What a Great Country!
Posted: November 9, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Divisiveness, Historical Perspective, Lifes unexpected treasures, Politics, United States 3 CommentsAs we wake up on the morning after one of the most divisive campaigns in our life times, some of us are elated, some disappointed and a lot of us are probably simply amazed at the results. Whatever we feel, as is our custom and history, it is time to move on and actually get things done.
Yesterday I had a big dose of what is best about our country. I was a sworn election judge in the state of Maryland. Other states may have other titles, or you may simply know us as poll workers. It was a great civics lesson and a great lesson in what makes this country continue to be great.
It was a very long day (nearly 15 hours on the job) but a very positive day. Election judges in Maryland are regular citizens who come forward every two years to work for their country and for their fellow citizens. They cover the spectrum of our national make up. Young (one can be a judge at 17) and old, from every ethnic group and socio-economic status, and of differing political parties, the judges are a true cross-section of America. Throughout our training and while on the job, each and every person I met was courteous, friendly, conscientious and dedicated to doing the job correctly. It was inspiring.
I can also assure our fellow citizens that the election judges on the job, at the individual polling places, are serious about the importance of their work and that they took joy in doing the job the right way. I can also assure you that both the polling process and those working on site are dedicated to allowing for each and every qualified citizen to vote. It is a great, and dare I say, satisfying process.
Even as the day wore on and we all began to sag a bit in body, there was never a let down in spirit or determination to do things correctly, by the book, and in compliance with the law. It may surprise a voter who has not had this opportunity to know the meticulous way that the process unfolds. Maryland uses paper ballots that are electronically scanned. There are three ways that they can be counted and compared and the paper ballots are retained in case of a recount or an anomaly in the electronic tabulation. There are written procedures followed meticulously that include keeping track of each and every ballot, with double and triple checks and balances and total chain of custody requirements. Every scrap of paper (ballots, multiple forms for record keeping, and polling material) are accounted for, catalogued and returned to the Board of Elections. Every two years, these workers take time off from school, work, retirement or whatever to serve their fellow citizens and to help them through the process. It was a good sign for the future of our nation.
Equally gratifying was to work with and observe the voters that came into our precinct to vote. Just as the workers represented a cross-section of our nation, so did the voters in every way imaginable. That includes the processes to ensure the visually impaired, physically challenged, and just about every other condition imaginable was able to cast their ballot. Uniformly, the voters were cheerful, excited about exercising their right to vote (even if not uniformly excited about the campaigns themselves), and demonstratively appreciative of the work being done by us at the polling place. In a particularly memorable way, whenever a young person came in and was identified as a first time voter, the judge working with them would announce it to the rest of us and all of the judges (there were about twelve of us) would shout and clap in congratulations. The smiles on those first time voters when we did that was priceless. In a campaign season that did not always highlight the best of our nation, it was exciting and refreshing to see that the voters, our neighbors, were understanding of how little acts of courtesy and kindness can transform a situation.
As we move forward into somewhat uncharted territory in our nation’s history, my hope is that the values, spirit and cooperation that I observed on election day continue as we move on to the next great adventure in our national life.
Just The Beginning
Posted: November 5, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Constitution, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, Russia, Supreme Court, United States Constitution, Vladimir Putin Leave a commentIn my lifetime, an election was usually a beginning. Most of the time, it was a positive beginning as proponents of opposing candidates and political parties were happy or sad, justified or disappointed, but generally supportive of the process and willing to give the new president a chance to see what he could accomplish. The election was over, and so most folks took a time out and turned towards the holidays and the approaching new year, and didn’t think much about politics again until Inauguration Day or later.
This year I worry that the most fractious campaign in our lifetimes will not end on Tuesday at the voting booth. Two flawed candidates are limping towards the finish line, but I am not sure how things will play out when the results are tallied. I am out of the prediction business as I have no idea who will win on 8 November but you already know what I think as to which of the two will do less harm to our country. That said, I do try to be balanced, or at least fair, in presenting my views in this space. I will endeavor to do so again today, but I am concerned that not everyone involved in the two campaigns, the most ardent supporters or haters as the case may be, will be satisfied with the outcome. I am worried that some will not only be upset about the results but that they will act on their dissatisfaction in negative ways. And let’s be blunt, when one candidate whines about the election being “rigged” because he is losing, suggests that “poll watchers” go to the inner city to make sure that voters are not “cheating” and other similar statements, the probability of a conflict increases greatly. (And I note that he only cites the “inner cities” — code for minority areas — and not rural areas or small towns. He often suggests that they exercise their Second Amendment rights while watching the polls. Can you imagine what would happen if a group of armed African-Americans showed up in a small town in Kansas to watch the voters vote?)
Having said that, I am more worried about the impact on our form of government, our law makers ability, indeed their desire, to do their jobs and the unpredictable actions of our fellow citizens. Which ever candidate wins, there are huge problems ahead. Let’s look at a Hillary Clinton victory first.
Votes are yet to be counted, results are yet to be certified, and no one knows who will win on Tuesday. Yet, Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), and Michael McCall (R-Texas) Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, as well as Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), among others, have already stated publicly that they plan to begin impeachment proceedings against Secretary Clinton should she be elected. Additionally, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), John McCain (R-Arizona) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), among others, have clearly stated or with a wink and a nod hinted at confirming none (repeat: none) of Secretary Clinton’s appointments to the Supreme Court. Wow. Even with a sense of leavening that these statements were made under the stress of campaigns and the emotions of the moment, these men still made astounding, and frankly, un-American statements about using the law of the land to punish an election winner that they do not like. The will of the people be damned, I suppose. You will note that there is a pretty good likelihood that the Democrats will regain control of the Senate, yet I have not heard a single Democrat running for office promise not to confirm Mr. Trump’s nominees or that they will begin impeachment proceedings against him as soon as he is sworn in as president.
Some argue that there is no need for nine justices and that we have had different numbers on the Supreme Court over our history. True. But there have been nine since 1869. With Justice Scalia’s untimely death early this year, the Court has been functioning (although deferring some cases until a ninth judge is confirmed) with only eight. However, if the Republicans follow through on their threat, what is the right number? Seven? Six? No one knows what deaths may occur, or retirements may occur, or other unforeseen circumstances that would further reduce the number of Justices. Really? And what happened to the current Senate Majority Leader’s, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), promise that the next president gets to nominate a Justice, and of course the fact that our current president (we only have one at a time) has a nominee on the floor for going on seven months?
As if that is not enough, Mr. Trump himself made a similar promise in the second debate this fall. In the context of the “lock her up!” cries at his rallies, he made the following statement in response to a debate question about it should he be president.
“I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a Special Prosecutor to look into your (Clinton’s) situation.”
The next day he reiterated his plan to prosecute Secretary Clinton when he is president. Besides being unheard of in American politics — no winning president has ever threatened to jail his losing opponent in our history like we are some kind of third world banana republic — it also exhibits Mr. Trump’s desire to use the government for his personal vendettas. It also demonstrates his lack of knowledge in that president’s are not authorized to order specific criminal investigations of individuals, not to mention political opponents. To lose the impartiality of the Department of Justice in order to pursue his own ends would undermine the very fabric of justice in our country.
These examples alone would be cause for alarm as to what will happen after the election. Actions that could destroy the delicate balance between a functioning two-party system and one where the rule of law and our Constitution is used only as a prop when it suits one’s purpose.
Of additional concern, and this really really bothers me, is the ongoing hacking of Secretary Clinton’s campaign. By the Russians. And I have heard very little concern expressed about it by any Republican, and especially none by Mr. Trump himself. Indeed, last summer he invited the Russians to hack Secretary Clinton. This is serious, people. And yet all I hear about is what is in the emails and not that they were illegally stolen by a foreign government and used to disrupt our election. (By the way they may be embarrassing but there are no “smoking guns” about illegal activity and I would argue that any large organization or campaign would be embarrassed if their internal discussions and unvarnished proposals were made public.)
Intelligence and law enforcement officials are preparing for some kind of additional cyber attack before, or on, election day. The attack could come in any number of ways, but will probably be designed to further undermine the perception of a free and fair election process. Democrats and Republicans should both be deeply concerned about this prospect. But it seems to be of little concern as compared to petty fighting over minor issues.
Let’s look at a Donald Trump victory. My concerns for our nation are not in any way lessened should Mr. Trump win. As hard as it is, I will momentarily forget that the man is temperamentally unsuited for the office, and that he has shown a remarkable lack of intellectual curiosity to learn even the basics of how the government works under the Constitution or our most basic foreign policies.
Mr. Trump currently has approximately 75 lawsuits actively pending against him. Many are long-standing complaints against him ranging from discrimination to failure to pay contractors. Most notable, a trial in a class action lawsuit against him for fraud surrounding Trump University starts 28 November. That is one of three state lawsuits against Trump University. The Trump Foundation is also under legal scrutiny for illegal fund-raising efforts and for violating laws on how such money may be spent. It is a long list. How does that impact his ability to carry out the duties of his office? How will the trials be impacted if he is president? This creates yet another opportunity for the public perception of justice to be tainted by politics.
Mr. Trump continues to refuse to release any of his tax returns so we know nothing of his business dealings, except for what he chooses to brag about. Multiple responsible inquiries have shown him to be far less successful in business than he gives himself credit for having accomplished. (By the way, it was pointed out that his final 2015 tax returns were due about two weeks ago. There is nothing to stop him from releasing those as he would not know if they were going to be audited. Not to mention that the Internal Revenue Service repeatedly stated that there is nothing stopping him from releasing them while under audit.)
The primary reason this is important, among many reasons, is that he claims to have extensive business dealings overseas, which is the basis of his claimed knowledge of foreign policy. If so, we should know what those dealings might be so that potential conflicts of interest may be identified. What checks and balances would be in place to make sure that foreign policy decisions were made to further the interests of the United States and not merely to help his business? Without this knowledge it is possible that foreign agents could compromise our interests overseas.
In this vein I find his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin troubling. I am not so bothered by Mr. Trump’s claims that Mr. Putin is “a great leader.” Strange, but less troubling than the fact that the Russians are hacking and attempting to influence our election. The Russians, and others, are using propaganda, psychological operations (PSYOPS) and intelligence to undermine our election and thereby demonstrate to their own citizens that there is no such thing as a real democracy, it is all a sham and rigged by the powerful. This message to their own people, by using us as an example, can be very effective in keeping their own power. Mr. Trump received classified briefings on this effort. And yet, in the debates, he claims that there is no evidence that the Russians are involved and further claims that he does not trust the U.S. intelligence agencies. Wow again. He either willfully ignores the information he is given, or he is frighteningly uncaring, or he is glad that it is going on, especially if it helps him. Any one of those reasons are scary. Perhaps most scary would be that he does not believe the information because he already knows it all — a statement he has repeated concerning foreign policy, military affairs, and a host of other issues. (“I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.” — 12 November 2015)
Here is the kicker and perhaps the most dangerous of all the unknowns. How will the American people react over the long run? My question reflects how we ended up in our current presidential predicament. In my view, the current atmosphere was created by politicians promising to do things that they could not, or in some cases, never intended to deliver. Many of our fellow citizens feel abandoned by their government and suspicious of the leaders in Washington. Mr. Trump tapped into that and we are now on the verge of being one vote away from him as president. Many will rejoice and think “finally, we have someone to change things.”
That is what is worrisome. Hear me out, please. First, we have prominent Republican law makers promising that if Secretary Clinton is president they will block essentially everything she tries to do and tie her up in impeachment hearings and other vindictive investigations and hearings — mostly about things they have been investigating for four years or more and have yet to find anything of substance. In other words, more of the same from the last six years. Lots of promises but no substantive action. Isn’t that how we got here in the first place? What makes Republican law makers think that more dysfunction and lack of, you know, actual governing is going to make things better? Four more years of doing nothing is not going to heal the country and it will not endear the Republican party to future voters. Such an approach is more than a little short-sighted politically and not good for the future of our nation.
The first test is coming up soon. On 29 September 2016, about 36 hours before the government would shut down, Congress passed a Continuing Resolution to keep the government funded until 9 December and then promptly left town and haven’t been in session since. They must now come back in a lame duck session to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. However, the members of the Freedom Caucus, the Republican Tea Party group, are threatening to block all federal funding unless certain of their pet demands are met. They are also threatening to unseat Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) as Speaker of the House if he doesn’t go along with their demands, which run counter to the overall objectives of the Congress as a whole. Welcome to the post-election honey moon.
Most disturbing to me is that during his campaign Mr. Trump promises many things that he cannot do under the Constitution or that are unlikely to be supported by the Congress. When that happens, will the country react with more disappointment and lack of trust, or will something else occur? Mr. Trump’s campaign rhetoric has often bordered on inciting violence and I fear that rather than finding himself frustrated in not being able to do what he wants, he will put out “a call to action.” No one knows what form that call may take, or more to the point, how some on the fringe may interpret it. Whatever the case, it will not be good for our country.
I hope that I am wrong and that my worries are unfounded. But the indicators are not good. There will be no post-election honey moon and the prospects for civil political discourse to address urgent issues and to keep our nation on track are not promising.
Or as cartoonist Walt Kelly said in his comic strip Pogo:
“We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Cold War II (continued)
Posted: October 4, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Iraq, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, NATO, Presidential primaries, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, United States, Vladimir Putin Leave a commentWith all of the attention surrounding the circus that is our presidential campaign season, it is possible to overlook other developments of significance. To my mind, one of those significant others is our increasingly deteriorating relationship with Russia.
As I wrote back in July when I focused on the role of NATO and the increasing belligerence Russia is exhibiting towards the Baltic States, Russian President Vladimir Putin sees his role as the one individual that can, and will, restore Russia to its previous glory. Since then he has continued to create discord around the world. In particular, he has helped to further inflame conflict in Syria and Ukraine. Just yesterday Secretary of State John Kerry pulled all of the United States’ negotiators from Geneva where they had been trying to work with the Russians to come up with a political solution to the civil war in Syria and thereby try to save some of the many civilians at risk in Aleppo and other areas of Syria. A cease-fire attempted last month failed when Syrian and Russian, or at least Syrian assisted by Russian, aircraft bombed an aid convoy trying to provide humanitarian relief to those trapped in the city. Since then negotiations aimed at restoring the cease-fire and creating more confidence building measures that might give a chance for a political settlement of the strife had been ongoing. Additionally, the United States had been working on an agreement to work with the Russians in a coordinated military effort against terrorism in the region, especially against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, or as most people in the U.S. call it, ISIS). All of it went out the window when the Russians turned their full military might from the air on Aleppo in a brutal assault, even as negotiations were underway. What future course may be taken to alleviate the situation is up in the air, but it does lead to an increased probability that Russia and the U.S. will be working at cross purposes to fight terrorists in the area and increases the probability of Russian and U.S. military forces coming into contact with each other.
In retaliation for the United States withdrawing from the Syrian negotiations, the Soviets, oops, I mean the Russians, suspended a nuclear agreement signed in 2000 between the two nations that called for the disposal of each nation’s stocks of weapons-grade plutonium. While the Russian suspension of the treaty is mostly symbolic (both countries intend to continue to reduce their stockpiles) it does serve to show how the relationship has deteriorated and it also provided the Russian government an opportunity to complain about actions it believes the United States is taking to undermine Russia.
And what are those actions that so enrage Vladimir Putin you may ask? Foremost among them is the continuing deployment of NATO forces to the Baltic states and the enforcement of the sanctions against Russia for its actions in Ukraine. In Ukraine last August, President Putin raised tensions as he claimed that the Ukrainian government was moving to attack Crimea, the area Russia illegally annexed in 2014. The tension persists and even though it is currently relatively quiet, nothing is totally quiet along the front as periodic fighting continues and lives continue to be lost. Further exacerbating the toxic atmosphere in Ukraine, Dutch investigators clearly linked the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 over Ukraine in July 2014 to the Russian supplied separatists. All 298 people onboard were killed. Despite continued Russian denials, the investigation showed a missile battery moved from Russian territory into rebel held territory and then returned to Russia after the incident. Russian actions in the area continue to be a threat to the rest of Ukraine and Europe, and President Putin seems to be relishing his ability to turn conflict off and on. Keep an eye on developments there as the rest of the world becomes increasingly distracted by the U.S. presidential campaign, events in Syria, and the fight against terrorism.
What is troubling to me about President Putin is his world view. While we have competitors and adversaries in China, Iran, and other spots around the world (President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines seems to be gong off the reservation for example), they have a different world view than does President Putin. Most nations of the world know that they are economically tied to the global economy which is powered by the United States. This does not stop actions antithetical to our interests, but it does serve to temper them. President Putin on the other hand, sees the world and especially Russia’s relationship to the United States, indeed politics in general, as a zero sum game. Whatever hurts the U.S. helps Russia and vice versa. Add to this that his country is not doing well economically and like most dictators, he is creating international foes in order to distract the citizenry from their troubles at home. This makes him ever more dangerous.
In this context, I am amazed that more reporting is not being done on the breaches of cyber security that occur almost daily in the United States, and most especially, the hacks that impact our free and independent elections. Of particular note are the attacks on the Democratic National Committee and the release of scores of emails concerning the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and the attempts to get into the election processes of individual states, most notably Arizona and Illinois. Experts point their collective finger at the Russians as being responsible for these and other equally egregious cyber attacks.
While individual ballot boxes are not connected to the internet, and therefore cannot be hacked, there are other processes that are computer driven and may be susceptible to attack. Among these are voter registration lists. Imagine if large numbers of people show up to vote and are not allowed to do so because their names were expunged from the voting rolls or are otherwise tampered with so as to take away their ability to vote. Add to that one presidential candidate that is already talking about how the vote is rigged if he doesn’t win and that his supporters should go to the polls in urban areas to watch others vote to make sure that everything is on the “up and up” because “that would be one hell of a way to lose, I’ll tell you what.” (Incidentally, in study after study and in court cases concerning voter identification laws, there has been absolutely no evidence of voter fraud changing or even slightly influencing the outcome of any national election, despite urban myths and legends to the contrary.)
I am not a conspiracy theorist and do not want to be misquoted so I will say up front, I do not think that the Republican nominee is in any way aiding or abetting or otherwise involved in the Russian hacking efforts, even though last July he famously invited the Russians to hack his Democratic opponent’s emails. However, I find it disconcerting that thus far, only Democrats have suffered the embarrassing revelations of the Russian hackers. I would be willing to bet that a number of Republican accounts have been similarly hacked, but clearly the Russian hackers are trying to influence the election in one direction. One could speculate as to why that is, or even if there is some kind of reverse bizarro world logic that it could backfire on the other candidate. I don’t know, but clearly there is an effort to influence the outcome. It is bad news for our nation when a foreign power attempts to influence our elections and we do not stop it.
Ultimately, whether or not the attacks are successful at actually changing ballots, the real effort on the part of the Russians is to delegitimize our election process, call into question the results and spread further hate and discontent in an already fractured election process. Besides being cyber warfare, it is most especially also classic psychological warfare aimed at undermining the United States, our policies, and our stature in the world. Vladimir Putin and his cronies are ready and willing to fill the void left by the United States should their efforts be successful.
Unclear to me is whether or not our own cyber warfare forces deployed to counter the Russians and/or to similarly attack them in a way that sends a signal to knock it off or suffer the consequences. It is a tricky situation for the U.S. It is generally accepted that the United States has superior cyber warfare capabilities, but to deploy them now, in the month leading up to an election, and risk a wide-spread cyber war that could impact the election results dramatically (not in vote manipulation necessarily but rather in a wide-spread crisis that impacts infrastructure, banking or some other target that causes far-ranging panic) is a tough decision. On the other hand, we do not know where or when the Russians (and possibly others) might strike anyway if not deterred from doing so. A difficult choice. Unknown, of course, is whether such a counter sign of our capabilities and willingness to punish the Russians in our own attack has already been demonstrated to the Russians by our cyber forces under a stringent top secret operation.
Regardless, our next president must be prepared to deal with the Russians and do so with eyes wide open. Vladimir Putin is no friend of the United States and he never will be. He has one goal and one goal only — to turn his economically depressed country into a super power at the expense of the United States of America.
Cold War II
Posted: July 23, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Baltic States, Donald Trump, Historical Perspective, NATO, Poland, Russia, Vladimir Putin Leave a commentLost in all of the U.S. presidential campaign news, one may be forgiven for missing the increasingly worrisome activity in northern Europe where the Russian bear is flexing his muscles. While there have been numerous incidents of Russian military ships and aircraft harassing North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other friendly nations’ aircraft and vessels, especially in and near the Black Sea, some of the most provocative have occurred in and around the Baltic Sea.
The number of incidents began to increase in the spring of 2014 and through out the rest of that year there were approximately nineteen serious or high risk incidents including a massive Swedish Navy search for a Russian submarine in the Stockholm archipelago and simulated bombing and cruise missile attacks against NATO countries as well as exercises perceived to be practice for invading the Baltic States. Throughout 2015 and 2016 there have been numerous additional close encounters with the Russian military, precipitated by the Russians and interpreted to be deliberate provocations. This includes this past April when two Russian military aircraft flew a simulated attack 30 feet over the guided missile destroyer USS Donald (DDG-75) while in international waters. A few days later Russian fighters intercepted a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft over international waters in the Baltic. And the (very long) list of such provocations goes on.
In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, at the height of the cold war, such incidents were frequent, and dangerous. In order to prevent misunderstandings which could lead to bloodshed and possible conflict, the United States and Soviet Union formulated the Incidents At Sea Agreement, signed by Secretary of the Navy John Warner, and his Soviet counterpart Admiral Sergei Gorshkov. By providing specific protocols when U.S. and Soviet ships and aircraft were in proximity to each other it was designed to “enhance mutual knowledge and understanding of military activities; to reduce the possibility of conflict by accident, miscalculation, or the failure of communication; and to increase stability in times of both calm and crisis.” Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the withdrawal of much of its military back to the homeland, there was very little need for the agreement and it ceased to be useful. It may be time to update it and renew it.
The real question, however, is what is going on? Why are the Russians resuming their provocative maneuvers against NATO and other western powers? The answer may be found in one of two names, or more likely a combination of two names: Vladimir Putin and Ukraine. Putin wants to rebuild the Russian Empire and by that we mean that he is looking for good old-fashioned respect as a world and military power. The incidents are meant to remind the West that he is the major player in his part of the world and that he can (and may?) do whatever he desires. To paraphrase the old adage, “Russia is back!” In 2005 he made a major speech to the Russian people where he is translated as saying:
“Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.”
Remember that this was a large part of his justification for entering Ukraine and in annexing the Crimea. He argues that he is protecting Russian citizens and “ethnic” Russians and thus fulfilling his duties as head of the Russian state. During the time of the Soviet Union, many now independent nations around the periphery of the old Soviet Union were “colonized” by Russians and many also settled there for economic and other reasons. They and their descendants remain.
This background is important in understanding the current state of affairs in the Baltic States — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — and to a slightly lesser degree, Poland. The Baltic States were part of the Soviet Union and Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact dominated by the Soviet Union.
Geographically they are at a strategic disadvantage. A look at a map reveals two important features. One is that between Poland and Lithuania is a part of the Russian state called Kaliningrad, a major Russian military outpost. Second is that the border between Russia and Poland and the Baltic States is mostly flat ground with no significant defensible geographic features that would impede a ground attack from rolling across the border and deep into the country under attack.
I had the pleasure of making a short stop in Tallinn the capital of Estonia recently. The people are very friendly, full of energy and eager to see their new nation become integrated into world affairs. They are also well aware that only a short time ago they were occupied by the Germans and then subjugated by the Russians as one of the republics of the Soviet Union. They became an independent nation in March 1990 despite resistance to their independence by the Russians. Their history is very fresh in their in minds and if they doubt the impact Russia can have on their new nation, they are reminded of it every day. Directly across from their parliament building sits the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral built in the late 1800’s as a Russian Orthodox cathedral during the time of Estonia’s inclusion in the Russian Empire. It was part of the Russification efforts underway at the time to assimilate the Estonians. It purposefully occupies the most prominent position in the Old Town on top of a bluff above the town. Although it fell into decay during the Soviet era, it was beautifully restored in recent years but is still considered by many Estonians to be a symbol of Russian oppression. It should also be noted that while Estonians consider themselves to be culturally different from Russians, approximately 25% of the population is Russian.
Needless to say, the combination of Putin’s desire to regain the “empire” coupled with his actions in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea makes the Russian military provocations in the Baltic area very meaningful to those that live there. The Baltic States and Poland are among the twenty-eight members of NATO. And that’s where it starts to get interesting.
Earlier this month, President Obama and the other heads of state met at a NATO summit in Warsaw. Many topics were covered ranging from Afghanistan to Ballistic Missile Defense to ISIS. But a major topic, the one capturing the attention of those following it closely, was a key decision concerning the Baltic area. For several years now, the United States and other members have rotated troops and fighter wings through the Baltic States as a reminder to Russia that NATO has a stake in their continued independence. At this year’s summit, those provisional deployments were made firmer. In response to Russian provocations, the NATO members decided to deploy ground forces (four battalions) on a rotating basis, but always there, in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. Additionally, air and naval forces will conduct periodic training in and near the area. The point is much the same as our stationing of troops in West Germany during Cold War I. Should the Russians make a move on one of these states, they will need to go through NATO forces to do it and thus risk war. To be clear, the numbers of NATO forces there are a drop in the bucket and would not meaningfully impede a Russian advance. They are there as a symbol of resolve. Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (the creation of NATO) an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It is the principal of collective defense that has helped to keep the peace in Europe and provided the foundation for a period of economic and political stability that has lasted for roughly seventy years. The first time in the history of NATO that Article 5 was invoked was following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001.
The idea of collective defense coupled with the military capability and political will to back it up has been the cornerstone of American foreign policy since World War II. There was never any doubt about the U.S. commitment to NATO and our allies. It served as a major block to Soviet adventurism in Cold War I and is a serious warning to Putin’s adventurism as Cold War II begins to build. Never a doubt. Until now.
In a foreign policy interview published by the New York Times on 21 July, Mr. Donald J. Trump (R-Manhattan) threw that commitment into doubt. You can read it for yourself using the link, but here is part of that interview:
SANGER: I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven’t seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?
TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I’m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.
SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated ——
TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills.
SANGER: That’s true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part.
TRUMP: You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that.
SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——
TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.
HABERMAN: And if not?
TRUMP: Well, I’m not saying if not. I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.
Regardless to say, this created a high level of anxiety throughout the capitals of our allies and seriously casts into doubt the viability of collective defense. To be effective, Article 5 has to be an article of faith for every member and for every potential opponent. Otherwise, it has little meaning. As Cold War II develops, I’m sure Vladimir Putin was celebrating.
Wondering Out Loud On A Saturday
Posted: July 16, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Black Lives Matter, Congress, Mass Killings, Supreme Court, Turkey 1 CommentThe past few weeks were filled with notable events, often coming so fast that it is hard to digest one before the next takes our attention. Many are horrific, others significant, and still others may change our world in ways we yet know. Taken in sum or in part, they can be depressing and continue to challenge my view that the world is basically a good place and that given the chance, most people will do the right thing.
In no particular order, here are a few thoughts on the major and minor events of the last few weeks that have set me to thinking.
Turkey. The attempted coup in Turkey yesterday proved one old adage. When the person you are trying to over throw takes off in an airplane, do not let them land back in the country again. More seriously, it is not only good for Turkey that their democratically elected President Recep Erdogan was able to disrupt and ultimately defeat those attempting the coup, but it is also good for NATO and for the United States. Turkey is a lynch pin in a wide range of western policies ranging from the defeat of ISIS to relations with Israel. However, President Erdogan will never be accused of being a nice guy. Do not expect it to be a pretty sight in the coming days and weeks as the government rounds up those that tried to bring them down. And those suspected of helping them whether or not they actually did.
Mass killings. When is it “too soon” to talk about them besides offering up only “thoughts and prayers”? When some politicians try to go beyond platitudes they are accused of politicizing the events. At the rate that they have recently been coming, we will never talk about them because one can hardly comprehend what happened before another occurs. Our society is increasingly violent. We need to look seriously at ways to stop the violence and provide for the safety of the average citizen. This does not mean solely protection from alleged Islamist terrorists — many of whom have no religious background and are primarily disgruntled or mentally unstable petty crooks looking for a cause — but in other ways as well. According to recent studies by the American Automobile Association and the American Safety Council, 56% of all fatal crashes in the multi-year study are caused by road rage and 37% of the incidents involve a fire arm. In the United States.
Black Lives Matter. When did discussions in our country become “either or” discussions? Why does supporting the Black Lives Matter protesters become anti-police officer or vice versa? Why does one have to choose a side when in the end we are talking about the well-being of our communities and those that live in them? A serious discussion needs to occur at the community level to get everyone back on the same page. In the end we all want the same thing — a safe and pleasant community — so why not protest when citizens believe that they do not live in a such a community? But more violence and targeting police officers will not bring that about. Ironically, the police chief in Dallas had been working hard to change the atmosphere and context of police-community relations and by many accounts had made great progress. It is so sad and so senseless that his community and our nation suffered the loss of five fine police officers.
Gun Safety. When did working for increased gun safety become anti-gun? Another example of a complex issue in our country becoming an “either or” argument. I despair that we will ever have a serious discussion about this issue. Any discussion that contains “libtards”, “red-necks”, “do away with all guns” or “from my cold dead hands” is going nowhere from the start. There is a middle ground. When over 30,000 people die from guns every year in the United States we have a problem. We must address it.
Congress. Do not get me started. I will say this, Congress just left Washington for a seven week summer break (and oh yeah, to campaign for re-election). According to the current schedule, they will only be around, you know, actually working on bills, for about two more weeks before the November elections. Please note that most weeks when they are in session, work (actually a chance that they may vote on something) never begins before 6:30 PM on Monday (and usually it is noon on Tuesday) and never goes past 3:00 PM on Friday (usually actually ends about 8 PM on Thursday). We should all be so lucky. According to govtrack.us there are currently 10,896 bills and resolutions before the current Congress. On 3 January 2017 the 114th Congress will end and all bills not addressed by then will die. To see the light of day again, they must again be put forward by our legislators. In the one to two weeks left of actual legislating (unless they meet in a lame duck session after the election — note that one can only be a lame duck after an election that you lost, not because you are declared one 10 months prior to the election) they will have to address appropriations bills across the government in order to keep it functioning. Once again we are facing an omnibus continuing resolution that provides some money to keep things going until they can figure it out (and some are calling for that to carry over until next March so that the new Congress can deal with it — and remind me why we elect these people) or there will be another government shutdown.
The Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke out this week about the future of the nation should Mr. Donald J. Trump (R-Manhattan) become our next president. Let’s just say she didn’t think it would be a good thing. She caught a lot of criticism from both the left and the right about a Supreme Court Justice inserting herself into the election process. In my view, the criticism is justified. We cannot be naive enough to think that they do not have personal opinions, but publicly, and repeatedly opining about the qualifications of a presidential candidate creates the perception of bias. Not good. Late this week Justice Ginsburg issued a statement expressing her “regret” but no apology. Hopefully, this will be a lesson. However, historians point out that through out our history Supreme Court Justices have been political and made political statements. As outlined in many articles this week, including one in historynewsnetwork.org at least nine Supreme Court Justices became involved in Presidential politics. William Howard Taft was the president before going to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. I am sure his political views were well-known. Another, Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Supreme Court to run for President, lost the election, and then come back many years later as Chief Justice. And there are others. For goodness sake, Chief Justice John Marshall was both Chief Justice and Secretary of State under President John Adams at the same time. Still, I think it best if Supreme Court Justices stay above election politics.
And then there’s this. At the Republican National Convention two security zones are to be established by law enforcement officials. One will be in the direct vicinity of the convention center and run by the Secret Service. Another, larger one will encompass much of center Cleveland. Since Ohio has laws that allow for the open carrying of fire arms without a permit, fire arms will be allowed in the second security zone. Here is what bothers me. Guns are okay, but a partial list of items that are not okay includes air rifles, BB guns, knives, slingshots, metal cans, thermos bottles, tennis balls, umbrellas with metal tips, coolers, gas masks, string, tape more than six inches long and on and on. For the safety of the participants. Here’s a question, because it caused confusion in Dallas. How are law enforcement officials supposed to know which people carrying guns are citizens exercising their rights and which are terrorists bent on mass destruction?
There has been so much more that has confused, amazed and appalled me these past few weeks but that is enough rambling for the time being. I am sure there will be more confusing, amazing and appalling events to come, especially with the Republican Convention beginning on Monday followed the week after by the Democrats. Good luck to us all.
Taxation Without Representation
Posted: June 19, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Constitution, Historical Perspective, Politics, United States Constitution Leave a commentThe title of this piece is the same as the motto that for years can be found on the license plates of vehicles registered in Washington D.C. Most tourists, when they recognize it, are startled to see it and often ask about it, thus the reason for it being there in the first place. The answer, however, while simple in response — “the District has no voting representatives in the Congress” — is far less simple in the context of the current political world.
To many D.C. residents, last Tuesday’s Democrat presidential primary in the District was symbolic of their plight in the modern United States. While afforded the opportunity to vote for one of the nominees (Hillary Clinton won, while Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) won the Republican primary held in March), their votes were the last in the nation and of no significance since the nomination had already been decided.
It may be useful to put things in a quick historical context. As we all learned in elementary school, Washington became the new capital city for the newly created United States. Created by Congress through passage of the Residence Act in July 1790, the city’s location was the result of a compromise hammered out between Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) already provided for a federal district that was not a part of any state and that would be governed by the Congress. Maryland and Virginia each donated land along the Potomac River that created a square-shaped jurisdiction and included the existing cities of Georgetown on the Maryland side, and Alexandria on the Virginia side. In 1846 Congress returned Virginia’s donated land to the state (a complicated story in itself but it has to do with slaves as well as the city of Alexandria, and the fact that all federal buildings were constructed on the Maryland side) creating the current District’s size and shape.
For most of their history, D.C. residents had no say over how their city was governed. The first significant change came in the early 1960’s with the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution which gave the District three electoral college votes for president. The votes are allocated according to population, but regardless, cannot exceed the number of votes allotted to the least populous state.
In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that allowed for the citizens of the city to elect a mayor and 13 Council members. The first mayor was elected in 1975.
What is the significance of this brief history lesson? Well, because of these cases and others, some legal scholars argue that, starting with the return of Virginia’s portion of the District, the Congress undid many elements of the original Constitution, thus setting a precedent that the District should be allowed home rule.
Here’s the real rub. The District’s citizens resent that Congress over rides many of the laws that they pass within the Council or via referendum among the citizens. Often, they are undone by conservative members of Congress that, according to many of the District’s citizens, use D.C. as a personal lab to push conservative causes that they cannot get done in their home state or in the Congress. Additionally, when Congress is gridlocked, the District suffers because their budget, just like the Defense Department or the State Department is held hostage during the negotiations, making it difficult to run the city because even though they have the money (their own money, they argue) unless Congress authorizes them to spend it, they are not able to do so.
This is relevant today, as another major battle is brewing between the District’s government and Congress. While D.C. supposedly has home rule, they must have their budget approved by Congress . This year the city government says that while they will submit it to Congress for review, they will not wait for approval and will spend the $13 billion dollars as they see fit. That budget breaks down to $4 billion in federal taxes and $7 billion in local property, sales, and other taxes. (In the past, Congress would block spending on items or issues of which they did not approve. They also control all of the funds, including those through local taxes.) It is, as the Washington Post observed, essentially a Declaration of Independence by the city. The Congress is not amused. It may be a fight that D.C. cannot win, with threats of contempt of Congress and possible jail time for the mayor and Council. Such activity directly in spite of Congress is deemed un-Constitutional. In a vote in late May, the House voted to nullify the District’s voter approved measure to give themselves autonomy over their own city’s spending.
The real issue of course is whether or not Washington D.C. should become the fifty-first state.
Primarily, the desire of an increasing number of the city’s citizens is for autonomy in creating budgets and taking legislative actions, and gaining voting representation in Congress, just like the “other” states — 67% of voters in D.C. want statehood according to a poll last fall. (Currently the District has one representative or “delegate” in the House but that person cannot vote on legislation.)
The behind the scenes issue is that Washington D.C. voters are primarily Democrats and that giving the District two Senators and a member of Congress would add to the numbers of Democrats in those two legislative bodies.
As argued by the proponents of statehood, and delineated in the Post, Washington D.C. is not an economically backward city dependent on the federal government for its income. For example:
- The D.C. economy is bigger per capita than 16 states.
- The D.C. budget is less reliant on federal funds than are those of 30 states.
- D.C is actually a “donor state” along with states such as New York, Massachusetts, and California that pay more in federal taxes each year than the receive in services from the federal government.
- D.C. has a larger population than Vermont and Wyoming.
- Large portions of the city pay no local taxes as they are federally owned (Capital, White House, monuments, etc.) or are owned by tax-exempt entities.
- D.C. has its own National Guard unit and its citizens serve in the Armed Forces of the United States without a say in how such forces are used.
- Most federal workers live in Maryland or Virginia, paying no taxes in D.C., while the city has to bear the expenses of providing services (police, fire, sewer, etc.) to those workers.
The list goes on and on. Washington D.C. has its share of arguments as to why it should become the fifty-first state. And yet, there is that pesky little document called the Constitution.
Personally, I do not think that Washington D.C. should become a state. However, clearly a compromise of some sort that gives the citizens of D.C. some say in their own, and their nation’s affairs should be reachable. Past efforts at compromise have failed, mainly for political reasons that have little to do with city politics or policies and more to do with wielding power in the Congress.
Other proposals include giving the land back to Maryland and thus D.C. would have two Senators (Maryland’s) and gain representation in the House based on population. Unfortunately, Maryland does not want to regain the city and the District does not want to join Maryland.
My thought is that D.C. is on the right track. Allow the city to manage its own fiscal and legislative affairs, just like any other governmental entity in our country. Make the “delegate” a voting member of the House and add (or subtract) Representatives based on population and the current census used to draw up representation in the House. No representation in the Senate.
The original creation of Washington D.C. was a compromise. It seems that a reasonable compromise is attainable in the twenty-first century so that all of our nations’ citizens have some form of representation in designating how their tax dollars will work.
Only One Vote Away
Posted: June 11, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics Leave a commentAs hard as one may try, it is nearly impossible to avoid the controversy surrounding the two standard bearers for the major parties in the race for the presidency. They certainly do not need more discussion or analysis, especially here. And yet. And yet. It is equally impossible to ignore the big old elephant in the middle of the room. Even if one tries their best to ignore him, like a petulant two-year old, he will eventually get your attention. Of course, I am speaking about Donald J. Trump the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.
Before we journey too far down this road, let me say up front that I am not a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party. This piece will not push you to vote for her if you are not inclined to do so. But it will push hard to suggest that it should be impossible to vote for Mr. Trump. Vote for the former Republican governor of New Mexico Gary Earl Johnson who is the Libertarian Party nominee. Vote for your cousin. Write in any name you may want to do — shoot put your own name as a write-in candidate so that you can say that you once ran for president. But for the sake of our nation, please do not vote for Mr. Trump.
There are several things that are dangerous about him. His well-documented racist, misogynistic, narcissistic, self-serving, thin-skinned, bloviating pronouncements are well-known. They started with his “birther” attacks on President Obama in March, 2011 and continue to today. (By the way, he promised that he had discovered “absolute proof” that President Obama was not born in Hawaii. I still have not seen it, have you?) Why would anyone think that the blow hard would change his tune and become presidential? (More on that in a minute.) He erased any remaining boundaries constraining political discourse in this country. I could go on, but I think you know who and what we are dealing with when it comes to Donald J. Trump. I give him the benefit of the doubt when people say he is not really racist. Perhaps. I cannot know what is in his heart or his mind. Unfortunately for our country, it does not matter. What he does say is racist and he plays to the basest instincts of mankind. Whether he has it in his heart or not, his actions say he is a racist. Even Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) says his recent pronouncements are racist.
Equally troubling is that I presume Mr. Trump is a smart man. However, after a year of running for president he has not taken the time or the interest to gain even the most shallow understanding of the important issues facing our nation, whether foreign or domestic. One of his supporters, the Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said on CNN yesterday that Mr. Trump better pick a knowledgeable running mate for Vice President. As he said, “He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues.” His total lack of intellectual curiosity further solidifies my belief that he is a loose cannon with no real interest in leading our country beyond the ego trip of the trappings of the office and the possible benefit to his personal business holdings. (Many analysts speculate that Mr. Trump will not release his tax forms because it will reveal the Potemkin Village that his business “empire” really is — just a sham presented to make things look better than the reality. Many reports in the media already show that his promises of his “huge” philanthropic efforts either do not exist, or are the result of his foundation giving away other people’s money — not his own. As Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) correctly points out, he is a con man.)
I hope that the glare of the national spotlight shines brightly on Mr. Trump and that the American people end up with a huge case of buyer’s remorse before it is too late. We are already beginning to see the real Donald J. Trump as he attacks an Indiana born federal judge as being biased against him because he is a “Mexican.” (And later Mr. Trump added that a Muslim judge would also not give him a fair shake in court.) Whenever Mr. Trump is under attack, or more regrettably when things do not go his way as is happening with the law suit against Trump (cough cough) University he lashes out. Those that should know better say that when he is president, he will act differently and be surrounded by advisers that will temper his tantrums. Why do they think that? There is nothing in his demeanor to indicate that he will change and indeed he makes a point of saying that he will not change, that his is the brightest mind in the room, that he hasn’t listened to the advisers thus far and look how far he has come and many many more such pronouncements that lead me to believe that he will act exactly the same way as president as he has in his reality show of a campaign.
That people like Mr. Trump exist in our country was not a surprise to me. That so many people would vote for him, and thus by extension validate his ideas, divisiveness and lack of ability is deeply distressing to me. I had no idea so many of our fellow Americans were of the same nature as he is. Among those that have profoundly and deeply disappointed me and my generally positive view of the world are the majority of the Republican political leadership that endorsed Mr. Trump and thereby endorsed his policies, ideas, and methods. Look again at the above paragraphs. The Republican leadership in the Congress, embodied by Speaker Ryan that calls Mr. Trump’s remarks “racist” and Majority Leader McConnell’s statement that it is pretty obvious Mr. Trump “doesn’t know a lot about the issues” a year into the process, and yet they fully endorse him. It blows my mind. Like it or not, one cannot slice the apple by saying that they support Mr. Trump but not his racism, misogyny, threat to the Constitution and general lack of the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief. You support him, you support all of him — there is no separating the man from his policies, such as they are.
In my life I have disagreed strongly with particular policies of some presidents. Most maybe. But with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, I never felt that it was personal or that they would end up destroying the fabric of our society. The thought of Donald J. Trump as president is the scariest thing I have ever faced in my political lifetime.
Nearly half of his avowed supporters say that they do not believe that he will actually do what he says he will do, such as deport 11 million undocumented immigrants or keep those of the Muslim faith from entering the country (I wonder what Muhammad Ali thought of that — talk about “the greatest.”) They claim that his “policies” are more symbolic and not anything that he would actually do and besides, they really want someone to “blow up” the business as usual attitude in the nation’s capital. Be careful what you wish for. He will certainly shake things up, but remember that all new ideas are not necessarily good ideas. More to the point, what makes anyone think that he will not actually do what he says he is going to do? Can we take that chance?
In trying to understand why the Republican leadership would endorse and work to elect someone like Mr. Trump, it occurs to me that they secretly want Secretary Clinton to win. I do not mean that as a joke, and of course I do not know this for a fact because they will never say it, but here’s why I think that they do. If Secretary Clinton wins, the world and our nation are saved from the irrational dictates of Mr. Trump. While at the same time, they can continue to oppose everything that President Clinton puts forward, just as they have with President Obama, in order to maintain their political base, keep their jobs, and the Congress under Republican control. Then they go for the White House in 2020 campaigning that twelve years of Democrats in the White House “ruined” the country. If there is a President Trump, they will be forced to work with him and his nutty ideas, or oppose their own party’s president in office. They will likely lose their jobs and Republican control of the Congress. If not in 2016, then certainly in 2018 when the nation comes to understand just how dangerous Mr. Trump is, and the current leadership will not be able to say “don’t blame us” because they have all put party above country. Forget about a Republican in the White House in 2020. There may not even be a recognizable Republican Party in 2020 with Mr. Trump as the leader of the party of Lincoln.
I give great credit to some Republicans like former presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) and a few (too few in my view) others that have put country above party. They clearly are not enamored of Secretary Clinton and claim they will not vote for her. They are also just as clear that they will never vote for Mr. Trump. They know him up front and personal. All of us should pay attention.
Our nation is just one vote away from having a President Trump. We should be worried, very worried. To me, Donald J. Trump fits the mold of strong men across the arc of history that were duly elected and then proceeded to ruin their countries and cost many their lives. Let’s keep that from happening here.
Protecting First Amendment Rights
Posted: April 12, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Divisiveness, Historical Perspective, Politics, Same-sex marriage, United States Constitution Leave a commentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
— First Amendment to the Constitution
I must admit that I am somewhat baffled by the string of new laws passed by various state legislatures pretending to protect religious beliefs as they pertain to same-sex marriage and to the LGBT community. Rightfully, several governors vetoed the work done in their legislatures, but others did not and signed them into law. Taking it one step further, Tennessee passed a law making the Bible the official state book. (As of this writing, it is unclear whether the governor will veto or sign the bill.) In most, if not all, of these cases, legislators claim that religion is under attack. In fact, they really mean that in their view, conservative Christianity is under attack. If they felt that “religion” was under attack they would decry Mr. Donald Trump’s and Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) proposals to ban all Muslims from entering the United States and to spy on those already here. That is certainly a threat to Muslims practicing their religion.
So why do they feel that way? The short answer is that I cannot pretend to know what is in their hearts. I will say this, however. I am a practicing Catholic with close ties to my local parish and in no way do I feel that my religion or my ability to practice it is in any kind of danger. And Catholics know something about being discriminated against for their religion. Without going into a lengthy history lesson, let me remind you that Catholics in most of the original thirteen colonies were widely discriminated against, especially in matters of property, voting or holding office. Even after the Revolution many of them had prohibitions against Catholics holding office, or requirements for them to denounce their religion before they could hold office. Other religions were equally mistreated. With the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, freedom of religion as provided in the First Amendment became the law of the land, but it did not preclude suspicion and intolerance of Catholics which carried into the Twentieth Century and included anti-Catholic criminal acts by the Ku Klux Klan. Some of that sentiment was a carry over from the Reformation. Much of it centered on immigrants, especially from Germany and Ireland. Other manifestations centered on a belief that American Catholics, if given a chance, would turn the country over to the Pope in Rome. In my lifetime I remember the anti-Catholic sentiment directed at John F. Kennedy as he ran for president leading him to make a major speech that certified his loyalty to the United States rather than to the Pope. There is more, but you get the idea.
So, yeah, I will say it again, I know a little something about “attacks on religion” and I most definitely do not feel that I am under attack.
I do feel that the separation of church and state ratified in the Constitution is under attack. State legislators, and those that support them, seem to feel that the government is forcing them to do something evil by treating LGBT folks as they themselves would want to be treated. I will say up front, again, that I do not know what is in their hearts or the sincerity of their beliefs, I just fail to see the logic behind the idea that if one serves a same-sex couple a cake that one will then burn in hell. Just like I am not a Constitutional scholar, I am also not a theologian, but I have read the Bible (cover to cover — not bragging, just saying most people I know only read excerpts of it) and I do not see anything about serving cakes to same-sex couples. I also do not understand the belief that by doing so, one condones the same-sex marriage. By serving divorced people does one condone divorce? By serving atheists does one condone atheism? Of course not, especially since there is nothing to condone, condemn or otherwise get one’s knickers in a knot over. It’s nobody’s business.
Some argue that the real issue is “protecting” young girls from predatory men in bathrooms. Thus the laws state that one must use the bathrooms designated for use based on one’s birth sex. Besides wondering how that will be enforced, because there is no use in passing a law if it will not be enforced (bathroom police? which gives a whole new meaning to “drop ’em mister”), I see that issue as a smoke screen to hide much more ominous provisions of those laws that can lead directly to unabashed discrimination under the claim of religious freedom.
The heart of the First Amendment regarding religion is the Establishment Clause. As interpreted and accepted as law, it is not only the idea that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also that it cannot pass any law that favors one religion over another and cannot pass laws that favor religion over non-religion or vice versa. In that context, laws created ostensibly to allow religious tolerance can easily become religious intolerance laws as they push the tenets of one religion over others.
I also do not buy the “slippery slope” arguments used by some. Serving cake to a same-sex couple is not going to result in the eventuality of the government forcing clergy to marry everyone or anyone in their community. We will have much bigger problems to contend with prior to reaching that point. It isn’t going to happen.
It seems that in the context of civility and mutual respect that we could survive in a “live and let live” world without having to pass laws over who does or does not get served based on one’s personal religious beliefs. Discrimination is discrimination, however one tries to justify it.
Same-sex marriage is now a reality in the United States and other countries. With the Supreme Court decision in 2015 in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriages receive equal protection under the law. One may agree or disagree with the decision, but it is what it is and efforts to circumvent the decision by using state laws under the cover of religious tolerance is in my view an abuse of power, and I suspect, will also be shown to be un-constitutional.
I try to understand the real motivation behind such laws. I am sure there are many that are truly concerned from a religious stand point. (Which of course assumes that LGBT people are not religious, which is no more true than that all straight people are religious.) More probably, I think that some of the legislators are really trying to score political points with their constituents. By that I do not mean that they have listened to the religious concerns of those constituents. I think instead they are really reacting to what they consider an “out of control” federal government and Supreme Court. They are really trying to show that they will not “tolerate” directions from a “godless” Obama administration. And they have succeeded — they are ably demonstrating just how intolerant they are.
Tom
Into The Fray 
Recent Comments