Article and Letter to the Editor from The Coast News on the Pledge of Allegience at official meeting

ENCINITAS –12/22/17
"flag flap" among the Traffic and Public Safety Commissioners
 By Aaron Burgin
 

A polarizing debate over protests involving the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance that has gripped the nation this year recently made its way to Encinitas in one of the most unlikely places — the Traffic and Public Safety Commission.

Commissioners clashed in recent meetings when two members of the seven commissioner board refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, and one of the members asked the board to eliminate the pledge as a standing item on the board’s agenda.

The act of protest has divided the commission, as some members said they support the stance taken by Commissioners Christina Simokat and Darius Degher, while others said they were offended by it.
The debate first started in October, when Simokat, a college professor who had recently been appointed to the board, declined to lead the pledge and sat during its recital.

At the Dec. 11 meeting, Simokat was joined by Degher, who had declined to recite the pledge at previous meetings since his appointment but chose to sit with Simokat.

“My first meeting I asked them to not ask me to lead the pledge, and I would stand for it and not say it,” Degher said. “But when she sat, I felt like, ‘she just did the right thing and I hadn’t. I had been weak on it, so when the following meeting came up, I decided I had to sit for it.”

Simokat, reached this week, said her reasons for sitting were personal and she did not want to disclose them. Degher said in an interview that his reasons for declining to participate in the pledge were twofold. First, he said, the origins of the pledge are rooted in nationalism, which he said paralleled what he called a “feverish nationalistic climate” in the country, which was his second issue with the pledge.

Degher asked the rest of the commission during the “commissioner corner” segment of the meeting if they would be interested in removing the standing agenda item dedicated to the pledge and do it “every six months, or not at all.”

“It’s an absurdity if you ask me,” Degher said about the pledge at the meeting. “And feeling compelled to do it is problematic.”

Chairman Charles Lisherness said he wouldn’t agree with eliminating the pledge, but said he would change his introduction of the pledge to invite people to stand, rather than saying “please rise.” “I would feel uncomfortable making a decision to dispense with it,”

 Lisherness said.
Co-Chairman Peter Kohl, who immigrated to the United States from Germany and served in the military before becoming a citizen, was the most vocal opponent of Simokat and Degher’s act.
He said that the two showed no respect by sitting (and Degher keeping his hat on) during the pledge.
“My feeling is that anyone is entitled to a protest, but the least thing as far as I am concerned is that they would stand, they don’t have to say the pledge or put their hands over their hearts, and that Darius should take off his hat,” Kohl said. “I feel very strongly … that we are a citizens’ commission, and if they want to protest they can do it anywhere, but not at a commission
meeting, because it makes the whole commission look bad.

“It is always a tradition at council and commission meetings that we have the pledge, and all of the sudden, people in the audience or people watching on TV are going to see this, and they are going to be wondering what the heck is going on, especially people who served in the armed
forces,” Kohl said.

Degher said that he strongly disagreed with the assertion that sitting during the pledge of allegiance was an act of disrespect toward troops.
“I think of my own father, who fought five years in World War II specifically to protect Americans from having to engage in things like hand salutes,” Degher said. “I feel strongly about the whole thing.”

The commission debate mirrors some of the debates going on in the country over similar protests, which began when former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the National Anthem to raise awareness of the issue of police brutality in black communities.
President Donald Trump stoked the controversial topic when he said in a speech earlier this year that players who refused to stand for the National Anthem should be fired, which sparked a series of coordinated protests in response to his words.

At least two other traffic commissioners, who said they were “on the fence” about the entire discussion, said that Degher’s explanation was thought-provoking and made them think about their own reasons for reciting the pledge.

“It gave a lot of credibility as to why we should be suggesting it rather than it being a procedural act, I don’t know, I found it very interesting,” Commissioner Christina Brady said. “Especially in today’s political climate.

“I know sometimes I don’t want to pledge allegiance, because I wouldn’t want to go war for someone who I believe is a complete (sic),” Brady said, referring to Trump. “I understand where they are coming from and value their protest.”

Commissioner Brian Grover also shared Brady’s sentiments in an interview this week.
Brady, however, said she also understood Kohl’s viewpoint about Degher’s hat.
“Peter made an extremely valuable point, that not everyone thinks of it as a political action, just a respect for our nation,” Brady said. “In the spirit of tradition and what it stands for, for Peter, it would be the respectful thing to take off the hat.

“I think they are actually arguing for the same thing, but they don’t see eye to eye on how to get there, which is why politics stink,” she said.

=========================

Letter to the Editor in Coast News  12/29/17

To the editor:

It was comforting to read that the "flag flap" among the Traffic and Public Safety Commissioners was not only cordial and respectful but enlightening.  Patriotism is a complex concept, necessary for the public and especially those in the military during wartime. Then, broad support is needed among the population and unquestioning obedience to orders is vital among those who must coordinate actions against the enemy.  Alas, this same patriotism is a standard tool of demagogues --who want nothing more than to foment war, real or imaginary,  against those enemies he congers up to unite the people under his charismatic leadership. 

The Pledge of Allegiance was controversial even before the words, "under God" were added in 1954, combining patriotism and religion into one "sacred" oath.  In the early 1940s, the Supreme Court first approved mandating this for students; three years later, in a memorable decision, this was reversed..  Subsequent courts chose to dismiss this reference to God as nothing more than "ceremonial deism" the words being virtually meaningless.  Demagogues depict this differently, as a sacred oath that defines one's loyalty to his country, ignoring the oxymoron that anything said under the very duress they create is inherently meaningless.

Encinitas at least avoids the divisiveness of many city councils which have an opening prayer.  When I was on this committee several years ago, I regularly stood silently with my hands at my side; Once I refused even this, my remaining seated in support of a man in Florida who was removed from his city council audience for not standing for the pledge --my explaining this reason at the time. 

Over the last year our nation has become more divisive,  getting closer to a flash point that we all want to avoid.  This is no time for escalation, but rather the kind of reasoned discourse that I was proud to read occurred at city hall last week. 

Al Rodbell

Marriage Equality among Primates

March 30, 2013

The New York Times has been one of the earliest and most steadfast advocates of  gay rights.   Phase one was the elimination of the legal and moral stigma against homosexuality, which I applaud; and second and seamlessly the extension (phase two)  that in all areas of life, gender differences should not, and by any objective criteria, do not, have any meaningful reality.

It is from this second phase, not the first, that is derived the argument that laws that do as little as impose a semantic difference based on the common gender of both parties are to be opposed with the same vigor as the original crusade for the elimination of oppression against homosexuals.

This issue has reached a crescendo with the two cases that are now before the Supreme Court, where one aspect of this argument is addressed in an OpEd entitled,  Nature’s Case for Same-Sex Marriage, by David G. Haskell.  His article starts with a survey of the most remote living things, where sexuality has little meaning as it includes non sexual fungi, that "can't be called male or female"  He concludes with the rare human condition that we now call intersex, where external genitalia is either undifferentiated, or not congruent with chromosomal sex, pointing out the upper estimates of 2%- or 1 in 50 births.

The prevalence of this condition, if  this high would justify a greater influence on public policy, and lend support to the second aspect of the N.Y. Times position of the meaningless of gender. Having studied this particular condition and how difficult this is for the family and child, Haskell's prevalence figure seemed misleading.  The term "intersex" was adopted as part of the trend to replace previous specific denotations, in this case "hermaphroditism" for the more ambiguous external genetalia, as described here.  The first result of a google search of the epidemiology of this condition was a link to this popular 2008 medical text book that goes into extensive detail on this condition, cited its occurrence in 1 out of 1500 births.  Confirmed by this  article explaining  how the higher incidence quoted by Haskell was not justified.

He does eventually get to what is more relevent,  the behavior of other primates, which allows us some insight into his, and the Times, particular position, that an analogue of same sex marriage is, in fact, part of the lives of our phylogenically kindred species, rather than as the opposition claims, "unnatural."  He writes:

"Before these apes were sequestered in museum cabinets, homosexual bonds were a natural part of their lives. This is especially true for our closest living cousins, the bonobos and chimpanzees."

Dr. Haskell did not say homosexual activity, or play, was a part of these primate's repertoire of activities , but he used the term "homosexual bonds" as in marriage bonds which imply affiliation and life long dedication.   Since he is making this case, the first task is to see whether he is accurate in his reporting, or being  tendentious as he was in presenting the frequency of intersex condition.  Animal behavior is the purview of ethology, which being part of biology, psychology and cultural anthropology rightly should inform our understanding of human sexual behavior, and the cultural-legal norms surrounding it.

Just by coincidence this months National Geographic Magazine has an article on bonobos and chimpanzees, that includes several long term studies of their behavior,  Mysteries of Kinship.  It does describe what Freud termed, "polymorphic perversity" of sexual activity, but nowhere as frequently, or meaningful, as Haskell's phrase implies.

We all have been graced with documentaries of Jane Goodall's lifetime work allowing us to understand what we now acknowledge is the culture of
chimpanzees.  Here is her statement from this Youtube interview:

GOODALL: We’ve never seen anything remotely like homosexuality in chimpanzees. However – in the wild. In captivity, where their lives are disrupted, where they can’t express themselves the way they would in the wild, then we sometimes see it. 

As an aside, perhaps much more important than the question of same sex behavior in great apes, is how this issue has been treated by the N.Y. Times, who chose to print Haskells depiction of such behavior without his having any expertise in the field.  Yet, the group, National Organization on Marriage,  that quoted Jane Goodall, the single most recognized expert on Chimpanzee behavior,  was tared with the label of  "hate speech" by this same newspaper only last week.

Certainly homosexual activity is seen among the great apes, but so is cannibalism, killing of infants and lethal battles among males for dominance.  One observation that is not challenged by any scholar is that gender had a profound effect on behavior in areas of aggression, nurturing and same sex affiliation.  This article written by Dr. Haskell and endorsed by the New York Times is a reflection of what this issue has become.  Those who quote a genuine expert on primate behavior, because it is opposed to the goals of the Times, are purveyors of hate speech, while a "poet-biologist" is published using his talent of metaphor and context to paint a Walden-esque picture of  Nature complete with loving same sex relationships- almost as if it were God himself who was on the side of marriage equality as in his design of his creatures.

There were no comments allowed after Dr. Haskell's article, but based on other similar articles, comments supporting his position would have gotten approvals, while any that expressed criticisms would have been condemned and ridiculed. Echoing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg view of Roe v. Wade that over enthusiasm in remediating a social ill can breed a counter reaction, the very human desire to end oppression of a despised group is being taken to the a point where such a response is not only possible, but to be expected.  Unfortunately, this N.Y. Times OpEd will be evaluated by partisans only on its effectiveness in advancing their cause, ignoring the travesty of scholarship of primate behavior that actually could be useful in evaluating this issue.

"War is Hell"- and this front of the Kulturkampf between liberals and conservatives has turned the self proclaimed "party of reality" into one that can taste victory.   The collateral damage to civil comity and reverence for honest exploration of life's complexity seems to be of little concern if it advances their goals.
------------
------------
I sent a link of this criticism to Dr. Haskell, whose response is below.  I also sent it to the Public Editor's department of the New York Times,  pointing out the lack of fact checking that is the normal procedure of OpEds, as the Times is a collaborator of the writer.  I received a respectful letter telling me they would forward it to the appropriate parties.

Link to criticism of NOM for Goodall Quotation
------------
------------
Dear Al,

Thanks for your email and for your thoughts about this question. Regrettably the volume of email that I receive means that I don't have time to engage to email debates, but the following citations are relevant to the intersex question:

Blackless, M. et al. How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Synthesis. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 12:151–166 (2000).
Fausto-Sterling, A. The Five Sexes, Revisited. Sciences 40 (Jul/Aug 2000): 18-23.
L. Sax (2002) How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, Vol 39 (3), pages 174-178.

On the presence of a variety of sexual bonds and behaviors in non-human primates, many behavioral studies of bonobos indicates that these behaviors are present.

Best wishes, David Haskell
----------------
And this response:

David,

Thanks for your response.  The Times should have put your essay on a more interactive setting, so others could have presented their views.  Let me just leave you with this plea, in your interactions with students at all levels, try to help them understand that subtle biases do creep in from their mentors, and from the culture at large.

While you skillfully used generalities and allusions in your essay, which is how we affect cultural values, to be educated is to be able to recognize the very complex reality from the subtle pressures of the zeitgeist.  As the article in Smithsonian Magazine pointed out, both Bonobos and Chimpanzees are our phylogenic first cousins, but they have had enough environmental demands to be different in all ways, including sexuality.

So, I congratulate you on an effective argument for your position, and I know you realize that you only scratched the surface.  If we look at marriage as an institutionalized extension of culturally imposed sexual restraint, it would be different between Bonobos and Chimps, and between Humans and either.

I hope and trust that you transcend your personal views in that most sacred of professions, extending the insights of those dedicated to the open dissemination of knowledge.

Regards

AR
-------------
And D. H.'s response, which I appreciate

Dear Al,

Thanks for these thoughts. I do indeed encourage my students to question and examine the context/assumptions/limits of any way of thinking. Especially their teachers' thinking.

Best wishes, David
-------------------------
Oral Interview covering homosexuality with keeper of a troop of Bonobos on a zoo setting.  The distinction between sexual play and sexual bonding is explored toward the end of the video.  The keeper acknowledges it is the clearly the former.

Charlottesville 2017-- The last chapter of The Civil War or the beginning of a new one

Working Draft-----------------

When did the Civil War begin?  Was it that morning when the South Carolina militia fired on Fort Sumpter in 1861, or were the seeds planted three centuries earlier, when the first Africans were commoditized into chattel to be used as "it's" new world owner directed.  When we put America's civil war in this historic long view, a different perspective emerges from that of today's headlines.  

We live in the moment that has been created by forces that most of us are barely aware of.  The choices of the moment, as they were during those months after Lincolns election, secession of Southern States and the spark that drove the country into war, forced those who had been brothers at West Point and fought together in previous wars to choose sides.  One of these was Robert E.Lee, descendant of the wife of our first President and who, like Thomas Jefferson, considered himself first a citizen of his state, and secondarily of the entity of the government of those states.

This essay is written in during a time that will be known as either an aberration, a short presidency of an individual who broke with the existing political structures, or of a man who set this most powerful country in the world on a new course.    



This comment section is an important historical document, as it is a poll of responses selected by NYTimesPicks, not of the general public, but of this paper's participating readership. This also represents the Democratic voting public.
 ------
Example 1:The president is protecting Nazis and white supremacists. He's in violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Congress, it's time to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment. 5411 recommends

 ------ Ex2: The President asked a very important question today. Where does it stop? Once the statues of Lee and Jackson have been torn down. When will the social justice warriors ask to tear down every statue of former slave owners named Washington and Jefferson? 235 recommends ---------
How many of this 20 to 1 N.Y.T. consensus know that the Jewish liberal Mayor of Charlottesville voted to retain the Confederate statues and park names in question, and that this position is far from exclusively the province of white supremacists or the KKK.

 I love and respect The New York Times, but right now on this issue, with this President, whom I deplore on many levels, it and its readership have lost the quality of reasoned analysis, that has been our hallmark. 20 to 1 for using the 25th Amendment, one devised to remove a President disabled by physical or mental inability to function, compared to the impeachment procedure part of our constitution to remove one whose policies or behavior is politically abhorrent.

The dark side of language - and it's function

July 31, 2017

Language is what makes us human. 

Most species, from our cousins Hominidae or great apes to primitive beings communicate with sounds,  postures, scents or baring teeth in threat, an action quite close to expressions of rage among we homo sapiens.  It is language evolving in unknown ways, first as ephemeral  speech, and then in written form that allowed words to have meaning, eventually to define cultures, codes of behavior and laws.

This multifaceted human artifact, beyond the thousands of distinct languages associated with nationalities,  has been studied under the rubric of linguistics, but also within specialized areas such as legal terminology or cellular bio-chemistry as new discoveries open up a need for writing over existing concepts to define what is an ever changing “state of the art.”  As language expands exponentially along with knowledge itself, more people who are not within a discipline must accept conclusions that they don’t have the ability to verify ourselves.

 

We are left with trusting those who can evaluate the research and do the math, and then either go along with them; or by rejecting the concept as oppressive deem it “political correctness,  the potency of this shown in the Presidential election of 2016.   While deconstructing the concept of acceptable language in our culture should be an ongoing project, over the last few days there has been a culmination of the de facto attack on the formality of one specialized area of communication,  federal interaction with the citizens of this country. 

“Trump Talk” is an appropriate term, since nothing like this has ever been done before Donald J. Trump, first as a candidate and continued as President with spontaneous tweets, and then by Anthony Scaramucci who was rewarded by this President for his language with one of the highest positions in the administration, one word used being “fucking.”  (Then fired within days of his outburst)  The bowdlerization of this word is now rather archaic, since we are mature enough to accept that it denotes human behavior that can be an expression of love or of debasement; and to routinely censor it for its obceneness is to ignore the last half century of social revolution.  Scarmucci was using it not literally, or even figuratively, but as a “fighting word” in the phrase that his personal political enemy was a “Fucking Paranoid schizophrenic.  “Fucking” was the adjectival part of a phrase of infantile incoherent contempt that combined the profane with disdain for a tragic incurable mental illness. 

 

It would be a lost opportunity to focus on how this one mean-spirited marginally literate individual used this word in deciding, as the N.Y. Times did in a subsequent article, to take “fuck” out of linguistic purgatory.  A communication event can not be understood by evaluating the words out of context, as his usage, personal reward for it, and the broader effect should be carefully evaluated.

The “Day of Infamy” speech delivered by President Roosevelt was crafted to show contempt for the action of the Japanese government, yet was devoid of hatred of the people.  It was powerful enough to rally Americans to unselfish sacrifice of  lives and fortune to prevail in the war that was thrust upon them, yet it was absent words of hatred that prevented the reconciliation after this war with a steadfast ally.  In the midst of four years of carnage, ending with the destruction of a city by a weapon that still threatens the world, this President, and those who came after him knew the value of language carefully crafted to avoid the descent into deep and permanent hatred, even of enemies. 

 

The expletives that Scarmucci uttered were not so much an assault on sensibilities, but a fraudulent imitation of a visceral signal that should be reserved as a primal warning to another that they are in danger of a violent assault.  Such language is a vital buffer against mayhem that must be preserved for its specific use, rather than a trope for political advantage.  It is a survival mechanism that evolved because it prevented actual lethal violence among us, to be released from the depths of our being only when the next step would be catastrophic.

Communication must continue to be an art, one that we all learn and respect, as it is the subtlety that provides it’s potency, whether to share affection or to prevail in total war.  Shocking sensibilities by breaching norms only works once before the special potency of the word is lost.  We need not let “Trump Talk” degrade the protean ability of language to sooth or arouse, to seduce or infuriate --as this is one of the artifacts that has allowed enlightened civilization to prosper.  

Al Rodbell

Portland face off, disaster averted

The L.A. Times has a comprehensive article on the background of an event that the city tried to prevent, but that Donald Trump wants to happen, based on the Federal Government overriding the city's refusal to provide a permit, anticipating violence.

For decades, Portland has basked in its reputation for protest.
But few people here are looking forward to a pro-Trump rally Sunday that’s expected to draw a wide swath of potentially armed white supremacists and allied antigovernment protesters from around the country.
(snip)
The protest also pits the city against the federal government, which has issued a permit for the rally on a federal plaza downtown despite pleas from Mayor Ted Wheeler that outsiders are coming to provoke violence and “peddle a message of hatred.”

I attended the Earth Day event in San Diego last month with speeches, exhibits and thousands of people without even a hint of hostility.   The closest to a Trump supporter where three women who had a sign that was arguing for more investigation of the harm that can occur to children’s vaccinations.  They said a few people were angry at them, but by and large any signage or tee shirts were mild, which was the report of such events around the country.
For those who want to derail this diary,  it's pretty easy.  One or two hostile comments and a tone is set, and it becomes open season on an this “appeasing coward” who would allow the bullies to take over.  It's happened to me before, specifically that time after Comey's publicizing the collection of emails that landed on Anthony Weiner's computer; and I made the case that from the Washington Post’s evidence it could seriously hurt Clinton’s chances.  That diary suggested some bold actions that had to be taken to stem the damage;  but I was mobbed and ridiculed, an example of group think with dire consequences.

Dailykos in their “Resistance" movement has fostered a partisanship that so far has been limited to marches and town hall events;  But Portland June 3  could could be the start of  a breakdown of the ordered civil society that most of have been blessed with.
I just got off the phone with a reporter from a Portland Newspaper who does not want to be named.  He is a bit more optimistic than I am, but also quite concerned, and agreed with my observation that the decision to allow this on federal land was ultimately that of Donald Trump.  He did tell me that Portland police are allowed to be on Federal Property, which is encouraging.  The L.A. Times article gives the name of some individuals who are notoriously open in their advocacy of violence against liberals.   Note to reporter:  My hope is that the Portland police assigns detectives to identify and  take appropriate action if they do anything that crosses the limits of freedom of speech, which is the use of “fighting words” intended to cause violence.
My personal opinion is let those who want to show the kind of mindless faux toughness of their idol be allowed to have the territory he has granted them for the event.  It is not defeatism, or cowardliness to stay away from this mob scene, but an example of the kind of rationality that I hope will return to our Federal Government in the near future.
-----------------
Turned out that combined city and federal law enforcement did their job.  Some fights, several arrests  but never got out of hand.  I guess my article did the job of preventing a disaster ;)

"Negro" and "Nigger" the words get a reprieve -- and so does "Nigga"

May 2016,

This is a three part essay, all interconnected written over the course of a year, prompted by different events.


Part 1

The interview of President Obama by Mark Moran, best known as a comedian, was released days after a racially motivated murder of nine people at a Black church in Charleston.  The entire interview is worth watching or reading but the headline all around the country focused on the President's use of a taboo word, only described as the N-Word. His larger message was the limits of any president in the context of congealed political values of a country and the constitutional limits on the position.  He said that certainly race relations had improved in the country during his lifetime, but that the U.S. still has not been “cured” of racism. He said:

“It’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘nigger’ in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not,” he said. “Societies don’t overnight completely erase everything that happened 2[00] to 300 years prior.”

His use of the taboo word was not studied, nor did he pause for effect, it was used to be an illustration of a term with a history, one that was brought to life by the events in a state that had elevated the power and glory of the struggle for independence of a "sovereign state" paid for by the death of it's young men in what they call the "War for Southern Independence."  Central to this war was perpetuating the "peculiar institution" of slavery predicated on the inferiority of the black race to the white.  Mr. Obama spoke matter of factly using the word in the context of the change in values of the larger society of which he was the leader to illustrate the intransigence of such caste distinctions articulating the specific word that reflects the internalization of that value.

Had he used the descriptor, "the N. Word" rather than the word itself, it would have been a perpetuation of the belief that controlling acceptable language is an appropriate way to rid a society of it's defects, what has been called, "man's inhumanity to man."   The bowderization is of the tradition when human sexuality was seen as a danger, and all terms that described any aspect had euphemisms that protected sensibilities but made clear understanding of physical activities impossible to describe or depict.  

Hate is as much a part of humanity as love, and maybe more ubiquitous.  What Obama dispelled in this interview is that using such a specific word implies, or at least opens the door for the accusation, that the user is promoting this activity - be it of hatred or sexuality.   A word with the meaningful rich history such as "nigger" is rightly part of the discourse among those who want to understand our world, some who want to lessen the animus of the term and, inevitably, those who want to revive it.

---------------------
Part 2

"Negro" the word, gets a reprieve - and a proposal 


I'll begin with the link to the article that prompted this essay with the headline, ‘Negro’ is an acceptable term for black soldiers, U.S. Army says  I happened to notice it because the absence of the word in our lexicon as I was attempting to write an essay that follows through on something meaningful to me, our democratic system of government.  I knew what I wanted to say, and I had done the research that's as timely as an election for Congress that is too close to call.  What makes this one unusual is that it's between a Gay Republican and the Democrat who is among the richest elected officials in D.C.

I was writing the background of political campaigns, trying to lay a foundation of the conceptual issue while not losing my readership, and was describing the history of voting rights when I had to include the ploys used in the Jim Crow South to exclude --- and here I wished I could use that word of respect of my younger years, as "blacks" just didn't sound right to me.  And African American is stilted, and the very fact that I had to try to shape my essay, a difficult one, around the connotation of a hot button word disturbed me. 

So I did some searching, and first found an article that explained that the authoritative Associated Press Style Manual says "black" used as a racial descriptor should not be capitalized, while this director of an anti-discrimination movement makes the argument that it should. (with many thoughtful comments  that prompted my suggestion of adopting this change)  So, even it I use this word, my choice of capitalization could  offend some readers.  My article is not about how words take on different meanings over time, and I wished I had this word, "Negro," at my disposal, so I googled whether there was a movement to preserve it when I saw that the U.S. Army was actually in my camp.

I won't deny that there are subtleties in descriptors of labels for us human beings.  I would describe myself as a secular Jew,  yet if I were hearing people I don't know say, "He's a Jew." and that was all I heard,  I would feel some hostility.  Jews have a history that makes such paranoia understandable.   What I would prefer to hear is, "He's Jewish." and then the context would make the term used unimportant.

Here's the  Army manual:
------
Negro is an acceptable classification for “a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa,” according to section 6-2 of the Army’s AR 600–20 regulations.
The same clause — part of the Army’s equal opportunity policy — also gives the OK to use “Haitian” in addition to the more common black or African-American.
------
The key to legitimacy of any term is that it provides information, not that every inference of one who hears it is legitimate.  As a volunteer at the sprawling San Diego Zoo, there are often lost children who are usually quickly united with their adults.  When a parent approaches we are instructed to call in to security a description of the child which is broadcast on all radios, giving "age, race, clothing etc" the detail needed to prevent a the rare possibility of this being a forced abduction. 

There are light skinned "blacks" where using the two terms are contradictory, unlike Negro which does not have any such conflicting etiologies.  And announcing the child's nationality is simply absurd.  There are those who hate Jews and those who hate Negros, and censoring either word won't change their views.   We do not have to have our communications limited by the use, or the misuse, of terms that have been deemed either malicious or only passe.

Thank you, U.S.Army, and stick to your guns on this one.  But, they will not for the reason's described in another article in the same newspaper.   This one is a month ago reporting on the outrage of people "disgusted" by the use of the description "dark Negro, for an APB  for a man wanted for multiple shootings. The content of the video of the police chief and a woman irate over the use is telling.  Her anger and that of the black reporter was for both the word "negro" and the further description of "dark"  The video shows a brief sample of the  pull down menu of twelve descriptions that were used in entering "complexion."   Among them was listed  "acne" which when I was a teenager having this affliction, I would have considered highly insulting.  Yet, if I were being abducted or wanted for a crime I could understand why dissemination of such description would be appropriate.  It doesn't define my character, guilt or innocence; just information of my appearance, the same as height and weight. 

The Chief claimed he did not realize the word was offensive, and then promised that he would remove it from lists of description.  A commentator then made the statement that "Negro was used mostly during the days of slavery" not knowing that up to the middle of the last century the world was used commonly among all races. Several years ago when this discussion was fresher, I predicted that in a few decades "Negro" will be equated with the demeaning hostile other N word.  It turns out it's happening even faster.

As a society we will be denied the use of a neutral word that describes individuals with the outward appearance of groups with certain genetically defined characteristics.  If labels of human beings impel some groups to violent hatred that is a tragedy, one that removing the word from the lexicon does nothing to remediate.  In fact, it provides additional potency to these words, no longer being neutral but now perversely and unintentionally becoming a sharper expression of hatred.

And for those who make the attempt to transcend the animosity among political parties, races and genders to find a language that is clean enough to avoid the accent of one side or the other, with each lost descriptive term our language becomes more impoverished, and a difficult task becomes that much more so.  See addenda for examples of this
------------------
Part 3,

May 3, 2016

In response to the N word being used by the comedian at a White House Correspondents Dinner of 2016,  a more extensive essay of my criticism of the event available here.

These are final words of Larry Willmore, who was the host-comedian:

Thank you for bing a good sport, Mr. President, but all jokes aside, let me just say how much it means for me to be here tonight. I’ve always joked that I voted for the president because he’s black. And people say, “Well, do you agree with his policies?” And I always said, “I agree with the policy that he’s black.” I said, “As long as he keeps being black, I’m good.” They’d say, “What about Iraq?” “Is he still black?” But behind that joke is a humble appreciation for the historical implications for what your presidency means.

When I was a kid, I lived in a country where people couldn’t accept a black quarterback. Now think about that. A black man was thought by his mere color not good enough to lead a football team — and now, to live in your time, Mr. President, when a black man can lead the entire free world. Words alone do me no justice. So, Mr. President, if i’m going to keep it 100:

Yo, Barry, you did it, my nigga,  You did it.

This video describes a question to the Presidential press secretary about Wilmore's use of this word, and how the President felt about it, which was fine.  It's telling that the subject of making a joke of his use of lethal drones didn't raise an eyebrow, just as Bush's riff on the non-existent WMD that triggered violent death and destruction with no end in sight. .  What got the country's attention was, as described in the press, "the use of the N-word"

The word is so satanic that it overshadowed what Willmore was really expressing, which was a very personal statement, that I understand as this:  "When we were children, being black meant we couldn't even head a football team, and you have demolished all of this.  Those days the echo of "nigger" was heard by the mob of hooded bigots about to slaughter one of us.  Now a hateful word for us is forbidden, yet I say it boldly in the new meaning that you have made possible, as a sign of  great affection and appreciation for what you have done for our people.  And for me, this transcends anything else.  So I express  it in a way that has a different meaning, ......."My nigger, my friend, you did it."


Here's Larry Willmore's talking about this on his T.V. Program.  He conveyed the sentiment that I concluded above, but since he did not bleep the N word, as every other video had, he pointed out that the word he used was not nigger, which is an insult, but nigga, which he joked is a  different "conjugation." and a sign of affection.

What Willmore inadvertently also demonstrated is that when we blot out the actual word, and substitute, The N word, there is confusion.  The reader doesn't know whether what N stands for is Nigger, Nigga or Negro.  All of the words become taboo, so language with all it's subtleties if further reduced. 


---------------------
Addendum to all three parts

The following  is a discussion of the principles of capitonyms based on this section of the Wikipedia article:


A particular example of where capitonyms are prominent is in terminology relating to philosophy, religion, and politics. Capitalized words are often used to differentiate a philosophical concept from how the concept is referred to in everyday life, or to demonstrate respect for an entity or institution.

(Skipped paragraphs)

As political parties are often named after philosophies, a capital letter is used to differentiate between a supporter of the philosophy, and a supporter of the party, for instance Liberal, a supporter of any Liberal Party, and liberal, a supporter of the philosophy of liberalism. The Liberal Party of Australia and Liberal Party of Canada are not philosophically liberal; thus, in these countries, adherents of liberalism are sometimes said to be "small-l liberals" to differentiate.^[8] Similar examples are conservative/Conservative, democrat/Democrat, libertarian/Libertarian, republican/Republican, socialist/Socialist, and a supporter of labour/Labour.


The above principle would justify a bifurcation of the word black, which now can mean a color (technically, the lack of) , or even a metaphor for extreme difference as in, "between black or white."  Just as democratic and Democratic are defined by the capitalization a difference that is well known in American English, so to the word "Black" with a capital letter would mean what the Army manual states it means; but with Negro replaced by Black:

Black is an acceptable classification for “a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa,  this would replace the current manual and would incorporate the acceptance of the term "black" 

The justification for this change is to place the term in historical context. "Democrat" does not represent an enduring set of policies, rather the political party that adopts differing positions at differing times.  However, "democrat" is different, as it represents a philosophy of government with historical roots from the times of ancient Greece.  Black, would be a word that represents a self identity of an individual that is removed from density of skin pigmentation.  It allows clarity of communication as it no longer has the connotation of the extremes of differences, that at one time was the goal of some Black movements during the civil rights movement.  It would even facilitate use of such sentences describing a bi-racial person as ,..... only became Black after college, where he had identified with the other part of his genetic heritage."

This proposal will not resolve all the issues, some contentious, over terminology of race and ethnicity, but I suggest it could be an improvement over the unsatisfactory choices that have evolved for current American English.

This is one example of confusion with only two accepted words for Negroes.  I was reading aloud about the acclaimed film "Nebraska" from Wikipedia :

The film's lighting was designed to accommodate black and white screening, and was converted from color to black and white in post-production because Payne said he wanted to produce an "iconic, archetypal look"........The choice of black and white was made against the distributors wishes. A color version of the film was also produced in an effort to satisfy distributor Paramount Vantage's concerns; Payne said that he hopes no one ever sees it.

The person I was reading this to was not paying full attention so said she first thought I said that I said that a colored version was produced, thinking something else.  She first thought that it was like other films such as Carmen, that was remade with a Negro cast as "Carmen Jones."  Wizard of Oz had a "colored" production called "The Wiz."   This Wikipedia article about the film, that while listing the names of the performers in the first paragraph, does not mention that it is an all black cast until close to the end of the article in the context of the commercial failure of such films.

This is an example of how such a prohibition of vital words in the aggregate leads to confusion, and when applied to many areas makes the conveyance of information, of reproducing other times with different values, all but impossible.  
 ------------------
Addenda:

Current study with extensive bibliography that evaluates the different assumptions about a fictional person with the only change being his description being Black or African American   In a nutshell,  Black men were lower on every scale than African Americans.  The article use the abbreviation AAD to mean respondents of African American Descent, which is the definition of Negro still used by the Army, as described above.  Of course the researchers did not verify the citizenship of all of the subjects of this study, but had no other choice but to use this inherently flawed word rather than Negro.
--------------------

It turns out from this article that the N.Y. Times started to use the capital letter for Negro in 2012, finally acceding to this argument posted only 111 years earlier that is very close to my case here, but with literary examples.   Of course the 1903 argument was about the word when it was commonly used.  












 

Cadets Protest aginst Trump's speech at Coast Guard Graduation

May 21,2017

Here's the link to the article,  Coast Guard Academy cadets enlist to avoid Trump Graduation Speech 
that is a part of a Dailykos Diary

I edited the original article to show how I perceived what was written, since I had been searching for some resistance by those cadets in attendance who had to listen to this president once again defame the media, weakening the Constitutional right of freedom of the press., This time he only used the word,"unfair" but previously it was "fake" or made up.  Below was my perception, subliminally edited to conform with what I wished it had said.   If you want 'to explore the concept in more depth, see the section on the media in Wikipeidia's article on Bias Confirmation.  

-----------------------------------------

Duffel Blog

NEW LONDON, Conn. — A group of 65 Coast Guard Academy cadets enlisted this morning in lieu of accepting their commissions as officers, Duffel Blog has learned.
The cadets stated that they took action to avoid sitting through President Trump’s graduation speech later today.

“I’d much rather endure almost anything than listen to that (section deleted) windbag for 30 minutes,” said now Petty Officer 3rd Class Tyler Owens. Coast Guard Academy cadets typically only enlist when they do not have the requisite grades, military aptitude, to  graduate as officers.

“It’s unprecedented to see nearly a third of our graduating class opt to enlist, and it’s definitely going to impact our officer corps,” said Rear Adm. James Rendon, superintendent of the Coast Guard Academy. “I tried to deter Trump from coming ----------(Section Deleted)

Due to budget cuts and the extensive maritime security that the Coast Guard has had to provide for Trump’s visits to Mar-a-Lago, the Coast Guard Academy is having trouble making ends meet for the event.

(deleted whimsical closing paragraph)
------------------------------------------------
Only later did I learn that Duffel Blog is a satirical site, something like "The Onion" and lauded by those such as the current Secretary of Defenses.  I had never heard of it, so a I was reading it I noticed some bizarre phrases, yet I ignored them, or felt it was just the reporters exaggeration.  I felt that some of the cadets must have objected to Trump's giving this speech, but that was the only one I found.

It turned there was a protest in a nearby park as described in this article.  There were over 500 people, with no breakdown of how many were protesting and how many defending Trump speaking.  It was not violent, and no one gave up their hard earned officers commission.  This is genuine news reporting, not satire, not fake, not biased, but actual reporting,  what that bulwark of democracy must do, allow the public to go beyond our personal experiences to understand the events of the world.

As far as my being too naive to have seen that the Duffelblog article was satire, I am actually pleased to have experienced this.  It confirms my own belief of just how we select, or distort information that  confirms our profound identities.  It helps me understand why those on a committed liberal web site s are often not open to observations that may challenge who they are. Confirmation Bias is not a liberal or conservative exclusive, but something very human.

So go back to the Dailykos Diary for any comments or questions,  President Trump did get wide applause during and after the speech, and not a single catcall of displeasure from the massed graduates.

This itself is more frightening than I can express.  

Resistance- Then and Now

5-3-17  (See Addenda 5-9)

I was watching a  series on Television, “WWII in Color” which depicts various theaters of war and battles with the realism of color added to the old monochrome films.  It’s pretty comfortable sitting on my couch feeling part of a powerful military that would vanquish the forces of evil, knowing that I can immerse myself in the drama without the danger of being killed -- or worse.

 

Some of the segments feature the resistance, a term that had a specific meaning among the various countries occupied by the Axis forces, most commonly the Nazis.  And then, when I switched the  channel, to CNBC I heard, “Hillary Clinton has announced that she is part of the resistance.”  I hadn’t completely shaken off being back in Vichy France or Amsterdam, among those who were planning ways to sabotage and to kill the enemy.  I'm still ensconced in their hideout, as they listened to the coded messages on the BBC on their short wave radios covered so as not to be seen by those who could have reported them.

To be in the resistance did not just mean that you hated the oppressors, but that you have made a decision to risk not only your own life, but that of your friends and family to take action to change the course of history.  Those post-war films depicted the drama, the thrill of this grand adventure; but they left out the abject fear, the failure of the sphincter muscles when a strange vehicle pulled up to the safe house, and car doors opened with the sound of approaching footsteps.

Of course, I would have been with these brave people who fought oppression, sure I would have been, even if I weren’t one of the people targeted for death.  I would have done it out of bravery, out of courage, out of decency.  Certainly I would have.

The "resistance" in occupied Europe was against the Nazi organization led by Adolph Hitler; the one in the U.S. today is against Donald J. Trump  and his Republican followers.  Many fear that Trump has some of the characteristics of Hitler, expressed by Professor Tim Snyder in his this book, “On Tyranny”  a warning that we should not take this danger lightly.  Here’s one of his suggestions from the Washington Post review linked above:

Make eye contact and small talk with strangers, he encourages; it is part of being a citizen. (“People who were living in fear of repression remembered how their neighbors treated them,” Snyder writes.) Defend American institutions and civil society groups by joining them, advocating for them or even supporting them financially, Snyder urges. (“Institutions do not protect themselves.”)

How much of the aura of the WWII “resistance” is being incorporated into today’s version?  And why is thinking about  this semantic issue important.  While Snyder is not ignoring the risk of Trump becoming a tyrannical dictator, his recommendation to talk to strangers would not be reasonable during the era of the previous resistance, as faking enthusiasm, just could evoke suspicion.  Of course many of those who use that word today may not even know that it meant something quite different in a now hazy world war that ended seven decades ago.  Hitler, by the time he had become Chancellor of Germany in 1933, had already inflicted what Trump had to his political opponents -- destroyed them -— but their was a difference.  With Hitler it was not figuratively by  insults,  but for real, with a bullet through the head.

Hitler had fought in a war, and had incorporated an ideology of racial superiority that was not that rare,  his picking up much of this from the United States.  His first hundred days of Chancellor, he had already abolished any constitutional constraints on his absolute power that was a true fascist coup, the most ruthless and vicious in modern times.

For those with a subscription to the N.Y. Times or who want to invest a dollar for a month trial, this article by a person who lived through Hitler’s first hundred days describes his reign of terror.  Both men claimed they could kill a random person on a main thoroughfare with impunity, but only Hitler actually did it, with a clear message that the choice was either to join him or probable death 

Donald Trump has taken his synthetic personality, his scripted reality show persona, to the point of damaging what the President of the United States has come to mean.  Yet, he has neither the background, education or intellect to actually lead an autocratic revolution.   His background is not that of Carl Marx or Friedrich Nietzsche, who spent their life exploring history and ideas to formulate their own path to a utopia that justified the destruction of the existing order.  Added to this list of who Donald J. Trump is not, I would put Lenin and Hitler.  Trump is not one who has incorporated such a coherent ideology with which to merge his personal aggrandizement.

What Hitler did not have to face was a two hundred year-old tradition of due process, of the rule of law transcending any given individual, even one who holds the office of President.  We are in a strange space at this moment in time, where  fame, or celebrity, transcends the substance of an individuals intellect and character -— at least for winning votes to be elected to policital office, and as we have discovered, this includes the highest in the land.

Unlike Hitler, Donald Trump’s candidate persona has been stymied by one of the three branches of government that were defined by our founders — the legislature.   He can tweet all night long, but without a majority of both houses of Congress, all constituted by individuals who must win a majority of voters to maintain their positions, his power is limited.

Personally, my reaction to the last three months is, if I dare express it, elation.  As of now the center has held,  there will be no budget based on illusion and fear, and even if the President does harm, it does not look like it will be irreversible or fatal.  Trump’s childlike spontaneity, while certainly not presidential, is a type of gift to his opponents.  It may have been better if we had as president someone with actual knowledge of the vast complexity of government, but maybe we are fortunate to have one who can say, “No one knew how complicated health care it” or that “This job is harder than I had expected.”

 His spontaneity includes confirming what many had said from the beginning, he is abysmally unqualified to be the leader of this most complex and powerful engine of government.

My sense of comfort may be a relief from my foreboding of doom after the election,  or else the realization that this impulsive man in the oval office does have a child like mentality, that as of this moment has been held in check.  I also realize that the challenges that face one in his position are largely intractable,  with no solution available outside of irrational utopias.  An example is the poverty and oppression among women and children in north central Africa and Afghanistan.Trump's free association mode of communicating with the world, illustrates that not only does he not have any answers, but neither do those who are steeped in a standard model of world affairs.  

As of the beginning of the second hundred days of the Trump administration, the racist rabble rousers that animated his rallies, who formed his base, have receeded.  He actually believed that universal health care could be provided for all Americans with no limits.  Now he has learned it’s not possible, but addressing the issue is still far beyond his ken.  The months to come will be interesting, as we watch this person with a position that presupposes deep understanding of our government and culture, first starts to understand how little he knows.   

Donald Trump, despite his bluster, is an emotionally fragile individual, whose election defines a new era of sensationalist and vacuous communication.  It’s though he was destined to demonstrate what this country has become by being elected president.  His refusal to acknowledge that the revoking of ACA would eliminate the federal guarantee of coverage for pre-existing disease, is not subterfuge, but a demonstration that he can’t grasp that defining policy means some people gain while others suffer. With ACA this coverage is a federal mandate, while with the Republican substitute just passed, it is a state option.  The evidence is that President Trump doesn't grasp this complex dimension of what was originally a limited association of "sovereign" country-states. 

Unlike Hitler’s first hundred days, where he became an absolute dictator, Trump has deferred to the Judiciary and the Legislative branches, and is left to gathering his “deplorables”  at rallies.   But, his call of “who will pay for this wall?” will no longer elicit the crowd’s response, “Mexico.” 

To describe opposition to President Trump as “resistance” will make the previous meaning fade, as that word was used when the only way to subvert an alien power that occupied their country was placing one’s life on the line.  Our constitutional system is holding, and our weapon need not be sabotage or violence against one who has distorted the obligations and authority of this office that has evolved over previous centuries. Newspapers are still publishing, oppositions web sites are still on the internet, we are still a free society based on law.  In this country a President does not have final authority over policy, and as of this moment there is no evidence that Donald Trump is so maniacal as to want to destroy the country or the world.

Tim Snyder does a service to warn us of the dangers of  tyranny, as he has spent his adult life understanding how this horror consumed Europe in WWII,  yet we could go too far if we fail to see the resiliency of the governmental, legal and social structures that have evolved over the centuries of this country’s existence.  Our founders never claimed to provide a constitution that would ensure all of our leaders would be enlightened or wise.  They did hope to create a structure that would withstand the tenure of a President who lacked these qualities.

 As of this day, our constitutional system seems to be up to the task; and to foment a resistance which was the only choice against fascist despotism, could actually escalate a response that would degrade the rule of law that has been our gift.  It was the absence of this structure that provided no choice for patriots in that early resistance, one that should not be diluted by the protests marches that are part of a constitution that is still capable of addressing our current challenge.
------------------------------------
5-9-2017

What you have just read was what I believed, actually hoped for, only a week ago.  On this day The Director of the FBI,  James Comey was discharged from his position, based on no substantive error or breach of procedures.  While there is a deputy in the line of succession Trump said what he will be seeking a replacement.  This will certainly, in keeping with all of his appointees be based on personal loyalty.

This is similar to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern N.Y. District, a highly respected effective non-partisan, after being told by President Elect that he would be reappointed, being summary fired without any reason.  We finally have a President who will use his authority, as I had written in this article that President Obama must do if Comey refused to revise his letter to Congress,  that H.R.C. claims lost the election for her.   Not only that, Clinton is now subject to being indicted for her laxity with secret communications, malfeasance that was ignored by Comey's  statement that "no prosecutor would bring such a case" --not that they couldn't. This conclusion does not limit the new director or A.G. Sessions.

I wrote two article on the liberal Dailykos relating to those events. Here's my first after Comey sent the letter to Congress, Pardoning Hillary Clinton Does Not Imply Guilt,  Note the hostility and ridicule in the comments from the left wing website Dailykos.  Now, HRC will face the specter of being tried for a federal crime.  The honemoon between Trump and the previous adminstration only lasted days, and now The President and his Secretary of State or on his hate list.  The next day I wrote the following,Washington Post poll reports Clinton in serious danger of losing ,  This was attacked even more vehemently as if my pointing out reality showed that I was opposed to her winning the election.  After getting a barrage of insults I responded with this comment:

The "full blown issue” has been made by Comey not by my suggestion for the President.   Comey's letter has been interpreted by low information voters that his recommendation not to indict could be reversed,  The President has an obligation to enforce the regulation that all associated with federal law enforcement do not influence elections.   This was not followed, and there is a chance, perhaps very small, as most commenters here want to believe,, but perhaps larger, --— enough to shift some key states.

This is an historic election in the degree of animosity, and we can’t be sure how close the polling is to the actual voting until it happens.  We’ve never had two candidates so hated by the other side, and often by those who must choose among the least of evils.
This is analogous to Truman firing MacArthur..  He was condemned for it at the time, but now lionized because it showed that the democratically elected president has authority over Generals --- and even FBI directors.

Ironically, the weakness of Obama-Clinton is one of Trumps main arguments.   It’s strange to me, that my suggestion of a way to counter this, is condemned as being an affirmation of this accusation by Trump.

   

My essay only provided amusement for the the Dailykos liberals who had become a mob -- and they identified me as not belonging.  I had not only pointed out what the Washington Post poll indicated, but explained the meaning of it. 

While there is some satisfaction that I made the effort, (and I haven't seen any article making the two points that I did,) I still failed.  Even if Dailykos had latched on to it,  Barack Obama,just isn't made of the stuff to call his subordinate on the carpet as I suggested. Even the pardon which could have been done with with ease was not what he is made of.  He was coasting to ending his term on a high note, and only criticized Comey, mildly, several days after the release.    


As of this day, this firing of our top federal law enforcer to be replaced by a Trump crony, we have moved further towards the possibility of tyranny, that I had wishfully hoped was decreasing. My base argument was that the vast administrative structure of our government would provide the resistance to the impulses of Donald J. Trump, but as long as he can discharge anyone who is not loyal to him personally, and has a rubber stamp majority in the Senate, he doesn't have to engage in messy violence to create a government that acknowledges that he is "our leader." .    

.  

Pushing buttons in the Oval Office/ and the respons/and addendum of Gorsuch

4/6/17

Those who hoped President Trump would be different than Candidate Trump, are now faced with the reality.  As I wrote to a friend, 

"You obviously have friends from around the world, especially the country of your birth, Germany.  I imagine just how enraged those people who didn't even get to vote are this morning, as the man we put into office, went from synapse to action in seconds, this time not a bizarre tweet, but by giving an order, proverbially pressing the button.  This time it unleashed 50 cruise missiles with a few hundred thousand pounds of explosives.   But, ominously, it showed that when he, as Commander in Chief, does order an attack, the chain of command follows though.  Orders are orders, and if another time that button was for a similar number of explosive power, except not in pounds but Megatons............

I don't have to finish the story, as few would be around to worry about it if, God forbid, he were to be so inclined.  Things are moving too fast for my usual essays, as by the time they get from idea, to draft to final polishing (as if they were to be read by more than my handful of fans) our commander and chief has revised his fantastical accusations/proclamations.  A few weeks ago our country's greatest concern was that Trump was too close with Putin, and this was somehow, outside of legitimate concern on his influence on the election, a bad thing.  One of Trump's rare reasonable statements was to the effect,"what's so bad about the U.S. having better relationships with Russia?" 

The problem of having someone in this awesome position of authority with zero experience is not evil intentions but a mercurial nature with a disinterest in understanding consequences.  "Nobody knew that health care was so complicated" he stated.  Ironically, had he replaced "nobody" with "I" it would have been heartening, meaning I really need help here;  but what he said was compounding his ignorance by the phrase being reasonably restated as, "I have as much knowledge about health care as anybody."  O.K. destroying the level of health coverage we have achieved with ACA will "only" cause death and suffering to some additional tens of millions, but his firing missiles at a country we are not at war at, that happens be allied with a country that can match our thousands of H-bombs ..........

The LA Times is publishing perhaps the longest editorial in history, so far in six parts under the rubric "Our Dishonest President"  Here's my letter to the editor that they just printed.

-------------------

To the Editor:

This editorial series will not be read by the one third of the population who still admires and supports President Trump.  While this demographic can be demeaned or ridiculed by those who applaud this editorial, there is the harsh reality that the structure of the United States Constitution allows a minority to choose a President, which over the unimaginable expansion of this country now has the plenary power to do what Donald Trump is doing.

There should be no comfort in explicating the depredations of President Trump, as if such an articulation will inherently lead to his downfall.  His power is what was given the leader of a weak country with no military that was closer to the stone age than what our world has become.  Mr. Trump is reveling in this power, with his acolytes sharing vicarious pleasure in destroying the intellectual-technical infrastructure that had provided hope for weathering the immense challenges that face our world. 

Al Rodbell
 ------------------------------------------------------
Addendum 4/10/17

Hi Ron

                    If you choose, please forward this to Justin, whom I can safely assume is no longer with the Dept of Justice

I just came across this interesting this article in Politico, that describes how Judge Merrick Gardner could have a more immediate effect in his current position than the one he was nominated for.  In his position as Chief Justice for the D.C. Court of Appeals he can, at the least, impede Trump's* scorched earth campaign against the administrative agency efforts over the last half century to provide for a healthier and more humane world.   *(I learned from their editing my last L.A. Times letter that he can be referred to as Trump or President Trump, but not "Mr. Trump.")

I spend more than sixty hours absorbed in the Gorsuch Judiciary Committee and then Floor discussion, including researching media articles and one decision of his that was never mentioned in any of the media or during the hearings. Republicans didn't have to work that hard beyond glowing generalities, since they knew he had the votes;  so Democrats took the role of prosecutors, making the case that he was an extension of existing conservative Justices, while some implying he was Trump's stooge.

It was this dissent, which can fairly be described as an extension of the Miranda decision written by another man whose entire identity before being on the Supreme Court was as a mainstream Republican, whose specific job as California Attorney General was to apprehend and convict criminals. If one reads this full dissent, we see an argument inimical to the "law and order" mentality that usually is associated with conservative ideology. 

This dissent from a ruling that allowed police to breach the virtual moat around the "castle that is a man's home" shows that a headline case such as the "frozen trucker" doesn't define a comprehensive philosophy. Here's the link 29/57 of the PDF.  A search of the internet did not return a copy of this by Gorsuch, as it was only referred to tangentially by some articles saying he had been both for and against law enforcement. 

After reading this, I concluded that it is inconsistent for one who is programed to support the right wing ideology to write an expansive dissent that would limit the capacity of the police to get evidence of a crime.  In this decision Gorsuch fits the pattern that I see in Earl Warren, who turned out to be far different than the law and order conservative that Eisenhower had intended to appoint. 

There was a deeper message for those who chose to use the confirmation hearings as an advanced seminar political studies.  Sadly, for the vast majority, it was more like a sports event, where we cheered for our team, while vilifying the messages of the opposition.  I expressed this in this letter published in the L.A. Times on their six part editorial dissecting the pathologies of the Trump administration:  

-----------------

To the Editor:

This editorial series will not be read by the one third of the population who still admires and supports President Trump.  While this demographic can be demeaned or ridiculed by those who applaud this editorial, there is the harsh reality that the structure of the United States Constitution allows a minority to choose a President, which over the unimaginable expansion of this country now has the plenary power to do what Donald Trump is doing.

There should be no comfort in explicating the depredations of President Trump, as if such an articulation will inherently lead to his downfall.  His power is what was given the leader of a weak country with no military that was closer to the stone age than what our world has become.  Mr. Trump is reveling in this power, with his acolytes sharing vicarious pleasure in destroying the intellectual-technical infrastructure that had provided hope for weathering the immense challenges that face our world.  

------------------

The time I spent transfixed by the Gorsuch hearing was intellectually stimulating, but ultimately isolating.  To be well adjusted is to have a support group, friends, family or community where there are certain shared values.  Those without this often suffer, experiencing profound depression or as a reaction, of lashing out violently against enemies.  Here's an example of the affect, defined by this imperative to cognitive consonance, towards an important person, that is telling about the mentality of our current political parties.

Charles Schumer is generally associated with leading the opposition against the Hobby Lobby decision that ruled that a hand full of followers of a religious belief could impede thousands of their employees from obtaining contraception.  Could a reasonable argument be made that he was the primary person to be held responsible for the federal law that dictated this tenth circuit and Supreme Court decision.  I had never heard this, before this hearing explained the principle of the decisions, and then I did further research.  It goes like this:  Hobby Lobby was decided based on the Federal Law known as Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, a law that happened to be described by Justice Paul Stevens as unconstitutionally breaching the First Amendment proscription against establishing a religion.  This law was introduced in the House by Representative Schumer, and passed both houses almost unanimously.  Schumer, the prime promoter of this law, was the major antagonist against Neil Gorsuch, who, like Alito on the high court, explained thay were obliged to enforce this law, and not modify it.  Was this just an excuse to gut ACA?  Based on reading both decisions, I don't think so.  Gorsuch even expressed some antipathy for this law, which he stated did not give him, as a judge, the right to modify it. 

Rooting for your political team does seem to involve a degree of willful ignorance, such as this small sample.  The current Democratic Leader promoted the law that allowed a hand full of religious extremists to impede ACA!  Or perhaps that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would not have voted for Roe v. Wade!  Or that  Hillary Clinton, only hours before the attack suggested we go further, to destroy all of the Syrian Air Force !  

What adds to the sense of hopelessness, were the interviews with Trumps top officials on Sunday talk shows.   First was Rex Tillerson, interviewed by Fared Zakaria.   This man who never read a book on Diplomacy as trade craft was oblivious to one particular term of art, "ultamatum" or one similar in  French "demarche"  Equally oblivious were similar questions to the Ambasidor to the U.N. and the National Security Advisor when all were asked about the priority of elimating President Assad or the Islamic State.  While each of the three were ambivalent they all said that they could all be priorities, and even when the answer evoked incredulity since the very word means to order, one in the front of the other and contingent being satisfied before proceeding, none of them chose to to answer but worse denied that such a choice had to be made. 

One gave the example of WWII where we fought Germany and Japan simultaneously.  The actual comparison with that war was between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.  To destroy one meant to allow the other to gain power, while an easier decision then since we had allied ourself with Russia, many understood that they were our potential enemy who would gain by the annihilation of Germany.  The harsh reality is that the conflict in Syria is a conundrum that has no solution, or none that would be articulated by this adminstration any more than the previous one.  

The simplistic dream that getting rid of a brutal dictator would give rise to an enlightened democracy has been refuted by both Iraq and Afghanistan.  We have replaced a cautious (or feckless) President with one who mistakes his impulsiveness with strength.  

This would certainly make a terrific movie --- if only it were fiction and at the end we would all walk home in the sunlight of a world that was muddling through as it had always been.  

"Trump, the Mesiah of our times" - in all of its connotations

It was refreshing to come across this article in Politico , "Donald Trump’s Fictional America" written by A.M. Rondon, that captured so much of my own thinking. In effect, he coherently states that Donald Trump's destruction of language as the vital tool of rationality is not a defect of his program, but its essence. Radon focuses on the similarity between Donald Trump and Chevez who while beloved when dictator of Venezuela, even in it's current failed state of poverty and violence is still revered by many.   
--------------------------------------
Trumps war on rationality is a requirement for his political success, yet his opponents show no inclination towards accepting this.  The L.A. Times is starting a three part editorial against him with one titled, Our Dishonest President, as though he were "only dishonest" which implies presenting a coherent alternative reasonable theory of events.  No, he is attacking reason itself and what he offers is not alien as it is a version of what most Americans espouse to some degree or the other, a specific definition of religion.  In the “establishment clause, the first freedom uses a single word, “religion.”  But it has two distinct meanings, as well defined in Dictionary.com :

1: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing human affairs.
2: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons

#1 religions would be the three Abrahamic ones, among many hundreds of others.  #2 would include Universalist Unitarian, Scientology and one founded by a notable atheist,  First Amendmist Church of True Science — F.A.C.T.S

In the U.S., both #1 and #2 religions are treated the same in areas such as tax benefits and zoning along with the extra protection provided by RFRA.

There is a more profound contrast between #1 and #2 religions.  It is that the former includes a commitment and belief in the supernatural, that all that we know from our naive observations to the most arcane understandings of the scientific endeavor are subject to being overruled by the dogma of their religion.  Death is not irreversible,  miracles do happen,  good and evil are not human constructs, but the essential nature of the world. This definition of religion, describes the abolition   of reality that is the central aspect of what I will call "Trumpism."  Truth is no longer that which can be confirmed by research into the nature of things, but by the source of the utterance.  Christianity only took root when Jesus and God became one, accompanied by the ineffable "holy ghost." 

For the #1 religions, and those who espouse them,  not only is global warming a hoax, but so could be anything or everything that has been explained by the formal or unarticulated principles of the scientific method.

Vice President Mike Pence in his proclamation, “ I am, first of all, a Christian," defined who he was  In contrast, Donald J. Trump, while welcoming #1 Christians and Jews into his electoral coalition, shows no evidence of being one himself.  What he is doing fits a pattern, that his claiming faith in any God or Mesiah he would preclude that he is the one, the savior of all who suffer in this world.   He ignores the similarity of the three Abrahamic religions by turning Islam into the evil outside threat, a device that is essential to any would be autocratic leader.

Now to turn the page:


In a similar way when Representative Charles Schumer sponsored this law elevating all religions over non-religion, being a secular Jew it is unlikely that this was done for other than political expediency.  He expresses no contrition for sponsoring this bill, accurately described by John Paul Stevens in his concurrence as being a violation of the first amendment of our Constitution.  Schumer is to the bone a politician, in the worst meaning of the word.  His motivations and thinking is limited to amassing power, in his case entwined with the Democratic party.  This individual is, as I write this, about to precipitate the culmination of destroying the unique aspect of the United States Senate, which was that the minority party would commonly have the ability to prevent the will of the majority, by use of the filibuster maintaining.

I write this as the slow motion train wreck of Senate Democrats, in an act of destruction that can only be described as a petulant child's destroying his favorite toy to show his rage at not getting his way, is about to start the chain of events that will end the traditional rights of a minority in choosing a member of the Supreme Court.   The New York Times, in this editorial still blaming Republicans, had this to say about the pragmatic harm to Democrats of forcing the Nuclear Option.

Whether legitimately outraged at Mr. McConnell’s treatment of the Garland nomination or opposed to Judge Gorsuch on the merits, if they lose the filibuster now — as they will — then it is not available to use against another Trump nominee, who may be objectionable not only to Democrats but to a few Republicans, as well. Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all. And the danger some Democrats appear to fear of seeming naïve by clinging to a goal of bipartisan support for the court seems less acute than the certainty of their appearing ineffectual in a futile effort to block the Gorsuch appointment.

Schumer and the Dailykos followers ignored not only the harm to their party but to the institution of the Senate and will continue to make their case as this is being written.

The justification for Republicans not considering Garland enhanced by this speech on the Senate floor in 1992 by Chair of the Judiciary Committee Joe Biden, it's meaning contended by Democrats as not applicable.  My own careful reading is that it certainly does show the intent of the majority Senate democrats to do in 1992, exactly what the majority Republicans did in 2016.

Conclusion:

Donald Trump is destroying the office of the President, while the Democratic party is destroying a major element of the United States Senate.  This is personally depressing, and the depredations of one does not justify that of the other.  Now to go back to CSPAN and watch as the proverbial train of the U.S. Senate gets closer to the bridge over the chasm that has collapsed, with no one on the train having the ability to prevent the approaching disaster. 

After spending the day watching the statements of Democratic  Senators I'm no longer convinced that Neil Gorsuch is the independent jurist that I had believed.  Senior Democrats  with a deep understanding of the intersection of politics and law such as  Tim Kaine, who had been a law professor delved into the details of specific decisions by Gorsuch, that were enlightening.  I leaned just why the "Chevron preference" and "plain language" were important terms of art that Gorsuch had breached, all with a certain bias.

I had now spent close to 40 hours watching these hearings and floor discussions, and it seemed more clear that Judge Posner's observation, made by many others, that Supreme Court decisions are commonly reflections of the Justice's values, and not as claimed simply calling balls and strikes. It is all but certain that the filibuster elimination will now include Supreme Court Justices.