently apply to the citizenry must apply to all
            federal office holders.

      C.  All federal office holders are required to faithfully exercise the powers of their offices.  Failure
            to do so will subject them to penalties under the law (both civil and criminal) after leaving
            office (in the case of the president) or while in office (for all other office holders).

32. Repeal of the 11th amendment.  All states are subject to federal law, and may be sued by individuals
      in Federal courts.

33. All territories of the United States with populations larger than the smallest population state will
      be offered the right to vote for statehood every 10 years.  If the population of that territory elects to
      become a state, it will immediately be given the number of seats in the house and senate based on
      its population.

34. The apportionmet act of 1929 is to be repealed, with the formula for allocating representatives in the
      House of representatives based on the law which was supposed to be used for the 1920 census.  

35. Three senators to be elected by each state, with one seat open for election every 2 years.  

36. Election Reforms:

      A. No individual or corporation may contribute more than $5,000 to any election campaign,
           nor may any individual or campaign bundle its contributions to a campaign..  

      B. Campaign ads may only be shown within 2 months of any election.

      C. All votes to be tallied and totals reported within 3 days of any election.

      D. People running for office may only use verifiable facts in their campaign literature and
           speeches.  Deliberate lies will result in diswqualification for the office being saught.

37. Revocation of Presidential Pardons.

      On adoption of this amendment, The House and Senate may repeal a presidential pardon if
      both houses vote for a repeal with a 60% majority for a period of 6 months.  Afterwards,
      Any presidential pardon issued within the last 6 months of a president's term may be repealed
      in the first 6 months of the new president's term.

38. Neutrality in designing congressional districts.

      On adoption of this amendment, all states have 90 days to have a non-partisan committee to
      draw up new congressional districts for the following congressional election.  Failure to show
      that a state's congressional districts have not been gerrymandered may subject all people
      responsible for illegal district design for criminal punishment, which may include the death
      penalty.

I have kept this list as short as possible.  Ideally, I'd have been able to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" for all domestic news and opinion sources: Print Media, Broadcast Media, and Internet Sources from within the USA.  This would have prevented both left and right from distorting fact and presenting misinformation labeled as "news".  Additionally, I would have looked to put guardrails on the right to keep and bear arms, so that crazy people can't own guns.  However, I would want the public to retain the power to overthrow the government when the ballot box is ignored or corrupted.  Realistically, I don't expect anything like these changes to be adopted.  But they should serve to start an honest discussion of what is needed to be fixed, so that our nation lasts another 250 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarence Darrow said it best.

 

"I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction."

Clarence Darrow

Recently, a right wing activist was murdered. No one important on the left is justifying his murder, but many are glad that this man is dead - he spewed hatred gussied up to sound acceptable to the younger generation. Although some of his points may have been valid (I never bothered to listen to this man's arguments), the general overtone of his messages have seduced people into believing the falsehoods spewed out by the right wing media. A quick look at the statistics will show that there are 3 times as many right wing assassinations than left wing assassinations in the USA. Yet, the right wing media conveniently ignores the murders committed by their loyalists and focuses on those from the left. Media bias in action to say the least.

I will never condone murder of any kind. Yet I wonder. If I could go back in time and erase the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others from history, would it be ethical to save millions of people by removing one from the earth? It's a simple case of the "Trolley Problem" on a larger scale. Most people would do nothing and let god (if there is one) decide. It is the rare person who would terminate the one person's life to save five lives. Yet, this is what many generals are tasked to do in wartime. So we have an ethical dilemma - what would you do? Sadly, there is no one right answer to problems like this. We can be glad that someone is dead. But we must prosecute the murderer to the best of our ability and get the guilty verdict he so rightly deserves.

- - - - - -

Right now, we are in a battle for our freedom. We can not use violence to achieve our ends, now that an authoritarian regime is in control of the federal government. If someone were to use terrorist tactics to attack the government, it would only result in an even more forceful crackdown on our personal liberties. So, what should we do?

It is said that people who chose not to study history are doomed to make the mistakes of the past But people who know history are able to see patterns of evil and use proven strategies to combat evil used by others in the past. Now is the time to study the tactics and strategies of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohatma Gandhi. Although both leaders were asassinated, they achieved much of what they wanted in life. For Dr. King, he helped America realize that equal rights for all must become part of America's DNA. For Gandhi, it was the liberation if India from British rule.

I can still remember this man who stood in front of a row of Chinese tanks. What would happen if more of us were to stand in front of our president's goons and capture them on video as they break the law and attack innocent people? We already have seen his goons sink a Quebecers' boat on Lake Ticonderoga (on the small Canadian part of the lake) claiming he was in American waters. We have seen his goons sink a Venezualan boat with the false claim they were smuggling drugs into America. And to make things worse, the regime has deported American citizens, all in its attempts to "Make America White Again."

What can we do to short curcuit our president's evil actions? The only answer lies in non violent actions. Blockading ICE vehicles when they are harassing people is one thing to do. Video recording their illegal actions and sending it to the media (YouTube.com, Print Media, and Broadcast media) is an essential way to expose their crimes. There are many more things that one can do non violently. Any form of non violent resistance is essential. One should read how Dr. King and Gandhi achieved their goals, and use their methods.

Hopefully, we're not too late to stop this slide to authoritarianism....

No one stood for anything except their desire for power

The second debate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.  Like most political debates, it was rich on talking points, and poor on any real substance.  

- - - - - -

During the first debate, only two candidates would say that they considered Trump unfit to serve as president.  It was fitting that there is no venom as strong as that from a politician who feels as if he was previously denied his place as #2 on the presidential ticket.  Chris Christie was that man.  Everyone else that made it to the second debate was willing to kiss the ass of Trump so that they could be his VP choice for the 2024 nomination.  

Why is this important?

The GOP no longer has any leaders who can steer the party away from the cult of Trump.  The only hope for the GOP would be for Trump to eat a prescribed diet from the Heart Attack Grill in Las Vegas, and pass away like its former spokesman.  Virtually all the candidates are afraid of Trump's followers, as many have used violence (or the threat of violence) to intimidate GOP leaders who believe in real law and order.  So, they avoid taking positions against him, even though they wish hed go away and give the GOP a better chance of winning next November.

90 years ago, another democracy was under threat from a cult leader (and his followers) who believed that his will would triumph over all.  Heck, a movie (Triumph of the Will) was made at one of his rallies won the a gold medal at the 1935 Venice Biennale, and the Grand Prix at the 1937 World Exhibition in Paris.  His nation was under great social stress as ours is today, and like Trump, he promised redemption.  True redemption never came, as this leader led his country into war and its distruction 6 years later.  Established politicians thought they could control this monster, as they once thought they could control Trump.  But the cult got out of control, and the evil leader ended up ruling everyone by fear - as is the threat if we let Trump get back into power.

- - - - - -

One problem with cults is that no one likes to admit that what they are part of is a cult.  The cult has its own myths that must be accepted to be a believer, and has its own reinforcement mechanisms to prevent its followers from questioning the cults beliefs or leaving the cult.  Some cults are benign, only affecting the lives of their followers.  Heaven's Gate was one of those groups, even though everything ended in a mass suicide.  Jim Jones' People's Temple cult was more malignant, as a congressman investigating the cult and 4 members who wanted to leave were murdered before the mass suicide in Jonestown.  (This is from where we get the expression "Drinking the Kool-Aid.")  But worst of all so far, is the cult of Trump.  At least 6 outsiders died as a result of the January 6th insurrection.  And yet, 35% of GOP members believe that the rioters were defending their country.  What flavor of Kool-Aid did they drink?

On January 7, 2021, most GOP legislators were willing to speak the objective truth about the soon to be former president.  Yet, within 2 weeks, they became afraid of their base and decided against impeaching him a second time (and finally convicting him for a threat against their lives.)  The leaders are afraid of the cult, and its leader is still spewing venom.  Trump has no respect for the rule of law, as it has never been effectively used to stop him from achieving his goals.  His followers have no respect for the rule of law, as they only want it applied to people who are not members of his cult.

- - - - - -

As I write this, one of the extremist members of Trump's cult is calling for the removal of the Speaker of the House for cutting a deal with the opposition party to keep the government running.  These extremists do not care how many people in their districts will be hurt by a government shutdown.  They only care about serving their cult's leader.  And he wants to destroy the government, so that it can not destroy him.

The year coming up will likely be a very interesting year.  But I yearn for the relative peace of my youth.  Things were much better when the two political parties would work out deals with other and both take credit for doing good things.  We need that spirit to return, and we need to develop mechanisms to keep the lunatics from gaining control of the asylum....

What happens when two peoples have title to the same land?

 

A lot of noise is being made in regard to the war between Hamas and Israel.  Sadly, most people around the world are getting misinformation, and sound bites aimed to keep their respective ethnic groups supporting corrupt leaderships.  In the case of the current Middle East conflict, the reality on the ground is much more nuanced than most people are led to believe.

A little over 100 years ago, allied powers forced the Ottoman Empire to divest itself of lands outside of Asia Minor.  This meant that control of lands such as Lebanon and Palestine (I'm using the older meaning of this place name, and not today's meaning here) were ceded to Western powers such as France and the United Kingdom.  Unlike the Ottomans, the French and British ran these lands in a ham-fisted manner.  Neither cared much about the delicate interactions that took place between Christian, Muslim and Jew.  In some cases, the same land was promised to multiple ethnic groups as payment for a temporary peace.

After World War 2, there was pressure on the UK to divide Palestine into a Muslim and a Jewish state.  However, leaders on the Muslim side did not accept compromise, and in the late 1940's Israel had to fight for its right to be a Jewish homeland.  Muslims who stayed on their land and cut peace deals with the Jewish state to be were allowed to stay and have full rights in the Jewish state.  Sadly, the Muslims who fought against the Jewish state to be could not be allowed to return to their ancestrial lands.

Today's Palestine (which contains areas belonging to Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza) is not a two-state solution which has been talked about since the 1940's.  Palestinian Muslims have been herded into both the West Bank and Gaza.  This might not have been such a bad thing, if Jewish settlers hadn't turned the West Bank into a "Swiss Cheese" of a territory - what could have been a Palestinian homeland is dotted with illegal Israeli settlements due to population pressures in the Israeli state.  The Israeli state doesn't care to remove these settlements to lay the groundwork for a healthy Muslim Palestine to evolve.  The people have no political rights.  And what rights they do have are often ignored by the Israeli government for reasons of political expediency. 

To make things worse, the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, and is not trusted by the people.  In the West Bank, they selected Fatah to run a government, and things have been tolerably calm (until now).  But, in Gaza, things are much different.  This part of Palestine is run by Hamas, and hasn't held an election since it took power over 15 years ago.  Unlike Fatah, Hamas has both acted like a government AND retained its goal of the total destruction of Israel.  There is no room for Israel to compromise when its neighbor advocates for Israel's total destruction.

Palestinian Muslims say that the Jews did not have a right to come in and take their land.  But how long should a claim to land exist?  The Jews were pushed out of Palestine by the Romans.  Should their claim to a homeland be denied?  But this question got me to thinking about North America.  Europeans came to North America over 500 years ago, and displaced the native peoples.  Should we be forced out?  How should the legitimate rights of the natives to their land be dealt with?  Does might make right?  In the US, we have evolved a tolerable middle ground (tolerable for "old world" settlers, that is) that allocates "reservations" (unless that have valuable resources) to native tribes.  We have a peace based on both higher population and on superior technology.  The native tribes accept our existence on what was their lands and have found ways to live in peace with us.

A while back, a prominent US politician stated that Israel will either be an apartheid Jewish state with no rights for Palestinian Muslims, or it will be forced to become a non-religious state to survive.  Previous Israeli inaction in regard to the West Bank settlements may have made a two-state solution impossible.  But what does this mean for options which may lead to a meaningful peace?

As I see it, Hamas must be vanquished at all costs.  At the same time, Israel must work with Fatah to make the West Bank a viable, functioning Palestinian state.  Peaceful actions must be rewarded, as much as they may make Israel uncomfortable.  Violence must be crushed with extreme prejudice.  A future Palestinian state may have to be sacrifice Gaza in order to become a truly independent state.  Yet, the question of Gaza remains.  Can Israel destroy Hamas' leadership in Gaza without a scorched earth policy?  No matter what, I expect to see many innocent Gazans die because Hamas wanted to prevent a grand peace deal from becoming reality.

But what can be done?

Muslims and Jews both self-select "news" that supports their own beliefs that they alone should be in control of historical Palestine.  Outside regional forces have reinforced the views on the "Arab street" that Israel can never be up to any good.  Arab media is just as biased as American media outlets such as Fox, Newsmax, and ONN have been in the United States.  Even if one was to force the media outlets to only report objective news without biased opinions from bloviating media stars, it would take generations to undo the damage caused by information biases.

So, what do I see happening?

The Grand Deal regaring Mideast Peace has been scuttled for a while, but it will return.  The Saudis have too much at risk to allow Iran to gain more power.  The Turks (successors to the Ottomans) will try to gain influence in this region, possibly by turning itself into a peace broker.  The Iranians will continue to try to stir up trouble by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.  But this will be a losing effort, as forces allied with the Saudis and the Turks will quietly work with Israel to defeat Iran.  Israel will get involved in a protracted ar with Hamas, keeping Gazans imprisoned in their small strip of land, as they are a danger to any land that accepts them - including a West Bank Palestinian state.  

Now, what happens to innocent Gazans?

Israel needs to clean Hamas out of Gaza.  It may need to rebuild Gaza as a Hamas free zone and pay for the rebuilding of Gazan infrastructure.  But it will not govern Gaza - this has been proven unworkable in the past.  Part of a potential peace deal might involve the temporary administration of Gaza by a third power, a transitional government and media structure geared to "teach" Gazans how to live in the modern world and demand a government that responds to their needs first.  Until then, we will have war....

The Trump Presidential Library - An Oxymoron and a Joke

Has anyone ever noticed that after a president leaves office, funds are reserved for a library that will hold all papers related to the former president's time in office?  Similar libraries exist for notable politicians from both parties whose papers are worthy of cataloging and being made available to the public for research.  

Presidential papers are considered public property under Federal Law and almost all former presidents have chosen sites where their non-classified records are available for research.  For example, former President Obama chose to have his presidential library in Chicago, Il.  President Clinton chose to have his presidential library in Little Rock, AR.  However, notably absent from this list of former presidents having publicly accessable research centers is former President Trump.  If one accesses the government website for his library, it is merely a spaceholder.  No building yet extsts at this time, nor it it likely to exist any time soon.

Why is this important?

Unlike our other former presidents, Trump is not known for having things put down on paper for future reference.  Like all grifters, he knows that any and all forensic evidence can and will be used against him in a court of law.  And that's what's happening right now in New York, Florida, Georgia, and Washington, DC. with Trump's 4 indictments.

Do I think Trump will be re-elected?  The odds against it aren't overwhelming.  There are way too many followers in his cult who act as if he's a messenger sent by god.  (As for me, Jake and Elwood Blues were the only characters I know who were on a mission from god.  But I digress.)  Given a choice of rational understanding and irrational faith, irrationality wins every time.  This is why cults are dangerous - they can cause a lot of trouble for non-believers.

Right now, the Florida case against Trump has to be litigated.  He claimed that all of the presidential papers are his property and not public property as his initial defense.  According to the presidential records act, this is a bogus claim.  He claimed to have declassified the classified documents, all without proof.  Again, this is a bogus claim.  But what is most notable here is that none of the unclassified presidential papers would be in a publically accessible library, given Trump's actions.

So what is available so far?

If one examines the Research page on Trump's presidential records website, the two key resources are his archived websites and his archived social media.  There are no books or letters to be found.  This is what one would expect from a mob boss and not a president.  It takes dogged prosecutors to do the research needed to convict a mob boss, and the same is needed to convict a grifting ex-president. Yet, like mob bosses, it will be hard to obtain a conviction, as there is little recorded evidence.

I expect that unlike all other presidents, that Trump's presidential library will end up being the side of a tiny book library found on Amazon for $249.95 (at time of writing). At least, someone has taken the time to archive all of his tweets and websites.

The looming threat

Our former president's mug shot.  

No matter what they say about Trump, things could be worse.  The man was totally incompetant and not able to change the nature of our political system, but he came close to doing so.  He normalized being openly hateful of vulnerable minorities, and unleashed a movement of malcontents which will likely survive his potential incarceration. 

So why do I say that there is a looming threat?

Several things have happened as a result of this man's time in office.  First, this man has said that if he regains the office of president, he will attempt to consolidate political power in the executive branch.  This is dangerous, as our system was designed to work (or, not work, as of late) with the powers of each branch of government being checked and balanced by the other two.  Second, this man has only anger to propel him.  He has never forgiven the public, nor the honest officials that some may have elected, for not putting him in office for a second term.  What revenge would he try to take at the expense of his perceived enemies?  Most elected leaders in his party are afraid of his cult, and are following his mob to stay in office.

But what happens if this man is not nominated to be his party's presidential nominee?  Will the followers of his cult believe that the elections weren't rigged?  On 01/06/21, we saw the violence that his cult was capable of.  Could it happen again?  What if the man were convicted in one of the courts? Even worse would be the chaos that might happen if the election were close.  For years, Americans have been self-selecting into like-minded communities.  People live in communication bubbles where they select news from sources that reinforce their views, and find it hard to imagine how others could have different views when "the truth" should be self apparent.  If you lived in Rural America, watched Fox "News" on a regular basis, and have been trained by your church to see the world in binary terms, would you be able to challenge the orthodoxy that you've been fed for years?  Wouldn't you want to defend your country from "criminals" from the left?

Years ago, Senator John McClain held a campaign rally where one of his loyal GOP constituents started labeling then Senator Barack Obama as a communist traitor.  Senator McClain interrupted this woman, saying that Senator Obama was a good man with whom he had political differences.  Could anyone see this happening today, where radicals from the far right are calling for President Biden's impeachment? The leaders of one political party have enough "sober" people to govern, while the other's leaders are afraid of the mob who elected our former president.

In 2016, our former president ran for office with the campaign slogan:  

Make America Great Again

Did any of his constituents ever ask: 

When did America stop being great?  

Why is America not great anymore?  

What needs to be done to make America great again?

I never heard any of these questions answered to my satisfaction.  Instead, MAGA anger comes from people who have lost their place in society.  They see our former president as someone who would (at least) give lip service to their feelings, if not restore their former positions in the larger society.

The next year, the former president held a campaign rally in Charlottesville, where he effectively said that there were good people in the neo-Nazi movement :

“You had some very bad people in that group,

 but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

Once a person implies that there some good neo-Nazis, where does permission to act on one's hatred end?  I can still remember chants of:

"Jews will not replace us!"

As if any self respecting Jew would want for his/her children to grow up with skills so limited that they could not earn a good living.  What successful person of any ethnic group would want for their child to become a bagger at the local Piggly Wiggly?  Many of the MAGAloons are poorly educated, resistant to change, and follow bombastic leaders without bothering to ask: "Does what they are saying make sense?"  They gravitate to "strongmen" who say things that validate their feelings, and not to people who understand the nuances of objective truths.

So, what is the looming threat?

In short, the threat is that our ex-president has unleashed a monster that can not be sent back to its cave before it causes a lot of destruction.  As I started writing this, Jacksonville, FL is dealing with the aftermath of a white nationalist killing 3 black people at a local supermarket.  What will it take to stop this?  I don't know.  But if the ex-president again comes anywhere near the levers of power, god help us.

A potential constitutional crisis

 

Most people know that I lean a little bit left of today's center.  By historical standards, I would have been a "Goldwater Republican."  That is, I don't want the government legislating or enforcing morality, I don't want government needlessly interfering with business, and I want to limit the functions of government to those things it can do well.  Sadly, the GOP has shifted to being a radical right wing party, one that looks to use government as a tool to quietly(?) reverse civil rights gains we've had over the last 60 years, one that looks to subsidize big business and billionaires at the expense of the working person, one that would use morality as an excuse to mistreat people whose looks and bahaviors differ from the fundamentalist White Christian Males who have historically had power in this country.

Our founding fathers understood that our nation was imperfect from the beginning.  The Preabmble to The Declaration of Independance opens with:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of  Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

They knew that men are imperfect, and that governments derive their power from the people.  It continues with:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.

But here lies the problem with the January 6th insurrection.  The majority of the people were happy with our system of government.  They were not happy with the actions of a government that no longer seemed to care about their needs.  And they were ripe to become part of a cult which would enable a despot to overthrow the government while leaving a shadow of its structure intact.

The heart of the Washington, DC indictment of Donald Trump says that he was trying to overturn the electoral college election of Joseph Biden by interfering with the counting of the votes from the 50 states (plus DC).  Assuming that Trump is convicted, he could be considered to have engaged in an insurrection against the United States, as some conservatives are now posing.  Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the constitution reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Since there is no chance that the Democrats in either house will vote to remove this disability, what would happen if lunatics in the GOP make Trump its 2024 presidential nomines?  I pose that we could have a constitutional crisis if the following events occur:

1. Trump wins the GOP nomination.
2. Trump is convicted on January 6th issues (and maybe, Georgia RICO as well)
3. Trump wins the Electoral College.
4. Trump is ruled ineligible to serve as president during 2024 (case on rapid appeal to SCOTUS.  SCOTUS says Trump ineligible.)
5. Electoral college vote in chaos.

Since Trump would be ineligible to serve as president and the electoral college hasn't voted, what happens next?  Some states' EC election laws would commit electors to vote for Trump/President & Mate/Vice President.  Other states' laws might allow electors to vote for VP as President, but who gets VP vote?  Even more confusing, we could have issues of "Faithless Electors."  Could the election go to the house?  Could we see a President of one party and a Vice President of the other?  28 years ago, Jeff Greenfield wrote a book about this problem, albeit in an era where we couldn't dream of a criminal being elected as president.  Now, the electoral college risk is much worse, and people need to understand it.

Right now, we must start thinking of amending the us constitution to deal with the issue of what happens if a President/Vice President slate is elected by the 50 states (plus DC), and one member of the pair becomes ineligible to serve or unable to serve before the electoral college elects a President/Vice President slate, or before it takes office.  As part of this amendment, we also need to fix the anomaly of what would happen if the presidential election goes to the House of Representatives, and the vice presidential election goes to the Senate.  Currently, if this were to happen, we could see a President elected from one party, and a Vice President from the other.  Maybe we need to make sure that both legislative houses agree on both the president and vice president as a pair before the president is considered selected.

Language - We all use it, but not well.

This is one of my favorite scenes from Blazing Saddles.  To me, it is one of the best anti-racist films ever made.  And that's because of Brooks' use of language.  Could you imagine the impact of this scene if it were limited to politically correct language?  Try this comparison:

"One move, or the black fellow gets it!"

or

"One move, or the n----r gets it!"

Which is more funny in the context of this film?  Given how dumb the racist whites in the film are being shown to be, I feel the latter line used by Brooks has a greater impact in more ways than one.

- - - - - -

What a person says, how it is said, and the context in which something is said gives much meaning to an utterance.  This is why Germany has strict rules regarding the display of Nazi symbols to this era.  I find it sad that America has greater freedom in the use of Nazi symbols, and with it, a larger neo-Nazi movement.  Sadly, symbols can carry meaning more effectively than words. And during the Trump era, we've seen more Swastikas and Confederate Battle Flags on display than I'd ever have dreamed would be socially acceptable in any part of America.

I was sickened when our former president said "there were good people on both sides" when referring the the Charlottetown protests.  Are Nazi sympathizers good?  How so?  Does this mean that black rights are bad?  I still remember them chanting "Jews will not replace us."  How can they do that, given how few there are in this country?  Maybe, it's because these people don't want want to invest in the education needed to get the jobs of the future?  Maybe, it's because these people don't want to move to where the jobs are?  Maybe, it's because they don't value people who are not as bigoted as they are, and employers reject them because they want a healthy workplace?

Over time, we saw how bad a person our 45th president was. Recently, Business Insider posted an article noting how the Russians have been cultivating this man as an asset for years. The article links to another in the Guardian, that references a new book on the KGB's development of assets in America. Given what is now known about our 45th president, it's easy to see how a foreign power could manipulate a person's use of words to harm a nation while plausible deniability is spread all around.

It's hard for me to say this, but maybe we need guardrails on the 1st amendment.  Germany strictly regulates the use of Nazi symbols.  But it does allow them to be used.  How many of us know that in a country that generally prohibits the use of the Swastika, that Mel Brooks was allowed to use it in a theater where "The Producers" was being performed?  Yet, Germany prohibited the use of the image outside the theater. So, a pretzel flag was used instead. Even Germany realizes that a symbol of hate has to be exposed to the contempt it deserves.  

- - - - - -

Sometimes, freedom of religion conflicts with other people's property rights.  Several years ago, a bunch of ultra orthodox Jews sued to allow their Eruv to be extended from Rockland County, NY into neighboring areas of New Jersey.  What couldn't be openly discussed in the courts is that the neighboring New York religious community had a much higher rate of poverty (50%-60% on public assistance) than in the community on the New Jersey side of the border. The folk in New Jersey wanted to keep their parks for their own community, and not be crowded out by outsiders.  They wanted to make sure that their properties would not be bought out, then turned into illegal multi family homes.  The 1st amendment actually got in the way of free and responsible speech in this case.

- - - - - -

All of our freedoms come with responsibility.  Sometimes they come into conflict with each other.  When I contrast our 45th president's encouragement of a mob storming the capitol on January 6th with the court battle regarding the Eruv, I see evil (as evidenced by the 1/06/21 mob) vs. good (both sides of the Eruv dispute).  In the former case, people had no respect for the law, and would use any and all tools to get what they want.  In the latter case, the court system was responsibly used.  Although the settlement was not perfect, it is being adhered to, and has had a peaceful outcome.  

Language when used effectively is powerful. But without law, it can also be dangerous.  My question is: Do we need explicit limits on 1st amendment freedoms?

Is there a peeing section in the swimming pool?

 

Soon, our four year ordeal will be over.  The minute that Joe Biden takes office will be the minute that Donald Trump can be indicted on State level charges of election fraud.  No amount of Federal pardons can keep any of the states from indicting an ex president.  In fact, it is possible that the mere acceptance of a federal pardon will provide the admission of state level crimes.

Even if Donald Trump spends the rest of his days in prison, the disease he represents is still affecting America.  There are still too many people whose lives have been destroyed by globalism, as our coastal elites have not provided safety nets, nor have they provided meaningful employment to those left behind by global trade.  The people in the heartland have a legitimate grievance against the coastal elites, as the elites have benefitted as the expense of the American working class.  

Although Trump is a grifter who played well out of his league, he finally got caught due to his own failings. Many of Trump's supporters never look inward to determine the nature of their problems. If they did, they would see that they continually make bad choices, and then blame their failures on others.  So it only makes sense that these people chose a "bigger than life" persona to represent their interests.  Unfortunately, they didn't bother to look at this man carefully.  If they did, they might have seen the grifter who no major American bank would lend money to.  They might have seen one of the few men who could lose money running casinos - something very hard to do in this world.  They might have seen a man who was posing to be a false messiah.  And they might have seen a very little man behind an emerald green curtain. In short, with a little bit of effort, they would have seen someone who had only his own interest at heart, and would play them for suckers once again.

Years ago, I read a news article about a young man in Appalachia who asked his state's senator for career advice.  The senator gave the young man honest advice, telling the young man to leave.  There was no opportunity for him in his state.  The senator realized that his  state's would retain political power if it cound keep poor people from moving away for better opportunities. Yet, he was honest enough to give good advice to the young man.  What would have you done if you were that senator?  And this is the nature of the problem for many in the heartland.  There are not enough good opportunities to go around, and politicians often have interests which conflict with the needs of the people they represent.

Many of the coal mining companies in Appalachia are winding down their operations.  They know that the days of coal as a fuel are numbered.  Some of these companies have tried to retrain people for their growing renewable energy businesses and were willing to relocate these employees.  Yet, many of these employees return to the soil of their birth, as they have strong family bonds.  They make a choice to return to a land of poverty for family ties, rather than to prosper in new areas.  How would many of our ancestors have thought about this, given that they came to America and severed ties with their old lands?  They loved families that they left behind.  But they realized that they needed to make better lives for themselves, and that the old country wouldn't be fertile soil for those lives.  Too bad that today's people aren't the risk takers their forebears were.

A while back, I attended therapy sessions with an unconventional therapist.  One of the metaphors he often used was the idea of choosing the same door every time one wanted to exit a room, and getting beaten up each time that door was chosen.  It was his way of trying to get me to choose differently when things weren't working the way I wanted. When I think of typical Trump supporters, they want to live in a way their great grandparents lived without dealing with the problems they face today.  They are not able to choose a different door, and they continually get beaten up when they open the same door again and again.  Success and failure in life depends on the choices we make, and no one can help us if we are excused from the results of our bad decisions.  

So where does this leave us with the populist disease for which Trump is a symptom?  For the short term, we probably need to look back into history to see a solution our government tried 85+ years ago - the WPA (Works Progress Administration).  This "socialist" program made work for many unemployed people, giving them a purpose in life, and some hope for the future.  When people are housed, clothed, and fed, they are less likely to support populist kleptocrats like Trump.  They are also unlikely to fall into the depths of despair and become self destructive.  But if they do, we need to treat these people without applying moral stigma. Instead, we need to find ways to make them choose the right paths in life.  "Little brother", not "Big Brother" must show the way out of despair.

You'll note that I've only mentioned Appalachia so far.  These same problems exist in urban areas as well.  Our economy is shifting to work that can be done anywhere, with a few minor exceptions. So we have to work with business to educate people for the jobs that need to be filled, and make sure that businesses hire the people we trained for these jobs.  Is this too much to ask?

Post Election Day Thoughts

 

I am impressed by this year's election and how it was handled by both traditional and social media. Unlike in 2016, the news divisions of the major networks, the online social media sites, and the print media seemed to have taken the challenge of presenting real information to the public seriously.  Of course, this meant that the news divisions sometimes had to displease their corporate masters, that the social media sites had to perform limited censorship on lies posted by people friendly to a candidate, and that the print media had to call provable lies what they were - lies.

Regardless of who a person decided to vote for, the state election boards acted with appropriate dilligence to keep their elections honest, and many people from both major parties worked to ensure that all legal votes were included in the tallies for the candidates.  Not everyone would be happy. (Especially the supporters of the sore loser we have as our 45th president)  But there was no way that all could be happy in a polarized society such as ours.

My immediate impressions of some problems that must be addressed before the next presidential election are:

1. Procedures must be in place to deal with more than one type of disaster.  If major sections of this country were to be affected by natural disasters such as fires, floods, or hurricanes, what needs to be done to guarantee that the people affected by these disasters be able to cast their votes? 
2. In the case of a pandemic such as COVID-19, it doesn't make sense for people to cast their ballots in person. How can we ensure that appropriate and uniform procedures are available for people to cast absentee ballots in all of the 50 states?
3. Considering how long it took to get the results of the 2020 election, why shouldn't all 50 states be required to start counting absentee ballots before election day, and deal with provisional ballots within 48 hours of the close of polling places on election day?
4. Given that some states are using touch screen machines to cast ballots, shouldn't the states be required to have paper backup for each ballot?  In addition, shouldn't the machines be required to have double confirmation before a vote is considered cast?  (Can we afford not to be able to recount ballots as many times as needed?  Can we afford to have systems record votes before the voters intends their castings to be final?)    

Of course, there are many more procedural problems such as those listed above. But the bottom line is that all voters must be able to easily cast their ballots and be sure that their intent is recorded properly in time to have accurate results posted within 24 hours after the last vote has been cast.  

However, we must be vgilant - we can not afford to have a sore loser destroy the credibility of election results on his way out.  This is something we can't implement in law.  Instead, it has to be a custom that no one would dare think to challenge.  Unfortunately, we have a sore loser as president who will destroy what he can on his way out.  This is his way of expressing his anger at not being loved by the majority of the American public.  Hopefully, we will recover from this disaster of a presidential term....

Harry Truman said: The Buck Stops Here

Harry Truman said: The Buck Stops Here


Years ago, our 33rd president had a sign on his desk that read: "The Buck Stops Here!" Even if he was not to blame for a problem, it was his responsibility, as it happened on his watch. Contrast this with our 45th president who takes no responsibility for any of his mistakes. When push came to shove, he was too busy trying to be reelected than to do the job of keeping America safe.


As much as I felt that stopping the flow of people between the United States and China in January was Xenophobic and not called for, I now realize that this measure didn't go far enough to keep America safe from the Coronavirus. For any measure to be effective, we'd have had to quarantine ourselves off from the world, and then do whatever was needed to identify and isolate any carriers of the virus who have already made it to the United States. Unfortunately, our president claims that his January action was appropriate. He will never acknowledge that his half assed actions and cheerleading was not enough.


When the virus started to become an epidemic inside the United States, we were ill prepared. Little did we know that so much of our medical supply chain came from outside the United States - mainly from China. We didn't have enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for the people in our hospitals and nursing homes, much less the people who had to interact with the public on a regular basis. Globalization failed us. In this regard, the rhetoric from our 45th president was correct. But he was a fatally flawed messenger for this message, as most of his branded goods came from the very countries he condemned. Yet, Americans rose to the challenge and started to make many of the goods we needed to help survive the pandemic. Even with this, we needed to import many of the products needed. And our federal government became a hindrance, as it delegated all pandemic related public health responsibilities to the states. It also bid against the states for the very same goods the states needed to help deal with the pandemic. In fact, one state's governor had to arrange for a secret shipment of South Korean goods to American soil, as he rightfully felt that the federal government would illegally confiscate these goods for its own use. Of course, it didn't help that the federal medical reserve was being managed by the president's son in law - someone totally out of his league for the responsibilities thrust upon him.


By the time the economy started shutting down in March, the Northeastern United States was the hardest hit area in North America. The United States, Canada, and Mexico officially shut down their borders to "tourist" traffic, but allowed essential trade and cross-border services to continue. ("Essential Workers" who worked on the other side of the borders were allowed to continue commuting to their jobs. Other people were stopped at the borders.) The New York Tri-State region was "Ground Zero" for the pandemic in North America. From being one of the busiest areas in the world, New York City's streets were empty. One could easily walk across Broadway in the middle of the day without worrying whether any vehicle posed a threat to one's crossing the street. Almost no one was on the road, save for ambulances, fire trucks, and police cars. Almost everything was closed.


Between Mid March and Mid June, the Tri-State region suffered its greatest losses. New York's governor was holding daily press conferences to give current status reports on the number of people suffering from the virus and the number of people who died of the virus. (My father was one of these people.) Nursing homes did not have enough PPE for their staffs. Yet, our president didn't bother invoking the Defense Production Act to make most of the needed goods when we needed them most. Instead, he allowed slaughterhouses to continue with their "Covid-19 unsanitary procedures" (my phrase) in spite of the fact that their workers were getting infected with the coronavirus due to poorly designed work areas. (These work areas are still not redesigned, and the federal government still ignores the health of the low wage workers in these plants.) While people died, our president kept saying that when summer comes, the virus will magically disappear. (Bob Woodward's recent book, Rage, shows that the president knew he was lying when he made statements such as this.) And to be more galling, our president claims that millions of people would have died if he didn't act. Hmmm. Maybe if he had acted more decisively earlier on, we'd have much less than 220,000+ deaths.


Unfortunately, the coronavirus became a political issue, separating political tribes. States where the virus hit hardest tended to vote Democrat, while those where it had yet to hit hard tended to vote Republican. So our president did not feel any need to help his opponents. In fact, he tried to make New York's governor look bad, and Cuomo did not take the bait. Instead, Cuomo deftly managed his relationship with the president, so that the federal government would not interfere with the efforts that states in the Northeast were making to deal with the pandemic. By the time New York (and the rest of the Northeast) got the virus "under control" so that it could relax restrictions on the economy, the virus had started affecting the rest of the United States. Because of this, New York, once the pandemic pariah of states was able to have the last laugh and require people from outside the Northeast to go into quarantine upon entry to the state. Sadly, the use of face masks became a symbol of which political tribe one belonged to, and a symbol of the success or failure of a state's efforts to tame the virus.


From the very beginning, our president dismissed the problems that the virus was causing, and made the reopening of the economy his highest priority. Unfortunately, he didn't understand that he should have been modelling appropriate hygiene by wearing a face mask. So most people from his tribe ignored directives meant to encourage social distancing and the use of face masks, enabling the virus to spread like wildfire outside the Northeast. It didn't help that our president was running for reelection, and held "super spreader" events which made it possible for the virus to infect many more people than had the behaviors in the Northeast had been modelled. To make things worse, governors of many states (mainly in the South and West) ignored the lessons learned in the Northeast, as they wanted to be seen as loyal to the president. Luckily, lessons learned in the Northeast regarding how to treat coronavirus patients helped to keep the death rate lower than it might have been otherwise.


It is now 7 months since the pandemic changed all our lives, and the president has been infected by the coronavirus. He continues to act as if it was a intense case of the flu, and nothing to be worried about. That may be easy for him to say, as he has the best doctors on call and he doesn't have to pay for treatment. But what about the rest of us? How many of us can afford medical treatment (and aftercare) needed to survive the virus? How many of us have doctors with up-to-date coronavirus skills to keep us alive? How many of us will suffer if Obamacare is ruled illegal on a technicality by the Supreme Court? What will replace it? Our president (and his political party) have demonstrated no plan to replace it. They don't care what happens to the public.


As for me, I know how I'm going to vote. And it won't be for people who have mismanaged things from the beginning. Hopefully, you will consider this when casting your vote - your life may depend on your decision....