Are We Snowflakes?

To follow up on my earlier post about "owning the libs", are we whiny little snowflakes?

That's the opinion of some folks: Republicans think it's true of Democrats, Baby Boomers think it's true of Millennials (a lot of Boomers think Millennials are all pimply-faced teenagers, while the oldest of them are approaching 40), straight White men think it's true of women, Blacks, Gays, Transexuals, and city dwellers, Trumpers think it's true of everyone who isn't a Trumper.  But is it true?

I'm going to concede that some people take it too far, but I'm not going to draw the line for everyone else. That's a discussion for another day. Judging everyone in a certain category based on the outliers in that category is a logical fallacy. Something you hear a lot is how certain movies couldn't get made any more, because someone would find them offensive. You hear that no one has a sense of humor any more. That those people get offended too easily. You hear about "cancel culture", which supposedly is the mechanism by which "woke" (used ignorantly as a pejorative) people punish people who say (or even think) things that they don't like. Let's look at "cancel culture" first. It's undeniable that there are occasions when a public figure makes an offensive statement which is followed by calls from some quarters to boycott that person. Yes it happens, and sometimes the offending public figure finds their career has been wrecked due to the outcry. Those who support the "cancelled" person are shocked and outraged and call it censorship. But the thing is, no one is forced to participate in these boycotts or to join in excoriating the cancellee.  The target of so-called cancelation is still free to perform, to play music, to tell jokes etc, but they aren't entitled to an audience. In many cases the record company, television or radio station or other employer chooses to fire them. This again is called censorship. And again, no one is forcing an employer to cut their losses and bow to popular pressure, but they certainly know how the free market works. 

Okay, sure, "cancelation" only works if enough people are "offended" at you, (there's that pesky free market again) but what about all these people who get offended at every little thing? I'm not saying that there aren't people who are oversensitive, but those are the outliers. In general, people call out offensive words or behavior for several reasons. It may sound incredibly obvious, but it's because it's offensive. The people who deride those who call out offensive language emphasize the one doing the calling out, mocking them for being offended, when the problem isn't that someone is offended, but that someone is being offensive. It's a classic case of victim shaming, even though it may not be obvious that anyone is being victimized - so let's just say that it's similar to victim shaming. A favored tactic of those who oppose calling out offensive speech is to point out old television shows and movies that supposedly couldn't be made today. Two go-to examples are Blazing Saddles and All in The Family. Those who cite them seem to be oblivious to the way they poked fun at racists; All in The Family also mocked liberal Mike, who despite his disdain for Archie's right wing views, had no problem living rent-free under his roof. And the idea that comedians don't push boundaries today - have they never heard of Dave Chapelle or South Park? 

The "good old days", when it was supposedly perfectly fine to say whatever came into your head, were times when Black people, women, and other minorities didn't have the power to speak up. It was legal to sexually harass an employee; it was legal to refuse to serve a Black person; and what passed as humor was often just punching down at people who couldn't punch back without serious consequences. These days, right or wrong, people feel that they can speak up. They feel that they can point out sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic language and insist that it change. They feel that they no longer have to put up with being the butt of jokes or being marginalized by hateful language. 

So no. If we speak up about offensive language and actions, we aren't snowflakes, we're not the problem. 

Owning the Libs

Maybe this has been going on for longer, but I first noticed the politics of "own the libs" right after Losin' Donnie was elected. Sure there was name-calling and mud slinging before, but the politics of schoolyard taunting not coincidently corresponded to the rise of someone who didn't really have any other tools in his political toolbox. 

Donald Trump caught the imagination of Americans who felt that the "other" was overtaking and replacing them. He didn't invent, however, the exaggerated characterization of liberals as whiny "snowflakes" who get offended at anything and everything, the credit for that goes to Rush Limbaugh and his fellow "conservative" media personalities. Trump merely introduced it into everyday political discourse. He was so successful at this approach that it became a hallmark of his presidency. I first noticed the poisonous turn of conversation on Twitter. That social media platform is a bit rough and tumble to start with, but the taunting and insults as kind of shocking. Before long it became normal. Other Republicans, emboldened by Trump's success, began to imitate his approach. Even after his loss in the 2020 election (yes, damn it, he LOST) Republican candidates and elected officials imitated the strategy of doing nothing other than mocking and taunting liberal Democrats. 

The tactic of mindlessly obstructing anything a Democrat proposes in order to deny them a "win" wasn't new to the Trump era. Senator Mitch McConnell, during the Obama administration, used his position to block virtually everything that President Obama proposed, including a Supreme Court nomination. During Obama's first two years the Democrats held a commanding majority in the House and a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate - which was the only reason the PPACA got passed. Once the Senate majority shrunk he was able, by unprecedented use of the filibuster, to frustrate any attempt for the Democrats to get anything done, even though they still possessed majorities in both houses of Congress as well as the presidency. Once the Republicans gained the majority he successfully blocked most of President Obama's judicial nominations. During Trump's final two years, when the Democrats retook the House majority, he refused to even bring to a vote in the Senate hundreds of bills passed by the House. 

What's happening now goes well beyond that.

While old school politicians like McConnell are still playing the long game, many of the newer members of the House and Senate seem content to refrain from legislating and act like media personalities, holding press conferences and issuing statements that are empty of any substance other than insults to Democratic politicians and voters. Liberals aren't the snowflakes that conservatives think that they are. They don't sniffle and whine when things don't go their way, but don't shy away from pointing out hateful and harmful actions and speech. However, a lot of Republican voters think they are, and cheer on the do-nothing Republicans whose whole platform seems to be to "own the libs", no matter what. Even the rare policy of legislative proposal isn't aimed at helping Americans, but rather at dismantling programs that liberals like, simply because liberals like them. Hey, if liberals are for something, it must be communism, right? 

Unlike some, I don't blame the politicians. I blame us, at least the "us" that craves the entertainment that "owning the libs" provides. The great majority of voters are just too stupid, or perhaps just too lazy, to understand the complexities and nuances of public policy. It's easier to boil it down to "it's socialism" than to take the time to understand the pros and cons, as well as the possible benefits and consequences. It's easier to cheer on a Republican Member of Congress who calls a Muslim House member a jihadist than to research the Muslim House member's policy positions. The circus-like antics of today's Republicans continue because they work. 

I don't anticipate it getting any better...there's just too many stupid voters.

Communism, Socialism, Marxism

It seems like every government initiative that aims to help people has been labeled as socialism over the last decade, and now, the opponents on the right have escalated their name-calling to include "communism". And it doesn't matter what Joe Biden or any Democrat comes up with, it's communism according to Republicans and other right wingers. Let's look at what it really is from two angles: (1) Is it really socialism (or communism) and (2) If it is socialism, is it bad?

In the early days of our Republic, the government had a limited role. Many people look nostalgically back to those days as a paradise of freedom (or "freedoms" as the faux patriots of today have taken to calling it). There was no income tax, there were few government regulations and there were places you could escape to where the government couldn't easily reach you, even if it was so inclined. There was also so slavery. And as industrialization grew and spread, freedom became a very elusive concept, not because the government was oppressing anyone, but because a small cohort of wealthy industrialists were. Little by little, often under pressure from unions, and women's rights groups the governement took on the role of protector of those with little or no power. Sure, certain freedoms were curtailed: the freedom to operate unsafe workplaces, the freedom to employ small children, the freedom to abuse workers, the freedom to operate monopolies. Government agencies sprung up to regulate food production, to oversee approval of drugs, to ensure workers' rights. Eventually the New Deal created the Social Security Administration; years later the freedom to discriminate based on race, gender or religion became illegal (although it just went underground - it didn't disappear). By the seventies the government took on the role of protecting the environment by curtailing the freedom to wantonly pollute. All of these things could be categorized as socialism, some more, some less, but can any of them (allowing of course for overreach at times) really be categorized as bad for the country? Aren't they all just establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty? Aren't they good things?

The problem with tagging something as socialism is that most people will conflate social programs in a democratic, constitutional republic with socialist dictatorships. No progressive politician has ever called for common ownership of the means of production, for elimination of private property, or prohibiting the formation of for-profit businesses. No one has called for nationalizing major industries. No one is suggesting that the president should assume dictatorial powers (no one currently in power anyway). Mandating paid parental leave isn't going to turn us into Venezuela or Soviet Russia. With a wide swath of the electorate, all it takes is to call a plan "socialist" for them to be adamantly against it. But even the effectiveness of that epithet is fading, now, in order to really get people riled up, you have to ramp up your rhetoric and call things "communist", which has an even eviler association, especially for people who remember the Cold War. 

So yes, using a broad definition for "socialism", many Democratic programs are socialist, just like minimum wage laws, OSHA, Medicare and interstate highways...even police and fire departments and public libraries. But what they aren't are imitations of socialist failures like Venezuela or Cuba (although it could be argued that much of Cuba's problem is US sanctions) and they certainly aren't a harbinger of a replay of the Soviet era dictatorships. 

As always, thinking is hard work, but I recommend it.

Making the Rich Pay Their "Fair Share" of Taxes - How?

 The problem with the ultra-rich not paying "their fair share" isn't necessarily that they are doing anything illegal (although sometimes that's exactly what it is), it's that the tax code favors the ultra-rich. There are myriad ways to make your income and assets non-taxable, or taxable at lower rates, but most of these methods are only available if you already have a pile of money. I'll use Elon Musk for an example: he claims that he is not taking a salary & his net worth consists of stock, which won't be taxed until he sells it. So how is he living the billionaire lifestyle without any cash?

Debt.

The way our tax code works, income is taxed, but assets aren't. An executive or company owner can be paid in company stock, which isn't taxable until it is sold. The executive or owner then takes out a low-interest loan to finance his lifestyle, with his assets as collateral. Like the assets, the cash obtained through the loan isn't taxable either. Of course eventually these loans will have to be paid off, but in most cases the value of the asset has appreciated much more than the interest that was paid on the loan. Of course, if you're an alleged billionaire like former president Losin' Donnie, you can just default on your loans.

Then there's tax credits.

There are a long list of ways to earn tax credits and book net taxable losses while still bringing in plenty of cash. One shady, yet perfectly legal method is via consulting fees. A real estate developer buys a building and applies for federal tax credits to restore it to historical conditions. The federal government, in addition to awarding credits based on legitimate construction expenses, also allows a "developer fee". IRS standards are that 20% of total rehabilitation costs are reasonable. So the real estate developer creates an LLC for the building. Then, another LLC is created as a developer. The building LLC then pays the developer LLC the developer fee. Assuming the rehabilitation costs, including the developer fee, are $5 million, then the building LLC receives a $200,000 million tax credit for effectively moving $1 million from one account to another, since the building owner is a developer. The $1 million developer fee can also be used as an expense to offset any revenue that the building LLC earns, lowering its taxable income.

The answer isn't necessarily to raise the tax rate on the ultra-wealthy. The answer is to find a way to close the various ways that income and wealth can be shielded from taxation that are only available to the top 0.01%.

Anti-Vaxxers

Why are some people so militantly against, not only the Covid vaccine, but any mitigation efforts? The loudest voices, at least this week, seem to be shouting about freedom. There are two paths of discussion regarding freedom. One is vaccine mandates. Until recently, no governmental entity was instituting mandatory vaccination with the exception of the military. Vaccine requirements are nothing new for the United States military, new recruits receive a number of vaccinations upon entering basic training and receive additional inoculations upon being deployed to certain locations. So, sorry soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and guardians, your freedom is circumscribed for as long as you are in the service, and that includes the Covid vaccine. (The Biden Administration has recently mandated vaccinations for employees of businesses with 100 or more employees - more on this later).  

 What we are seeing is some businesses and public events requiring proof of vaccination to enter their premises or participate in their events. In many instances this is coupled with a requirement to wear a mouth-and-nose covering. Agree or not, a private company has the right to decide who will enter their business as long as they do not discriminate against anyone based upon a protected class. Of course this goes for businesses that require that you don't mask up as well - I disagree with the reasoning behind such a move, but support their right to do so. Much of what we're seeing lately in the way of furious opposition is at school board meetings where school districts are requiring that all teachers and students wear face masks on school grounds. Again, the rationale is "freedom". 

Despite the reality that in the United States "freedom" doesn't mean and rarely has ever meant that we have license to do whatever we want to. There are speed limits, zoning laws, taxation, regulations of various kinds, licenses and fees required for many professions and activities. Even though untrammeled liberty is more a fantasy than a reality, our culture persists in elevating personal freedom over community responsibility. Virtually every religion makes a virtue of altruism, taking care of your brothers & sisters is admired, the Good Samaritan parable is held up as aspirational; yet when push comes to shove, it's "look out for number one". If Americans believed their own mythos of community and valued it over individualism, they would be glad to do whatever it took to protect, not only themselves, but the greater community. 

There are times when we cannot depend on private businesses or individuals to do the right thing. Read up on the history of the labor movement and the growth of unions in this country. Businesses didn't do the right thing. People were worked to death, sometimes literally; there were no safety regulations; pollution via the waste products of various industries was rampant; there was literally cocaine in soft drinks and "health products"; and must I remind you, a lot of people were enslaved! There are times, when for the greater good, government, as the representative of the people and the steward of our well-bring, must step in and legislate, direct, or mandate what individuals or corporations are unable or unwilling to do. The partial mandate that people get vaccinated or suffer various consequences is not a new phenomena, but consistent with historical public health or other emergency measures. 

In my opinion, cries of "freedom" are only an excuse and don't tell the whole story. The other part of the resistance to vaccination and common sense protective measures is an hysterical belief that the people who have spent their lives becoming experts either don't know what they're talking about, or are lying in order to exert some ephemeral control over the populace. While eschewing the expertise of those who know what they're talking about, they latch on to unproven remedies and conspiracy theories. They search for the tiniest of problems and blow them out of proportion. They readily accept the craziest and most implausible of stories while claiming to be skeptics who don't follow the government like sheep. If these irrational anti-vacciners had complied with public health measures instead of hysterically digging in their heels, we likely wouldn't need mandates. 

The vaccines are not experimental. They have been tested and approved. Are they 100% effective? Do masks protect us completely? No and no. What is effective is a combination of widespread vaccination, mask wearing in public, social distancing, and sanitation. If large segments of the population refuse to take any of these precautions, the virus will continue to mutate and spread. With the exception of the small percentage of people who are medically unable to get vaccinated, the anti-vaxxers are just plain ignorant and are contributing to the continued spread of Covid-19. 

Their objections are based on ignorance. 

The Bastard is Still Out There - Part II

 In addition to his supposed business acumen, the other selling point for Losin' Donnie's candidacy was the perception that he could "tell it like it is" and that he understood and was a friend of everyday Americans. There's a verified paper trail of Trump's consistent screwing over working Americans: time after time when he didn't pay small contractors or suppliers and used his resources to draw out court battles that the little guy couldn't financially maintain. But even without those facts, why does anyone think that an alleged billionaire, who used to live in a penthouse literally covered in gold, who now lives in an actual country club, has anything in common with, or even sympathizes with, the average working American? So what about Losin' Donnie appealed to so many people? 

Could it be...hatred?

Despite the recurring whining about "that's not who we are", for a large segment of our population, hated-filled is exactly who we are. We have a long history of hatred for, persecution of, and discriminating against, the "other" among us. I don't need to outline every example for you to know it's true. Trump's campaign started and finished with stoking fear and hatred of those who were deemed "not real Americans" and even more so for those who wanted to come here but were viewed as unsuitably different than us. Did he originate this mindset? Of course not, but his one skill has always been self-promotion and salesmanship despite general incompetence. He very quickly identified that hate, not hope, would bring him the greatest support. There's an audio clip of Donnie shouting out that he loves the poorly educated. And he surely does, because he knows that most Americans are not educated on the nuances and details of domestic or foreign policy and make decisions based on emotion. And he tapped into that basic of the emotions - fear - to stoke hatred and foster a perverted us versus them scenario. 

And what did he do for the average working Joe or Jane? He gave them rallies. He gave them tweets. He insulted his opponents and categorized them as "enemies". His one legislative achievement was to slightly reduce the individual income tax rate after promising to overhaul the tax code to eliminate loopholes. Few if any loopholes were done away with, but corporations, and by extension the wealthy who run them, received a significant reduction in corporate income taxes. His executive orders mainly benefitted large corporations. His presidency was a bloated vanity project and an opportunity make a few extra (million) bucks. 

Not that politics has ever been a Sunday School picnic, but in a few short years hatred has become the winning strategy, at least in Republican circles. The aforementioned poorly educated have bought into his pseudo-agenda - Trumpism and its attendant fixations are de rigueur for any Republican running for public office, from US Senate all the way to local school boards and small town mayoral races. And there's the distinct possibility that he will run again...and win. 

The bastard hasn't gone away.

The Bastard is Still Out There - Part I

Losin' Donnie lost. I was looking forward to never hearing from him again, but he and his sycophants are still dangling the possibility that he will run again, that he didn't "really" lose the election and Republican politicians and would-be office holders are tripping over themselves to prove who is the Trumpiest. The truth is, that he's still around and he and his brand of hate-based politics is here to stay.

Anyone who followed the tabloids in New York, or followed Losin' Donnie's career looked at Trump as a clown. He inherited a pile of money upon the death of his father (who padded his real estate empire's bottom line with fraud) and immediately set about to crowd out his siblings. It's been said that if Donnie had simply placed all of his inheritance into mutual funds he would be far richer today than he actually is. Despite being handed the world on a golden platter, Trump wasn't satisfied with being an under-the-radar lord of apartment complexes in Queens, no, he wanted to swim in the exclusive waters of Manhattan's moneyed elite. Not satisfied to be anonymously well-off, not only did he want to operate in the high rent environs of Manhattan, but he wanted to be recognized and lauded for his real estate ability. The problem was that he was utterly incompetent at it. He had inherited his father's facility at fraud, but none of his ability to create wealth. What he was good at, was self promotion. 

Any objective analysis of Losin' Donnie's career would reveal failure after failure in real estate and most notably, casinos. Despite his demonstrated ability to lose money and run his businesses into the ground, he managed to time after time convince banks to keep loaning him money and for investors to continue to sink funds into his ill-fated projects. The seemingly endless stream of cash continues to prop him up to this day. While one might think that a serial screw-up would eventually fade from view and be unable to fund his lavish lifestyle, Trump seems to have defied common sense (and the rules of accounting). After the first few failures, Trump learned how to structure (or hire lawyers who knew how) business arrangements so that if things went well, he benefitted, but if they didn't, he was shielded by the use of limited liability companies (LLCs). 

An LLC on one hand will shield its owners from liability while the profits will flow through to those same owners. What if, as in the case of Trump's casinos, the LLC loses money? The owners get to claim it as a loss on their personal income taxes, but aren't actually presented with a bill for that loss. In addition, Trump usually paid himself a developer fee, consulting or management fee that was not tied to the profit or loss of the property. So if the venture tanked, he still received his hefty fee, and got to reduce his taxable income by his share of the loss. If the upfront money was provided by investors, he wasn't personally out any cash. If the project was funded by a bank loan, he habitually defaulted.

So why is he perceived as a successful businessman? "The Apprentice". 

The real world Trump was a serial failure who defaulted on loans, mismanaged businesses, didn't pay contractors and was a bumbling idiot when it came to the myriad details of running a successful business. But the fictional Trump presented on "The Apprentice" painted him as a business genius, and this is the image that people who didn't know any better had of Losin' Donnie. Based on tax returns obtained by The New York Times, Trump's primary income in the nineties was from his work on "The Apprentice", and not from any of his real estate ventures. His actual businesses were losing money, enabling him to pay little or no federal taxes for a decade. Of course his television appearances, paired with frequent coverage in the New York tabloids gave him celebrity name recognition that would serve him well when he rode down that escalator in 2015. 

Trump's fictional business acumen was one of the selling points of his candidacy in 2016. Of course, even being a successful businessman doesn't necessarily translate into being an effective president, governor or legislator. In business, the bottom line is paramount - not so in the world of governance. (But that's another article) Nonetheless, the myth persists being CEO of a large corporation constitutes relevant experience for the office of President of the United States. A lot of Americans bought into that myth, as well as the lie that Losin' Donnie was actually successful. 

Gridlock

Why isn't anything getting done? We got rid of Trump, we elected a Democrat, the House of Representatives has a majority of Democrats, with Vice President Harris' tie-breaking vote, the Democrats have a Senate majority...so why can't Biden's agenda get implemented?

There's several reasons. The main reason is that the majorities in both houses of Congress are razor-thin. And the coalition of special interests that make up the Democratic Party are not in lock-step agreement on how to proceed on many, if not most things. There's a lot of criticism thrown at Senators Manchin and Sinema for obstructing the President's plans, and there's plenty of stones thrown at Senator McConnell as leader of the Senate Republicans for opposing virtually everything the Democrats do. There's the argument that 81 million people voted for Joe Biden because they wanted to see his policies enacted, 7 million more than voted for Trump. That's a pretty weak argument in my view. How many of those 81 million were conservatives at heart, but couldn't stomach another four years of Donald Trump? How many were Democrats who supported other candidates in the primaries? The fact that Democrats in the House of Representatives saw a net loss of seats, with many districts seeing more votes for Biden yet still electing a Republican representative, should give one pause. My neighbors to the north in the Omaha-based District 2 gave Biden their electoral vote while returning Republican Don Bacon to Congress. 

The truth is that on many issues Americans are split pretty evenly. While the filibuster is not something that is provided for in the Constitution, and it has been, and continues to be, used for nefarious purposes, do we really want a narrow majority making sweeping changes that are anathema to the narrow minority? Those of us of a more progressive mindset are frustrated at the inability to implement progressive legislation in the current Congress. But it would not take much for the tables to be turned. Currently there are 220 Democrats and 212 Republicans (plus 3 vacancies - the vacant seats were held by 2Ds and 1 R) in the House of Representatives. If just five districts flip, then the Republicans regain control of the House. Just a net change of one in the Senate and McConnell is once again in charge. Of course with a Democrat in the White House there's not much damage a Republican Congress can do, but based on McConnell's track record, you can forget about any federal judges being confirmed for the rest of Biden's term of office. But my point is that if the Republicans regain control of Congress, and even if they elect a Republican president in 2024, it will still be pretty evenly split - just with the other guys in charge. 

Will we still be so against the filibuster when it's our only chance of preventing right-wing legislation from being enacted? 

A counter argument is that the Republicans have no problem with playing dirty - with changing the rules when it suits them. We have seen that time and again, especially in the McConnell regime. The changing rationale for denying a president a Supreme Court nomination is a case in point. McConnell and his caucus have shown no shame in changing the rules of the game for their own benefit. Why shouldn't the Democrats take the action that the Republicans would surely take in the same situation and eliminate the filibuster in order to advance the progressive agenda. After all, they eliminated it when it looked like the filibuster would stand in the way of confirming Trump's Supreme Court nominees. The problem with that scenario is that the Democrats aren't united. Like it or not there are two Democratic Senators who lean conservative, one of whom would likely lose his seat if he voted for much of the progressive wish list. So, even if the filibuster could be killed, there's a high likelihood that 50 votes (plus Harris' tie-breaker) wouldn't be forthcoming in most cases, so it would be a meaningless gesture that would do nothing but open things up for future Republican abuse. 

Look for an immediate (and even long-term) future of continued gridlock. 

9-12 Unity?

September 11 is always difficult for me. Even though I personally didn't lose any friends or family on that day in 2001, I grew up in New York and worked several summers in the literal shadow of the World Trade Center. I always have to fight off a miasma of sadness on the days surrounding it. I usually refrain from making any comments, occasionally posting an image of my phone alarms, set for the times of the attacks. 

On September 11, 2001 I was seriously hung over when I found out what was happening. I was less than two months away from being thrown out of my own home and had just been ejected from the religious group that I had been involved with for decades. On Mondays nights I stayed up all night drinking so I wouldn't have to interact with my then-wife on Tuesdays, my day off. After hearing commotion downstairs, I stumbled into the living room where my kids were watching CNN. One of them told me that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. At first I thought it was a small single-seater that lost control, but it soon became obvious that it was something worse. There's no question that 9-11 was a day filled with horror, but I hear a lot around this time of year about how Americans were united on 9-12, and how that unity has faded away. But were we united?

"We" is a tricky term. Who is included in "we"? What I remember from the days following 9-11 was that a lot of Americans were united in a ramping up of xenophobia and an irrational thirst for retribution. What I remember is that every Muslim American became a target of hatred. There was no recognition that Islam is a religion that exists on a continuum, from secularized children of immigrants, to Americanized families who have been here for generations, to those who are observant, and yes, including violent fanatics and fundamentalists too. The hatred of the "other" wasn't narrowly focused on jihadists either, nor did it home in on all Muslims. Anyone who looked vaguely "Arab" was target, or any convenient brown-skinned person, even American citizens. The Islamophobia metastasized into a broad based fear of immigrants and calls to seal our borders and cut off immigration from all but a few "safe" countries. "We" were unified in our hatred and fear...for a certain value of "we". 

"We", in order better keep an eye on "them", supported the USA PATRIOT Act, which gave the FBI, the CIA and other intelligence agencies far reaching powers of surveillance and detention. Just for "them" you say? Let me introduce you to FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Originally passed in 1978 in order to legalize surveillance of foreign nationals alleged to be engaged in espionage, it was expanded, amended and reinterpreted in the wake of 9-11 and now includes the ability to wiretap US citizens in certain circumstances. 

And let's not forget the fact that we overthrew two foreign governments, one, Afghanistan, because it harbored bin-Laden (we eventually found him in the territory of a supposed ally, Pakistan) and the other, Iraq, that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, based on lies about the intelligence. Afghanistan is fresh in our minds, just having been retaken by the Taliban, whom we displaced 20 years ago, but Iraq is no success story. In addition to being overrun by the so-called Islamic State, it has moved into the orbit of Iran, a nation that is far from being an ally. The initial toppling of two governments was relatively easy, but we had no plan for what to do next, and ended up propping up corrupt governments and getting bogged down in civil wars that had questionable national security value to us. Not only were Americans dying for reasons that were foggy at best, but "the troops" were deified to the extent that one couldn't criticize the military, or even its mission, without being branded as unpatriotic. The military's influence has grown so big that it wasn't until a third president who campaigned on extricating us was elected that we actually got out. 

Post 9-11 unity was an illusion.

Joe Biden - President from Hell?

He's suffering from dementia. He's a puppet. He's a traitor. He's incompetent. Impeach him. 25th Amendment him. There's plenty to dislike about President Joe Biden; his fifty-years-out-of-date handsiness, his behavior toward Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings, his support of the Clinton era crime bill, his initial support of the invasion of Iraq, his tendency to shoot from the hip and propensity for "gaffes". Biden was far from the first choice of a lot of people during the 2020 Democratic primaries, but he prevailed over the rest of the Democratic field for several reasons. Despite the high profile of some of the more progressive-liberal candidates like Senators Sanders and Warren, the majority of Democratic voters were not supporters of the far-reaching systemic changes favored by the left wing of the party. Biden was in many ways a compromise nominee. He wasn't the favorite of a large percentage of primary voters, but he was someone the majority could live with. He was the "safe" candidate. 

Many of the labels that have been hung around Biden's neck are justified, he's been in politics for over four decades. Anyone who has been around that long is going to take unpopular stances, and some of their decisions are going to turn out to be wrong. But some of the more incendiary and insulting descriptions are nothing more than mud-slinging by political opponents. Accusations of dementia seem to be convincing to many of those who vote Republican. His sometimes disjointed speaking style is cited as evidence of his mental decline, as is his difficulty in recalling details when answering questions. We all know about his stutter. Anyone who has been around someone who has a pronounced stutter knows how difficult it can be to speak under pressure. Beyond the stutter, those who have never had to speak in public without a script, or answer questions which have complex answers, have no idea how difficult that is. Reading from a script or teleprompter is completely different than speaking off the cuff or responding to difficult questions. 

Looking back at recent presidents, Bill Clinton is one who comes to mind who appeared at ease answering questions and holding forth on government policies. Part of that is due to Clinton being extremely adept at the minutia of government. He was unusually involved in the nuts and bolts and less of a delegator than other modern presidents. He was also a consummate bullshitter. Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan seemed to be good communicators, but both men had a speaking style that communicated confidence and both were able to redirect questions and avoid specifics by spouting pre-prepared mini-speeches which didn't always answer the question. Gerald Ford and both of the Bushes came across as terrible public speakers, not because they didn't know what they were talking about, but because they lacked the debating skills and smooth delivery of Reagan, Clinton or Obama. Trump, on the other hand was great at demagogic posturing and could talk without a break for two hours, but in press conferences would resort to fabricating "facts" and outright lying when backed into a corner. Biden is more in the mold of the Bushes when it comes to his handling of questions and his ability to mentally access facts and figures. 

Of course, once his detractors grab on to the idea that Joe Biden is mentally incompetent, it's easy to jump to the next step:  that he is a puppet, controlled by Speaker Pelosi or Vice President Harris. They need no evidence for this; once they have made up their minds that he doesn't have the capacity to function intellectually, they feel that it's obvious that someone else is pulling the strings. Actual evidence points to someone who surrounds himself with experts and delegates appropriate authority to his subordinates, but who makes his own decisions. 

This brings us to a seemingly contradictory stance - that President Biden has engaged in treasonous behavior and should be impeached or should resign. Impeachment has only been used four times in our history. The first time, President Andrew Johnson avoided removal by only one vote in the Senate. Bill Clinton was never in danger of removal after his impeachment, nor was Donald Trump after his first impeachment, and he had already lost the election before his second impeachment. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached and removed. Removal of a sitting president is a long shot. Not only would a majority of the House of Representatives vote to impeach him, which would likely require the other party to control the House, but two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote to convict and remove, an extremely low probability scenario.  In my opinion Donald Trump's actions more than warranted impeachment and removal, he solicited aid from a foreign government to undercut a potential (and eventual) political rival and supported and encouraged an unsuccessful coup attempt. Those were clearly corrupt acts. But even early in Trump's term there were calls for impeachment, before Trump had had the chance to do anything. There were similar calls from Republicans to do the same to Biden, days into his term. From fringe Republicans to talk show hosts, every time Biden takes an action that they don't like, or isn't successful, somebody is calling for impeachment or resignation. The Constitution doesn't list incompetence or policy disagreement as grounds for impeachment. Biden opponents act as if he is the first president who had to deal with a crisis, made decisions that went horribly wrong, or took legally shaky actions. We have Congress, we have the courts, and we have elections. 

In all likelihood, the most vocal Biden detractors are simply reacting to the resistance to the Trump presidency. They know that what they are saying is demagoguery, but they also know that it will rile up the pro-Trump and anti-Democratic masses, who don't know or understand that their leaders don't believe what's coming out of their own mouths. They also can't distinguish their own cult-like worship of Trump from what Biden's support is: an acceptance that once the primaries were over, Biden was the best option available, that we know he has faults, and that we don't like a lot of his policies, but we like enough of them to prefer them over Trumpublican hegemony. 

 

The Politicizing of Public Health

There have always been people who distrusted mainstream medicine. Many of these people cited religious objections to vaccinations (my ex-wife was one of these), and there were also many people who trusted more in "natural" remedies. But these people have always been a small minority. The fact that the vast majority of the population were vaccinated against the most deadly of diseases ensured that the likelihood that the unvaccinated would contract one of these diseases was vanishingly small. Occasionally we would hear about an outbreak of mumps or chicken pox, but usually it was among an isolated anti-vax community. For the most part Americans accepted that vaccinations were the best way to guard against epidemics and to minimize the harm that a virus would cause in an infected person. This has changed drastically in the last two years.

You hear a lot these days about "trusting the science", but science isn't a dogma, or a rigid set of facts, science is a method of reaching conclusions. Science questions assumptions and tests new ideas. Large swaths of the country don't understand this and point to examples when the scientific consensus was wrong to cast doubt upon scientific conclusions and guidance. One of the examples that crops up frequently is DDT, a pesticide that came into agricultural use in 1945, and was banned in 1972. DDT was an effective tool in the control of malaria and typhus, spread by mosquitos and fleas respectively; it was approved for agricultural use by the FDA. As time went on, opposition to its use led to more rigorous testing and an EPA ban on the use of DDT in 1972. The lesson that some people take from this is that the FDA was wrong, therefore we shouldn't believe that anything that they approve is safe. The lesson that should be taken is that the FDA was wrong, but due to scientific questioning of assumptions and rigorous testing, the scientific consensus changed and corrected its incorrect assumptions. 

In the early days of the Covid-19 outbreak, the medical community was flying blind. No one really knew the best ways to prevent transmission or to treat an infection. Guidance regarding masks and social distancing changed frequently, as new facts came to light. This could have been a moment when politicians of all parties came together for the good of the country, but it was not to be. 

The incompetency of the Trump administration dominated the approach to the pandemic and doomed its execution. Rather than getting all his experts in a room and agreeing on a strategy, Trump simultaneously abdicated any responsibility for a federal response and narcissistically took on his usual "only I can fix this" persona.  Infectious disease experts and epidemiologists were trotted out to make public statements and shortly undermined by ignorant pronouncements by Trump. Rather than lead by crafting a consensus, he sowed doubt of medical experts' views among his followers. At the same time, he insisted that the on-the-ground response be left to the states, who he undermined as well by suggesting that his followers "liberate" states where governors issued mask mandates or shutdowns of businesses. All the while he took credit when things went well and excoriated others when they didn't. By giving his own ego and image priority over public safety he set the stage for the widespread skepticism of the main "win" in the fight against Covid-19: the fast development of a Covid vaccine. 

The damage had been done. Rather than elation that a vaccine was now available, enabling businesses to open and make people safer, disinformation about the vaccine itself began to circulate, with ridiculous claims about how the vaccine was more harmful that the virus itself. While the last time I checked, a majority of adults had been vaccinated, it's a slim majority, less than 55%, with some states significantly less than 50%. And many of the anti-vaxxers are not content to quietly pass up a vaccination, but loudly and obnoxiously rage against vaccinations and those who champion them. And because infections and deaths are rising, predominantly among the unvaccinated, masks mandates are back, concerts and other large events are being cancelled, and businesses are suffering. The skeptics are now insisting that masks don't work, when the use of masks coupled with social distancing and hygienic practices corresponded with the reduction in infection and deaths. How different would things have been if then-President Trump had actually lead, by expressing confidence in his experts and coordinating with the states instead of knee capping them? We'll never know, but I strongly suspect that many of those politically opposed to the vaccine would be first in line for the needle. 

Trumpworld has always been a bizzaro world of opposites. Cult-like Trump sycophants unquestioningly believe things that he says that are easily shown to be lies, but point to his opponents as cultish. Despite the obvious and really unarguable reality that the vaccine has been politicized by Trump and his followers, some Trumpists insist that it's the Democrats who have undermined vaccine confidence and politicized the process. Speaker Pelosi's skepticism that the Trump administration was competent enough to produce and distribute a safe vaccine, especially in light of his musings about injecting bleach or shining light inside the body, was interpreted retrospectively to be undermining and politicizing the vaccines that were eventually produced, which she was a vocal cheerleader for. Ignoring the fact that Republicans and Rightists would hardly be expected to be moved by anything Pelosi said and Democrats and Liberals would be more likely to listen to medical professionals. Reality isn't a strong suit with Trumpists.

So, here we are, when we thought it would be over with mass vaccinations, with people still dying because they don't believe what the experts say. 

Local Control

One of the defining policies of conservatism is the principle of local control. At least until recently. The principle of local control is that whenever possible state, city and county governments, as well as school boards, should be making the decisions that effect them. States rights, a version of local control, was one of the arguments that southern states used to fight against the national push to eliminate slavery throughout the United States. Cities and states that object to civil rights legislation or voting rights laws cite the preference for local control. Local control has been one of those lines that differentiate American  conservatism from liberalism, with liberals generally supporting national solutions while conservatives favoring the rights of states and cities to set their own rules. 

This is not a black and white issue. There are some things that are best handled locally, while others need consistent treatment across state lines. There are a lot of grey areas and differences of opinion on where the line should be drawn. But the Republican Party has lost its interest in and support of, local control. Today's example is an executive order by the governor of Florida to prohibit school districts from imposing mask mandates. I don't believe that it's arguable that a school district is in the best position to make appropriate decisions for their students and teachers. Sure, there likely isn't unanimity on a school board's decisions, but they are elected by the people in their school district and are answerable to them, not to the governor. Districts in different regions would make decisions that might vary from each other - dictates from the central state government are simply inappropriate.

This latest example is part of a national trend for state governments that are dominated by Republicans to nullify actions taken by predominantly Democratic cities within those states. We see, especially in places like Texas and Florida, governor and legislatures preempting local decisions regarding homelessness, firearms regulation, sanctuary cities, rights of transsexual individuals, workplace unionization, menu labelling, removing Confederate statues, affordable housing, implementation of sales taxes, cutting police budgets, and voting accessibility. 

Like the interest in deficits, national debt and fiscal responsibility that Republicans only care about when the Democrats are in power, this about face on local control is just another example of hypocrisy in the modern Republican Party.

Social Security Misunderstanding

It's time for another lesson on Social Security, what it is and what it isn't. Periodically you'll see social media posts or memes claiming that your social security has somehow been stolen, or wondering "where all that money went", or complaining about all the money that "you paid in". 

The biggest misconception about social security is that it's some kind of savings account where you put money in and you get it back when you retire. It's not even much like a retirement account, an IRA or a 401(k), where you do exactly that. The money that is deducted from your paycheck isn't in a vault somewhere with your name on it, waiting patiently for you to retire. It is helpful to think of Social Security, not as a retirement account, but as an insurance policy, with your payroll contributions similar to an insurance premium. Furthermore, the insurance that it is similar to isn't life insurance, but more like auto or medical insurance. It's plausible that you may never make a claim on your auto insurance policy. You may go your whole life and never have an accident. Where does all that money go? You don't get it back at some point if you decide to sell your car. No, your premiums go toward paying out the claims of people who do have accidents. (And paying the salaries of insurance company employees of course) Social Security is very much like that. While you, as a non-retired worker, are paying payroll taxes with every paycheck, there are people who are collecting Social Security retirement benefits. Their benefits aren't being paid out from an account with their names on it, but from the money that you are contributing now. 

What about the people who die before they can start collecting benefits? Where does that money go? It doesn't go anywhere, because it wasn't there to begin with. All the payments that the unlucky person who died young made had already been paid out to retirees when he was alive and still working. He can't put all the payroll taxes he paid over his lifetime into his will for his family to inherit. (Spouses and sometimes children of deceased persons who would have been eligible for benefits can claim benefits based on the deceased's earnings record, this is different than treating the payroll contributions themselves as an asset which can be passed on in a will or otherwise transferred)

Another popular misconception is that the looming insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund is due to the fund being "stolen from" by Congress, presidents, or both. The Social Security Trust Fund is not a bank account, or a Scrooge McDuck-like vault full of cash. What it is is a way of accounting for the annual surpluses. The Trust Fund is not the money that you and every other wage earner contributes. What it is, is the difference between what is collected by way of payroll taxes and what is paid out as benefits. Until very recently there was always more collected than what was paid out. So, what do you do with that money? You could put it in a savings account. But when money goes into a bank account it isn't physically in the bank, the bank uses that cash to loan money to businesses and individuals. The money that an individual or business has in the bank is only there on paper, you can get it out when you need it, but it's actually being used by the bank and they're profiting off its use. What the US government does, rather than putting the Social Security Trust Fund in a bank, or investing it, is lend the money to itself. By law, the annual surplus is invested in US Treasury bills that earn interest. This way, rather than leaving the collected cash in the hands of a third party, who can profit off that cash, the Social Security Administration holds Treasury bills, while the government can utilize the cash it receives from the purchase of the Treasury bills. Neither Congress nor any president has "stolen" from the Social Security Trust Fund. The money is there in the same way that your money in a bank is there, even though it may have been loaned out to a local business or homeowner. So, why do we hear about the Trust Fund becoming insolvent?

Very recently (in may have been this very year) the payouts for benefits exceeded the funds collected by way of payroll taxes. Therefore the surplus will not increase as it did in the past. The Trust Fund balance still is not decreasing (yet) because of interest payments on the Treasury bills from the general fund to the Trust Fund. Going forward, the difference between collections and benefits will need to be paid for by cashing in the Treasury bills that the Trust Fund holds. Eventually, possibly as soon as 2034, the balance in the Trust Fund will be depleted to the extent that there will only be enough income from payroll taxes to fund around 75% of benefit payouts. What will happen? No one really knows. Possible solutions include increasing the retirement age, or raising the payroll tax percentage; possibly taxing a greater proportion of benefits. 

Yes, there are problems on the horizon for Social Security, but the reasons are somewhat more complex than Facebook memes suggest.

Voter Supression

Aside from the way the Electoral College skews the "will of the people", most of us, until recently, had a reasonable expectation that our votes would be counted. This reasonable expectation fed the assumption that the way to get things done the way you wanted them done was to elect people who held the same views as you did. 

Ha! How naïve.  

Unless you've been living under the metaphorical rock you know that there has been an upsurge in efforts to ensure that your vote doesn't count, or to ensure that you just don't get to vote at all. One of the more insidious, yet perfectly legal, vote rigging strategies is gerrymandering. This is a method of drawing Congressional and other political boundaries so that one party remains in power, even when they receive a minority of votes. There are many examples of this, one local example is how the County Board district lines were redrawn after the 2010 census. At one time the districts resembled jagged pie slices. Each district included a portion of Lincoln, which is in the center of Lancaster County, as well as a slice of small town and farming parts of the county. When the district boundaries were changed, most of Lincoln, which voted primarily for Democrats, was contained within one district while the other six were made up of primarily small town and rural areas, where the people tended to vote for Republicans. The result was a 6-1 Republican-Democrat split, where previously it might be 4-3 or 5-2. You can see the results of this most clearly in Midwest states with populous urban areas. The majority vote in Democrats to statewide offices while the gerrymandered legislature remains majority Republican. 

In several of these states the Republican legislature, immediately after a Democrat was elected as Governor or other statewide office voted to restrict or limit the Democrat's powers. In one state, the limitation in the Secretary of State's authority would  expire at the end of her term, presumably so that a Republican successor would have all of the former power. 

Republican-dominated states, in the wake of the Big Lie of a stolen election, have, in the dubious name of election integrity, imposed restrictions, roadblocks and hurdles to make it more difficult to register to vote, or even to get to the polls. They have set up a multitude of new rules expanding the ways that ballots can be thrown out, with most of the restrictions unsurprisingly affecting areas that historically vote for Democrats. Non-partisan local election officials in some states can be overruled by the legislature, which in some cases has the authority to declare an election invalid. And to rub salt in the wound, the Supreme Court just ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about these laws. Of course it was a 6-3 decision - along ideological lines. Surprise! (It didn't have to be that way, but no, we couldn't bring ourselves to elect the email lady). And the Voting Rights Act 2.0 has been smothered in its crib by the Republicans and the moderate Democrats in the Senate. Surprise! 

Our Democracy is in jeopardy (you reply that "we're a republic, not a democracy and I will slap you through the screen!) - and it's getting more and more difficult to overcome this undemocratic takeover by the minority. You may not like the Democratic Party platform - you may think it's socialistic, or any other Fox News generated bogeyman, but they at least are trying to implement their programs by getting the most votes! They are trying to enact change by the will of the majority, not in spite of it. 
 

Help Wanted

Wherever you go there seems to be "help wanted" signs. Restaurants especially seem to be struggling to fill all necessary positions. A popular explanation for this is that people "just don't want to work", mainly due to the belief that unemployment benefits are so lucrative that people would rather stay home than get a job. But what's really happening? 

Unemployment rates had been steadily decreasing since around 2010 when we hit a peak rate of around 10%, getting as low as 3%. As someone who was a retail manager during those years, I saw how it became increasingly difficult to fill entry-level positions as the unemployment rate fell. It wasn't that people didn't want to work, it was that there were more choices. When there is high, or even moderate, unemployment, most people will stick with a job that they don't like. Part of the reason for this is fear. "What if I quit and can't find another job?" is an understandable question that unhappy employees might ask themselves. Among employees who aren't making entry-level wages, there is the uncertainty about whether a different job would pay the same as the one they are leaving. For a lot of people, it takes something almost catastrophic to get them to leave their job and look for something else. For me, I had been unhappy for several years, but it took getting fired to get me to look for something else. In 2020 that catastrophic event was the pandemic. 

In Spring 2020 many restaurant workers, unable to work remotely, found themselves out of a job. While it's possible, even likely, that some of these folks attempted to ride it out by living on unemployment benefits, many more simply found other jobs. Once restaurants started opening back up and managers realized they couldn't fully staff their business, former restaurant workers fell into several categories:

• People who, before the pandemic, hated their jobs, but were afraid to leave. They found other work and never looked back
• People who, before the pandemic, had no issue with their job, but found other work, and didn't want to change jobs again
• People who, after working in a different industry for a year, realized how hard restaurant work is and realized they could make a living without working so hard and that other businesses were offering competitive wages

And it's not just the restaurant business that's scrambling. A local grocery store director told me recently that last year he had no problem filling positions, but that this year it has been very difficult. It doesn't take an economic genius to figure out that when most people are already working, few people are going to be desperate for jobs. It's a worker's market, business owners aren't calling the shots. 

The Founders

What was the position of the nation's founders? We often hear this question in relation to an issue of how to interpret some aspect of the Constitution. Strict constructionists, those who believe that we should adhere to the actual text of the Constitution (and by extension, all laws), often are also originalists, which means that when it comes to interpreting ambiguous passages they look to documentation for what people originally thought the words meant. I understand the appeal of this thinking. We are, or at least we aspire to be, a nation of laws. Even when we try to accomplish horrendous things (e.g. the post Reconstruction disenfranchisement of Black Americans, the current voter suppression laws) we try to do it legally, i.e. by passing laws as the means to attain our nefarious ends. The weak point in any law, good or bad, is that there is absolutely no way for any law to cover all eventualities. For example, several years ago, the Nebraska State legislature passed a law exempting the sale of manufacturing machinery and equipment (MME) to companies engaged in manufacturing, from sales tax. It was left to state regulatory agencies to define manufacturing, "company engaged in manufacturing", and equipment. Would a company claiming this exemption have to be engaged primarily in manufacturing? Would parts of manufacturing equipment be exempt? It goes on and on. Pages of regulations were written, with some challenged in court. This is true for virtually any law that is passed and is exponentially greater on the federal level. For some laws, an enforcement mechanism must be written into the regulations, including penalties. 

What strict constructionalists and originalists do not take into account is how laws are not self-interpreting and that their application and administration is going to change as circumstances change. To cite another example from Nebraska tax law, outside of certain exceptions, the sale of all goods are taxable, while the sale of services is not. These laws were written before anyone had ever heard of computer software. So what is computer software? Is it a good or a service? If it's a "good", is it subject to Nebraska sales tax if it's installed out of state? What about cloud software? Currently there is a spider's web of rules and regulations that determine whether any particular software is taxable or not. How should an originalist view the taxability of software? It can't be determined with any surety, because the founders couldn't have conceived of something like software and therefore would not have had an opinion about it. Of course one can take the position that Modern "X" is just like Founders' "Y" and therefore "X" should be interpreted exactly like "Y", but it would be naught but speculation. 

Adherents to the originalist/strict textual interpretation tend to ascribe an almost godlike status to the founders that you don't often see outside of religion. They attempt to quash all argument by appeal to the wisdom of the founders, as if they weren't flesh and blood humans with human frailties. Let's not forget that aside from arguable mistakes like the Electoral College, they countenanced slavery. Is there anyone with an ounce of ethics who believes slavery is morally acceptable? So the question to ask in scenarios like DC statehood, or eliminating the Electoral College, isn't whether this was something the founders supported, or even envisioned, but whether it is a demonstrably good thing, something that is beneficial to our country. Viewing the Constitution or any of its amendments as a suicide pact that should be adhered to despite any harmful consequences is counterproductive. This is one of the reasons why the type of judges appointed to federal courts is important. Republicans tend to appoint "conservative" judges, defined as textualists, strict constructionalists or originalists, while Democrats lean toward "liberals" who are more apt to interpret the Constitution in a way that takes 200+ years of changes into account. As a practical matter, conservative judges are more likely to prop up the status quo, since the status quo is naturally a result of two centuries of originalism. With the new 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court we're already seeing a continuation of solidifying of power centers. One example is the way the rights of organizations to enforce religious beliefs has been given priority over public health and individual rights. 

The Founders were men (yes, all males, not a woman in the bunch), many of whom owned other human beings and were shaped by the culture of their times. Times have changed. 

Qualified Immunity

My father was a New York City police officer for 21 years. My brother was a New York City police sergeant, ending his 25+ year career as a homicide detective. Guys that I grew up with were police officers as well.  I officiated a wedding a few years ago for a Lincoln police office who had been shot in the line of duty and had to retire because his injury prevented him from doing the job. I respect the officers who do their jobs oftentimes in very difficult circumstances and  put their lives on the line sometimes losing their lives in the process. It's a tough job. I'd like to see every police officer make it safely home to their family at the end of their shift.

Unfortunately that has often become the overriding goal: protecting the safety of the police. Don't misunderstand, the safety of each individual officer is important. Police departments must have policies in place so as not to place officers in unnecessary danger. There are going to be times when the absolute only way for a police officer to protect their life, or the life of innocent bystanders, is to use lethal force, i.e. to kill someone. It's fair to point out that it's easy for me, who has never been in a situation where a decision whether or not to shoot another human being is necessary, to pass judgement. To be clear, I'm not referring to situation where someone is threatening the police or civilians with a gun (or even another weapon), but how many times have we heard about scenarios where a cop shot someone who was reaching for their drivers license, or made a move that the officer thought was aggressive? Times where the subject was unarmed? And the justification was that the officer "feared for their life"? And this action was completely within acceptable department policy? One can only conclude that the preferred tactic is to take preemptive action just in case the person that was stopped for a broken tail light, or an illegal air freshener was going to shoot the cop with that gun he didn't have. It's a weird twist on the plot of Minority Report, but instead of legal action being taken for a crime that the perpetrator was thinking about committing, lethal action is taken based on what the police officer was thinking about might happen. People who have done nothing worse than appearing threatening are shot without a second thought. 

Qualified immunity, the principle where these kind of killings are deemed justified if the officer followed department procedure, or subjectively feared for their life, has to end. We're finally starting to see police who kill people being held to account by the courts, but verdicts still depend upon whether the officer's action conformed to policy or whether the jury believed that there was a genuine fear on the part of the cop. The system needs to change so that the default position isn't to shoot someone "just in case". 

Both Sides

You hear it all the time, some bad behavior is identified and immediately "the other guys do it too" is offered up as a defense. In the world of politics, sometimes that's true, there are some things that both sides are guilty of. Politicians of all stripes seem to see getting re-elected and holding on to power as an end in itself. They all tend to reward their allies, often at the expense of those who do not vote for them. You can find inept politicians, you can find corrupt politicians, you can find just plain stupid politicians on both sides of the aisle. 

But...

In my view the modern Republican Party has gone beyond the pale. It is not arguable that nationwide, and even in many states, aggressive gerrymandering has resulted in Republicans being in a position of power that is not supported by their numbers. In many states the Congressional delegation and the state legislature is controlled by Republicans even when a majority of the votes went to Democrats. The situation is exacerbated by the way Senators are allocated, which in turn determines in part the makeup of the Electoral College. The Senate is split 50-50, even though the Democratic Senators represent 56.3% of the population. Two out of the last six presidential elections were won by a candidate who received fewer votes. Even President Biden's 2020 victory could have gone the other way if a few thousand votes in a handful of key states had gone the other way. 

Republican leadership is not stupid. They understand the population trends and see that the percentage of the electorate who can be counted on to vote for Republicans is steadily decreasing. So what do these non-stupid Republicans do? While they still retain legislative majorities they take action to reduce the influence of the Democratic Party. Since governors are elected by popular vote, gerrymandering does not affect them. In several states that elected Democratic governors in Republican-gerrymandered states, the Republican-majority legislature acted to limit the governor's powers before he took office. Despite there being every indication that the 2020 elections were conducted fairly and without any measurable fraud, dozens of Republican-dominated states changed election laws to make it more difficult for people to vote. In some cases, such as in Georgia, voting access was expanded in rural areas where a majority voted for Republicans while being restricted in urban areas that tended to vote Democratic. Not to mention the various actions by Republicans to overrule or delay petition drives approved by a majority of the people in the case of Medicaid expansion or cannabis legalization. 

Republican politicians in 2021 fall into two broad categories. There are the Machiavellian strategists, represented by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell has always played the long game, understanding that elections come and go, but if you can appoint enough federal judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, to the bench, you have built an effective firewall against progressive reforms. And by making effective use of Senate rules a smart leader can push through his own priorities when in the majority and obstruct by filibuster when in the minority. McConnell's strategy became apparent during President Obama's terms as president. His stated goal was to make Obama a one-term president. As we know, that failed, but he was able to put the brakes on virtually everything Obama tried to accomplish. The only reason the PPACA passed was that the Democrats had a 60 seat majority in the Senate. McConnell's main accomplishment was to prevent Obama from appointing federal judges, culminating in his refusal to consider Merrick Garland nomination to the Supreme Court. McConnell feigns a respect for Senate tradition and excoriates the Democrats for even talking about eliminating the filibuster, but he has been very clear that he will use the rules when it suits him, and change them when they don't. 

The second broad category includes the Trumpists like Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Green, Lauren Boebert, Gym Jordon, and Josh Hawley. This wing of the Republican Party makes no pretense of trying to legislate or govern, but are primarily performative. They're more short-term thinkers and have no concept of the long political game. When in the minority they mindlessly obstruct and when in the majority they mindless support whatever the leader wants. They spend more time making outrageous statements on social media, attacking their opponents and pandering to the worst instincts of the Republican base than doing the hard work of legislating. Included within this second group are politicians such as Ted Cruz or our own Pete Ricketts. This crowd may have been serious about their jobs at one time and been mainstream conservative Republicans but were seduced by the unquestioning, unwavering support and adulation that Trump received that they decided that their future as politicians depended on replicating that model. These were elected officials who at one time were concerned about roads, and property taxes and budgets, but now make daily pronouncements about "defending the second amendment", protecting the boarder and "stopping the steal". 

So, yes, you're going to see problems with the Democrats as well as with the Republicans. You're going to be able to point to things that the Democrats do and be horrified. Democrats may be the party that takes your vote for granted, but the Republicans are the party that effective wants to take your vote away. All the while blaming every problem on immigrants and Black Lives Matter (and Antifa, don't forget Antifa). 

Both sides are not the same. 

Cult of Personality

If you've read my social media posts over the last four years you've seen me refer to supporters of Former Guy as a cult. One of my reasons for that is the tendency of Trump supporters to believe anything that he said, even in the face of clear and unambiguous evidence that he was lying. Another reason is the way Losin' Don has been placed on a pedestal with loyalty to him having become the criteria for being a "real American" with no room for criticism. 

I was born during President Eisenhower's second term, and became aware of politics and who the president was during President Nixon's second term. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama were presidents who followed Nixon. Every one of them had their supporters and detractors, but not one of them was the focus of a cult of personality as Donnie One-Term has been. Of course during an election campaign partisan supporters could be quite passionate about their candidate, but once the election was over the occupant of the White House was something most Americans tended to not give much thought to. Sure, there were protests against policies, and concern about taxes and the war du jour, but I never got the impression that their supporters viewed Bush or Obama or Clinton as a national savior of some kind. In short, none of us really gave a shit about who the president was between elections. 

The election of Donnie Two-Scoops in 2016 changed the rules of the game. His own rampant narcissism was embraced by his supporters. His insistence on one-way loyalty was cheered by his base. His parade of lies was explained away by his cheerleaders. Cadet Bone Spurs, unlike previous presidents, spent a lot of time publicly attacking his political opponents, painting them as 'enemies of the people', sometimes explicitly as treasonous or as traitors. This inspired many of his opponents to respond in kind, inciting his supports to attack his detractors. Folks, this was not normal. 

Some things will never quite get back to normal, even though the Orange One has been defeated at the ballot box. But one thing that has gone back to normal is that the people who voted for the new president, don't give a shit about him, and don't care if he is mocked by the losing side. We care about his policies, we care about things that will affect us, we care about the issues that have long-term consequences. We don't see him as the American Savior. We don't see him as uniquely qualified, that "he alone can fix it", and we certainly don't see him as ordained by God to lead the nation. He's just the guy who got enough votes to get elected to do a tough job for the next four years. 

Residual Trumpists haven't gotten the message. 

The Trump loyalists spend their time mocking President Biden for irrelevancies, such as his stutter, a slip & fall on Air Force One steps, how his dogs are "un-presidential", continuing their program of "owning the libs" as if "the libs" cared. Biden voters aren't invested in Biden's personality the way Trump voters were tied to Trump's. 

If he loses the next election, we won't be storming the Capitol.