tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10501618464200614192024-03-13T00:17:33.569-04:00Common Sense for the 21st Centurya political blog, for My CountrymenBen Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.comBlogger253125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-5533826156778736962024-02-20T01:12:00.026-05:002024-02-23T22:39:58.244-05:00Alexei Navalny<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/navalnys-letters-from-the-gulag" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="634" height="365" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhajTfifrGO3nBncaW6QSGukeMtPiixypXnsAlrZ_13wZnZ5XNgMrIpdNbKM6E4CngNyjwVa2qj-A4lylMzId2Q7MoU7Dtb9D3QbgxIbTDWTKDVj8I5DKzBYFc44TJVqzmuEg2wgejfPDtQKSuL4iRJ0Q3mN6Q6hyphenhyphen2TstY2fbEcFTpP-VY_N9P8oLksB2M/w640-h365/C6297EDD-F7C0-4A27-A168-1869FC174B06_4_5005_c.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;">R.I.P. Alexei Navalny, 4 June 1976 – 16 February 2024</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></td></tr></tbody></table><span><a name='more'></a></span>Donald Trump admires Vladimir Putin. Tucker Carlson just defined obsequiousness for our time. MAGA Republican office holders march in lock step. Putin just imprisoned 400 Russian souls who dared to pay homage to a fallen comrade. Putin's clumsy assassination of a brave rival, a man for all seasons, just cost Republicans in the United States the presidency, the Senate and the House by 25 seats.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Trump has taken on Navalny's ordeal as equivalent to the legal troubles he has had to endure from his powerful enemies, without once mentioning the name of Putin. Navalny has called the prospect of a second Trump administration "<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/navalny-death-letters-trump-second-term-agenda-really-scary-2024-2" target="_blank">really scary</a>."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As an aside, I defy any of you to get this man's image out of your head.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="t1" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><tbody><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Date</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Source</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Description</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">URL</p></td></tr><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: right;">4/25/21</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">60 Minutes</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Alexey Navalny and Putin's history of suspected poisonings and crackdowns | 60 Minutes Full Episodes</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gB5X2GydtY</p></td></tr><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: right;">2/16/24</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">apnews</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Protests, poisoning and prison: The life and death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://apnews.com/article/russia-navalny-life-timeline-0722708e19e51b10699b2cc73ece0bae</p></td></tr><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: right;">2/16/24</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">bbc</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Alexei Navalny, Russia's most vociferous Putin critic</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16057045</p></td></tr><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: right;">2/16/24</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">pbs</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Why Alexei Navalny’s legacy after news of his death is ‘one of tragedy’ for Russians</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-alexei-navalnys-legacy-after-news-of-his-death-is-one-of-tragedy-for-russians</p></td></tr><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: right;">2/16/24</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The Atlantic</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Why Russia Killed Navalny</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/navalny-death-russia-prison/677485/</p></td></tr><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: right;">2/16/24</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The New Yorker</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The Death of Alexey Navalny, Putin’s Most Formidable Opponent</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/the-death-of-alexey-navalny-putins-most-formidable-opponent</p></td></tr><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: right;">2/18/24</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Time</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Alexei Navalny Is With Us Forever Now</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://time.com/6696240/alexei-navalny-death-russia-essay/</p></td></tr><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: right;">2/20/24</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">New York Times</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Alexei Navalny (too many to itemize)</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/aleksei-navalny</p></td></tr><tr><td class="td1" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 44px;" valign="middle"><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: right;">2/20/24</p></td><td class="td2" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 107px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Google</p></td><td class="td3" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 218px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Video Interviews with Alexei Navalny (too many to itemize)</p></td><td class="td4" style="border-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; padding: 0px 5px; width: 311px;" valign="middle"><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://www.google.com/search?q=video+interviews+with+alexei+navalny</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div>
</div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-71178515601178007932023-10-29T18:40:00.042-04:002024-03-11T19:17:03.050-04:00A Brief for Israel<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.inss.org.il/publication/antisemitism-left/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1159" data-original-width="2058" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1qlElZPnsk_-oSKGXWANUp6Qj6LJaic6KghGn4ZVCEb5uSDI4buHnxu2wuplDOGs7PG5oqFJmRuMz3ggPZmoM4Cbu7Sc406V-_yKaJpqrw_UqTbH9KzYCbbqHet7wD6NYTgS9utJtYGnNOyyz4vjPh0fEmuGahA9VzQhsmN_WEPKhiB_iihn1I1_w1NI/w400-h225/antisemitism%20on%20the%20left.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While many of us bemoan the ascendancy of Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel's Donald Trump?) and his supporters, you have to wonder: if you were an Israeli Jew, would you still be patient with the daily threats of bloodshed posed by Palestinians? Yes, Israel has over-reacted to Palestinian violence, but what would you have done?</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is my conviction that a lot of anti-Israel sentiment in these United States, especially among young people, is due to a lack of historical perspective.<span><a name='more'></a></span></span></span></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Herewith, some historical perspective:<span></span></span></p><p></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Not for a single moment in the past 2500 years all the way to today have Hebrews, Israelites and Jews NOT lived in what we now call Israel or Palestine.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Jews who emigrated from Europe and Arab countries to Palestine, from the first years of Zionism in the 1890’s until U.N. Partition in 1947, moved into land and property that they paid for.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In 1947, the United Nations did NOT merely recommend the creation of a Jewish state in British Palestine; rather, it recommended partition of British Palestine into TWO separate states: a Jewish state of Israel and a Muslim state of Palestine.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In May of 1948, at the expiration of British control of Palestine, Israel declared itself a nation-state. Her Muslim neighbors – Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq, with help from Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Sudan – not content with partition into two co-existing states, initiated a war of extermination against the just-born state of Israel. At least six formally declared wars have occurred since then, all but one of which were initiated by the Palestinian side. Only recently has Israel's adversary been "Palestinians"; Israel's adversary in the early years were her neighboring Arab states.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So-called “occupied” territories are spoils of war. Wars that Israel fought in self-defense. If the state of Israel is a colonizing state and the Jews should go back to where they came from, are YOU prepared to return to where your ancestors came from? How prepared are we to return this land to the peoples from whom we stole it hundreds of years ago? Every square inch of the world…</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Whatever walls were built by Israel – that are characterized by some as concentration camps – were not built to imprison Palestinians, they were built to keep Palestinians OUT of Israel.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Israeli Right of Return is the offer of full citizenship for Jews who immigrate to Israel. The Palestinian Right of Return is the offer of land and property (that belongs to Israel) to Palestinians who abandoned that land and property because of wars that their side initiated and lost.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Whenever Human Rights violations are spoken of, Israel is always accused of being the worst – if not the only – offender in the world; whereas every Arab nation in the region is a worse offender.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Half of the times that the U.N. General Assembly has censured a nation, that nation has been Israel. Antisemitism – or Jew hatred – is not a new thing, and it is easy to attack Jews as they are such a small part of world population, 1/5th of one percent. There is only one Jewish state – a state with a majority Jewish population – Israel. There are nearly 2 billion Muslims, 24% of world population, 125 times the number of Jews, and 50 countries with a majority Muslim population.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Two million (!) citizens of Israel are Arabs (mostly Muslim, mostly Palestinians). Israeli Arabs can vote. Muslim Arabs sit in the Israeli Knesset. They were part of the ruling coalition government just months ago. Name even one Arab or Muslim country where a single Jew is part of the governing structure. <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=i_MfnpuafBg" target="_blank">Israeli Arabs lead better lives</a> than Palestinian Arabs. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EwEhQtDk-4" target="_blank">Palestinians who live in Israel</a> want to live in Israel. Only <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world#Table_of_the_Jewish_population_in_Muslim_countries" target="_blank">12,700 Jews</a> now live in Arab countries and more than half of them live in Turkey. If this is apartheid, it is a very strange version of it.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Much of the Palestinian leadership – especially Hamas in Gaza – still <a href="https://archive.md/GmSpi#selection-1033.10-1033.14" target="_blank">explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel</a> and Jews living there or anywhere. Most Israeli Jews want a two-state solution. Over and over, Israel has offered land for peace. The Palestinian side has refused every offer that was directed at peace, nor have they counter-offered; they prefer war until they imagine they will win in the end. For Palestinians, winning is having world public opinion on their side; easy when the other side is Jews.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Ask yourself: which side really wants peace (without victory)? Which side wants perpetual war (with its side victorious)?</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">No doubt the Palestinian side has legitimate grievances. But they have had countless opportunities to negotiate settlement of those grievances; they prefer war where they will lose ten times the lives that Israel will lose as long as world public opinion sides with them. Why does world public opinion always side with the Palestinians? Because antisemitism is alive and well. Why does antisemitism exist in the world? Because Judaism is the father religion to Christianity and Islam, and they worship the God that Jews invented. Because Jews are so few and are an easy target for scapegoating. Because of envy.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Is Israel under Netanyahu over-reacting to the latest escalation that began on October 7th? Probably. Would you make a better Prime Minister than Netanyahu? What would you suggest is the proper action for Israel to take? And how would the Palestinian side react?</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If you believe that the Palestinians are the good guys in this enduring conflict, I recommend any of a half-dozen books on Israel and Palestine by the ardent Zionist and notable Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Yes, Dershowitz is biased, but bias does not mean dishonest and how else is truth discovered except by listening to both sides of a story? See also, the free <a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Myths2023/mf2023.pdf" target="_blank">Myths & Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict</a>, by Mitchell G. Bard.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I am not suggesting that Hamas represents all or even most Palestinians; nor am I suggesting that Netanyahu represents all or most Israelis. But the actions of extremists on one side makes for more extremists on the other side.</span></li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;">Is anti-Zionism (Zionism is the right for Israel to exist) antisemitic? Of course.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;">Addendum: Thursday, 11/30/2023</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; text-align: left;">Part I<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">OK, I get it, for some of you mere facts don't move you. Listen to an Israeli tour guide give you history lessons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=travelingisrael.com" target="_blank">Words of an Israeli Tour Guide</a></p><p style="text-align: justify;">No? Ok how about Arab Muslims who have seen both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sophia+khalifa" target="_blank">Words of an Arab Muslim Israeli</a></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mosab+Hassan+Yousef+&sp=CAM%253D" target="_blank">Words of the son of a Hamas founder who spent time in an Israeli prison</a></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; text-align: left;">Part II</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Solving the Unsolvable</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am as despondent of solving the 75-year-old Israeli-Palestinian crisis as anyone living. Nevertheless, last night, as I was drifting off to sleep, the following occurred to me.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Two or four TV producers – one from each side or a man and a woman from each side – should agree to co-produce an ongoing daily TV event, eight hours per day or 24 hours per day, of indefinite duration, perhaps several years. The event will be carried on Israeli and Palestinian TV channels (it will NOT have worldwide coverage because that would be … distracting). The event shall consist of everyday Israelis and Palestinians – no politicians and no celebrities – who want to express themselves as to What I Want, and Why. They may speak, sing, cry, scream, dance or otherwise express themselves in any way they choose, for a minimum of 30 seconds to a maximum of 30 minutes. They will alternate, a speaker from one side followed by a speaker from the other side. In the first days, the producers will attempt to have speakers follow each other who both want war, then for some days, they will attempt to have speakers follow each other who both want peace, then for the duration, random points of view should follow each other. Once every citizen from both sides has had his or her opportunity to speak, they may elect to go again, without limit. Speakers may speak in their own language, or English, and translations will be provided in all cases by persons trusted by all the producers. If fact-checking becomes necessary, that will be provided too, by both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This is, of course, “reality TV,” the difference being, first, that it is really real (most so-called reality TV is scripted and fake) and second, that it has a purpose, bringing two peoples to a greater understanding of each other and, ultimately, to a peaceful settlement. It may take weeks, or months, or even years, but I believe if the two peoples hear each other – real people one at a time – all speaking their truths, peace will happen. There is not a person alive who does not believe that everyday Israelis and Palestinians want something different from what their leaders have been serving them for decades. At the leadership level, both sides want to annihilate the other side; at a personal level, both sides want justice and to live without being stalked by death every day of the year. In the immortal words of John Lennon, “give peace a chance.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Many readers of this short piece will accuse its author of being hopelessly naïve, to which the author responds: please share with me your better idea.
</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Addendum: Sunday, 01/07/2024</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If you, dear reader, have read or heard that the state of Israel is guilty of genocide and/or ethnic cleansing, ask yourself this: how do you explain that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine" target="_blank">population of Muslims</a> living in Gaza and the West Bank and Israel have each increased by an annual 3% since 1970, while the population of Jews living in Israel has increased by an annual 2% since 1970. Answer that! Jews are not very good killers. As to the reduced land area that remains under Muslim control, blame that on losing a half dozen wars to Israel. The solution is easy: one, Muslims should stop attacking Israel and losing land as a consequence; two, abandon hope that Israel and its Jews will ever disappear, and come sit down with Israelis at a negotiating table. Also, for Muslim treatment of the Jews, see <b><a href="https://medium.com/@Ksantini/the-list-of-crimes-committed-by-muslims-against-jews-since-the-7th-century-0ff1a8eb0ad0" target="_blank">this</a></b>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the recently published <i><a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-12/human-freedom-index-2023-full-revised.pdf" target="_blank">HUMAN FREEDOM INDEX 2023</a>: A Global Measurement of Personal, Civil, and Economic Freedom</i> (a close cousin of the Human Rights Watch publication which, for unknown reasons, does not rank nation states) by the CATO Institute, the nation-state of Israel is #59 in their rankings. As a reference point, Canada is ranked #13 while the United States enjoys rank #17. While #59 is nothing to write home about, Jordan is next at #108! But among Middle Eastern countries, Israel ranks #1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Addendum: Thursday, 01/11/2024</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"Kill the Jews" is probably protected speech under the First Amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li>Unless you are speaking to people who are servile to you, and they act on your command. In which case, you are legally as guilty as anyone who commits first degree murder. </li><li>Unless you are speaking to random people, and someone acts upon your suggestion. In which case you are in a heap of legal trouble, to be determined case by case. </li><li>Protected speech – speech covered by the First Amendment – ONLY protects you from government prosecution, it does not protect your status as a student, or as a teacher / instructor / professor. </li><li>And it surely does NOT protect you from being black-listed by potential employers. </li><li>What is the moral of this story? One, before committing to acting stupidly, consult a lawyer. Two, antisemitism is stupid and it isn’t good for you. Sooner or later, you will regret it. </li></ul><div><br /></div><div>Addendum: Sunday, 01/14/2024</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>Since the founding of the International Court of Justice in 1946, there have been more than a dozen instances of genocide whose body counts dwarf the number of Gazan deaths at Israel’s hands since October 7th. But only one charge of genocide has made it to the ICJ (in 2022, when Ukraine charged Russia with violating the 1948 Genocide Convention by falsely claiming genocide as a pretext for invading Ukraine). If the ICJ had existed in the 1940s, might Japan have brought charges against the United States for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Germany for fire-bombing Dresden? Is a nation at war bound by “rules of war” to act “proportionately,” especially when it reacts in self-defense to an unprovoked aggressive attack? Every (one exception) outbreak of killing between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East has been initiated by Muslims. And, while Israel has sued for peace over and over again, Muslims have made the total destruction of the Jewish state the keynote of their charters. </div><div><br /></div><div>I am dead-tired of defending Israel’s right to exist. Not another country on earth has had to defend its right to exist in the court of public opinion. Only Israel. It is like having to defend American Blacks for equal protection under the law. Anyone who thinks this needs an argument or a defense is deeply troubled. Those who believe that Blacks should not be treated equally under the law are racists and they are psychologically and spiritually damaged in a way that only death will cure. Those who believe that Israel has no right to exist are antisemites. It really IS that simple. Hatred does wound innocent people, but in the end it poisons and destroys the haters. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar declared, "cowards die many times before their deaths." So it is with haters, and they die a little every living day.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Addendum: Monday, 03/11/2024</div><div>Thomas Sowell, a brilliant black American economist, when asked by a Rabbi friend, "what can we do to end antisemitism?", cheekily replied "fail." As though antisemitism was merely envy of those who fared better in life than you. His answer has merit but it ignores history. While the word itself was coined as recently as 1860, Jews have been persecuted for no rational reason for two thousand years, give or take a few hundred years. But we have not been envied for our success for all that long. The first wealthy Jewish family in popular history is the Rothschilds, whose patriarch made his mark beginning in the 1760's, only 260+ years ago. But organized antisemitism goes way back. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism" target="_blank">Timeline #1</a> and <a href="https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/HistoryJewishPersecution/" target="_blank">Timeline #2</a>. Sorry, Thomas, antisemitism did not begin with the banking Rothschilds, with Jewish success. </div><div><br /></div></div></div><p></p>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-35108426950741123632023-09-13T20:26:00.003-04:002023-09-13T20:30:42.585-04:00Fixing a Broken System in 800 words<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>This piece was written to be an Op-Ed. The Washington Post has rejected it. I will take it down when and if some newspaper publishes it.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * * * * * * * *</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We live in a nominally democratic society; but it ain’t working and we all seem to agree without knowing what to do about it. Two quotes inform my thinking about this matter: 1) In a democracy, the people get the government that they deserve, and 2) freedom without responsibility is license.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here are my suggestions:</div><div>We have institutional problems, political problems, and civic problems.</div><div><br /></div><div>Institutionally</div><div><ul><li>The single most crucial section of the U.S. Constitution today is the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause; anyone who is not 100% on board with equal protection should have no seat in public office.</li><li>We need to build an unbridgeable wall between Big Money and politics and governance; a Constitutional amendment that puts an end to “corporate personhood” and declares that money is not protected political speech under the First Amendment. That the candidate with the most expensive megaphone will be heard by many more voters is an offense to democracy.</li><li>Winner Take All contests subvert democracy. We need to institute Ranked Choice Voting everywhere. This will allow voters to choose the best candidate, not the lesser of two evils; it will also destroy the stranglehold of the two major (already corrupted) political parties.</li><li>We need honest voting machines. The software must be open source to anyone who wants to examine the logic. If a manual recount finds a meaningful discrepancy with the machine’s count, the CEO of the voting machine company should spend five years in prison.</li><li>Voter Suppression: Anyone who prevents a legitimate voter from voting should spend five days behind bars per voter suppressed. Even – and especially – a state’s Secretary of State.</li><li>In order to give candidates for office an equal chance, paid advertising (TV, radio, newspapers, internet) must be prohibited. Communication between candidates and voters will be by Town Hall meetings and rallies, candidate web pages, televised debates, and retail politics (living room gatherings and knocking on doors). In televised debates, formal debating rules will apply; a candidate will be removed from further participation at the sole discretion of a debate judge; audience members who are disruptive will be removed.</li><li>The Electoral College makes a mockery of one person one vote; it should go.</li><li>Leadership of all agencies will be experts in their fields and friendly to its mission. Staff will have approval power over their selection.</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div>Politically</div><div><ul><li>We need honest, capable, and public-spirited representatives. Every candidate for public office must pass the 100 question Citizenship test with a 90% grade and his state’s high school final American history exam with a 90% grade, at unscheduled dates, repeated every few years.</li><li>No one may stand for high public office who has not performed at least two years of public service.</li><li>Unyielding Conflict of Interest should be grounds for immediate removal from public office.</li><li>Recalls should be available in every state; the special election to replace the recalled individual must include that individual.</li><li>Every bill before Congress shall have an Executive Summary of two pages that will thoroughly explain the bill’s intent such that no reasonable person will be surprised by any detail within the bill.</li><li>No bill before Congress shall have a poison pill amendment.</li><li>Wealth must be taxed, else our most fortunate pay no income taxes whatever.</li></ul><div><br /></div>Civically</div><div><ul><li>Our Founding Fathers feared a pure (or direct) democracy, self-rule by mostly ignorant and uninformed citizens. Are we – collectively and individually – capable of self-rule?</li><li>In a representative democracy – distinct from pure democracy – we elect our fellow citizens to represent us. Candidates for office will tell us what they believe, and we will choose those whom we trust will do the best job.</li><li>One measure of a citizen’s capacity for self-rule will be that same Citizenship test that immigrants must pass in order to earn the right to vote; a citizen’s right to vote shall depend upon passing the same test with a 70% grade (it is 60% for an immigrant).</li><li>Surely, one person one vote is more democratic than one dollar one vote. Equally obvious is an uninformed voter should not have the same voting power as a professor of American history or a professional historian (or self-taught history buff). Informed Americans deserve a multiple of up to 5x that of the least uninformed voter. Knowledge must translate to political power.</li><li>Worse than voter apathy is voters who have no respect for indisputable facts.</li><li>We need citizen soldiers, 5% to 10% of the adult population. If we can’t gather this many patriots long term, we should give up on representative democracy and try the Showing Up model, where those who “show up” will govern.</li><li>Once we show ourselves worthy of self-rule, once we choose to live in a real democracy, issues like gerrymandering and term-limits will take care of themselves in due course. Ultimately, We the people are in charge.</li></ul></div><div>Good luck to us! </div><div><br /></div></div>
</div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-63358453933734344542023-09-11T21:43:00.005-04:002024-02-14T20:24:26.582-05:00Bias and Donald Trump<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>This piece is too long for a letter to the editor and too short for an Op Ed piece or even a Ben Paine blog post. Here it is anyway. When I write I publish.</div><div><br /></div><div>On September 11th, 2023, the NY Times published an article: <i>Trump Seeks Recusal of Judge in Federal Elections Case</i>, as she had shown bias against him. In the end, can Donald Trump get a fair trial anywhere? Can this, or any, judge sit in judgment on Donald Trump without bias?<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div> </div><div>So, to be clear, bias is a judgment about someone, typically negative. A close cognate of bias is prejudice, as both words define a judgment that is typically negative. The difference is: a prejudice is without foundation, without appeal to facts or reality. Bias is most often earned, it is based on what you learn about someone, hopefully from reliable sources. An easy example: if you judge a man incompetent and not worthy of being hired because he is black, without knowing anything else about the individual in question, that is an easy example of prejudice, PRE – JUDGMENT. Any American’s judgment about Donald Trump will be a matter of bias, not prejudice, as he is a public figure who is well-known to perhaps 100% of the U.S. population, most of whom have already rendered a judgment about him. We Americans are all biased about Donald Trump, he has been in our faces for decades, we all have rendered a judgment about him, either good or ill.</div><div> </div><div>Let’s be clear: what Trump’s lawyers did I would have done as his lawyer, too. But what are the odds of a judge not being biased about Trump when we are ALL biased about Trump? Perhaps the emphasis was on the judge’s bias AGAINST Trump. Well, just how many informed Americans are not biased negatively about Trump, including everyone who sits on a judicial bench? Can Trump not get a fair trial anywhere in these United States, or anywhere else in the world, where he is universally known as well? It seems that the only Americans who are biased in his favor are his base, whom he calls “the poorly educated.” Not too many judges belong to that camp.</div><div> </div><div>Putting the biases of judges aside, can Trump get a fair jury trial anywhere in this country? How many potential jurors have not heard of him and already come to a conclusion about his guilt or innocence? Indeed, I wonder if any jury can be seated that will not have at least a few Trump acolytes who will have risked perjuring themselves to win a seat on the jury to make sure that Trump does not hang; all it takes is one (biased) juror to render a not guilty verdict, facts and the law be damned!</div><div> </div><div>I am biased as hell about most things, because I am interested in almost everything, and I consume the news like it was a buffet in front of a hungry man. And I come to conclusions, I earn my biases. But I like to think I am not prejudiced, about anything. I am probably wrong. My bias about Trump is deeply, deeply negative. The man was taught by the best – by his father Fred Trump and by Joe McCarthy’s lawyer Roy Cohn – how to do wrong and not break the law, or appear not to have broken the law, or have a jury find you not guilty by hook or by crook. Trump has mixed feelings about the law; first, he has contempt for the law but, second, he knows to avoid being caught up by the law. He doesn’t want to go to prison any more than you or I. Do I have a bias (really, a guess or a prediction) about the verdict in any of Trump’s future trials? No, I do not. But I hope he hangs!</div><div><br /></div></div>
</div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-34591251819264836342023-09-07T17:55:00.014-04:002023-09-29T09:45:37.560-04:00Who Can You Trust?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>I have a young friend whose politics are informed by a lack of trust in government, a position that I am sympathetic toward. Our presidents have lied to us, especially about the most momentous thing of all – going to war! Woodrow Wilson lied to us, FDR lied to us, LBJ and Richard Nixon lied to us. Donald Trump lied to us when he need not have. But mistrusting the establishment and/or the mainstream media has its perils, like compelling you to ask: who do you trust? One answer is, no one: but that kind of nihilism leads nowhere. Another answer is the anti-establishment. But who are they? Donald Trump, the Prince of Lies, has tens of millions of Americans who trust him, despite the clear evidence that no one else in the American tradition has ever been accused, justly, of SO treating the simple truth like poison. <span><a name='more'></a></span>The mainstream media is slanted, no doubt; but media has always been slanted to the left, as its practitioners (aka journalists) live by the credo, <i>the pen is mightier than the sword</i>. A journalist’s adversaries – those who wield the sword – have always been those who wield power: the government and concentrated wealth, individuals and private corporations. But, while they are slanted left, they rarely lie, as they have a reputation to protect; too many lies, and you lose readership. I slant left myself, for a similar reason: I am always on the side of the underdog, as power does not need my support and I will never sell my soul to the devil with the most dollars. You might alternatively choose to give your trust to those who fight the establishment, like the Proud Boys, like the Oath Keepers, like the KKK. But maybe some anti-establishment folks are just plain evil, or at least morally corrupt. How about whistle blowers? Sure, some blow their whistles in favor of the public (Manning and Snowden), others blow to make a reputation for themselves (Drudge and Breitbart). How about conservative talk radio? I am fascinated by this group, and I go out of my way to listen to them, when I am not preoccupied with personal issues. They seem to be united by being against everything, especially liberal governments, even when liberals are out of power (but they pull all the strings anyway, right?). But the talk radio guys are always so … angry, so angry that I imagine that any regular listener of theirs must finally suffer a heart attack while they drive, from the inevitable spike in their blood pressure. Listen to these guys long enough and you will suffer a massive heart attack, or maybe kill someone else before you kill yourself.</div><div><br /></div><div>I have just outlined what I think we ought not to do to inform our politics and our sources of news, to determine who to trust. What do I suggest that we should do, in a forward moving way?</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=o93pM-b97HI" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu4OdAsdyjnb3FXezpJpZMaJQSIb12NgHaogIOnAXFDuexYf9RR9-RLW3yIuhNI0Gj1OUW43F0cmRAbJ69uqIADHOdJowFFTzDcPWNb9KWLCPG26hcg0Ut26ksO647hrWLC9hi2qz84qagqwIMhjRi9oQZMjN2_GE4s_dZ3UltrDPyZM2FnouHksrzcWY/s320/decide%20who%20to%20trust.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><div>I have argued before that we should trust scientists because they know their specialty science better than we do and they all seem to agree on what they claim to know. But as good a source as they may be, expect them to change their minds as more and better data comes their way. The same is true of journalism: trust the professional practitioners (yeah, the MSM) until you catch them in a lie, that they don’t repent of immediately. But let’s look at the numbers, who do Americans trust the most (and the least)? In 2021, 2022 and 2023, <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/508169/historically-low-faith-institutions-continues.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup asked us who had a “Great deal / Quite a lot of confidence”</a> in various American institutions. At the top of each year's list was Small Business. Near the bottom was Big Business. Interesting already, right? At the absolute bottom was Congress. Which is also interesting, as incumbency is the most reliable predictor of future success. In other words, Americans really don’t trust Congress, but they make an exception of their own Congress person! American trust SCOTUS more than the president more than Congress (go figure). Americans trust newspapers more than TV news. The only institutions that a significant majority (60% or more) of us trust are Small Business and the Military. But over time, we seem to have lost trust in virtually every institution that Gallup surveyed. So, my young friend’s lack of trust is a real reflection on what ails us as a nation. And we are not getting better!</div><div> </div><div>This loss of trust runs along the same rail as our collective sense that our future does not look golden. The middle class has shrunk for 40 years, middle class wages have remained essentially stagnant for 40 years, and the middle class’s sense of job security has all but collapsed in the past 40 years. When a nation’s future does not look bright, its people lose trust in its institutions. Loss of trust begets desperation, desperation begets crime, when too many of us live in prison civilization is at its end.</div><div> </div><div>What do we do long-term, not for desperation but for its underlying causes, economic uncertainty and joblessness (and a loss of shared values: read my other blog posts)? We the people have to remember that in the end we are in charge. If we do not make that real, we will get what we worked for, what we deserve, hell on Earth. If we allow technology (and concentrated wealth) to make our choices, we will get the future that they will allow us. It is up to us.</div><div> </div><div>What should my young friend do short-term, regarding his loss of trust? First, he must not surrender to anyone his final authority over what to believe. Anyone whom he would follow over a cliff will eventually ask him to do just that, and it will be too late to stop. Second, if a source of information always tells him what he wants to believe, he should run away as fast as he can, as he is moments away from swallowing the blue pill (which has its benefits, if that is the life you want to live).</div><div> </div><div>Choose!</div><div><br /></div></div>
</div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-7371250589733297032023-09-03T16:13:00.006-04:002023-09-03T16:43:37.145-04:00Perspective<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://themindfool.com/perspective-on-life/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1500" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1SaAFS2CshNw_IIZozIUtMV0LnAg2e-cwyiy-sIqU4UbHB91Yun3Myrg_39Sywg31NLl11LQ_F1ySaFEdFPOIY4SOgdk-0EWQjgVi6g2VVW8EftSExkyt25-agVpM41e55az5kV2s-Rm3pMjQBwaViv8HPHiJNkSsAEfr-zBkAt7Hz4MgQQWy_g99fsg/s320/perspective-on-life1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Both Carl Sagan and his god son Neil deGrasse Tyson had “cosmic perspectives.” That is, they thought about the cosmos, the universe, everything. Although they both were professional astronomers/astrophysicists, their cosmic perspective forced them to include physics, chemistry, biology, zoology, botany, and a host of human sciences in their quiver of useful knowledge. As scientists in the public eye, who never ceased to enjoy teaching us stuff we didn’t know, their true roles were as advocates for scientific literacy.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div> </div><div>Abraham Maslow’s <i>Hierarchy of Needs</i> suggests that the lower we are on the economic totem pole, the less chance that we will ever learn anything that will not support our survival. No one needs to know what the Solar System is, how many planets it has in its orbit, what the Milky Way is and how many star systems it contains – in order to survive, or for that matter in order to have a good life, at least in financial terms. Indeed, the perspective of most of us is our neighborhood, either where we now live or where we were raised. That is our <b>spatial</b> perspective. If we take elaborate vacations or if we are addicts of travel, we have a broader perspective. For some, Paris is a real thing (we have visited, we loved our brief time there, and we can’t wait for the next time we visit, and for a longer time); for most of us, it is a city in France, or Europe. The <b>temporal</b> perspective of most of us is our own lifetimes; it’s not that we were asleep in high school history class, it’s just that the 19th century has no meaning for us in our lives. Everything we need to know, ever, is in our hands, or more specifically, our smartphones.</div><div> </div><div>But God (or Evolution by Natural Selection) gave us brains. We feed our brains, or we don’t. You have heard the expression, “use it or lose it,” as it applies to our muscles. Our brains are muscles, use it or lose it. <b>There is something emotionally satisfying knowing stuff that we don’t have to know.</b> In high school, history class for me was just meaningless names and dates; for the last twenty-five years I have been a sponge for history. I wish I had started earlier. Everything that I have learned from history, no matter how ancient, informs how I think about the present, and the future.</div><div> </div><div>What kind of perspective do you bring to your role as citizen? Are your political concerns limited to what you imagine concerns you and your family? The state of your roads and bridges, the jobs in your community, crime and the local police force, your local school system. Or are you concerned about the National Debt, military spending, what NASA is up to, equality for all people? What you think about, what you care about, defines your perspective. The narrower it is, the less of a life you will lead; the broader your perspective, the richer a life you will lead.</div><div> </div><div>A final note: from the start, I mentioned that both Sagan and Tyson were advocates of scientific literacy. Scientific literacy is not just knowing a lot of unrelated scientific facts, good for Jeopardy or trivia contests. Scientific literacy is a way of thinking. It demands facts and logic and reasoning. It is about imagining a hypothesis (how does that happen? How does A relate to B?), demonstrating its validity and, after decades of others trying to prove you wrong, winning its place as a scientific theory (to us mortals, a fact) that benefits mankind, that is taught in science class.</div><div> </div><div>Scientific literacy begins with being interested in everything and, in addition, knowing where to put it all, and how to fit it all together, tending with a singular unconscious purpose of making the world a better place. The genius you have in your pocket – or keep in your hand – was the handiwork of centuries of men who were scientifically literate. If you were scientifically literate, what could you invent, how could you make the world a better place?</div><div> </div><div>Open your mind to being an open mind.</div><div> </div><div>“OK, but how does all this relate to politics?”</div><div> </div><div>Every thought that you have that is about making the world a better place, your country a better place, your state a better place, your community a better place; every thought that you have that is aimed at a larger sphere than you and your own family -- is a political thought. We need to spend more of our time making the world a better place, we need to have more political thoughts, followed by political actions. We need to grab a broader – perspective.</div><div><br /></div></div>
</div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-77736828804383005022023-07-23T19:17:00.041-04:002023-09-22T23:16:55.743-04:00On Being Trans<p class="p1" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/miss-netherlands-first-transgender-winner-becomes-target-hate-speech-2023-07-13/" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1707" data-original-width="2560" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp_w2SDITWqcWSkrK0FE_hIp5N6mfTDbiHgkFhEVKtwKxZJFgAwb7Vnu-KygDywgyKqi7rycV9CyvjIeK6xDpob3FG3L94hCw3zQqnHj04baqzGtX-t84t3VQ_ZktVv1AVhX80y0jI72HmkJ1tkR-I7faxOWjW89GanrYL3apZaZw0ETN3q2FJMn2S64A/s320/Rikkie.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Miss Netherlands, a trans woman</td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">How long did it take Dick Cheney, vice president under George W Bush and a real “conservative” Republican, to change his thinking about gay rights when his own daughter came out? What do you think? A minute? 20 seconds? Somewhere between 4% and 10% of us are not straight. That is, 20 million of us are not straight. Which means that most extended families have a gay member or two. And when that person came out, the family got behind him or her. Without blinking an eye. The moron that didn’t was immediately ostracized from the rest of the family. This huge number of families with gay members explains why gay rights is no longer an issue among presidents, senators, House members, and most SCOTUS justices.</span><span><a name='more'></a></span></span></span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Transgender individuals are different, if only because of their lesser numbers. The number of Americans who identify as transgender may be as high as 0.5% of the population, or fewer than 1.5 million. But far fewer have had sex change surgery, perhaps in the low hundreds of thousands. The U.S. Constitution, specifically the 14</span><span class="s2" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: none; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"><sup>th</sup></span><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> Amendment, guarantees equal protection under the law, for every American citizen, or even any person living here. Equal protection of the law – for everyone. This, despite the fact that various states have passed laws limiting the rights of transgender citizens, whether that means all of those who self-identify as trans or only those who have had trans surgery. But then, some Americans often spit in the face of our sacred scriptural text without knowing it, don’t we? Some of us wait for SCOTUS to fix everything, but we appoint morons to serve on the Court, too, don’t we?</span></span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;"><br /></span><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">The reason it took me so long to write about this subject is I see no legitimate argument on the other side. <a href="http://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-right-to-bigotry.html">Americans have the right to be bigoted</a>, to be stupid, to be evil; they don’t have the right to break the law; and the Constitution is pretty clear about this non-issue. Equal protection protects gays and lesbians and trans folks and even those who only self-identify as transgender, too. Period. You have a right to be a bigot. But you will be judged by your betters, not as righteous but as a damned fool. There is just no way for anyone to write 1000 words on this subject, it is SO settled by our being Americans.</span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;"><br /></span><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">The only place where there is room for honest controversy is athletics. As long as sports are divided by sex – boys’ sports and girls’ sports, men’s sports and women’s sports – there is a potentially sticky issue here. A biological male who changes his sex does have a real advantage competing against biological females. But you have to ask yourself: what percentage of boys who become trans girls ever gave winning at athletics a moment’s thought? What percentage of them were good enough as boys to imagine that they would be winners as girls? If you think it is a large number, you should invest some time in therapy, as it can’t not do you a world of good! Not to mention, in the few cases where a trans girl wants to compete against other girls, do we really need federal legislation to prove to the world how backward we are? It’s not that difficult. Why not just let the small number of schools with trans girls participating in sports make up their own minds how to deal with their “problem.” The same when they compete against other schools, let the two teams hash it out how to deal with the problem.</span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">And, of course, which public bathrooms may trans people use? For the most part, men would not care if a woman used their rest room. They might get ugly if they suspected that a woman was a trans woman. Or that a man was a trans man. How would they know? Would they ask? Guys who look for trouble usually find it. As for the Ladies room, if a trans man were to use their rest room, they would be troubled. The law notwithstanding that dictated that trans folks use the bathroom of their biological gender. If a trans woman used their rest room, they would probably not notice and not be disturbed. The only issue here is a legislature telling people what to do. If someone looks like a man, walks like a man, talks like a man, he is a man. </span></span>If someone looks like a woman, walks like a woman, talks like a woman, she is a woman. </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. </span><span> If the trans person is trans by declaration only and not by surgery, then he or she should probably use the bathroom of their biological gender; their comfort is not the only comfort that counts. And another solution long-term might be gender-free bathrooms. </span><span>The last thing we need is more laws telling us how to live our lives. Brought to you by the party that used to claim to be against regulation, especially the regulation of our citizens.</span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>For Americans who see no problem with global warming, with AI (artificial intelligence) and robots taking our jobs if not our lives, with racial injustice, with nativist anti-immigrant populism, with war and peace, with economic inequality, with a $32 trillion National debt, I guess keeping a few trans folks in their place is a real pro</span><span>blem. God help us!</span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none; font-size: medium;">The fact is, there is a major political party that sees an opportunity to win votes by appealing to our lesser angels. Those citizens who succumb to their bigotry need to begin thinking for themselves for a change, and stop blaming bigotry on God and his only begotten Son. Jesus is NOT on their side.</span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></span></div>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-33833016242510633872023-06-09T17:27:00.012-04:002023-06-09T18:03:35.514-04:00Our Secular Nation<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://allisonxwonderland.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/can-science-and-faith-coexist/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="800" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLnQFsE0bfDLNUT0f4ELlCdCJh5FjfuddhimEu7ga5Gm9BQMZpQPD70spNVyX32CcwhP3Fhu0V3yZM6I94zFReDomUfel2IF8PVGdPR5iIYgA958ZeLfQjwxve8T8g5uxR9ZELTS_iJX3G2iTDUX3YZc87Psrsg7k5jbEo7KByXWW0-seKUezZTLq_/w400-h182/coexist1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>The United States is a secular nation, not a Christian nation, and this blog post is an explanation why this is OK and even necessary, even if you are a Christian.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">If we were a Christian nation, what would that look like? According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Public_Religion_Research_Institute_data_(2020)" target="_blank">latest (2020) estimates</a>, 69.7% of us are Christian. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">“See, that proves we are a Christian nation!”</span></div><div><span><a name='more'></a></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">But that 69.7% includes 21.8% who are Roman Catholic (the largest Christian denomination by far in the United States), 7.3% who are Black Protestant, 3.9% who are Hispanic Protestant, 1.3% who are Mormons, but only 14.5% who are white Evangelical Christians, the primary group that claims that we are a Christian nation. And we are 23.3% unaffiliated and 7.0% other non-Christian, among which are 1.4% who are Jews and 0.8% who are Muslim.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">So, if we are a Christian nation, just whose kind of Christian nation are we? And are we OK dismissing the equality of our Catholic friends, our Jewish friends and even our unaffiliated friends?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><blockquote>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The notion that we are a Christian nation flies in the face of the “establishment clause” of the 1st Amendment; that is, it “establishes” us as a Christian nation.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">As to our being a secular nation, many believe that secular means anti-religious. It does not. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Merriam-Webster defines secular as: a) of or relating to the worldly or temporal; b) not overtly or specifically religious; c) not bound by monastic vows or rules. In other words, secular is not anti-religious, it is just not “overtly or specifically religious.” For example, the institution of government, which defines the relationship that connects the rulers to the ruled, is a secular idea, even if a government is a theocracy, where the rulers are clergy. Indeed, most institutions in the world are secular, that is, not-religious. NOT anti-religious.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Paragraph 3 of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution reads:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.</span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">So, when Marjorie Taylor-Greene suggests that we are a Christian nation, she is suggesting that her oath is to the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution. You are free to agree with her, but that only shows you are willing to scrap the Constitution as our nation's Holy Writ.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Our Founding Fathers – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine – were all “deists” (believers in a creator God, but not a personal God who answers our prayers). They were all nominal Christians (except Paine) – Protestant Christians even – but more like today’s Unitarian Universalists, which most Evangelicals would consider close to atheists. In addition, they were all educated men and they were painfully aware of European history with all its religious wars; they wanted to avoid bloodshed over whose God is the true God. But the only way to avoid sectarian bloodshed is by instituting a secular government, one where there is a “wall of separation between church and state.”</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In order for a national of another country to become an American citizen, he must take this oath: </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.</span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Note that he swears to support and defend our Constitution, not the Christian church or the Christian Bible; note also that “so help me God” is an optional part of swearing the oath of allegiance.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Most of us are religious, but we have various religious beliefs; most of us are even Christians but of very different stripes. If we were ever a Christian nation, you have to ask yourself: “what kind of Christian, whose kind of Christian?”</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The word secular feels like anti-religious or non-religious to some, and that is an unfortunate misunderstanding. But all it really does is establish that we are a people with many different belief systems, and that we have room for all of them. Even atheists, even Satanists if it comes to that. We are free to hold whatever religious or non-religious or anti-religious beliefs that we want; it is our unlawful behavior only that can get us in trouble in these the great United States of America.</span></div><div><br /></div></div>
</div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-15710114038173830882023-04-10T23:16:00.008-04:002023-04-14T15:04:29.497-04:00Powers, Rights, Privileges<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.semperliber.org/rights.aspx" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="282" data-original-width="426" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwPBoIh6oPOdz9v-DHBOZnHXp7KQ3o0jYSKyGZVDHRW6o0sT_yfCXRRMuzgOQtKMC78L0vpOdlYQg-qXOAreliFu0v76nZ8fFVHpqkYt9f0E1SThtm-EXObfoqRkAawJrFBgkOM1Lrs32weg2UsluKK0STEpL5rY4C2MkPrtmc-QAV6VxDLkX0k1EY/w400-h265/constitution_quill_pen.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;">In a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic,</div></div><div><ul><li><div style="text-align: justify;">A <b>power</b> belongs to a government, to compel a non-governmental entity to perform some action or to prevent a non-governmental entity from performing some action. The sole powers that any such government has are always defined and limited by a constitution, either federal or state.</div></li><li>A <b>right</b> belongs to an individual or a natural person, to do or not to do as he sees fit. A right is absolute protection against governmental power. <span><a name='more'></a></span>Many American rights are laid out in the Bill of Rights and every other amendment to the U. S. Constitution (except for Prohibition); in all these cases, individuals’ rights were expanded. These rights are considered “unalienable,” that is, they are not subject to legislative whim. Our U.S. Constitution makes abundantly clear that individual rights are not limited to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments; see Amendments IX (“<i>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people</i>”) and X (“<i>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people</i>”).</li><li>A <b>privilege</b> belongs to an artificial entity, never unalienable, always quite specific and limiting, always legislated into existence, never implied. Thus, all corporations have privileges that are laid out by some governing legislature, that make up the charter of that artificial entity called a corporation. Acting outside of these written privileges is grounds for corporate charter revocation (cowardly legislatures keep this from happening, the public interest be damned). But artificial entities have NO “rights”; read the 27 amendments to the Constitution and it should be crystal clear that only natural persons have rights.</li></ul></div><div>Unhappily, Supreme Court justices are human and sometimes their common sense fails them. In <i>Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)</i>, the Court ruled – in two parts – that, a) the corporation Citizens United (a rather presumptuous name for a politically partisan corporation) had the specific right or privilege (not clarified in the decision) to broadcast a pay-for-view political movie on TV during an election cycle; and b) corporations had Constitutional rights – the same as you and I – particularly 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights. Citizens United, part b, was a foolish and dangerous decision because – whereas significant political speech is nearly always bought and paid for (think TV and radio and newspaper and internet advertisements), and whereas protected speech has no dollar limits under the Citizens United decision – the quantity of speech that even one major corporation can afford to influence elections dwarfs the quantity of speech that 98% of the population can afford. </div><div> </div><div>You, dear reader, have unlimited 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech among your friends and colleagues, and on social media (but how many will read your words?). Whereas the nation’s entire population is assaulted hundreds of times daily on TV by corporate ads that cost millions of dollars; in other words, if corporations can speak and be heard – have unlimited political speech protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – then the speech of natural persons – your speech and mine – will never be heard, either individually or in the aggregate.</div><div> </div><div>Did the framers of the U.S. Constitution ever imagine that <b>rights</b> would ever belong to artificial entities, like corporations? The simple answer is NO.</div><div> </div><div>But I did not write this essay just to clarify the differences between powers, rights, and privileges. In thinking about this triumvirate, we forget their essential companion: responsibility. But the powers of a government are limited by its constitution, so responsibility is built in. And the privileges of artificial entities, like corporations, are also limited by their charters (even though the state never seems to react to their acting outside of their charters). But the rights of natural persons are nowhere paired with responsibilities. And therein lies a problem, because a successful democracy depends on its citizens being not merely free but responsible. Not just to vote every two or four years, but to know what he is voting for or against; not just to bitch about the way things are, but to do something about it (like writing letters to his local newspaper, like letting his congressman know what he thinks, like participating in Town Hall meetings, like running for office); democracy, or self-government, means YOU, binky!</div><div> </div><div>One last thing: if you call yourself a patriot – someone who loves his country – and you can’t pass the same Citizenship test that a legal alien must pass to become an American citizen (and earn the right to vote and to sit on a jury, f'godsake), a test whose battery of questions remains fixed and easily accessible for upwards of ten years, a test that asks about our founding documents, our governmental institutions and a little basic American history – why then, maybe you are not the patriot you think you are.</div><div> </div><div>We are in the mess we are in these days because of – at least in part – our own citizens’ lack of civic responsibility. So, maybe we should add the idea of responsibility to our teaching about the powers of our government, the privileges of our corporations, and our rights as American citizens.</div><div> </div></div>
</div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-3350820334336117212023-04-01T15:43:00.015-04:002023-04-01T16:21:53.245-04:00The U.S. Bill of Rights<div style="text-align: justify;">Dear Reader:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's been 10 years, maybe 30 years or more, since you read, and thought about, our Bill of Rights. It's time for a refresher. At less than 1000 words, it should take you five minutes to read this post. Take ten minutes, at least, to understand what you are reading.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span><a name='more'></a></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment I</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment II</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment III</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment IV</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment V</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment VI</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment VII</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment VIII</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment IX</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment X</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">+ + + + + + + + + + + + +</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The 14th Amendment arguably should have been written into the U.S. Constitution proper; it wasn't. Here it is. Read it carefully.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Amendment XIV</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Section 1</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Section 2</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Section 3</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">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.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Section 4</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Section 5</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Congratulations, citizen!</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div></div>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-90872912837648362602023-03-26T01:04:00.008-04:002023-03-27T22:29:16.000-04:00The Right to Bigotry<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/06/religious-bigotry-lgbtq-homophobia/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="847" data-original-width="1600" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFyARAGoSvqOMAIAH-hHcKcytpyBvRxPVuGMlkDqVJfcYusBObkFPjoW9Jbq2WX0Jinmbwy-H-XWhC3xcYwiT1MV-oggOJ4SsCbhxmMSkwY2bGFOcIWOVYz5V_UdFemIQr-fGXgklLnUpesi5HRTbaYwlerUxSApQ0LH4957JRkH_EP5ub-zQnJjbu/w400-h211/bigotry-word-cloud-concept-vector-illustration-151546854.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>You have a right to be a bigot. PERIOD! A legal, Constitutional right to be a bigot!</div><div><br /></div><div>But what exactly does that mean? All it means is that you may not be imprisoned or fined or in any tangible way penalized – by the federal government, by your state government, or your local government – for being a bigot. You may lose friends and you may lose your job or your livelihood, but you have a legal, Constitutional right to be a bigot. Indeed, the biggest loser is bound to be the bigot himself – is that you? – but he is legally free to do so.</div><div><span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div><br /></div><div>You may be bigoted against those with the wrong race, the wrong religion or no religion at all, the wrong gender or sexual identity, the wrong ethnicity, the wrong education, the wrong political party, any old thing the mind may conjure up to hate.</div><div><br /></div><div>Nevertheless, it’s simply not that simple.</div><div><br /></div><div>Bigotry can take many forms. The first is internal, you may hate with reckless abandon, in your own mind. Legally. We have no thought police, yet!</div><div><br /></div><div>Indeed, you may even express your bigotry outwardly, with the spoken word, with the written word, with the published and with the universally visible word on social media. Free to do so (see my blog post <a href="http://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2019/12/lying-is-legal.html">Lying is Legal</a>: there are legal limits to the spoken and published word, 1st Amendment protections notwithstanding). But not without consequence. You may lose friends, influence and maybe your job, your livelihood.</div><div><br /></div><div>In commerce, if you are a small business owner, I believe that you ought to have the right to discriminate against anyone who wants to hire you and your firm to perform a personal task, like the bakery shop in the SCOTUS decision <i><a href="https://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2018/06/wedding-cakes.html" target="_blank">Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)</a></i>. And you have this right for the same reason that he may choose who he does or does not want to hire to perform a personal task that he wants done. But you have no right to refuse to sell to anybody anything that you offer off your shelves. If you are Walmart or any large corporation, you have no right to discriminate, in any way. If you are an individual pharmacist within Walmart who has religious scruples against filling a prescription for whatever, you may have the right to refuse to fill that prescription; but the Walmart pharmacy has no such right, and it may terminate your position for non-performance if it wills to do so; and it will have to find another employee to fill that prescription that you would not, or it is in legal trouble.</div><div><br /></div><div>But, finally, here is where the rubber hits the road. Whereas, the government (federal, state or local) has no right to penalize your bigotry, it has no right to bigotry itself. The Declaration of Independence declares – for the whole world to read and understand – that “all men are created equal,” and while Thomas Jefferson may not have meant what we understand it to mean, we mean it today. And the vastly under-appreciated 14th Amendment guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to all persons. What does this mean? That any man who holds public office – in the executive branch, or the legislative branch, or the judicial branch – has no right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, and that he is breaking his oath of office, to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States ... that {he} take{s} this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” It is grounds for removal from office, and, in better days, we acted upon it. President Richard Nixon resigned from office under pressure from virtually all the members of his own political party, while former President Donald Trump still holds sway over tens of millions of Americans who should know better. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is a fatal flaw of our democracy that so many of us can be so ignorant of our laws and institutions – or hold them in such utter contempt – and still legally exercise the right to vote. Or worse still, legally hold public office. <a href="https://www.nationofchange.org/2023/03/15/marjorie-taylor-greene-advocates-for-secession-again-so-speaker-mccarthy-makes-her-speaker-pro-tempore/" target="_blank">Marjorie Taylor Greene’s call for the split-up of the United States of America into a red country and a blue country</a> – a bigotry of beliefs and kind – is pure and simple treason, and we have already fought one calamitous Civil War over an attempt to split the Union into opposing camps. But nothing will be done, as we live in a time when millions of Americans have little understanding of the values of our founding or the values that our nation has grown up to stand for. Which is that bigotry – "I am better than you" – stops short of the law. </div><div><br /></div><div>You have the unalienable right to your personal bigotry; our government has no such right or power.</div><div><br /></div><div>None of us is perfect: we are all bigots – of some kind and to some degree – in our hearts. But if we let it leak out and poison the air that we and our brothers and sisters breathe, we may put at risk our immortal souls.</div><div><br /></div></div>
</div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-45573733464747925422023-03-06T18:56:00.012-05:002023-03-12T18:08:40.178-04:00What is Constitutional, anyway?<div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="233" data-original-width="700" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmR7MN6UKTazXfbbPX_ykPc4HjLK3jtux1AFnmdNOgiRFI3_1ZywqZSiuEhlO1Cfk2gH9Yg5n2F_MunMho_40381u_tcUwBDVNLqdZlB4IDBlCzv-zZFLTsYT4mkJZCeVngZiMn57WHPd0rxEiw850sJWPYLYdk87pSQrCCZAkYo51nFanRJvie8gD/w400-h134/Constitutional.jpeg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Constitutional is a podcast, check it out!</td></tr></tbody></table>I am pretty certain that I have addressed this maddening question elsewhere, but maybe not in my blog, perhaps in my book, <i>To My Countrymen</i>. But without going back to see what I have already written that you cannot find by reading my blog, I feel compelled to address this important issue here and now.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Many Americans are pretty sure what is and what is not Constitutional, what is or is not a Constitutional RIGHT. I believe that they are wrong most of the time, especially those who like to throw around the words “That IS (or is NOT) Constitutional” on a daily basis. If pressed, they would declare that they have the right to their opinion about what is or is not Constitutional. But they are wrong! They have no more right to an opinion about this question than they have a right to an opinion on the question of: how much is two plus two? But, of course, Constitutional rights are not so rigidly defined as the rules of counting. But we peasants have no right to an opinion here.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Why not? Because the Constitution says what is and is not Constitutional (sometimes it avoids particular questions or issues). “But folks have different opinions about the meaning of the Constitution.” “Yes, but it is not OUR job to parse the meaning of the Constitution; that is the job of the justices of the Supreme Court!”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For example, do women have the Constitutional right to an abortion? Today, early March of 2023, a woman does NOT have a federal Constitutional right to an abortion. This is not my OPINION, this is fact. But she may have legal access to an abortion, depending on the laws of the state of her residence, permanent or temporary. Under <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, a 1973 Supreme Court decision, a woman had the Constitutional right to an abortion in her first trimester, anywhere in the country, no questions asked. But on June 24th of last year, <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)</i> overruled <i>Roe v. Wade</i> <u><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade" target="_blank">on the grounds that</a> the substantive right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition," nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, and was unknown in U.S. law until Roe</u>, which will surely go down as the most foolish and least evidence-based reasoning ever in SCOTUS history (my OPINION, not a fact).*</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What happened to <i>Roe v. Wade</i>? Why was it overruled? Simple. Today’s “conservative” (read: mostly Catholic and one Protestant) justices decided that their personal religious scruples would dictate their decision. In other words, they would ignore the 1st Amendment’s religious establishment clause, which would have kept them from bringing their religious scruples to bear on the case. To add insult to injury, this momentous decision flies in the face of popular opinion, which is rare in Court history and rather disturbing on its face. Nevertheless, the only abortions that will be prevented by this foolish ruling will be few and far between. And those children will be unwanted and be a financial burden on society until they reach maturity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But all that is beside the point. <b>What is Constitutional is what the most recent Supreme Court decision says is Constitutional. </b> Period.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One last comment: consider that it is the justices’ (Judicial Review) role to interpret the Constitution so as to determine the Constitutionality of a law. One might think that sensible people with such educational attainment as these nine eminences would have a sensible interpretation of our Constitution, ONE COMMON SENSible interpretation. Nevertheless, so many (important) cases are decided by slim margins, 5-4 or 6-3, conservatives vs. liberals. They may call their differences by fancy names, like originalism or textualism or the Living Constitution, but that is just smoke and mirrors. The real reason for these judicial arguments is that even such mental giants as Supreme Court justices are creatures of prejudice (I don’t mean racism, I mean prejudgment). They have unconscious emotional and instinctive biases that inform or even dictate their decision-making, that drive their reasoning (i.e., rationalization) that ends up as a well-reasoned written document. They may be smarter than us but they're still human. What is a fellow to do? Justice Thomas will be gone sooner or later, and hopefully will be replaced by a more thoughtful justice. Chief Roberts is surely considering his legacy and is more likely in the future to come down on the liberal side of things (in <i>Dobbs</i>, he did not concur with the decision to overrule Roe). Until then, try to avoid uttering the words, “thus-and-such IS (NOT) Constitutional,” as you will probably be wrong. Better to declare, “Dobbs was a stupid decision,” a matter of personal opinion with which I wholeheartedly agree, but as a matter of opinion it does not depend on its being TRUE!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">* Here is why the first two parts of this comment are stupid (uhhh, foolish):</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ol><li>The U.S. Constitution proper, all seven Articles of it, defined the structure of the new federal government, no mention of individual rights.</li><li>The Bill of Rights, the 1st ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution proper, that were requisite to ratification of the document proper, were all "negative" rights; they did not speak about things that the people were free to do, they spoke about powers over the people that the government did not have. In other words, freedom of speech meant that government could not restrict your speech: not that you can speak as you please, but that the government cannot prevent you from doing so.</li><li>The 9th Amendment reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</li><li>The 10th Amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.</li><li>The 14th Amendment (Due Process clause) didn't mention an infinite list of rights.</li><li>All the other amendments added rights to certain classes of Americans, except for Prohibition, which was later repealed.</li></ol></div><div style="text-align: justify;">These six items do not support the overrule of <i>Roe</i>, which specifically gave women the right to an abortion. Not to mention that abortion "was unknown in U.S. law until Roe" is factually inaccurate. Justice Alito also slurred <i>Roe</i> by calling it "egregiously wrong", a comment only possible to a man who has no regard for any religious scruples but his own.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Nevertheless, abortion is not a federal right today, abortion is NOT Constitutional today. PERIOD. The Court will reconsider the right to an abortion again. Soon. And cooler heads will prevail. This is NOT a fact, I am just guessing at the future.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">P.S., I wrote <a href="http://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2019/04/Whatisarightanyway.html">What is a Right, anyway</a> back in 2019. Worth a read!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-79174256280401278882023-03-05T12:48:00.026-05:002024-01-29T23:44:57.093-05:00Stupidity: A Rant<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/basic-laws-human-stupidityand-my-personal-input-alex-velinov" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="598" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6elifIY7XSNMfQGRHpreQq3dNEEhJDQUgsG-t9cmkAy38ncScZEuC8K7N5CFuiwIREBMXsEkxwlKTVY4ST_YHXt2iQTo_ZJAcp4ZHf-JUFjxuO8A31tqpehcbTHvNc3gjlWeRj6RKc5WnbLy-arSOkQCe5g4PpB4REbLTruEVhiZjiSLR_ekM8oVf/w400-h231/Stupidity.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>Stupidity is a Choice. There, I’ve said it!<p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">But, before I get into the meat (sic) of this essay, let me clarify the literal (dictionary) distinction between ignorant and stupid. An ignorant person does not know stuff, a stupid person has a sub-par brain. Both words are insults, stupid is much worse. Partly because stupid can’t be fixed. At least, that is how wordsmiths think of these words.</p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Before writing this post, I figured that I should discover if anyone else had said something similar. So, Googling “stupidity is a choice,” here is what I found (in author order):<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent. --Isaac Asimov</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. --George Carlin</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Stupidity is the refusal to acquire or accept it. --Paulo Coelho</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Two things are infinite. The universe and human stupidity. And I’m not so sure about the universe. --Albert Einstein</li><li style="text-align: justify;">We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. --Benjamin Franklin</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. --MLK, Jr.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Stupid is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. --Wiley Miller</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Stupidity. It’s not a choice, it’s a lifestyle. --Elizabeth Ann Sexton</li><li style="text-align: justify;">It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of those people who pay no price for being wrong. --Thomas Sowell</li><li style="text-align: justify;">When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years. --Mark Twain</li><li style="text-align: justify;">The more often a stupidity is repeated, the more it gets the appearance of wisdom. --Voltaire</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Stupidity is a choice but some people abuse it. --unknown</li><li style="text-align: justify;">God must love stupid people. He made so many of them. --unknown</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This is not an exhaustive list, but I wearied of copying and pasting.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">To be clear, the words stupid, moron, idiot, etc. are all words of abuse, exposing more about the speaker – specifically his unhealthy contempt for the object of his insult – than his words' victim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Typically, when we think of the words stupid and stupidity we think of a person with a low IQ. But low IQs, especially seriously low IQs, are the consequence of physical damage to the not-yet-person in utero. And are surely not the fault of the individual so cursed. Rather, I am writing about the kind of stupidity that bases what is true and what is real on whether it feels good, whether it supports one’s own (sometimes unconscious) world view, even when one knows better. Which may or may not be worse than brain damage. Which may or may not be fixable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Examples of stupid (because we know better) thoughts include: the Earth is flat, the Sun rotates around the Earth, humans are NOT related to chimpanzees, the Holocaust didn't happen, men did not walk on the Moon, Climate Change is not happening and it is not humanity’s doing, and still – more than 2½ years later, after all the crap has been debunked hundreds of times – believing that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">What got me started thinking about stupidity being a choice was a radio report about Dominion Voting suing Fox News for libel, but especially the part about Fox losing its viewers after reporting just before midnight Eastern Time on Election Eve in 2020 that Arizona had gone for Biden. As though the Fox News viewer could find the TRUTH (that Trump had, of course, won Arizona) on a different station, as though Fox had betrayed its viewers by calling Arizona for Biden not Trump. I understand turning off the TV in frustration over bad news, but to go looking for different news – good news – on another station is … at least borderline stupid. No, it's NOT borderline! The inability to accept reality when you know the truth is stupidity by choice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Looking for alternative news that suits you – that makes you feel good, that confirms your worldview – is stupid by choice. Facts are facts, even when they come from Fox News, or the New York Times or the Washington Post, even when they are distressing. The Dominion law suit revealed that – in order to placate its viewers – Fox began to spread lies, lies that its regular viewers wanted to hear, lies that were compatible with their worldview, that the only way for Trump to lose the election was if it were rigged. He had said so hundreds of times and millions believed him. Deciding what is true based on how it makes one feel may have group survival value, but in the end its cost is too high. It creates a mindset where one is no longer able to separate fact from fiction. And it feeds an unquenchable rage that cannot be extinguished except by forcing one’s fiction upon the nation until the nation breaks. Am I slandering all MAGA voters? No, but I <b>am</b> slandering those MAGA voters who a) believe that the 2020 election was stolen and who b) are still willing to take action to "take back their country" and "make America great again." When was America great? When it was lily-white. When was America lily-white? In some American's imaginations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">My stomach tells me when it is hungry, and I feed it; or I go hungry, and eventually I die from physical starvation. My mind tells me when it is hungry, and I feed it; or I go hungry, and eventually I die from mental starvation. I can feed my stomach junk food or healthful food, my body will know the difference; similarly with my mind, I can feed it facts or fiction; when I feed on facts that are wrong, my body will know the difference. My mind’s hunger is called curiosity; when my curiosity dies, I cease being human. But we can fix a broken curiosity in a flash, by deciding to get hungry for facts, for reality, for what we and everyone else know is true.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If you don’t like everything that reality shows you (and who does?), don’t deny reality, work to change it. Keep in mind, some reality is not controlled by us.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Capitol riot on January 6th was not the last assault on our democracy, it was the first.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Holy Bible, King James Version, Deuteronomy 30:19. I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore, choose life.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Addendum: Tuesday, 04/03/2023</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While this specific post was inspired by the story of Trump supporters switching channels in hopes of findIng one that showed their guy in the lead in Arizona, there are many other variations on stupidity as a choice. Here are a few:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Stupidity is a choice when:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">given the opportunity to hear an argument from the other side, to step outside of your echo chamber, you always pass;</li><li style="text-align: justify;">you are sure you know enough, no reason to burden your brain with unnecessary knowledge;</li><li style="text-align: justify;">you don't allow anyone to argue with you ("don't bother me with facts, my mind is already made up");</li><li style="text-align: justify;">you would rather do anything than work your fevered brain (like watch TV, a sporting event or a rom-com);</li><li style="text-align: justify;">you are dedicated to never again reading a book.</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">But the best source I know for examples (not just categories) of stupidity being a choice are the five (or nine) volumes of <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08S79YBQC" target="_blank">The Darwin Awards</a></i>, edited by Wendi Northcutt, 2000 - 2010. I found them side-splittingly hilarious, but some won't (because many, if not most, of the award's recipients literally perish from their acts of stupid derring-do).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Addendum: Thursday, 11/09/2023</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I seem to have suggested in the rant above that (many) Americans are stupid (by choice). Here is <b>proof</b>!</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The institution that <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx" target="_blank">Americans disapprove of the most is ... Congress</a>! Nevertheless, <a href="https://slcc.pressbooks.pub/attenuateddemocracy/chapter/chapter-55/" target="_blank">incumbency</a> (an incumbent is the guy who already holds the office) is the single biggest factor in being elected to Congress! In other words, "Congress totally sucks but I'm gonna vote for MY Congress person because he/she is an exception!" Talk about stupid, holding opposing views on a single question in one mind.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-14437068423911372752023-02-28T01:14:00.029-05:002024-02-07T23:14:48.745-05:00Liberals and Conservatives<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i></i></b></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><a href="https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="924" data-original-width="1276" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2oJxcl5hh7_Ye7NkfAPwLhTGUz56FPOci0uoT9dTmWoglKaYPvxB4Oq2bw3a6wylyVWLLt1nkYM715G7NUmqLbEIUwlYtGQQxXoEj_-q1EOdVfGrldp94fAW7JNY_WnwI9W_GkZ8M5PqQAYOp3zHU__PgPoeIHe_17KCDnc8P8I9RAI5jXW2dt2AB/w400-h290/Libs%20and%20Cons.png" width="400" /></a></i></b></span></div><p style="text-align: justify;">Just like biological organisms, words evolve. That is, they change their meanings over time. Part of this evolution is natural, reacting to a new environment; and part is artificial, where some alter the use of words for partisan purposes. So it is with these most important and most maligned political words, liberal and conservative. In this essay, I will attempt to demonstrate the evolution of these words’ meanings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The goto place for a discussion of word origins is the Oxford English Dictionary (the OED to scholars) (work began on the OED in 1857 and is ongoing). Unhappily, access to the online OED is by subscription only, at $100 / year. So, I chose the second-best online option: the <a href="https://www.etymonline.com/" target="_blank">Online Etymology Dictionary</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So, let’s get to work and examine these two most consequential words in all of politics, liberal and conservative. Indented paragraphs are lifted without editing from the Online Etymology Dictionary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i>Word Origins, first English Usage</i></b></span><p></p>Liberal (adjective) (<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=liberal" target="_blank">see</a>)<p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">mid-14c., "generous," also "nobly born, noble, free;" from late 14c. as "selfless, magnanimous, admirable;" from early 15c. in a bad sense, "extravagant, unrestrained," from Old French liberal "befitting free people; noble, generous; willing, zealous" (12c.), and directly from Latin liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free person," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Liberal (in politics)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Purely in reference to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy," it dates from c. 1801, from French libéral. In English the label at first was applied by opponents (often in the French form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party more favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Liberal (commentary)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This is the attitude of mind which has come to be known as liberal. It implies vigorous convictions, tolerance for the opinions of others, and a persistent desire for sound progress. It is a method of approach which has played a notable and constructive part in our history, and which merits a thorough trial today in the attack on our absorbingly interesting American task. [Guy Emerson, "The New Frontier," 1920]</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Conservative (adjective) (<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=conservative" target="_blank">see</a>)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">late 14c., conservatyf, "tending to preserve or protect, preservative, having the power to keep whole or safe," from Old French conservatif, from Medieval Latin conservativus, from Latin conservatus, past participle of conservare "to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard," from assimilated form of com-, here perhaps an intensive prefix (see com-), + servare "keep watch, maintain" (from PIE root *ser- (1) "to protect").</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Conservative (in politics)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As a modern political tradition, "antagonistic to change in the institutions of a country," often especially "opposed to changes toward pure democracy," conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the French Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his French disciples (such as Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur").</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Conservative (commentary)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, and certainly not an ideology. ... Instead, conservatism is a way of looking at the civil social order. ... Unlike socialism, anarchism, and even liberalism, then, conservatism offers no universal pattern of politics for adoption everywhere. On the contrary, conservatives reason that social institutions always must differ considerably from nation to nation, since any land's politics must be the product of that country's dominant religion, ancient customs, and historical experience. [Russell Kirk, "What is Conservatism," introduction to "The Portable Conservative Reader," 1982] </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i>Modern Political Usage, Burke/Paine</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Leaving the comfort of dictionaries, our modern real-life sense of what Conservatism and Liberalism begin to mean is often attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-97, Irish-English MP) and Thomas Paine (1737-1809, English American pamphleteer), respectively. Burke and Paine crossed paths (and were friends for a while) over two consequential world events: American independence and the French Revolution. Burke felt that Britain had treated her colonies poorly and that they had reasonable grievances with the mother country; he did not want war to settle their differences. Paine nearly single-handedly moved his countrymen to outright independence and a war of revolution. Burke believed that the French Revolution was a mistake (Reflections on The Revolution in France, 1790) because the French people were not ready for self-rule, while Paine helped it along (Rights of Man, 1791), nearly perishing for his troubles. Burke believed in gradual change, Paine believed that fighting a war for independence and democracy was worth it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The political debate between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine is too large a subject for this brief essay. So, let me leave you with this: if you are interested in what these giants of political philosophy had to say, either a) read them in their originals, b) check them out online at <a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/authors" target="_blank">Brainy Quote</a>, or c) read Yuval Levin’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Great-Debate-Edmund-Burke-Thomas/dp/0465062989/" target="_blank">The Great Debate</a>: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left. Personally, I have NOT finished reading Levin’s book (three attempts!), as he is no better an author than his hero Edmund Burke, who wrote for his over-educated peers, not a mass audience of semi-literate Brits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i>American Politics splits into Factions</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">America’s first political divisions were not conservative and liberal, they were Federalist and Anti-Federalist. Federalists fought for the states to ratify the new U.S. Constitution, the Anti-Federalists demanded the addition of a Bill of Rights as their condition for ratification. Federalists wanted a strong federal government (like Democrats of today), Anti-Feds wanted the states to remain sovereign (like Republicans of today). The leaders of these two factions (parties) were Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury and his Secretary of State, respectively. But neither of these two camps morphs easily into liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Take a few moments and read my essay <a href="https://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2020/06/ham-jeff.html">Ham & Jeff</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The first president elected from the just formed Democratic Party was Andrew Jackson (1829 – 1837), a real man of the people, from Tennessee, the first president not from Virginia or Massachusetts. His party quite literally was the party of the people (the word Democrat means the people rule). President Jackson threw open the doors of the White House to the “common man” (whose recent suffrage allowed Jackson to defeat his quasi-aristocratic opponent) and urged them to cut off a chunk of cheese from a 1,400-pound block of locally grown cheddar cheese.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln (1861 – 1865), his party having been formed in 1854 to actively fight the institution of slavery from expanding. The Civil War was fought, not over political differences or states’ rights, but over slavery. Lincoln Republicans were abolitionists (today: Civil Rights, like Democrats) and pro-industry (today: pro-business, like Republicans). They remained so until the mid-1960’s, for one hundred years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Lincoln Republicans were successful until the Great Depression. From 1861 through 1933 – 72 years – Republicans held the presidency for 56 years while Democrats held it for 16 years, Republicans held the Senate for 60 years while Democrats held it for 10 years (there was a tie for a single session of 2 years), and they held the House for 46 years while the Democrats held it for 26 years. Lincoln Republicans, recall, were the party of Civil Rights and Big Business, and the economy boomed, under the thumb of “Robber Barons,” except for two Great Depressions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The word “progressive” was added to our political lexicon before the words liberal or conservative. Teddy Roosevelt – a Republican president (1901 – 1909) – took down some Big Business monopolies (which Adam Smith would have approved) and he introduced conservation/environmentalism into our list of issues by creating our National Parks system. He would be a Democrat in today’s world. Trust-busting is not anti-capitalistic; trusts (monopolies) are an inevitable consequence of unchecked free-market capitalism which Adam Smith felt needed to be reined in by government, as competition is at the core of capitalism (Big Business disagreed!). And conservation is … conservative.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i>20th Century Party Divisions</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the Republican Party’s “Roaring Twenties” came to an abrupt halt with the Great Depression, the Republican president Herbert Hoover had nearly his entire term to react; acting as a free-market true-believer, he chose to let the market cure itself. That is, he did nothing; and the economy kept collapsing. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not campaign against the evils of capitalism (indeed, many have claimed that he “saved capitalism from itself”). While Hoover did nothing to address the problem of runaway unemployment, FDR created jobs (on the government payroll) and put people to work. Indeed, we have lived in the world of FDR Democrats from 1933 thru 1981 – forty-eight years – while the Democrats owned the Senate and the House in all but four years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Please note that in all this time, I have barely mentioned our key words, liberal or conservative, because they were rarely spoken. We begin here.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">FDR was a Democrat, but he was not a “liberal.” Democracies have always been called “liberal democracies” by scholars before the word was ever used to describe a political party, the Democrats. Perhaps liberal and democrat are redundant and mean the same. Philosophical conservatives sometimes claim that we are a republic, not a democracy, as though we can’t be both at the same time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i>Modern American Conservatism</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Modern American political conservatism had its birth with the publication of the magazine <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review" target="_blank">National Review</a> in 1955. The brainchild of William F Buckley, Jr. (1925 – 2008) (author of <i>God and Man at Yale</i>), it is still the gold standard of what is truly conservative in American politics. But the word conservative did not become mainstream in American politics until Barry Goldwater (1909 – 1998) – senator from Arizona – published his book <i>The Conscience of a Conservative</i> in 1960, only five years after the publication of National Review, and ran for president in 1964 (where he was badly beaten by the (liberal?) Democrat, Lyndon Johnson). Johnson had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help (mostly) of (Northern, Lincoln) Republicans. The white Jim Crow South had voted for Democrats since the Civil War; but as a Democratic president had shepherded the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) through Congress, white Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) began to dessert their party and re-label themselves as Republicans.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">How complete was this shift in party identity? Republicans have been pro-business since their inception, but they shifted on race in the mid-1960’s (no longer were Republicans the party of Lincoln, the Great Emancipator). Democrats have been the party of the people since their founding, but their tent collapsed when Southern Dixiecrats felt betrayed by a fellow Dixiecrat from Texas, President Lyndon Baines Johnson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">At this point in my essay, I would like to propose tentative definitions of modern liberal and conservative thought before I explode it all with the realities of the present day. In answer to the immortal Biblical question, “am I my brother’s keeper?”, liberals say yes, and conservatives say no. Liberals want the federal government to help those who need a helping hand; Conservatives want us all to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Liberals want an activist federal government; conservatives want as small a federal government (and federal budget) as possible. If it were that simple, Democrats (the so-called “party of the people”) would be the dominant political party in American politics (because most Americans are workers, not entrepreneurs). And Democrats were the dominant political party, from 1932 through 1980, the era of FDR, with the help of Southern Dixiecrats.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Today’s Political Divisions</span></i></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So, what happened? Republicans have been as successful or more successful in American politics than Democrats since 1980. What happened to shift the balance? How has a party that embraces “survival of the fittest” become so strong among average Americans? And my answer is: by appealing to millions of Americans who do NOT subscribe to our foundational creed, that “all men are created equal,” especially non-white, non-Christian, and non-straight Americans; that there is something peculiarly AMERICAN about those who are the descendants of Europeans who fled Europe for reasons of religious persecution or to escape debtor prisons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Race.</i></b> The Civil Rights movement of the mid-1960’s split Americans into two camps: those who embraced racial equality and those who did not. Lincoln Republicans were more responsible than the typical Democrat in Congress for the passage of President Johnson’s Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965). When the dust settled, Dixiecrats began to dessert their 100-year-old home, the Democratic Party, for the Republican party. By 1970, national Republicans had embraced their “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy" target="_blank">Southern Strategy</a>,” courting former Democratic voters from the South. As an aside, there is nothing “liberal” or “conservative” about these differences – about racism, about bigotry – but they did divide the two major parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Religion.</i></b> The movement dubbed the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority" target="_blank">Moral Majority</a> (more recently called the Religious Right, and more recently than that Christian Nationalism) was born in 1979, the virgin child of the Reverend Jerry Falwell, a TV huckster of great influence. It sold the notion that REAL Christians (Evangelicals) voted Republican – for “obvious” reasons; forget that the teachings of Jesus could not possibly square with the pro-business mentality of Republicans all the way back to their origin. But it gave millions of white Christians cover to vote their racial sensibility without guilt. And cover to vote their anti-gay and anti-women and anti-immigrant sensibility, too, as though the Holy Bible told them so. Once again, there is nothing inherently conservative or liberal about being a good Christian (putting aside the offense that is implied toward non-Christians).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Classical liberalism and conservatism are separated over the role of government in our lives. Nevertheless, Republicans and so-called “conservatives” embraced their new-found racial and religious identities. And liberals and Democrats have had little success combatting this unholy marriage (because, frankly, they lost their mojo).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Taxation.</i></b> President Reagan, the first modern president who successfully embraced the term conservative, wanted to cut the federal government down to size. But, failing to cut government spending, he cut taxes anyway, leaving us with the first case of a peace-time deficit that was not solely the result of optimistic thinking (“as our GDP is growing, we’ll be able to collect more taxes without raising tax rates”). Few Americans protested as very few of us connect paying federal taxes with paying for what we want as a nation; that is, paying our bills. And many voters seemed not to care that the bulk of these tax cuts benefitted the multi-millionaires and billionaires among us, as long as it seems to benefit them. Before Reagan took office, our National Debt stood at less than $1 trillion; by the end of Reagan-Bush I, it was $4 trillion; 30 more years of tax cutting presidents (Republican and Democratic, alike) and our Debt is nearly $31 trillion. I am not suggesting that President Reagan was a bad president; indeed, scholars rank him pretty highly (in recent years, about 11th or 12th), but mostly because of his rapprochement with Premier Gorbachev and the USSR. The Reagan era ended in 2017, with the inauguration of another (kind of) Republican, Donald Trump.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Compromise.</i></b> In 1994, Newt Gingrich of Georgia published his <i>Contract with America</i>, a blueprint for conservative Republicans. Implicit in this document was the lockstep that Republicans would now walk. A lockstep of no compromise (with Democratic presidents). And, yes, I am quite aware that the man himself worked out compromises on income tax rates with not-so-liberal Southern Democratic President Bill Clinton (who in 1996 declared “the era of big government is over”) that brought us four years of budget surpluses, the first since 1969, under Republican President Nixon. Once again, there is nothing inherently conservative or liberal about one’s willingness to compromise with the other party. But the unwillingness to compromise has become a key strategy of governing among Republicans, if not conservatives.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>The Tea Party.</i></b> The Tea Party leaped out of the mouth of Rick Santelli, a CNBC reporter, on February 19th, 2009, a day less than a month after President Obama, a black man, was inaugurated as president of the United States. The Tea Party married whiteness with libertarian politics. But, what it did, much more importantly, was <b>energize</b> millions of Americans who felt threatened by … multi-culturalism. I wholeheartedly applaud an increase in our citizens’ political energy and activism, when it is backed up by an increase in civic awareness and knowledge, and good will. But the Tea Party gave permission for batshit crazy people (e.g., Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Joe “You lie!” Wilson) to run for national office under the conservative Republican banner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><b><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/01/marjorie-taylor-greene-lauren-boebert-matt-gaetz-kevin-mccarthy-house-speaker-vote" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="147" data-original-width="343" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO_zztdjPkx2VyTPtP0Sok5HwBUP47I39Mg3revpTSeChdLCZRd01Pc2-tBqyqDmDZ_rUpxUs4Q7f8sGsc9-7aP4jHqefCk3pvLoYcoepzsWEsKt1gwIAPUQgfXrPZ2st7TZTtBEKCxfIOfa_W316DZKJy3rY475JSW8JPYd1ZbBe0hT24bLcvAda5/w400-h171/MAGA%20Best.jpeg" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Conservatives? No, just MAGA's stars</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Education.</b></i> The success of the Tea Party movement opened the closet to millions of Americans who had heretofore remained hidden, because of the unseemliness of their beliefs. White supremacists, Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazis, Christian nationalists, et al. Not only did they vote, but they also became quite vocal. Indeed, violence was not unacceptable to them in the pursuit of their aims. They gave rise to the election of the <a href="https://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2021/01/unfit.html">most unfit candidate for president</a> in American history – Donald J. Trump – and the January 6th insurrection. Trump has famously declared, “I like the poorly educated.” The Tea Party and Trump’s MAGA movement appealed quite deliberately to uneducated white Americans, Americans who had been ignored in the decades since World War II, when our returning soldiers were rewarded with the GI Bill of Rights, a free college education. White men with little education had been the backbone of the Democratic coalition from FDR forward. But Democrats changed course, and Republicans took up the slack. And have given us political luminaries such as (in alpha order) Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Josh Hawley, Kari Lake, Herschel Walker, et al.</div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Gender.</i></b> At first, it was gay marriage. Thank heaven that fight is over (legally, and in families with a gay member who has come out). Now it’s trans rights. Should a biological male who has been rendered female use the men’s’ room or the ladies’ room? Is it fair for a biological male who has been rendered female to compete in sports against women? These may be legitimate questions, that perhaps should be answered locally, but they bend many of today’s so-called conservatives to the breaking point. And they keep us from debating real issues.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Identity Politics.</i></b> We are used to thinking that political parties and political ideologies are defined by their stances on political questions or issues. Being a Republican or a Democrat used to mean differences of opinion on tough political questions. Being a Conservative or a Liberal used to mean differences of opinion on tough political questions. And those questions always concerned the relation between the governed and the governors or the government, not between classes of voters. Today’s small government “conservatives” are a) Christians who b) are uncomfortable with race, an impossible marriage, as no real Christian would see his black or brown brother as anything but a brother. And uncomfortable with any alphabet (LGBTQIA+) person too. And undereducated but not necessarily “poor” at the same time, another mixed-up marriage.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Liberals? What in dickens are they anyhow? In the 1980’s, candidate Reagan tied liberals to a “welfare queen” who had bilked the treasury of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Of course, Reagan’s welfare queen was a fiction. But Reagan era Democrats lost their mojo and have not regained it since. Now, Democrats worth the name call themselves “progressives” (the last true “liberal” was Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, 1991-2002, author of <i>The Conscience of a Liberal: Reclaiming the Compassionate Agenda</i> [the title a self-conscious nod to the last true conservative, Barry Goldwater], published the year of his death). A classical liberal, “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone#Political_positions" target="_blank">Wellstone was known for</a> his work for peace, the environment, labor, and health care; he … support(ed) the rights of victims of domestic violence. He made the issue of mental illness a central focus in his career. He was a supporter of immigration to the U.S. He opposed the first Gulf War in 1991 and … spoke out against …going to war with Iraq again.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But liberalism has not evolved. Most Democrats have regressed into what progressive Democrats would call corporatist Democrats, or Republicans lite. Democratic Socialist (that is the party name that is on his ballot) Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Representative from New York’s 14th District, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are close to being classical liberals. Many call them socialists; they are NOT. A classical liberal believes that he IS his brother’s keeper, that government is obligated to help people who need assistance, and that those who are more fortunate than most should be taxed more heavily.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In a real sense, classical conservatism has not evolved either; it still means that “the government is best that governs least” (spends less and taxes less); and that it has a very limited role in assisting individuals or corporations, or for that matter telling them how to live.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But race, religion, education, gender, and tolerance has separated millions of Americans into TEAMS. The conservative Republican “team” consists of straight, non-college-educated, white, Christian, men; the liberal Democratic team consists mostly of … everyone else (the Red TEAM boasts of its intolerance). Teams that are separated by identity politics, where one team talks openly about the possibility of civil war, and a break-up of the states into separate Red-Blue nations. Where members of each team stay true to their Team’s values, rather than thinking and speaking for themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">One last word before I wrap up. MAGA Republicans are not Republicans, as they don't support any Republican ideology of the past. MAGA Republicans are not conservative, either, as they don't support any conservative ideology of the past. MAGA began as a principle, Make America Great Again – a kissing cousin of America First, an isolationist movement that collapsed the day after Pearl Harbor. But MAGA very quickly showed its true colors: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/trump-approvers-never-stop-approving-poll/index.html" target="_blank">where Donald Trump goes, I will follow</a>." If it means shredding the norms of American life, so be it. MAGA is not a political movement, it is a religious movement – a cult of personality – and its members crave a "strong leader," an authoritarian leader, because individual freedom – the core value of Republicanism – is too big a burden to bear.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><i><b>We live in perilous times.</b></i></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The danger is not that liberals and conservatives hate each other, all the way up to a possible civil war; no, the danger is that we have so few liberal and even fewer conservative, lawmakers and voters.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">And, in a democracy, where the people rule themselves, it is not the system that needs repair, it is the people themselves who need to be fixed. With education and agency. And, while civic literacy will not fix everything, without it our democratic republic is doomed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-82006555162981677702023-02-07T19:18:00.020-05:002023-03-20T17:27:58.758-04:00A Civics Class<div style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.change.org/p/betsy-devos-revive-civics-class-understand-your-rights-protect-yourself-and-those-you-care-for" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="799" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz_LALTsfNj9tpJf_ZsWKzZE1HxXHMK5MA4RrVQyBwlPKayaE0FV0BSX_vAuXSzFGn23ywY-FRmWSWJ0ehb0rZ1jtX4CmrazRNfcyPfnbjAaamTfBL-JQKXNbYa6dsK9FizaSTCJOwPDVs8wLqHzS_ozPrYr-1ok-vVezBZ1qTYlKdQw7NaClhanD4/w400-h225/Civics%20Class.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>If you did not suffer through a Civics class while you attended high school, you would be forgiven if you did not know:<br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">That the birthday of the United States of America is July 4</span><span class="s4" style="font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><sup>th</sup></span><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">, 1776</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">That our national flag has 50 stars, that they are white on a blue background, and that there are 50 stars because there are currently 50 states in the union</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That our national flag has 13 stripes, that they alternate white and red, and that 13 is the number of the original colonies<span><a name='more'></a></span></span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That the federal government has three branches, that they are the legislative, the executive and the judicial</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That the legislative branch is called Congress, that it consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives, that it is the most important of the three co-equal branches, that senators serve 6-year terms, that House members serve 2-year terms</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That the executive branch is led by the president, who serves 4-year terms, limited to two terms</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That the Judicial branch is headed by the Supreme Court, with nine justices serving life terms limited only by death, retirement, or impeachment</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That the name of the president is Joe Biden (a fact, not my opinion), that the name of the Vice President is Kamala Harris, that the name of the Speaker of the House is Kevin McCarthy, that the name of the Senate's Majority Leader is Chuck Schumer, that the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is John G. Roberts, Jr.</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That you have to be at least eighteen years of age to legally vote</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">(You would be forgiven if you did not know) the capital of your state, the name of your state’s governor, the name of one of your state’s senators, the name of your House member, or the name of your city’s mayor</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That neither Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Elon Musk may serve as president under our Constitution as they are not natural born citizens</span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span>That the first words of the U.S. Constitution are "<i>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.</i>"</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">That the U.S. Constitution (and all its amendments) is the supreme law of the land</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That the U.S. Constitution can be amended (altered, changed), that there are currently 27 amendments to the Constitution, that the first ten of these amendments are called the Bill of Rights</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That the Bill of Rights, and nearly all the other amendments, guarantee rights to the people even if the majority, represented by Congress, would like to limit them</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That the first and most important of the amendments to the Bill of Rights reads: <i>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</i> Which means, for starters, that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation, and that majority Christians have no special powers to limit the rights of Roman Catholics (who are the first Christians), Jews, Muslims, Satan worshippers, the unaffiliated, or atheists</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That citizens have rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution or its amendments or anywhere else under the law</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That the Civil War, 1861 to 1865, was fought over the right of states to allow white citizens to own slaves, and that President Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">That Franklin Delano Roosevelt was our president during the Great Depression and the Second World War</span></li><li><span class="s1" style="font-family: inherit; font-kerning: none;">And you would be forgiven if you did not know that 62% of your fellow Americans (Americans by dint of birth) cannot pass the same (Citizenship) test that foreign-born persons must pass to become citizens of the United States, that most native-born Americans know less about our history, our government, and our founding documents than folks who <b>choose</b> to become American citizens</span></li></ul><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Which brings me, finally, to the point that I have made more than once on this blog: if you did not already know most of what you just read and you are American-born, you should be embarrassed; and if you can’t pass (60% is a passing grade) the exact same Citizenship test that your neighbor Sven from Sweden had to pass to become a US citizen, stay away from the voting booth come Election Day. Leave the job of choosing who will represent us in the halls of power to those who know what it means to be an American. Or, better yet, fix your ignorance of your own country, its founding documents and its institutions. Please!<br /></span></span><br /></span></div>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-7286910283647505182023-01-28T14:27:00.035-05:002023-01-31T19:13:32.701-05:00Those Memphis Blues Again<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href=" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kh6K_-a0c4" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="530" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrealaRomve1ojqQrhPG1SCm9Vn_OxvjT7HTcaJLPxG4A4ziB5CsPvIOBQ0eEDpNx9T_8Am5tkukIdLaNU56deDX8rdwyL1YRmxscnuabcCwoaelmVFB4iq-T1vsYnT_qnbj01syRi3WHgswHtsco9_22MTp5-5rzhgtbrp2_HJ4-UE0yZFBWoLJDV/w283-h400/Stuck%20Inside%20Memphis.png" width="283" /></a></div>His name is Tyre Nichols. Was Tyre Nichols. Five Memphis cops murdered a black man. Again. Another. Again. The cops are being charged with second degree murder. I guess that’s progress, of sorts.</div><div> </div><div>In the year of our Lord 2022, last year, in the USA, cops killed 1176 civilians, up from a record 1055 in 2021. While cops killed more white men than black men, black men were three times more likely to end up in the morgue (as there are many more white men than black men).</div><div> </div><div>In the Memphis incident, the five cops were black. As if black cops can’t be racist against their own race.</div><div> <span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div>What makes a man (or a woman) want to become a policeman or policewoman? First, an honorable desire to see good prevail over evil. And an honorable desire to see evil punished. Second, comfort with physical violence. How can I say this? The folks that live in my circle are a) over-educated, b) mostly sedentary, and c) don’t own firearms. If you put any of us in a police uniform or a soldier’s uniform, we would tend to avoid situations that called for force or seemed dangerous. Folks who enlist in the military or become police have a different orientation toward violence and danger. Please understand me, I am NOT suggesting they are in any way inferior to sedentary folks like myself; indeed, every nation on Earth needs these folks to confront violent bad actors, aka criminals. Put ME in a uniform and the best I could do for myself and my community is to go AWOL. Police are more necessary in quasi-civilized society than folks like me. If you have read my words about patriotism, you know that I place police very high on my list of patriots, as they go into a profession that is dangerous and whose calling is protecting folks like me from bad people.</div><div><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-video-memphis-police-bodycam-shows-tyre-nichols-beating-162037829865" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="558" data-original-width="992" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7n3yYXwW6vyz_IUimEGob5FrxzxBcsQE5jEhCTZPTX3dDo1K6-7Cad0FaAzvqPkkk-6_7t-Y-Qffs0b7N7vcppItJqDESvCTpw9jqtpGm4VFhTy45gHRH6EEPSY9AibHp043oF2Z3OQCPnuJP9yzEkldmPsRktCkPRTqKH3pw-JVunxoYGBe0fEzT/w400-h225/tyre-nichols-3-rt-gmh-230127_1674867744933_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">View at your own risk!</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div>But police are not above the law. If a cop kills a civilian not in self-defense, he should be charged with murder.</div><div> </div><div>1176 civilians were killed by cops in 2022. That is a real problem! But it also means that the odds of being killed by a cop in 2022 were .000354%, or one in 282,000 chances. It is not close to being on the list of top ten causes of death in the USA! In other words, being killed by a cop is really, really rare. Most cops are not killers, even under duress. By most, I mean way more than 99% or 99.9% or 99.99%. In fact, 331 cops were shot in 2022 (“only” 67 were killed). They have a dangerous job; but they all carry firearms, and that places a heavy burden on them not to use their firearms except in self-defense. If a bad guy runs from police, that does NOT confer on the police the right to kill, or even to maim, or to use their firearm to stop the bad guy. Not infrequently, a “bad guy” is running away from being captured for petty theft, not murder or rape (or treason).</div><div> </div><div>What is my point in stressing these opposing ideas; that cops kill too many (black) men but that it is very rare, and that the vast majority of cops are innocent of these crimes? Simple: <b><i>It is bad enough that a few bad cops tarnish the good repute of police everywhere; good cops should stop defending the indefensible.</i></b></div><div> </div><div>P.S.: 1176 is just a number. But look at the names of a small number of victims and it hits home (here is an abridged list of “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americans_killed_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">unarmed African Americans killed by law enforcement officers in the United States</a>”). Scroll. Scroll some more. Keep scrolling.</div><div><br /></div></div>
</div>
Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-59548078282632818112023-01-07T18:34:00.014-05:002023-01-28T17:23:44.350-05:00Power in Politics<div style="text-align: justify;">For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-- from the King James Version of the Holy Bible, Mark 8, verses 36 & 37</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><span><a name='more'></a></span></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2023/01/07/1147708725/photos-kevin-mccarthy-speaker-house" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1727" data-original-width="2600" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn40hnycP_bDADQOtPYEiQ5w7LMb36sWSa9A9Q2JR4G_4aiCBZlcUAAem7tnp6A453_wDypoRLT7iIJgtrsQJVGVZWfNYfWCB4KKGqGwHXgzw-HWoxMhsddXTFXmTdBlIbD-Vtb_WA8YZcpR05aTVAdgdKhSIbaADQpaOnuO12h2JbLwL6ZkiUg71C/w400-h266/Kevin%20Speaker.webp" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2023/01/07/1147708725/photos-kevin-mccarthy-speaker-house" target="_blank">Ah, finally!!!</a></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;">People run for elective office to gain something called power; power is never the sole motive, but it is a large piece of it. But really, do Senators and Congress men and women really have power? When an elected official dials for dollars, he is trading his so-called power (to craft legislation) for money, as it is the fat-cat donor who has the power, not the elected official wagging his tail waiting for his master to toss him a bone. He is a lap dog. And a whore.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Bernie Sanders has power. AOC has power. Because neither one dials for dollars, small donors nationwide send them money. These small donors don’t tell them what to do, they send money because they want them to act as they have spoken, and they do. These are real leaders because they didn’t wait around to be told what to do, by fat-cat donors or by the people who crave real leadership. And a lot of people like what they say.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Republican Speaker of the House (after an utterly unprecedented, and personally deeply humiliating, 15 roll calls) Kevin McCarthy traded all his power away in order to win the trappings of power, to be called Mr. Speaker. But any one of these far-right flame throwers can call for a new vote and he could lose his powerless throne in a New York minute. Speaker McCarthy has the title, but the flame throwers have the power. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/07/opinions/mccarthy-speaker-vote-house-republicans-dent/index.html" target="_blank">Some power</a>!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">But these far-right flame throwers who withheld their YES votes until the end are NOT far-right, they are not ultra-conservative, they are not real conservatives at all, they are just far-authoritarian (“and what WE say goes; it’s my way or the highway”).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">But, in the end, as I have claimed so often, the problem is the people – not Donald, not Marjorie, not Gaetz, not Boebert – as these small people were chosen by the people. Donald by our Electoral College in 2016, Greene and Gaetz by huge margins, and Boebert by a mere 546 votes plurality, a 0.17% margin of victory. With the people’s help, the Donald remains very powerful, as his followers keep sending him money (to help pay for his future legal bills), even when he tweaks them for being stupid, by selling NFT trading cards of his smirky face on top of super-heroes’ bodies, for $99 a pop. Why do I say he is powerful NOW, without elective office? Because if he told his “base” to take a long hike off a short pier, they would do it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">In a democracy, the people get the government that they deserve. Because, finally, they are in charge; the people determine who will represent them in the seats of power (that word again). Thomas Jefferson was concerned that the masses of people were not responsible enough to rule themselves (as were all our original founding fathers). Jefferson wrote this (”If a nation expects to be <b>ignorant and free</b>, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”) and this (”I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them <b>not enlightened enough</b> to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to <b>inform their discretion by education</b>.”).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Democracy is a faulty form of government; but every other system is a kind of tyranny. We need more patriots, more people who LIVE their love of country. Read Ben Paine.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">I leave it to the people to govern themselves, even while they and their representatives are making a mess of it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-5530307637347831522022-11-08T19:54:00.024-05:002024-02-14T20:33:44.242-05:00The 2022 Mid-Term Election<div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.newsnationnow.com/video/trump-if-republicans-do-well-i-should-get-all-the-credit/8140584/" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1054" data-original-width="1581" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEpjWvymRQNkwv-5HIP_LGSFSlKOVywzicLtPHxalGhP0j5d45BSTKvNlPvhZZokgKDqOARLQCqvtte0Ckf5GFEZyakex-o9ywgQBGuulsAslQgSs3lFExTha-Xb64NMXErA_Qpf0e3x0tcrSVAdvLRchz_NRgF1RW_ow7plyHAWMUVhfvC0EzYhUT/w400-h267/Trump%20GettyImages-1440107874.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">What a guy! This says it all!</td></tr></tbody></table>It’s 48 hours before the polls in Honolulu, Hawaii close for the 2022 mid-term election (this was true when I began to write this post, it’s Election Eve as I put it to sleep, the polls are still open all over). All we know so far is that we don’t know much. The polls are predicting a Republican House of Representatives and a Senate that could go either way, Republicans favored by a slim margin.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But we do know some things. One, after the polls close and the networks begin to show real-time results, Republicans nationwide will be in the lead, because day-of votes are counted first, and Republican voters prefer day-of voting. Two, Republicans will be calling for an early end to vote counting, as many more Democrats vote early than Republicans. Trump called for this in 2016, he called for it in 2020, and his minions will have learned his lesson: when you are ahead, declare victory and call for the early end of counting votes. Indeed, Republicans have already filed suits against counting early voting ballots in some battleground states.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But what is at issue, besides questioning democracy itself?</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Abortion is on the ballot. Who will decide if a woman may have a legal abortion, early or late in her pregnancy? The woman and her physician, or the lawmakers in the state of her residence, most of whom are men?</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Inflation is on the ballot. While inflation is a world-wide phenomenon, and while we are not doing as badly as most countries, and while gas prices can be blamed on OPEC and profiteering fossil-fuel corporations, and the explosion in the price of food on the war in Ukraine, we Americans still like to blame the party in power, or rather the party that sits in the White House: that is, Joe Biden.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Putin and Zelenskyy are on the ballot. Believe it or not, <a href="https://accountability.gop/ukraine-quotes/" target="_blank">many Republicans favor Putin</a>! Before Pearl Harbor, millions of isolationist Americans proudly wore the German swastika (many of them belonged to the “America First Committee”; the world-famous pilot Charles Lindbergh was one of their leaders), so maybe no great surprise.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Climate change is on the ballot. Republicans are making a fetish out of science denial. And, frankly, too few Americans are making enough noise to make a difference. Al Gore mockingly called climate change “inconvenient.” Indeed!</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Immigration is on the ballot. Republicans want to restrict Southern (Mexican) immigration, but they hate paying higher prices for home-grown produce.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court is on the ballot. Republicans want nine conservatives sitting on the bench, while Democrats want the Court expanded to thirteen seats so they can be the 7-6 majority (until Republicans regain power), a dumb idea if ever there was one.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Education is on the ballot. Republicans want parents to control what books to ban and what is taught in the classroom; Democrats think that educators are more qualified to make these decisions. Republicans think that public school teachers are overpaid, and that high school dropout parents are qualified to home school their kids, especially when it comes to questioning the authority of the Bible about anything.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Health care is on the ballot. Republicans want to roll back Obamacare, but they have no replacement for it, good or bad. “Progressive” Democrats want to replace it with Medicare for All, which has its own problems. In any case, we Americans pay more than anyone else for health care that has very disappointing outcomes (citizens of 45 countries live longer than we do).</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Firearms are on the ballot. Republicans think the answer to mass shootings is more Americans owning more guns; they believe that the 2nd Amendment was written by God and that gun ownership should be utterly unrestrained. Democrats think that legislation will put an end to most firearm homicides.</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">As to “democracy” being on the ballot, ever since Donald Trump questioned the results of the 2020 presidential election (putting aside that he claimed that the only way that he could lose the 2016(!!!) election was by Democrats rigging the election), election denialism has become a thing. No longer will a certain segment of the population (Republicans) accept electoral defeat, of a president, of a governor, of a senator, of a congressman, of an alderman or a Council member. If you are a Republican – a MAGA Republican – you never accept defeat, as the only way that you can lose is if the election is stolen, the sworn oaths of election workers be damned, or in Trump’s case, the word of 50 governors, and 50 secretaries of state, and 61 lost lawsuits, including one in front of his own Supreme Court – be damned. Permanent single-party power before democracy. Call it autocracy, oligarchy, authoritarianism, or fascism; it is not democracy because the will of the people has no bearing on who will rule (or represent) us.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Why so many decent Americans should worship a man known to be a congenital liar, a business failure who has filed for bankruptcy a half-dozen times, a billionaire who stays wealthy by siphoning campaign donations into his personal accounts, a man who half-jokingly claims to be a “stable genius” while speaking at a 4th grade level well before he ever entered politics, a man who demands total loyalty from all and renders it to none – will be the subject matter of historians’ and psychologists’ books for one hundred years.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As I lay this post to rest, I wish for America a better future than we deserve!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Addendum: Saturday, 11/12/2022</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I have no need to write a post-election post. You have read enough of them and I can't really add anything of substance to what has already been written. But I can be clear about where I stand.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There was NO bloodbath of Democratic blood. Democrats seem to have retained 50-50 control of the Senate, and the Republicans may have taken back a dozen House seats, giving them an eight-seat margin over Democrats, hardly a bloodbath.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If there was any shellacking, it was with Trumpian blood. Many Republicans are asking him to get out of their way, get out of politics, don't run for the Republican nomination for president in 2024. Some have asked him to wait until Georgia's Senate runoff election determines the Senate makeup more clearly. Will Trump wait until then? You know the answer. Donald John Trump is incapable of retiring from the ring. He will announce that he is running on Tuesday, November 15th. Bank on it!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Finally, lest there be any more doubt: Donald John Trump is NOT a Republican, nor is he a conservative. Proof? Republicans have had no written platform since Trump ran for president in 2016.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Addendum: Friday, 11/18/2022</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Once again, no need to write a post-mortem on last Tuesday's midterm election. I have no editorial comments to add that you have not already read a dozen or more times.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But, here is what happened with a few random observations.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As this moment, there are 25 Republicans governors and 24 Democratic governors. Three races flipped to Democrats and one to Republicans. Alaska will likely end up with a Republican governor but has not been called for technical reasons.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At this moment, there are 50 Democratic senators and 49 Republican senators, with Georgia scheduled for a runoff on December 6th. Pennsylvania was the only state that flipped, to a Democrat. So, either 50-50 or 51D-49R.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At this moment, there are 219 Republican Congresspersons and 212 Democratic Congresspersons, with four races uncalled. This is a net increase of 12 seats for the Republicans. 218 is a majority, so the House is in Republican hands, by less than a dozen seats. In contrast, the Republicans lost 40 seats in the last midterm election under Trump.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What is clear is that this was not a "bloodbath" or a "red wave" for the Republicans. Democrats gained two governorships and one senator.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A few personal notes: </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>John Fetterman, the Democratic candidate for governor of Pennsylvania, the fellow who had suffered a stroke just a few months ago and looked unwell during his one debate, soundly defeated Dr. Mehmet Oz, the carpetbagger from New Jersey, who won fame for selling snake oil remedies on TV, by more than 250,000 votes. </li><li>Josh Shapiro, the Democratic candidate for governor of the same state, whipped his "flawed" opponent by nearly 800,000 votes. </li><li>Ron DeSantis, the Republican candidate for governor of Florida, and the would-be Republican candidate for president in 2024, beat his opponent, former Republican governor of Florida Charlie Crist, by 1,500,000 votes.</li><li>Gavin Newsom, the Democratic candidate for governor of California, and a possible Democratic candidate for president in 2024, beat his opponent by nearly 2,000,000 votes. DeSantis and Newsom both won their races by 19 percentage points!</li><li>Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia's 14th district, was re-elected by 65.7% to 34.1%.</li><li>Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York's 14th district, was re-elected by 70.6% to 27.5%.</li><li>Representative Lauren Boebert, of Colorado's 3rd district, garnered 554 votes more than her opponent Adam Frisch; that margin was small enough for a recount but Frisch has conceded! 554 votes our of 330,000 votes. And the Democrat conceded instead of demanding a recount.</li><li>Finally, my favorite. Kari Lake, the MAGA Republican candidate for governor of Arizona, the would-be candidate for Vice president under Trump in 2024, lost to her Democratic rival by 17,000 votes out of 2,870,000 votes cast; that number is not large enough for an automatic recount, but Ms. Lake has not conceded; indeed, like Trump, she began to claim "rigged" well before the election took place. And, like Trump, she will be whining about a stolen election until the press stops covering her sorry ass.</li></ul></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>
</div>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-59172084684049254252022-10-29T20:51:00.017-04:002022-11-01T02:01:48.019-04:00A Plea to Republican Voters<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/28/opinions/paul-pelosi-attack-not-an-isolated-incident-alaimo/index.html" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="2151" data-original-width="3000" height="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsvw7lSmQk-TkuojAUqOTWJWy26k_G5u1YFyvUzwKV53zs2D8wPA3zZnghX7hzDQ5_k_VOaiXQv-wjk7cFeQgBYStfRw9BH3fEAZezHFY39hNxwTezzSyN8zNhLW2fNuxOIzgZ8OAbJL6T-j9KVtxTM_v54s9kWg9g_4hxfNZTA2NRTGjZsQ2IfLJO/w400-h286/paul-pelosi.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>You hate us more than we hate you!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Paul Pelosi was attacked early Friday morning and is lucky to be alive, hospitalized, and on the mend. But what was the grievance of this (un-named) perpetrator against Paul Pelosi? That he was the husband of Nancy Pelosi? What had Mrs. Pelosi ever done to him? What had we Americans done to those who ransacked the Capitol building on January 6th? Why, nothing really, except to have won an election, one that Republicans wanted to win, badly.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The most compelling notion that I have ever seen to explain why you hate us so much is that we don’t respect you, we look down on you. Which in many cases is true. But not because you are stupider than us, not because you have low IQs; we have as many stupid voters who vote our way as you do. Not because you don’t have college degrees, as many of you have college degrees as we have. No, the reason that we don’t respect you is that you make stupid political choices. I’m not talking about your anti-Welfare bias, where you think that we encourage freeloaders to vote for us, a charge that has some merit. You remember the joke about the Republican voter who stands up in the middle of a liberal Democratic Town Hall and shouts out “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” Or, when your legislators vote against federal legislation that will help millions of Americans across the land; but celebrate when they bring it home and take credit for it, even though they voted against the legislation. Or, when you insist on a lie that you know is a lie, because otherwise your tribe – most of whom know it is a lie – would get so damn angry that they would never speak with you again. Or, when you married your sincere Christian faith to the modern Republican Party, when you know full well that Jesus would not have approved of most of what your party stands for.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">FDR did NOT bring socialism to a capitalist America, FDR saved capitalism from itself (those of you who think that free-enterprise capitalism is the way to go – is America’s true path – should read Adam Smith, the spokesman extraordinaire of capitalism). FDR didn't send out Welfare checks, he put people to work, doing jobs that the private sector would never ever provide. EVERY modern economy in the world is a mixed economy, with capitalism at its core. Yes, even Denmark and Sweden. A pure capitalistic state would have fewer winners and many more losers than our mixed economy. The Socialistic programs soften capitalism’s cruelty.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Democrats have not delivered to their base for a long time, and I get that; and many of our voters have turned away from us and vote with you now. But not enough of them seem to understand that why we haven’t delivered on our promises is because today’s Republicans vote against our agenda, even legislation that will help YOU! And you’re OK with that, as long as you receive the benefits from whatever legislation we do finally pass.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">How many Republicans really want to kill Social Security? If you have elderly parents, you should be grateful that they can live decent lives without being totally dependent on you. If you’re young, you hate Social Security because you believe that it won’t be there when you retire; and if Republican thinking prevails, you will prove correct. The same for Medicare. Unemployment Insurance. Health insurance that no longer can be denied to someone with a pre-existing condition. I suspect that very few if any of you really want these social safety net programs to go away.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But the cardinal differences between us is this: you believe that a man is entitled to what he earns for himself, and some of you believe that taxation is theft; while we believe that we are all in this fight together, and we help each other out when someone needs a helping hand. We believe that we are our brother’s keeper, you believe that we should pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Both of these are noble principles, but neither is always right for everyone. Perhaps surprisingly, many Democrats who believe in helping the less fortunate (through tax redistribution) are pretty successful themselves. But our real differences may stem from our geography. Democrats live in cities; Republicans live in the countryside. There are no police walking the beat in rural America. There are no hospitals within a ten-minute drive for most rural Republicans. So, I get your concerns. I really do. If I were to transplant myself to a country home, I would get educated about firearms, I would own firearms, I would become more like you. No offense, I mean it!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But I don’t get your hatred for your fellow Americans.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Maybe President Barack Hussein Obama was too much for many white Americans to stomach. The Tea Party was born less than a month after his inauguration. It transformed the Republican Party. Its principles remained the same, but the intensity and the rage of its members were revved up 100-fold. The Tea Party's rage made Trump’s hateful rhetoric acceptable and gave rise to MAGA-Republicans, who are not committed to any old-fashioned Republican values but who ARE committed to following their flawed leader, no matter where he leads them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Just one more thing. Your guys, your talking heads – Hannity, Tucker, Levin, Savage, Beck – have all accused liberals of trying to start a civil war. But why would a liberal ever talk openly about a civil war when you guys own all the firearms, and when the police seem to be on your side. If it came to that, this civil war's battlefields would not look like other civil war battlefields; it would look like guys with guns breaking and entering into our homes, and murdering us in cold blood, just like Southern whites used to come after unarmed blacks a century ago. American carnage. At the end of the day, after all the one-sided slaughter, it would no longer look like a democracy because everyone who survived – the guys with the firearms – would all believe the same things. And how is that possible? Why, only when everyone follows a single god-like leader. Is that what you want? Above all else, the Republican brand has always stood for individual liberties and beliefs. I once was a proud Republican, so I know what I'm talking about. All alternatives to democracy (where different people believe different things) are forms of tyranny. Is that what you really want?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We have to learn to live together, to be kind to each other, to respect each other – our differences notwithstanding – before our hate, before YOUR hate – rips this country apart, rips our democracy apart, proving to one and all that we were just LUCKY that we made it this far. Until you guys decided that your hatred of us was more important than a stinking democracy, your Christian virtues be damned!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As long as you would rather fight than debate, against an enemy with no fight, we have no chance, our democracy has no chance.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Please be careful what you wish for.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-4450693786080537102022-10-18T02:07:00.011-04:002022-10-20T16:51:21.607-04:00Golden State<div style="text-align: justify;">A friend again!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">* * * * * * * * * * * * *</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://hypebeast.com/2022/10/golden-state-warriors-contract-extensions-poole-wiggins" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6ooDT1C1TMtOK4h537rbZKsk2M6zYAt3rwS_h9BaU9DPCRDZDRN-XkU_IL-edBuvN4f8chL9z9xUUQ9te_Csos_KGeMUUUf1kgFchu1aDdlZNGFNH9Wh5bmD0O_OtHUEmlMGWIdiR-yi6Fdydi0vORdFyo37vqgl-5zQyr5lMir2kJjcj_s408tIZ/w400-h300/Golden%20State%20Warriors.webp" width="400" /></a></div>I am a Golden State Warriors fan.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Wiggins just signed a 4-year contract worth $109 million. He is not worth that kind of money. That is some 2,000 times more than most Americans earn!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Jordan Poole just signed a 4-year contract worth $140 million. While he is worth more than Andrew Wiggins, he is not worth that kind of money.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Their star player, Steph Curry, is on his second year of a 4-year contract worth $215 million. While he is worth more than Jordan Poole, he too is not worth that kind of money.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Steve Kerr, the team’s head coach, earns $5 million per year. Eight of Golden State’s players earn more than he does, six earn MUCH more than he does. And he is clearly worth more than several of his players. He surely earns closer to his just desserts than his players do. Kerr is already recognized as one of the NBA’s best coaches of all time. Curry earns ten times as much as Kerr; their star player IS worth more than their great coach, but not ten times as much!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">“But, if the players don’t reap the benefits of their star power, the enormous revenue that the team earns will just go to management and the owners.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Well, maybe not.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Consider: Chase Center seats are priced at whatever the traffic will bear. In other words, most of us will never watch a professional basketball game live, in our team's own stadium. Most local fans will never watch a Golden State game in their own hometown! Maybe one quarter to one half of those pricey tickets could be priced at movie prices and distributed like lottery winnings.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And maybe a team's host city could enjoy a sizable chunk of the team’s revenues, too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">"So, how can the city reap that whirlwind?"</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Through taxation, of course.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But this adjustment in tax receipts should not fall on sports figures (players and owners) alone. As it is, the most successful of all of us – for example, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg – pay nary a dime in income taxes as they need not declare any taxable income. Those who do declare enormous incomes get taxed at rates that are not much higher than a typical American wage-slave, and it is well past time to fix that inequity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Capitalism does NOT depend on the non-distribution of individual income or wealth; read your Adam Smith! The father of Capitalism believes in the re-distribution of wealth.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And I can’t think of a better place to start this than with my very own Golden State Warriors.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-34283053931568583892022-10-10T00:00:00.002-04:002022-10-10T00:12:38.183-04:00Columbus Day<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1971" data-original-width="3000" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnnM2AdV1lmie54PSq-lUT3z9Qu9i6j5WCCFTvj0LQ16uWiVkoqXQTK3Kg6n1wZs3gbuA6zN9IFv8aYxMoXYzlhvQYeauMFQGUamtsSEf-BBhwGGh3qtK1K4t5tWbfbNbixc8o_kMJ9YPuxxdhL1bxUm8V7LG8caYJJ1DrE_FQMfAyMSgOtqDEkxOq/w400-h263/Landing_of_Columbus.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>Christopher Columbus did not, of course, “discover America.” And he knew this as soon as he landed and was greeted by natives who were living where he embarked. Their ancestors had lived here for 12,000 or 50,000 years, take your pick. Columbus knew they were human, but he treated them rather inhumanely. And today, because of his actions and the actions of millions of Europeans who followed him, some of his statues have been torn down. Even the holiday of Columbus Day is threatened. Is this a good idea?<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Statues of Confederate generals have been removed from their pedestals on Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA, the capital of the Confederacy. But these generals fought against the Union; technically, they had committed treason against their country, against the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln finally declared: with malice toward none, with charity for all.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">George Washington was a slave holder. But he freed all his slaves in his will.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thomas Jefferson was a secessionist and an advocate of states’ rights; his first loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, not to the United States of America (not until he was elected president of the new nation, anyway). Despite his having a 40-year love affair with a black slave, he believed that blacks were inferior to whites. He did not free his slaves upon his death, he had too many debts that were not paid.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Abraham Lincoln believed that blacks were an inferior race too, and he early on advocated sending them “back where they came from,” to Africa. He said if he could keep the Union and not free a single slave, he would do so. But meeting Frederick Douglass probably changed his mind about black intelligence, and he considered Douglass a “friend.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Should the Washington Monument be torn down? The Jefferson and the Lincoln Memorials, should we raze them, too?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Who can survive this kind of scrutiny, judging the past by today’s standards? Most recently, how many American men have fallen to the #MeToo movement for “crimes” against women? How many careers have been shattered? I am not for a moment condoning the actions of these men. They were wrong and justice has caught up with them, some of them at least! But they committed their sins when society (male-dominated) at large looked the other way. It was a commonplace for a woman to submit to the sexual advances of a powerful man in order “to get ahead.” Those days are long gone (are they really?), and many once powerful men have paid the piper.</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What is the right response, the appropriate response, the measured response? I have no idea. All I do know is that not all crimes are created equal. Even rape has degrees, just like murder. And inappropriate sexual behavior – talk – is not rape. I do believe in old-fashioned justice, an eye for an eye. But I also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. And I sometimes believe in forgiveness.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And above all else, we should honor our good deeds and condemn our bad deeds; and teach them all equally to the generations that follow.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What to do about Columbus Day? If you have a day off, enjoy it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-91988530548857234382022-09-28T23:50:00.015-04:002023-06-12T18:33:46.241-04:00The Right to an Abortion<div style="text-align: justify;">I don’t recall which Republican talking heads (many) have argued that the right to an abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It seems like a compelling argument, but it is really a very poor argument against the right to an abortion, and here is why.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The U.S. Constitution consists of two main parts, plus the accumulated decisions of the Supreme Court. The first part is the Constitution proper, and the second part is the 27 amendments to the Constitution proper.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/what-comes-next-abortion-rights-supreme-court" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="840" data-original-width="1260" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjePxxJhRpq-K9AgKEPEERnIBpFtMr6PnFQKU4iz9uOfnNEhoWWgzvBwcVVnaTd8crFXLukunUgoswQW7RZrQApWh-H97rXOwiF9ukbmaasoYV_5JSuu6i8OYOM0EJLV10o1SvequiR__nV2fX4hieM33EQk9PtVzVExtdjgciMk_RZvMsQ6IpiOizo/w400-h266/abortion.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>The U.S. Constitution proper consists of seven “Articles” and roughly 4300 words.</div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Article I, the Legislative branch, the Congress, contains 10 sections and 2268 words.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Article II, the Executive branch, the President, contains 4 sections and 1021 words.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Article III, the Judicial branch, the Supreme Court, contains 3 sections and 373 words.</li></ul></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: justify;">While the three branches were to be construed as coequal, the members of the Constitutional Convention clearly intended that the legislative branch, the Congress, had the most power, as is demonstrated by Article I’s primacy, its relative length (half of the entire document and twice the size of the Executive’s Article II) and its level to detail.</p></blockquote></blockquote><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Article IV, States Rights, contains 4 sections and 326 words.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Article V, Amendment, contains 1 section and 143 words.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Article VI, random stuff, contains 1 section and 154 words.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Article VII, Ratification, contains 1 section and 24 words.</li></ul></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">The U.S. Constitution proper lays out the founders’ vision of the <b>powers</b> of the new federal government. There is no mention of individual <b>rights</b> anywhere in the Constitution proper. <i>A discussion of an individual right would clearly not belong in a catalogue of the new government’s powers.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, in order to convince several states to ratify the new Constitution, the framers had to make a deal: to include a list of clearly enumerated individual rights. This list of rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution proper, our “Bill of Rights.” All the so-called “rights” in the Bill of Rights took the form of ‘Congress shall NOT regulate the people for this reason or that.’ So, Pro-Life forces argue that there is no amendment that reads:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Congress shall make no law respecting the right of a woman to have an abortion.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This is quite true, there is no such amendment to our Constitution. However, Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights declares:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights (the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights), shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">In other words, there are millions of “rights” of the people that are not specifically “enumerated” in the Constitution. Perhaps abortion is one of them.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With a single exception – Amendment XVIII, Prohibition – the remaining 17 amendments to the U.S. Constitution added rights and privileges to the people. No amendment, except for Prohibition, ever subtracted any rights from the people.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">“Well, what about the rights of the unborn?” A careful re-read of the amendments to the Constitution would suggest that persons with “rights” are all adults. Do children have freedom of religion? Freedom of the press? Freedom against self-incrimination? Freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances? If children have no Constitutional “rights,” surely the unborn have even fewer.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">“But surely not even a parent has the right to kill his own child.” But is a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, a blastocyst – a child? Far from every person, far from even most Americans, believes that a “person” exists from the moment of conception. And even fewer want to imprison a woman for choosing to abort her own … child.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One thing ought to be clear: there is no changing the mind of a person who believes that a soul is born at the moment of conception. It is not universally agreed upon, but it is a firm religious belief. On the other hand, the crime of murder is universally agreed to be a capital crime, a top-of-the-line crime. Whether an abortion is murder is open to argument.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One last thing: many of our most cherished beliefs were given to us as children, especially religious beliefs. For many if not most of us, these beliefs are never questioned and last a lifetime. We need to think more about what we were taught as children, when we had no <b>right</b> of independent belief.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For those of you who live in Red states where abortion is severely limited, if not outlawed entirely, I urge you to read my 2014 piece, <a href="https://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2014/07/texas-after-roe-v-wade.html">Texas After Roe v. Wade</a>, and consider if you would like that to be your state's future.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Addendum: Monday, 06/12/2023</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As abortion is always a woman's decision, I believe that men ought to keep quiet about it, or at least not be permitted to legislate about abortion. But, being a writer, I will have my say, even if I have no desire to make a law about it one way or another, so here goes.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">First, when I say that abortion is always a woman's decision, I mean to suggest that when a man and a woman have a disagreement about aborting her pregnancy, the only way that a man's decision will prevail is if he forces his will upon the woman, by some threat or another. An illegal threat. If the woman caves in and chooses not to take legal action against the man's threat, that renders it her choice still. Without a threat of some kind, an illegal threat, when a man and woman disagree about an abortion, it is the ultimately the woman's choice. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, if there must be laws governing abortion, I would want a) to prohibit all male legislators from voting on an issue that only affects women, and b) to prohibit all men from participating in any referendum on the issue. To be candid, I generally do not like any legislation that tells folks, or a subset of folks, what they can and cannot do (the exceptions should be obvious).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With that out of the way, I must say that I am uncomfortable about a woman using abortion as a form of routine birth control, especially if she expects her insurance or the government to pay for it (I consider the morning after pill a form of birth control, not an abortion, as most cases of unprotected sex do not result in a pregnancy, and no one knows whether a sexual act will result in a pregnancy within 24 or 48 or 96 hours). I do not like the idea of insurance (private or government) covering birth control – for the woman in the form of daily pills, a diaphragm or an IUD and for the man in the form of condoms – as they are affordable and not a serious financial burden on most adults. However, current law insures birth control for women and men and, as it will in a small way <a href="https://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2016/08/be-fruitful.html">slow down our birth rate</a>, I am OK having taxpayers pay for that end. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But I am uncomfortable about a woman using abortion as a form of routine birth control, so here's my 2c worth. Insurance (private or government provided) should pay for the first discretionary abortion, it should pay for half of the second discretionary abortion, and it should not pay at all for further discretionary abortions. As a matter of fact, I would not be averse to fining or sterilizing or even imprisoning a woman who elects to have more than five (a negotiable number) discretionary abortions. What do I mean by discretionary? An abortion is discretionary when the pregnancy is not the result of rape. When is a pregnancy the result of rape? When a woman makes a formal complaint with the authorities against the rapist (even if she does not know the identity of the rapist, at least she must co-operate with the police).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hey, I am a man and I have no (and want no) legal power to make my ideas law, so just speaking my mind. But I will surely piss off those rigid SOBs who want to control women as they have for millennia, and the women who "love" them and do as they are told. As for my progressive friends, I will probably piss them off, too. I guess I'm just an equal opportunity pisser.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Amen!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-34971520282239458432022-09-26T21:41:00.010-04:002022-11-30T19:30:07.942-05:00 The Next Steps in Private Transportation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://solartribune.com/solar-powered-cars-the-future-of-personal-transportation/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="694" data-original-width="1400" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzTboG53FERB6i_ErFKYwZDpDUiSVvuXuWFJCOBtbYMr2OtO0ZChG-7hzJ1bVoJ8kH4Z29IZ4TrfJ-LJ0OyH-7_axiftd4C-Cxf3DbpAZD-zjiQCTqh6ntwdHoT1dpigUCKChXoDmq2w6dvtaI4DcuvsBXuIvEbYPanAeED9Lt0d78S4iAZ_x_mdyi/w400-h199/solar%20car.png" width="400" /></a></div>So, here is an idea, or two, about private automobile transportation.<br /><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">First idea: EVs – or electric vehicles, or Tesla’s and their competition – still depend mostly on fossil fuel energy (petrol, natural gas, coal, ethanol) to fuel their electric batteries. So, why not solar powered automobiles? With much smaller batteries for driving in sun-less conditions. Another advantage would be far fewer charging stations. Today’s EV charging stations are partially funded by the government; those who do not drive EVs pay for them. We have solar electricity for our homes, solar powered automobiles are not far behind.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Second idea: considering that most privately-owned automobiles are idle for 95% of their lives, maybe we could forsake personal automobile ownership and call for an automobile when we need one. Just like we now do with Uber and Lyft, except that a self-driving automobile not in use would drive itself to us to drive wherever we wish. And we would leave it at our (temporary) destination. Ready to be called for by another driver. For long trips, we would reserve an auto in advance.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There could be two forms of ownership:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>Small groups could form to own a single vehicle, say 10 persons to a group. A typical group's members would live near to each other. Group ownership would imply purchase of an automobile by the group, say at 10% of its purchase price per user. Each use of the automobile would cost the driver based on time and mileage. The group would need a treasurer to collect funds.</li><li>Or automobiles could be owned by entrepreneurial individuals or corporations, and they would be available to anyone nearby at the last minute or for pre-planned long trips. This would be the next step in the evolution of taxi service. Initially, it would compete with Lyft/Uber rides. Such a ride would be less expensive than a Lyft/Uber ride but more expensive than that group owned ride (see bullet above).</li><li>These two kinds of vehicle ownership could co-exist with personal ownership of autos, with taxis, with Lyft and Uber, and with each other.</li></ul></div><div style="text-align: justify;">These evolutionary steps would be a boon to cleaning up the environment and to the cost of short rides by privately owned automobiles. The downside would, of course, be: some people have a psychological need to own their automobiles and would continue to do so.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Any questions? Any further ideas or elaborations?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-71494365128390187272022-09-04T17:43:00.007-04:002022-10-18T02:28:45.206-04:00Bob Dylan's False Prophet<div><br /></div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIF0gkqvaQ0" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="745" data-original-width="1216" height="392" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf2P3EeXNbpyTuVS--ZgwDC81ERYx18XeLo3Dlp51PogYfE7IPY8PIAItdcBn5Br449PiJghlxE0G6kumrn3mDMoj7abSeQKIBfemmlbB8nZ1oZuxpEeWXwLi5wZtlbXonUnGW2VXm0D45aj-5vKCMdzbhhrS6q9uYSr8nfd6Bu3H8bQG35WdKt0TJ/w640-h392/Dylan%20False%20Prophet.jpeg" title="Click on image, then Full Screen" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click on Image, then Full Screen</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div><br /></div><div>Another day that don't end</div>Another ship goin' out<br />Another day of anger, bitterness, and doubt<br />I know how it happened<br />I saw it begin<br />I opened my heart to the world and the world came in<br /><br /></div><div>Hello Mary Lou<br />Hello Miss Pearl<br />My fleet-footed guides from the underworld<br />No stars in the sky shine brighter than you<br />You girls mean business, and I do too<br /><br /></div><div>Well I'm the enemy of treason<br />Enemy of strife<br />I'm the enemy of the unlived meaningless life<br />I ain't no false prophet<br />I just know what I know<br />I go where only the lonely can go<br /><br /></div><div>I'm first among equals<br />Second to none<br />The last of the best<br />You can bury the rest<br />Bury 'em naked with their silver and gold<br />Put them six feet under and I pray for their souls<br /><br /></div><div>What are you lookin' at?<br />There's nothing to see<br />Just a cool breeze that's encircling me<br />Let's go for a walk in the garden<br />So far and so wide<br />We can sit in the shade by the fountain-side<br /><br /></div><div>I've search the world over<br />For the Holy Grail<br />I sing songs of love<br />I sing songs of betrayal<br />Don't care what I drink<br />I don't care what I eat<br />I climbed the mountain of swords on my bare feet<br /><br /></div><div>You don't know me, darlin'<br />You never would guess<br />I'm nothing like my ghostly appearance would suggest<br />I ain't no false prophet<br />I just said what I said<br />I'm just here to bring vengeance on somebody's head<br /><br /></div><div>Put out your hand<br />There's nothing to hold<br />Open your mouth<br />I'll stuff it with gold<br />Oh, you poor devil, look up if you will<br />The city of God is there on the hill<br /><br /></div><div>Hello stranger<br />A long goodbye<br />You ruled the land<br />But so do I<br />You lost your mule<br />You got a poison brain<br />I'll marry you to a ball and chain<br /><br /></div><div>You know darlin'<br />The kind of life that I live<br />When your smile meets my smile<br />A something's got to give<br />I ain't no false prophet<br />No, I'm nobody's bride<br />Can't remember, when I was born<br />And I forgot when I died.</div><br /><br /><br />Source: <a href="https://www.musixmatch.com/">Musixmatch</a><br />Songwriters: Bob Dylan<br />False Prophet lyrics © Special Rider Music, Universal Tunes<div><br /></div>Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1050161846420061419.post-73869831741562964392022-08-28T17:33:00.031-04:002022-09-11T11:38:12.856-04:00 On Cancelling Student Debt<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-student-debt-plan-doesn-t-actually-fix-problem-ncna1021291" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="876" data-original-width="1240" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7Khp-vHy4EQWDelebYugBK010sGHVtvJ8G2PTQlg1T-DjtxOtxFEJIhC1sR8CxNo14w8pID7KjulBqrsGw66PeT3q6roEihyVjKOxCeu2Z1GZeV9FfUI5l9OEXzacDc5m0TP5nXHOI9XeXCEpskuVPwwHTT6blNyEdvyBXfDkG6R-Pnnkquj0uAoQ/w298-h211/sanders_highered-2016-ac-540p.webp" width="298" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In my email Inbox, "Can Bernie send you a "'Cancel ALL student debt' sticker?"</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hell, NO!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: justify;">Bernie Talks ...</h2><div style="text-align: justify;">Bernie Sanders wants us to cancel all student debt. I agree with several of Sanders’ progressive ideas, but this idea is an AWFUL idea!<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">For starters, 65% of American taxpayers never set foot in a college classroom! So, 65% of those whose taxes will pay off student debt are those who never went to college and never will. That is unfair on its face! And, politically, it's not too smart, either. Many of these folks may have been Bernie supporters – or Democrats – but this move could push them away.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Putting fairness and politics aside for the moment, what does Sanders mean by ALL student debt?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Some student debt is federal loans, some is state loans, some is private bank loans, and some is non-bank (loan shark) loans. If Sanders means to cancel all student debt, he will have to cancel private debt by paying the private creditors with taxpayers’ funds. So, in the end, cancelling ALL student debt will be on the taxpayers’ dime. Cancelling student debt won’t cost the taxpayers a single dime as there is no spending associated with it; it will just reduce incoming tax revenues, which is really the other side of the same coin, as it will add to that year’s federal deficit. What is most likely is that Sanders’ proposal would only impact federally financed student loans (which still represents 92% of all student debt).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Still, cancelling all student debt is not as simple as it sounds.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">How far back will “ALL student debt” go? Tens of millions of Americans have paid off all their student debt. Will Sanders reimburse them retroactively for their (already paid off) debt? Not likely. Or will he only pay off unpaid debt, no matter how old or young it is? Will Sanders’s program extend into the future? For how long? I don’t think he wants to prepay any loans; I think he wants to wait until the loans begin to be paid off (after graduation, at least). Yesterday’s grads will look at today’s grads with some envy, as they were never rescued by the Fed (but the price of higher education was not so burdensome then).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">What if a student fails to graduate, does Sanders plan to pay off his debt, too? Will a student with a final GPA of 1.0 receive the same debt cancellation benefits as a student who earns a 4.0 GPA? Will Sanders plan include paying off debt that pays for schooling overseas? Does Sanders intend to subsidize non-citizen students, or naturalized students?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Will Sanders’ plan include paying off the debt that paid for higher education, like grad school, law school, med school, business school, etc.? Does he intend to pay off the debt of students whose future income will land them in the top 5% or 10% – or 1% – of our economy? Does someone who earns $100K right out of college or grad school need debt forgiveness? Should he receive any such debt forgiveness?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">One of the unhappy economic consequences of the easy availability of debt (and especially debt that will be forgiven!) is that colleges and universities inevitably raise their prices and freeze scholarship grants, as the demand for their services continues to explode (because of the ever-easier availability of funds to pay for college for more and more of us).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">No student wants to go into debt to pay for college, but debt appears to them as a better choice than forgoing college altogether, or working part-time while attending school, or working full time while going to school at night – taking seven years rather than four before realizing higher education’s long-term benefits.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">We should keep firmly in mind that Bernie Sanders will not be paying the bill, American taxpayers will be footing the bill. And it will be huge. If Sanders were to make clear that his plan would cover all types of job training, it would be easier for many of us to stomach; but even then, college-educated Americans will always benefit more than those without a college degree. Not only financially, but also in quality of life.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Clearly, Sanders does not plan this largesse to be a one-time gift; he believes that every American who wants a college education should not be deterred by its cost. I agree with him there, while not agreeing on how it should be achieved.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: justify;">Joe Biden Acts ...</h2> <div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://thebrownandwhite.com/2019/09/15/sen-bernie-sanders-legislation-proposal-aims-to-cancel-student-debt/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1014" data-original-width="802" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBU8WNgjrDHzSk6cTihPr3fVjm52BvEk1sLQL5asIO0yBCAVd6old5qi8cRSBU6dLKoOwiI2_UdECZZBEB5QiPeDAsqUP-5Cia9xAbK58Y0EgA_IameCHH394RQPJfdFJGAAA4nT02Yhe3VO3RX45ohNYOtgVcEsLo5y5kckh2sNOpwk6bfhi9xGbA/w316-h400/student%20debt%20Lehigh.png" width="316" /></a></div>President Joe Biden has – by Executive Order – taken a middle way. His plan makes no attempt to pay for all student debt, capping benefits at $10,000 or $20,000, the latter for the neediest. And it is a one-time fix that is calibrated somewhat to help those most in need. It is estimated to help 45 million students and it will cost some $300 billion. Forty-five million is a lot of beneficiaries but it is less than 15% of us. And $300 billion is a sizable chunk of loose change. And it is still “unfair” but at less cost to the taxpayers than Sanders’ proposal.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">The size of the problem is: 40 million Americans owe $1.7 trillion in student debt. That averages $42,500 / debtor. But most debt holders owe less than $20,000, and those with the highest debt have paid for post-graduate school and will easily pay it all down over time. Those with the highest debt need Joe’s help the least. And uncle Joe has structured it so that the most needy are helped the most. Good!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <h2 style="text-align: justify;">Ben Paine's 2¢ worth ...</h2><div style="text-align: justify;">But, if I were asked for my opinion on how to pay for higher education, here is what I think. These thoughts are all about going forward, they say nothing about resolving the issue of existing student debt.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">First, the federal government should not be in the business of making loans to students. PERIOD! There goes 92% of all student debt going forward. Private banks will still write loans for students entering college. BUT, the end of federal student loans will drive colleges and universities to cut their tuition fees, as the demand side of paying for college will begin to collapse. And, just as colleges will favor students who seem most likely to succeed, so will the banks favor those students who seem to them most likely to pay back their loans. The best students will gain admission and scholarships to the best colleges; the best students will win from the banks the biggest loans and the lowest payback interest rates. And many fewer Americans will choose college, for better or for worse.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Second, no great school – Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, MIT, etc. – will ever refuse admission to a “great” student (“great” is whatever a university says it means – academics, sports, the arts) because he or she can’t pay their way. The university may call it scholarships, stipends, grants, whatever it takes to grab that stellar student for their school. To you high school kids: scholarships are WAY better than loans, so if you are not a star yet, it's time to get moving!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Third, every state should fund community colleges. FREE to the student. As many or as few as their state legislatures decide. But of course, there will still be competition for the limited seats of each FREE college. So, if you are not prepared for college based on your high school record, these free colleges will not admit you.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Note: I have been told that community colleges never turn away a prospective student. That may or may not be true – for one state or another – but eventually FREE college for the student bumps up against the taxes that will pay for it. So, maybe you should be born in New York or California.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Americans are #1 in our willingness to give EVERYONE a second chance. So, if you were a slacker in high school, when you know you are ready to turn your life around, you will have all sorts of ways to prove it. But you will have to PROVE it. Then, doors will open that were once shut to you.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There are thousands of colleges across the land that are neither great nor “free.” Some of them are not accredited, some are outright scams. The middling student who can’t pass the requirements of the state’s community colleges will be well-advised to practice due diligence before requesting admission from a middling college.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Fourth, as a smarter way than granting student loans, the federal government should cut a $10,000 check for every American when they reach age 18 or (better?) when they graduate high school (or earn a GED). Not only would this be more equitable, it would also cause colleges to begin dropping their costs to attend (due to lower Demand: people will more readily take out a loan – or pay for something with a credit card – than spend their actual savings). It will cost us some $40 billion (or less) in taxes annually. But it should pay for itself with a healthier and better educated citizenry. And it will help those with no college in their future, too. Thomas Paine would approve.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">I don’t believe that the government (taxpayers) should be called on to subsidize those who end up living financially handsome lives, even if they began poor. I also believe that we should help those who choose lives of public service (the military, public school teaching, police and fire work, etc.) that won’t lead to a life of luxury. I think we can do this by calibrating loan pay-back rates according to income. For example, a teacher may have a loan of $100K to pay back over 20 years. But because of her (indecently) modest annual income, she should have her entire loan payment, year by year, reimbursed. And, yes, this is government subsidy paying off private bank loans, a month at a time. On the other hand, a lawyer or a dentist on his way up should expect to pay off 100% of his loans if he is reasonably successful. But I also believe that we should appreciate the sacrifices that doctors and lawyers and some others make to get where they are going. Indeed, I believe that they pay for their ambitious choices with great fulfillment – and high stress. And stress kills, in small ways and large. Lives are measured in many ways, and dollars is not always the most important.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Cancelling student debt goes against the American grain. But student debt would not be the problem it is were it not for debt enabling so many Americans to attend college who might not otherwise. In other words, the easy availability of debt has caused the cost of higher education to explode these last few decades due to heightened demand for college's benefits. So many of us old guys recall the cost of college tuition being measured in the hundreds of dollars, not in the tens of thousands.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">I admire Sanders for his heart: health care should be free, a “right” for all Americans. College should be free, a “right” for all Americans. But “free” and a “right” covers over the fact that they are NOT FREE, someone has to pay for them. Society, right? Right, sometimes called by its more honest name, taxpayers. I agree with Sanders 12000% that our über-wealthy get away with murder, filing tax returns with little or no taxable income, and thus no income taxes at all. But I have addressed this Congressional evil (it is NOT an oversight) in many of my posts (e.g. <a href="https://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-wealth-tax.html">A Wealth Tax, 2019</a>, and <a href="https://benpaine76.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-wealth-tax.html">A Wealth Tax, 2021</a>). Even after we get Musk and Bezos to pay tens of billions annually in tax on their wealth (and only YOU can make this happen!), neither healthcare nor education will then be FREE. But at least we will pay for these benefits with real money, not more printed dollars, not more DEBT!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;">What do you think? And why?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> Ben Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00822151316487309149noreply@blogger.com0