Morning Fog

Star Witnesses Are Not Heroes

Yesterday, after watching the Thursday broadcast of the latest Congressional Hearings into the attack on the U.S. Capitol, I sat down to write a reaction, but the words just didn't mesh the way I wanted, and I abandoned the effort. Fortunately, that work was done for me by Washington Post contributing editor Matt Bai in Friday's paper. It's spot on, in my view. If you can access the Post, have a look for "These January 6 Witnesses are Doing the Right Thing Now. But They're Not Heroes."

If you can't access the Post, I offer here a few tortured phrases of my own:

Cipollone, Pottinger, Matthews, and others who testified that night are all White House staffers, confessed stalwart Republicans, several with military experience, all of whom took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Pottinger and Matthews resigned after January 6 because of what they saw and heard that day. The question that arose in my mind was "Why so late?" They could not have been blind to all the illegal shenanigans Trump had been up to for months before, attempting to deny his election loss and engineer a steal.  

I was especially puzzled by how cool and detached these witnesses remained, even when reviewing Trump's televised message to the nation on January 7, the one in which, far from condemning the insurgency he sparked, he yet again implied that the election had been stolen. Outrageous, unpatriotic, and just plain crazy to boot. But asked their views of that statement, Cipollone, Matthews, Pottinger, and others tiptoed. Some ventured that Trump's statement was "unhelpful," others intoned that it was "not what we needed." Weren't they appalled that the gutless wimp they worked for was repeating an insidious, self-justifying lie? Was it only on January 6 or 7 that they recognized that the president was unhinged and the entire White House (themselves included) had been covering up for him for months? 

Sorry, but circumstances suggest they "came clean" for Congress (and we can be grateful that they did) but only because the end was in sight, and they hoped to salvage their reputations in hopes of an appointment in the next Republican administration. No heroes here, folks.

How To Make The Case For Abortion

I have read and heard lots of prolix discussion over the past month regarding the legal basis for a right to abortion. Some opine that Roe v. Wade would not now be history if the case had been argued originally on the basis of equal protection of the laws [Fourteenth Amendment] rather than the seemingly fuzzier issues of privacy.

Well, balderdash, say I. (I also say "bullshit," but the other word sounds much more legalistic, doesn't it?)  Let's be more fundamental than that! Consider a much more "original" clause of the Constitution, i.e. the First Amendment. I quote the relevant portion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".  

Nearly everyone's view on the issue of abortion is born out of a religious conviction or dogma. This is an issue of religion, no bones about it.

So where do the fuzzy-minded fetus-protecting reactionary Supremes get off, reading into the Constitution a religious dogma that is to be foisted on all citizens? The simple wording of the Constitution leaves certain things unsaid but a high legal mind ought to be able to figure out that the First Amendment cannot protect one religion, or religious view, by making it the law of the land. That effectively establishes a religion. 

Despite my strong conviction that the court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is in direct conflict with the Constitution, I might nevertheless have assumed that the court's error could never be corrected at this stage. But I'm very glad to see, in this week's New Yorker, that a synagogue in Florida has filed suit against that state's anti-abortion law. Jewish law, it seems, stipulates that life begins at birth, and requires the mother to abort a pregnancy if there is a risk to her health or emotional well-being. The suit therefore argues that Florida law infringes on Jewish free exercise of religion.

BOOM.

By the way, it appears to me that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to the reasoning the conservative majority of the court used in Dobbs. Justices might want to review it. It reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Really now, have they ever read this document we call the Constitution? Doesn't the Ninth suggest that regardless of state laws, a right of abortion, having existed as law for decades, still exists? The weak arguments underlying Dobbs sadly only serves to demonstrate that the decision was politically motivated. 

 

.  

Broken Premises

The U.S. and its government are founded on a handful of premises that were understood by (nearly) all as positive statements of principle:  equality, individual rights including especially the right to vote, the idea of the fairness of representative government, and many others we could name. Really though, we were always aware that these premises were objectives to be striven for, but not fully realized in the original Constitution. For where is the equality in counting blacks as less than whole people, and how complete is the concept of "popular vote" when those same blacks, as well as women, were not permitted to exercise it, or while the people's representatives to the Senate were not popularly elected at all?

Luckily, provision was made for amendment of the Constitution, and as the nation progressed, we gradually, subject always to retrogressive political pressures, progressed, fixing some of the worst political compromises the "framers" left us with.    

This truth puts paid to the judicial idea of "originalism," which purports to read in the Constitution exactly what is written there. In what logical world would we seek to reverse course? Or in more contemporary terms, does it really make sense to start undoing rights and freedoms previously recognized as Constitutional? 

NO, it does not. Yet the Supreme Court, with its decision on abortion rights, has jumped feet first into a rabbit hole, a leap that could easily lead to the erosion of other recognized rights, even taking us back to the "good old days" when Blacks knew their place and women couldn't vote. Is this what the radical right wing of the current Court wants?  Apparently it is. "Originalism" leads to an Alice-In-Wonderland world where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are perverted from a list of positive rights that a government guarantees, or hopes to secure, for its citizens (as do most constitutions in free countries) into a list of shalt-nots. It's all very biblical, isn't it? That is the problem. The court's right wing has much in common with radical Islamic mullahs.  

With this decision, it became clear that the Supreme Court is broken. (Some of us thought that back in 2000.)  As NBC news commentator Chuck Todd observed, from now on, everyone is going to see those justices robed in red or blue, not black. And despite the very limited "success" of the gun bill the Senate approved yesterday, the broader picture on the political scene is that Congress is broken too. And the Executive branch? Aah, the executive. It's limping along on crutches under Joe Biden, after having all its legs and arms broken and its skull crushed by Donald Trump.  Yep, it's broken too.

It's hard to see what this means for average Americans. Who or what can save the nation some of us still hope to preserve?  Those few of us who don't own guns could go out and get one, and we could have a war, but I don't see that happening. More likely we're in for a period of anarchy, when people just do what they want or can, lives their lives, and mainly just ignore politicians and their minions on the Supreme Court. The only thing that may stand now between us and chaos is that much-maligned group known as "bureaucrats," i.e., dedicated civil servants, ranging from mid-grade Justice Department officials to dedicated state- and county-level officers like Arizona's House Speaker Rusty Bowers, who speak the truth to overweening egos. But beware as you vote this fall, the would-be Constitutionoclasts are going full steam to try to replace such people. 

 

Gun Nuts? A Contrarian View

I heard that President Biden was doing a major statement tonight, so I listened before posting my own view.  The President gave a heartfelt, calm, rational statement expressing the hope that we have reached the point where elected politicians may be prepared to take at least minimal steps to prevent the carnage in our schools.  Bravo!

Realistically, though, and as the President himself noted, really serious measures to address our gun violence problem just are not on the table; if the august panel of Republicans and Democrats produces anything, it would likely be measures that have been tried before, or tried in some states, and which have proved only minimally effective even before the gun lobby was able to grind them into meaningless pap. I wish them luck.

But in looking at the problem, I had pretty much come to a different conclusion: The anti-gun folks have been right all along: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Absolutely true. But we have failed to take their true meaning... the people who kill people by means of guns are the very ones who say "people don't kill people." They are our elected officials, our Representatives in Congress and the Senate.  Of course, they don't pull the trigger. They just ensure there are plenty of triggers around to be pulled.

But to their credit, they have realized they need help! Their cries for more mental health spending are desperate pleas for assistance. "We lack moral fiber," they are saying. "Where can we find it?" Or, "We are zombies of the gun manufacturers." Maybe even, "We have been deceived, and in turn, have deceived and hornswoggled the American public, how can we get back on track?" "HEEEELLLP!" they're saying.

Let's start providing our elected representatives with the psychological and mental therapy they need!  To qualify for help, they could take a little test. Remember those personality tests in the 80s that everybody had to take, intended to weed out "wackos" from (perhaps) an employment pool?  They had those questions like "I believe that I am an anointed agent of god." Sane people knew the answer was "no." 

Our Congressmen and women could take such a test to get the help they need, using questions like "I see no harm if an ordinary citizen wants to buy a weapon that was produced for use on the battlefield." Or "I believe that the Bill of Rights stands on its own and may never be subject to limitation." Possibly even, "There is no question in my mind that my getting reelected is far more important than my oath to the Constitution or my constituents." (BTW, that one is a lot like the "I believe I am an agent of God" question.) Then we could offer them remedial  therapy. They have told us what they need; let's take them at their word and extend a helping hand.

Or, a simpler way - just vote them out. The President can't do that.  We the people can.

Roe v. Wade - Why Was the "Draft" Leaked?

Everyone is afire about the leak of the U.S. Supreme Court's supposed "draft" decision on Roe v. Wade. Ho-hum. There are things to be said about Roe, which I'd like to address later, but for now, I'm just wondering, since we knew what was coming, why would someone take the risk of leaking it?

Hmmm.  How about politics? We have an election coming in October. All political observers at this point are saying Republicans are far more motivated to go to the polls than Democrats. But many also have suggested in recent days the actual decision (i.e. the Court really is going to kill Roe v. Wade) might fire up a lot of Democrats and push them to the polls. What if the leaker had known that the Court intended to delay release of the decision until after the election?

If you say the revered non-partisan Court would never do such a thing, I counter that the Court created lots of doubt about its vaunted apolitical stance as far back as the Bush-Gore election. And Trump and McConnell put lots of icing on that cake. I for one no longer believe the Court can be considered unbiased.  And if you should note that the Court usually announces the decisions of each term at least by October, I might ask, do you really suppose, in the sort of political climate we "enjoy" these days, that they couldn't trump up a reason to delay releasing that one?

Food for thought, say I. 

Truth Social - A Russian Tradition

Washington Post Political Columnist Dana Milbank recently explored the new Trumpie social media platform "Truth Social" to see what kinds of posts are appearing there. (See "I tried Trump's Truth Social So You Don't Have To" in today's Post.)  And he found, surprise, surprise! - not much truth, just a lot of rehashing of Trump's shopworn lies.

This reminds me of a decades-old joke that Russians used to tell. The USSR's two main newspapers at the time were Izvestia (meaning "news)," and Pravda (meaning "Truth"); the former was the organ of the Soviet government, while the latter was published by the Communist Party. For anyone who's too young to have heard it, the joke was that "There's no news in Izvestia and no truth in Pravda." Or vice-versa, I've heard both. 

It's a feeble joke, but one wonders whether feeble minds who adore Putin were trying to show their admiration for that "genius" by mirroring Soviet and Russian media right here in the U.S.  Shall we take the wacky ramblings on Truth Social as the voice of the Trumpist Party, formerly known as the Republican Party?

Note: Both "newspapers" still exist in somewhat different forms, for example Izvestia reportedly became a private news sheet in 1991 after the breakup of the Soviet Union; Pravda apparently continues being published by the Communist Party.. There arre online versions too.  

Second Thoughts on Ukraine

The phrase "second thoughts" usually implies changing an opinion or a decision.  But my second thoughts on Ukraine, Russia, and the United States have only brought me to double down on opinions previously expressed, to wit:

As regards the U.S.: Even conceding that U.S. and NATO hesitancy to get directly, militarily involved may give us the comforting feeling that we might thus avoid World War III, our refusal to provide the equipment needed for Ukraine to try to defend its own airspace is shockingly immoral and inhumane. Cowardly, too, because here again we have let Putin set the terms of this confrontation. Did I say "short-sighted? Perhaps I didn't say it, but it's strongly implied in my last post. 

About a week ago, Joe Scarborough, writing in The Washington Post, offered some advice for President Biden with which I wholeheartedly agree. One element was to stop letting Putin set the terms. A second was to stop constantly telling the Russian leader what we are not going to do. However wise that approach may be for calming the U.S. and European public, it tells Putin far too much about the limits of our engagement.

As regards Russia: Russia is destroying a nation: its infrastructure, its spirit, its government, and its people. It is now estimated that as many as 9 million Ukrainians will flee as refugees. It's time to speak the word "genocide." I haven't heard it yet, though Biden did throw off a remark that Putin is a war criminal. The war isn't over yet, and we applaud the resistance of the Ukrainian people and military, but how many truly doubt that Russia will prevail? Looking ahead a few weeks, when Russian troops are at the Polish (and other) borders, what would stop Putin from continuing into Poland? Biden has said we and our NATO allies will defend every inch of the territory of NATO members.  Are the troops in place to do that ... really do that? It seems to me that Putin, rightly or wrongly, may discount our resolve. He has learned that all he need do is shake his nuclear thingy at us, and we'll faint away like the maiden in some Victorian novel.

As regards Ukraine: How does Ukraine, fighting for its life as a nation, end up last in this discussion? Well, sadly, that's exactly where it has been for the past several months.  It's a pawn between superpowers. We're offering sympathy and shock and humanitarian assistance, but for the rest, "you remain in our thoughts and prayers" - now there's a singularly empty phrase!

Back to the U.S.:  Where does this leave us? This is the demented Putin's war; it's not even clear that his oligarchs and military leaders are with him. U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham opined early on that Putin should be "taken out." Not to dinner. That's not in the cards, and probably not in the realm of possibility for us.  But what Russian will have the courage to end the madness?

A note for readers: If you had previously signed up to receive new posts from Morning Fog as they were issued ...Sorry, but that app (Feedburner) is no longer available, you will need to enter your email again, in the upper-right corner, to subscribe.  Thanks!

Coming Up Soon on Morning Fog, a more salubrious topic: An End to Daylight Saving Time.    

Ukraine, The Lesson Unlearned

I had not wanted nor expected to resume this blog after a year's silence with a war on our hands. Nevertheless, no one can deny the Soviet elephant in the room (or across the border).

In Ukraine, Russian President for Life Putin has unleashed a war of occupation, with all the human misery, death, and destruction that entails, against a peaceful neighboring state. 

Knowing a little something about the Russia and about Putin, when people asked me two weeks ago what I thought we should do, I said that Biden needed to say loud and often that we would blast away the first Russian troops that crossed that border into Ukraine, say it like he meant it, and then do it when the inevitable occurred. None of that happened. That promise (to destroy Russian troops) was not made; and even if it had been, Biden could not possibly have made it sound like he meant it. Instead, he suggested that a small (undefined) incursion would not meet with Allied resistance, or even sanctions.

We waited for the war to start, and then started applying sanctions, but not those that would really hurt the Russians.  Continue to let Russia sell oil? Ridiculous. Do nothing to provide Ukraine with defensive air capabilities it did not have itself? Absolute folly. We are told that sanctions were only applied slowly, and that some of the more serious ones were withheld entirely, because our European allies could not agree to them.

Biden deserves full credit for a providing a limited, if predictably effective, response while having kept the NATO alliance together.  But is that really our goal? Should it be our goal? Personally I would have said our goal should be to prevent that war. 

To Biden and especially more to our European allies, one must pose a simple question:  Did you ever hear of a little trio involving Hitler, Chamberlain, and appeasement? If not, please go google it, because this was no different and even more blatant. How could you miss the similarities?  Putin massed his troops, and then told us he wasn't planning to invade, and we (I mean actually YOU, NATO leaders) believed him. Believed him because "we" wanted to, because the alternative seemed so er.., unpleasant.

There's a lot to answer for here. Have "we" looked at a map of Europe to see how many more countries will border the new expanded "Russia" after Putin completes his occupation of Ukraine? When "we" looked at the potential downsides for Europe, we fully considered Putin cutting off the gas, but did we consider him reinvading Poland?  I'm no warmonger (our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unnecessary and doomed to failure). But sometimes, gentlemen, there is a higher calling than the price of gas. One example may have been when we went to war to free Kuwait from an illegal Iraqi occupation. I think the Ukraine situation is one of them, too, and that a clear and hard military response was probably the only thing that might (might!) have made Putin think twice.

What if I'm wrong and Russia dissolves into a puddle of red ink and Putin turns tail and goes home tomorrow? (He won't, I'll wager.) How do we now get back to the status quo ante? How long will it take us to unkill the Ukrainian dead, repatriate the refugees, rebuild cities, undo the Russian occupation of Crimea, and push Russian nationals living in Ukrainian territory back across the border into Russia?  (Sure, I added a couple of items to the wish list - a dictator must pay a price, after all.)  We failed to learn the lesson of appeasement. We should have recognized it for what it was, and cut it off immediately.

A note for readers: If you had previously signed up to receive
new posts from Morning Fog as they were issued ...Sorry, but
that app (Feedburner) is no longer applicable, you will need
to enter your email again, in the upper-right corner, in order
to get back on track with automatic distribution.  Thanks!

 

 

Some Random Thoughts On The Impeachment Trial

The Prosecution:  A great job. The presentation just blew us away. But the case was not a difficult one to make. 

The Defense: Constitutional scholars have debunked the silly notion that the President may not be judged guilty now that he has left office. It is equally silly to contend that Trump was just exercising his free speech, first because we should expect a President to speak the truth, and to speak on behalf of the country and its people, rather than just uttering his trivial and false personal opinion; second because he was shouting "fire" in a crowded theater - which is beyond the pale of free speech. 

The Outcome:

Wouldn't it be really great if the proceedings could wind up in a conviction either this Friday, or next Monday? Monday is Presidents Day - what poetic justice, and what a gift for past Presidents, to have the worst President, the twice-impeached President, the besmircher of their high office, thus repudiated on that day? OR a quick result on Friday, February 12 which (younger readers may be unaware) is Lincoln's birthday. I feel certain that Honest Abe by now is sick and tired of having GOP politicians refer to themselves as "the Party of Lincoln." He would be ashamed of what his party has become.

Also under the Conviction rubric, if it should occur: No Democrats, nor any democrats, should gloat over the result.  It would be unseemly and divisive; it should be interpreted soberly as having barely escaped tyranny and restoring the country to its democratic course.

Of course, it is generally recognized that most of today's Republican politicians will continue to toady to the Tinpot Tyrant Trump. Despite incontrovertible evidence, conviction is unlikely. Nevertheless the attempt had to be made, and we must recall that it wasn't the attempt, but the shameful outcome, that was divisive.  And though today's Republican Senators may view acquittal as a victory, and may save their jobs, if not their honor, for a year or two, it is the death knell of the Republican Party. Let us hope.   

Republicans Oppose [Strong] Recovery Spending - But Why?

It's really difficult for me to understand why elected Republicans seem so reticent to spend money on economic recovery.  Specifically, that besides their general complaint that the Biden plan is too expensive, they want to cut the amount of the checks that would be issued from $1400 to $600. Certainly the Biden plan might be made more effective by specifically targeting the checks - not toward "every American" but for those who are (or were) working and have faced severe, life-changing cuts in their income. Perhaps some compromise could be worked out on that basis.

The GOP is supposed to be the party of business. Surely they must realize that money being pumped into the economy, even if it's not targeted at all, benefits businesses of all sizes and stripes, as well as their employees.

Give people money in times like these, and most of them will spend it. Lots of people are finding they can't afford their rent, or even mortgage payments; others are still more desperate, trying to put groceries on the table. But on the other end of the spectrum, I've also heard from a number of acquaintances, especially retirees, who have received checks that they confess they don't really need - but I haven't encountered any who say they're just going to save it. Instead, some talk about what they bought with it, and others have decided to donate it (usually to an organization that's working to relieve the effects of the coronavirus). And of course the money isn't spent just once - the first transaction starts a chain of ensuing transactions, a "multiplier effect" that means $1400 can easily become five times that much added to the economy in a short time. Five times $1400 is $7000; five times $600 is 3000.

This seems so self-evident a benefit to a recovering economy that even the GOP's seasonal affective disorder (they become far more parsimonious about the time that a Democratic administration takes power) -- even that can't explain their preference for baby steps rather than bold strides. I fear I have to conclude their motivation is political (DUH!). They want to stay in power, and don't want to let the opponents take credit for anything big, regardless of its benefits to their constituents. 

Members of both parties suffer from this attitudinal perversion of the way democracy ideally works, but it's much more serious in the ranks of Republicans, who far too often of late have appeared more concerned about getting themselves reelected than how they can best represent voters' interests.