Consider January 6, 2021

THE LAWS

With respect to treason:

     §2381 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.).

With respect to misprison* of treason:

     §2382 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President** or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.).

With respect to rebellion or insurrection:

     §2383 Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.).

With respect to seditious conspiracy:

     §2384 If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.).

WHAT HAS BEEN CHARGED

     More than 600 rioters have been charged and cases added nearly daily.  The charges have been, widely speaking, misdemeanors.  Examples are, entering and remaining in a restricted building, destruction of government property, civil disorder, obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder, and illegal possession of a firearm on Capitol grounds. There were a few charges of obstructing an official government proceeding.  None have been charged with sedition, or more seriously, treason. Treason has a limited definition in the constitution Article III, Section 3: the term refers to the commission of overt acts to overthrow one’s own government or to consciously and intentionally aid an enemy of the nation. Here is the catch.  “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Legally speaking, we are not in a declared war [The last time the US declared war was in l941].  Clearly this should be amended to address today’s realities.

       The bottom line is that we need a more aggressive Department of Justice. The charges so far are pathetic. No informed citizen questions that the intent of the insurrection was the overthrow of a legitimate election and essentially the resulting government.  At least go for a rebellion or insurrection charge or seditious conspiracy. We cannot allow this behavior to be protected by freedom of speech law.   Hopefully, the House Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection will find even more evidence of sedition. 

 

* The deliberate concealment of one's knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony.

** Unbelievable lack of foresight.

Law references: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381, 2382, 2383, 2384

 

 The Great Miscalculation in Afghanistan

          There is no reason wasting time tabulating the reasons given in the press by pundits, academics and government leaders for the “situation” in Afghanistan.  They are all wrong, wrong, wrong! Except for one reference I found from Thomas Friedman in a New York Times Op-Ed piece recently [April 17, 2021] *.  The reason for the costly twenty-year failure was simple.  It was what I call, the great miscalculation.  Our leadership failed to realize the conflict involved the taking of sides in a religious war within the religion of Islam—a fierce and senseless internecine conflict that was and is, because of this definition, unwinnable.  This conclusion can be best understood with a brief review of Islamic history.          

          Understanding the history of Islam is the key to formulating foreign policy.  From the time of the prophet, in every century, there have risen reform movements declaring that the failures of governance within Islam could only be addressed by a return to the guiding principles of the founder**.   The Taliban, or “student” revolt was nothing more than history repeating itself—a movement that wanted to return to a fundamentalist Islamic agenda.  Ben Laden had wrapped the cloak of the prophet upon the shoulders of blind Omar Mohamad to lead the way.  As Lapidus concludes, “Islam has to be understood as a universal religion and in its numerous particular (local) contacts, meaning tribal culture.  Further a study of Islamic history tells us that in most Islamic societies the state was conceived as a direct expression of God’s will for the ordering of human affairs.  In other words, no separation of church and state” ***.   There is no place for democracy in such context.  History further reveals that from 1900, there were 23 constitutions adopted and put aside leading up to the one that was written under our leadership after the early defeat of the Taliban following our response to 911.  The surprise came when the Afghan government insisted on inserting a preamble which said that nothing in the new constitution presented shall be contrary to Islamic law. Case closed! No army, however well equipped or funded or trained was to exist outside Shari’a law.  Why did we not recognize the clarity of this great miscalculation?  Let me throw out some hints. As the State Department is short on Arabic speaking Islamic scholars, the Pentagon has even less.  The American people read the bible, but never the Koran.  Furthermore, the American people are so obsessed with not offending anybody’s religion, that they do not want to even discuss it.  The result?  We do not know the enemy.  The great miscalculation is complete and becomes a doomed national policy.        

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

  * Friedman, Thomas. “Biden Could Still Be Proved Right in Afghanistan. Op-Ed and Letters, NYT 17 Aug. 2021. Friedman had always questioned the Mission that stated, “We are there to train the Afghan Army to fight for its own government”. He notes that,” The Taliban had the stronger will as well as the advantage of being seen as fighting for the tenets of Afghan nationalism: independence from the foreigner and the preservation of fundamentalist Islam as the basis of religion, culture, law and politics”.

**Lapidus, Ira M. A History of Islamic Societies.  Cambridge University Press. 1988.

***There had been attempted separation during the late Abbsid Caliphate, the Ottoman and Mughal empires.

 

The Contamination of the Republican Party

    Rather than constructively reviewing the reasons for losing control of the House, Senate and Presidency during the last four years, the GOP has embarked upon a vindictive path* of creating election barriers, obstructing people from registering, blocking voting accessibility, voting record purges and blindly following the dictates of the cult of Donald Trump.  Rather than diagnosing the political realities of the presidential defeat 2020 as any thinking leadership would do, the party has ignored the treason of the January 6^th invasion of the capitol building of the United States, convinced the party will lead a majority of the voters to believe the Great Lie. The destructiveness of this course results in a party that struggles on a daily basis to find any semblance of a loyal opposition to the Democratic Administration.

     As this blog is posted, Liz Cheney, three-term Wyoming Congresswoman, is voted out of her leadership position as GOP conference chair of the House of Representatives by a voice vote (of all things) simply because she refuses to believe the Great Lie, insists on the truth and will not be a “Trumpster” even though she has been a loyal supporter in the past.  So, it appears the party of Lincoln has a litmus test—agree with Trump or you are out.  The contamination of the truth has evolved a split in the ranks.  Cheney states that the party not only has abandoned the truth, but in doing so, Trump has become a “threat”.  He is a threat because he obstructs the emergence of an open mind, so necessary to a convincing consensus.

      The fixation by Trump on the Great Lie has no end.  Some 55% of his blog time since November is focused on telling the Great Lie.  And a significant number of republican voters believe it.  It is like insisting on changing the rules of the Constitution.  It would be like a baseball team that lost the World Series declaring that they were the winners.  It is brain-washing on a gigantic scale. It leads to speculation on how it will end.  Is it possible that the cult can win in 2022, led by a puppet master who is mentally ill?  Will the body politic re-elect a twice impeached former president?  Is this the road to dictatorship? 

     But back to the contamination and focus on the politicization of vaccines for instance. The Trump record on anti-science and refusal to follow legitimate science leaders has sown the seed of hesitancy toward covid-19 vaccination campaigns. And leads to anxiety for all of us.  Kentucky Senator Ron Paul simply has no regard for the truth and he is nasty in Senate hearings as well. Witness his recent confrontation with Dr. Anthony Fauci over Wuhan Lab funding theory.  Nasty leaders result in nasty followers.  I believe it goes deeper that that.  Nasty leaders represent nasty constituencies. 

     The cult of personality that is Trumpism did not suddenly start with the January 6^th insurrection.  It was more than evident in the Senate voting on the two impeachments: the common denominator in the Republican voting pattern was FEAR!  The Republican strategy is all about fear--fear of the loss of political power and that was more than evident in those two votes.  Those, and the vote to cut taxes for the wealthy.  Which brings me to the last element of contamination of the party—money.  Is Kevin McCarthy (R 23^rd District CA) following the cult because Trump is able to raise gobs of millions of dollars in so-called dark money funding to use in any way he pleases which of course means on candidates he anoints with the oil of cash?

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

*Note: See the For the People Act, the Democrats’ election reform bill, currently before the Congress.

 

Truth is Essential to Democracy

          The case can be made for explaining America’s political divide on failure of the body politic to agree on the truth of facts.  For example, the American Enterprise Institute’s January survey finding that 66 percent of Republicans believe that Biden’s victory was illegitimate. The truth of the matter is that the presidential election of 2020 was well conducted and remarkably free of tampering or distortion.  So, what are we dealing with?  Are we dealing with an instance of mass brainwashing?  Is it possible that a president can condition the collective minds of his party and followers to believe an outcome by repeating month after month that defeat could only be due to manipulating the results of a national election, whose voting system has been through the years remarkably honest?  I find it almost impossible to know how to think about this issue. I do not know where to start, but let us by sidestepping the journalists, pollsters and pundits, and begin with the social scientists.

          Rasmus Klein Nielsen, Director at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford writes that, “First, on social science, I don’t think we can understand the 2020 election outcome without putting identity in center place, especially if we are to understand why many white Americans have responded favorably to Trump’s explicit racial appeals.” He goes on to elaborate that, “voting has its origins “in ethnic, sectional, class, and family traditions” and is a matter of sentiment and disposition rather than “reasoned preferences”, an approach further develop in the “Michigan model” that put party identification at the center. I think I can understand that summation in that in my own family growing up in the last mid-century in western New York State, in sum, believed in the Catholic Church, General Motors, and the Republican Party—sort of a cultural triad. Nielsen cites Ashley Jardins’s White Identity Politics as a likely cause and not for any of the other crazy reasons. We can at least start there and ask if consultants, pollsters, lobbyists, and think tankers, if they have anything to add to the social scientists’ conclusion have anything to contribute. We know that social science may not be as precise as medical science, which has many forms of quackery, but “white identity politics” is a strong argument, in my research, the strongest.  Trump is clearly not the cause, but certainly the latest symptom of a very bad disease corrupting Truth.  I cannot believe that white identity politics is the entire reason for the irrationality of the rampant conspiracy theories permeating the social media of the country. What of the incredible irrationality of Republican party leadership?  An example is the criticism faced by Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey after voting to support the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump.

          Washington county (PA) Republican Chair Dave Ball in a TV interview [1], viciously attacked Senator Toomey for justifying his vote to convict Trump on the charge of inciting the violent January 6th riot at the US Capitol with the absurd statement,” We did not send him to Washington to vote his conscience   We did not send him there to do the right thing or whatever he said he was doing.  We sent him there to represent us, and we feel very strongly that he did not represent us”.  That statement stands as a marker for all time. The same reference continues reporting that, “York County, PA Republicans voted to censure Toomey over the weekend, arguing that he is out of touch with the core beliefs of the people of Pennsylvania.  But Not Out of touch with Truth!  The message is, we have to solve this problem or we will not keep our democracy.

  ======================       

[1]. Santucci, Jeanine. Impeachment Vote Brings Censure. 2021. USA TODAY, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle Feb 18, 2021.

 

What Have I Learned from the Transition of Trump to Biden?

    The first lesson that I learned pertains to the 25^th Amendment of the Constitution.  The Vice-President of the United States refused to employ the amendment.  Vice-President Pence wrote that using the 25^th Amendment to remove Trump would “set a terrible precedent”. Instead, he argued that it should only be used in instances where the president is incapacitated or has a disability that prevents him from carrying out the duties of the office.  He refused to act even after directed to do so by a vote by the House of Representatives. Essentially the people in their congress asked Pence to do something and he refused to do it or even answer the call.

     Two points here.  What was meant by a “terrible precedent”? We may never know.  Secondly, there is a solid argument for declaring that the president has a disability that prevents him from carrying out the duties of the office. It seems that Pence was assuming that the entire decision was his.  It is not. The 25^th amendment states,

 Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

      At the time of Pence’s statement, there were already several resignations of cabinet members, leaving that element in flux, therefore quite unworkable.   Note there is no time limit on the period of deliberation regarding the question of disability.  Finally, with the extreme divisions between the two political parties, this entire Section 4 process is essentially unworkable.  I can only conclude therefore, that the both the 25^th Amendment and the impeachment process are nothing but blunt instruments, particularly in the presence of a true emergency, particularly a mental health crisis with which I believe we are dealing.  It is also my belief, that Pence would never exercise his 25^th Amendment option no matter what because of fear of political consequences.  It is clear to even the superficial critic that the Congress must address the 25 Amendment and provide for more specific and reliable language.

   The second lesson is that the myth that vote-by-mail is susceptible to widespread fraud was propagated by a “coordinated disinformation campaign” by President Donald Trump and other Republican elites, not by fringe internet actors commonly associated with “fake news”. *  For months prior to the election, Trump insisted that voting by mail was corrupt and illegal.  He repeated this lie so often that a large segment of the population began to believe. In the face of the clear reality that he had lost the election by over seven million votes, he insisted incessantly that he had not only won, but “in a landslide”.  The was not the work of a nickel-dime manipulator, but a symptom of a very mentally ill man who sad to say needs help he will never get.  Never get because no one wants to discuss the truth.

     Watch what the Republicans do now.  At the state level where possible, they will do all in their power to introduce legislation and pass it to block black and brown citizens from voting.

     The third lesson is that the entire spectrum of conspiracy theories particularly the QAnon phenomenon was and is much more widespread and serious derangement of the collective minds of right-wing conservatives and Trumpsters than was imagined.  Millions of Americans have embraced these delusions or believe lies propagated on chat rooms? What do you do with people who believe without question, that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Mr. Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring?  It is the second Trump-supported pandemic. It is much more serious that any Kool-Aid drinking religious fanatics of yesteryear.  This was most evident on the January 6^th assault on the government.  At best, this will take years to repair—this loss of respect for the truth and regard for facts.

     Perhaps we need, as the New York Times [Feb 4^th] ** suggested, a “Reality Czar”, since we are dealing with the nation’s mental health as well as its safety and other social issues as well.  It will require a long and costly common effort.  Control of information feeds into Twitter, Facebook, U-Tube and other platforms will involve ranking the level of truth.  It will be accused of attacking Freedom of Speech, but it is necessary to building our survival as a free educated society. It is what Biden means by uniting the country.

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

*[ref; Report by Berkman Klein Center for Internet & society].

** Roose, Kevin.” How the Biden Administration can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis”. New York Times 4 Feb.2021.

 

If You See Something, Don’t Say Something?

     If you stroll through any airport, sooner or later the public address system will blast, “It you see something, say something”. No problem! We all agree. Well almost.  Everyone agrees except the psychiatrists, with respect to their self-imposed Goldwater Rule. The rule, named after the 1964 Arizona candidate for the presidency, Barry Goldwater—the Republican candidate, who displayed questionable symptoms of significant mental illness, was revised in l973 by the American Psychiatric Association in its first edition of its Code of Ethics [1]:

     It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.

     On July 4, 2017. The Independent, a UK news source (May Bulman reporting) stated that a “group of psychiatrists at a Yale University conference warned that President Trump has a dangerous mental illness”.  There have been several petitions calling for removal from office on the grounds of mental illness. Other psychiatrists have argued that a mental health professional should not make a diagnosis public without examining the patient. It is my contention that if a public official has a physician-patient relationship with a psychiatrist, then that relationship should be bound to secrecy and the physician should not release or discuss any diagnosis without the express permission of the patient. This is considered standard patient confidentiality covering all mental health providers-public figure patients.

     But what if the public figure’s mental health affects the future of the country or of the world as Danny Wedding PhD, editor of PsyCRITQUES pointed out? [2] 

What if a public figure contests the outcome of a presidential election duly authorized as fair and square? Then you have added a different dimension to the conflict.  Then the Goldwater Rule becomes a gag order. If you are a practicing psychiatrist and on court order, conclude after examining a patient that that person is a clear danger to himself and others, you act accordingly.  It happens in our court system every day.  So, simple common sense tells us that the Goldwater Rule is ridiculous and worse, dangerous to the welfare of the state.  Patient-physician confidentiality is too narrow an argument.

     The APA should point out that psychiatrists have a professional, moral and social responsibility to notify the public of the danger consequent to the mental state of an elected official who is capable of great endangerment.  Failure to do so is not only gagging the science, but is thwarting the access to open discussion and freedom to engage in open debate in the public square.  The psychiatrists, indeed all mental health workers, by virtue of their education and training, should be the very people leading the education of the consequences of mental illness.

      I write this on January 4, 2021, two days before the Senate is to meet to formalize the Electoral College results, with the likelihood of open objections from twelve senators and over one hundred Republicans of the House stating their rejection of reality.  The president’s perception of reality has a pervasive effect. So I am saying something!

 

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

1. www.time.com/48975093/donald-trump-goldwater-rule-history/

2. www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/psyccritiques-spotlight/issue-20#:[EW1] 

---

 [EW1]

 

We Dodged the Bullet 

     Today is Thanksgiving, 2020, and I offer no apology for turning the day into a joyous political celebration. Yes, I am thankful for escaping the nasty covid-19 pandemic for nine months, and my family staying healthy as well.  Yes, I give thanks to whatever prime mover exists in the great unknown for living long enough to start my 90^th year in a couple of weeks, free of dementia.  Thanks, after more than 25 years of retirement, we are solvent and have not run out of money. Yes, and thanks for so many wonderful friends, staying busy every day and living in a comfortable senior community free of dogs and as far as I can tell, republicans.

     But that is not what I celebrate most today.  No, today I give thanks for the salvaging of democracy with a remarkably honest and transparent election, and the removal from public office of the worst President of the United States we have ever had in the history of the republic, Donald J. Trump and his sycophantic Vice-President.  I give thanks to the election inspectors and the tireless Postal Service for the extra effort. I write these words, some 18 days since the election became apparent in Biden’s favor and taking note that Trump has not yet conceded.  In fact, his post-election behavior has been absurd and irrational, which brings me to the final thanks for this Thanksgiving—giving thanks for science.  It is science, and not politics that yields the explanation.  The science of it is that Trump is mentally ill and deteriorating while we watch. He suffers from malignant narcissism with a notable paranoia and a destructive behavior pattern. Will someone in the family please call for a psychiatrist!

      And the bullet we dodged? We dodged, in a word, a Trump dictatorship.  We dodged a “Third Term Campaign Office”. We dodged the tsunami of lies. We dodged the further dismemberment of democracy and the constitution. We dodged a Republican Party governed by fear. We dodged an EPA that would have further degraded our air and water.  We dodged a Department of Education that would have further dismembered our public-school system. We dodged an impeached president gone unconvicted by the people. We dodged a president interested in only furthering his own interests. We dodged a president that believed he was above the law. We dodged an administration that would not regard the survival of mankind on this planet as any kind of an objective.

     So, I am celebrating Thanksgiving.  Yes Sir! I may even have a martini.

    

                                              Why Did It Take So Long?

     Within a few weeks now of the presidential election, David Gergen on CNN finally said of President Donald Trump, “We are in the grip of a madman”.  Why did it take so long?  Why is it so meaningful?  The answer to the first question is simple, and to the second complex.

     It took so long because the Corona virus pandemic has been so overwhelming and the politicization of the science of the response has been so confusing to the public.  The irrationality of the leadership during this national tragedy been slow to emerge as an underlying contribution to the fact that after eight months of near, the virus is again out of control.  In the presence of such economic stress, the people can be excused for being slow in questioning the mental status of their leader.  Now it is out in the open and grounds for discussion. 

     As to why it is meaningful to understand this situation prior to the date of final voting is the fact that if elected, we the people will have to deal with the diagnosis of madness for a second term.  To understand the situation now is to understand that the president is and has been suffering from a mental disorder called malignant or grandiose narcissism for a long time.  Narcissism, according to the abstract noted below, identifies people who display grandiosity of behavior, overconfidence, risk taking, an inflated view of one’s abilities, and a sense of entitlement, low social empathy, impulsiveness, and a willingness and ability to use others to achieve their own self-interest. And why is that important?  It is important because one of the facts that science tells us is that this condition is characterized by chronic faulty decision-making. That’s right! Along with the other requirements for making a diagnosis, the ability for making rational and correct decisions is impaired.

     This recent information does not come from the psychiatric literature. No, it comes from the business world, specifically in a publication by the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, authored by Charles A. O’Reilly, Professor of Management and co-author Nicholas Hall, Associate Director of the Graduate School of Business Behavioral Lab.  The paper published August 14 of this year is entitled, “Grandiose Narcissists and Decision Making: Impulsive, Overconfident, and Skeptical of Experts—but Seldon in Doubt,” published on line by Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection [a Public Health Emergency COVID 19 Initiative].  The abstract of this paper states that the condition results in “a high likelihood of the grandiose narcissist as one who is overly confident and convinced that they are special and better than others”.  In addition, after getting the wrong answer, “grandiose narcissists are more likely to blame others and remain self-confident in their judgment.” 

      The paper goes on to conclude that, “the grandiose narcissist is convinced that they are specially more creative, competent and intelligent”: that, “they are more likely to manipulate others even lying, cheating, and stealing”: and, “Research has shown that because they often feel that they are not being recognized as superior, grandiose narcissists often respond with hostility.  In addition, “grandiose or malignant narcissists have been shown to make choices more quickly than non-narcissists and that this behavior can provide short-term benefits but lead to negative long-term outcomes.  Finally, Professor O’Reilly’s paper adds that New York Times journalists have noted Trump’s profound need for personal praise, the propensity to blame others, the penchant for rewriting history, the lack of human empathy, the distortion of facts, and the impatience with scrutiny or criticism, but in my opinion, it doesn’t seem to have acquired much traction.

      Yes, Mr. Gergen, Donald Trump is a madman-- specifically a sick grandiose narcissist who should not be President of the United States or any other organization.  How crazy and ironic it is that it has taken science from a business school, not a medical school to clear the air.  

 

What is the Upcoming Presidential Election All About?

 

What is the Upcoming Presidential Election All About?

     The answer is simple and clear.  The presidential election on November 3, 2020 concerns the completion of the impeachment trial of president Donald Trump by the US Senate.  The majority of the republican members of the Senate dodged their responsibilities by hiding behind a statement of Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee who said, “The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”    

     There is little to gain debating the faulty reasoning of the honorable senator, or questioning the lack of logic in his interpretation of the Constitution regarding the intentions of the founders.  The bold fact is that except for the courageous vote by Senator Mitt Romney, the Senate Republican majority left the final decision to the electorate this November.  By default, therefore, every voter must, if not place the issue at the top of their considerations, at least not forget this responsibility and include the decision in their deliberations regardless of party affiliation amid the smoke and fog of this particular election in the midst of a world pandemic.

     I have not heard, nor seen a single word, as to whether the electorate will consider this question of guilt or innocence of the charges when voting this fall.  Nothing. Nada!   But that is not the only tragedy resulting from the cowardice of the Republican majority in the Senate trial.   Nothing was said of the possibility of the election being anything but honest and fair. Nothing.  Nada!  The alarming fact is that the same Republican party is working day and night to disrupt this election, tampering with the rules, and without any evidence declaring that the postal system will be unable to manage the necessary added burden that voting by mail will inflict.  Rather than providing extra funds and personnel for the states in most need in the face of a pandemic, and doing everything possible to solve any extra stress on the system, the President of the United States has named Louis DeJoy Postmaster General, a mega contributor to Trump, who will do all in his power to see the system does not work.

     An editorial in the New York Times today [August 20,2020], outlines what President Trump intends to do on election night, if ahead in the count by virtue of early voting booth results. “First, he will claim victory. Then, having spent most of the year denouncing vote-by-mail as corrupt, fraudulent and prone to abuse, he’ll demand that authorities stop counting mail-in and absentee ballots.  He’ll have teams of lawyers challenging counts and ballots across the country.” In summary, “A key element of Trump’s strategy is to undermine the Postal Service’s ability to deliver and collect mail.” Chaos follows.

     What will Lamar Alexander do about that?  What about messing with the consent of the governed?

 

Anti-science, Anti-life and My Vote

Anti-science, Anti-life and My Vote

     Time magazine reported that in May 2018, a year and a half before the coronavirus began in Wuhan, China, President Trump authorized his national security adviser, John Bolton, to eliminate the National Security Council’s (NSC) global health security unit and demote its pandemic experts.  This unit or council was focused on pandemic preparedness.  Bolton claims that he simply reorganized the NSC and it did not impair country’s bio defenses.  Bolton is a Trumpster, so I will leave it there except to say that after this pandemic is over, the Congress should hold hearings and get to the truth because, Dr. Anthony Faucci told the present Congress that, “It would be nice if the office were still there.” Let me put words in his mouth, “If it was still there, we would be better prepared”.

      The Center for Strategic & International studies [CSIS] a respected think tank in the US, sponsored a two-year commission, which just a month before coronavirus was reported in China, rang the “now hear this warning”, and recommended the White House restore health security leadership at the NSC.  In short, the seven recommendations were a response to the conclusion that we are not prepared for a global pandemic.  Despite the fact that this distinguished CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security included six members of Congress, health experts, and US government and military officials it was ignored by the Trump administration.   The CSIS Commission included Kelly Ayotte, former Senator (R-NH) who had chaired the Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, Julie Gerberding, MD.,MPH and former president of Merck Vaccines, Congressman Ami Bera (D-CA), who  before being elected to Congress practiced medicine, served as Chief Medical  Officer for Sacramento County, and taught medicine at the University of California, Davis.  Also, Ambassador Mark Dybul, faculty director of the Center for Global Health and Quality at Georgetown University Medical Center, and Admiral Jonathan Greenert, former US Navy and Chair of the National Security Studies at the National Bureau of Asian Research; plus Christine  Wormuth, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at RAND Corporation,  to name just a few. [see healthsecuritiy.csis.org/members/] for complete list of outstanding experts.

     Worst of all, President Trump continues to mislead the public by discrediting the scientists.  Epidemiologists stress that social distancing is critical in saving lives by slowing the transmission of the virus, and that such measures must be in place for weeks to show results.  Trump tweets that, “We cannot let the cure be worse than the disease”. Perhaps he doesn’t even believe that white lives matter.  Meanwhile, outbreak information from New York City shows accelerating increase in cases and hospital beds being hastily dispersed at the Javits Convention Center and naval hospital ships rushing to both coasts to add a thousand beds each.

      My conclusion: I am voting for Joe Biden.  He was a Boy Scout and knows what being prepared is all about.

March 25, 2020

White House: Post-Impeachment Statement by President Trump

Feb. 6, White House:

Post Impeachment Statement by President Trump. 

“If we didn’t win, [the 2016 election] stock market would have crashed,” was an opening comment.  “I did nothing wrong” states the President.  “We were treated unbelievably unfairly, referring to the impeachment.  Thanks Speaker McConnell. Kudos to Senator Chuck Grassley for what is not clear.  Says he is sorry for Mitt Romney.  “The Russians, the Russians was all bullshit”, referencing the Mueller Report which is replete with evidence of Russian interference with the 2016 election. “Democrats are vicious as hell “. Slams Hunter Biden for being corrupt. Claims “Total Acquittal”.  “Nancy Pelosi doesn’t pray for me”. We are putting up the wall.  “There is more support for the republicans around the country than ever before.  “Democrats can’t count votes and they want to run the health system”, was a quote.  Went on to announce and name the “warriors”, who were people who were part of the House and Senate defense.  “We went through hell”. He had his legal defense team stand for applause.  There was no remorse nor recognition of the truth nor discussion of the constitutional issues at the center of the impeachment process.  Trump indicated that he was the victim. 

     Rambling in front of Republican cheering section for over an hour demonstrates the extent of his mental illness, a flight from reality and extreme narcissistic behavior.  What is worse is this question. Have we witnessed the solidification of a cult replacing the Republican Party?  My sad answer is yes. No doubt about it. This is now the reality. 

     What are the characteristics of a political cult?  Generally, they are:

     1. Led by a charismatic leader, who demonstrates deterioration in        critical thinking.   The leader claims to have done no wrong. The leader claims to be “perfect”.

     2. Members demonstrate oppressive loyalty to their leader and willingly isolate and disparage non-believers.

     3.  The leader demands a high level of adherence and single-minded thinking of an extreme ideology.

     4.  Members often end up “drinking the Kool-Aid”.

     For observers of the recent impeachment proceedings, it is easy to see the final evolution of the process in the president’s “Celebrations” today.

     All but one member of the Republican Senate drank the Kool-Aid.

Maybe so, Maybe no !

     I have had a recurrent nightmare over the past few months.  I dream that on the first day after Donald Trump is elected to a second term, he announces the opening of his presidential campaign for a third term. I wake up in a sweat, heart pounding believing that the era of the elected dictator is here-Democracy is dead!   But all of a sudden, I have been sleeping much better for the past week.  A new scenario is taking shape.  My meletonin level has shot back up to normal

     What if the House of Representatives impeaches the president and by constitutional directive, the senate must conduct a trial to determine if Trump is to be removed from office?  Up until this week, I have believed with the rest of the country, that our republican controlled senate would never vote the president out of office. But not so fast Kowalski! Maybe so. Maybe no.   Who could have imagined that Senate Majority leader  Mitch McConnell would lash out so vigorously at his president for his pig-ignorant foreign policy blunder in Syria? Or that former republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would lead a rebellion pronouncing his own vision of the Republican Party and blasting Trump's withdrawal of troops in Syria as a "bloodstain on the annals of American history".  Even Sen. Lindsey Graham, genetically an [RR] representing South Carolina tweeted, "Pray for our Kurdish allies who have been shamelessly abandoned by the Trump Administration".  All of a sudden the party leadership sees a possibility to  recapture the leadership.  Who would of thuk it?

     With a two-thirds vote needed to convict and remove the president, it gets down to about 20 votes in the senate.  Are they there?  Maybe so, Maybe no.  But the question is now on the table and it may not go away.  The enormous collective embarrassment of true republicans, who believe in the integrity of the office, who believe in fiscal restraint, who believe in an intelligent and measured process of developing policy, who decry payoffs to prostitutes,  may prove to be a force yet to be unleashed.  Yes, the Republican Party may find an electorate that has been lied to every  day of the Trump Administration a mighty force. 

     The thought of coming to the 2020 election with a new ticket, with the possibility even of adding an electable women may be suddenly electrifying, particularly facing a Democratic candidate list that may not gel from their dissension and divisions.  Finally, the leadership of the Republican Party should look upon this opportunity as one that may not come around again. A third term by a sick narcissist will likely result in the destruction of whatever restraining  political institutions remain and whatever international alliances and common allegiances we have built over the past three-quarters of a century, including the UN. Throw in a global warming crisis and the extinction of global fisheries while you pray for your grandchildren.  

     Yes I am sleeping a lot better.  Will it continue?  Maybe so.  Maybe no.  Depending on a Republican Party solution is its own nightmare.     

The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana in the State of New York.

1. Legalizing marijuana will generate in new users an addiction rate or 7-8% in adults and 13-15% in teenagers.  A single most damaging argument is that fewer teens finish college.

2. Increased availability will affect the workplace by blunting cognitive abilities and produce negative effects on physical and mental health.

3. Studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk of psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia, suicide and criminal behavior.

4. Arguing for legalizing leisure use of marijuana based on a medical argument is invalid since three cannabinoids are already approved by the FDA.

5.Pregnant women who use marijuana have 2.3 times greater risk of stillbirth.

6. The experiences of other states have not been sufficiently studied to determine the direction of any legalizing legislation.  This argument may be the most important. More research is needed before any further decisions are made.   The FDA has never done a study on leisure use of marijuana.

7. As pointed out in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). 2015 Jan 20; 313(3): 241–242.,

Edible products are responsible for the majority of health care visits due to marijuana intoxication for all ages. This is likely due to failure of adult users to appreciate the delayed effects of ingestion compared with inhalation. Prolonged absorption complicates dosing, manufacturing inconsistencies lead to dose variability, and the appealing product forms lead to unintentional ingestion by children.

     This is unconscionable. Furthermore,

Manufacturing practices for marijuana edible products are not standardized. This results in edible products with inconsistent THC concentrations, further complicating dosing for users. According to a report in the Denver Post, products described as containing 100 mg of THC actually contained from 0 to 146 mg of THC

8. There is an increase in collision claims in Colorado.

After retail marijuana sales began in Colorado, the increase in collision-claim frequency was 14 percent higher than in nearby Utah and Wyoming, according to the report. Washington’s estimated increase in claim frequency was 6 percent higher than in Montana and Idaho.

9. There aren't adequate parameters to police marijuana use.

10. There are long term effects of chronic use.  According to the British Journal of Psychiatry (2001-178:101-106),

There is considerable evidence that performance in heavy, chronic cannabis users remains impaired even when they are not actually intoxicated.  These impairments, especially of attention, memory and ability to process complex information, can last for many weeks, months or even years after cessation of cannabis.

11. The conclusion; “Cannabis is not, as widely perceived, a harmless drug but poses risks to the individual and to society.”

12. The argument that the majority of the public wants legalization should be re-framed to state what the majority of an informed public prefers. Certainly, the majority of the public wanted pain relief, but they did not bargain for an opioid epidemic.

13. Currently, the drive for legalization of marijuana is being driven by powerful Wall Street forces that do not have the health of the public as a prime objective.

Alternative plan to legalization:

1. Legislate monetary penalties rather than incarceration.

2. Use the funds for education on addiction.

3. Request the federal government to address the status of marijuana as a Schedule I drug in view of the three cannabinoids approved by the FDA.

4. Urge the funding of the FDA to do a long needed independent study.

5. Wait until we have more definitive information.

[This was submitted to the Democrat & Chronicle as an op-ed topic].

After Two Years of Trump Presidency--A Diagnosis

    

After Two Years of Trump Presidency—A Diagnosis

        According to the Mayo Clinic, a person who has an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention, troubled relationships, fragile self-esteem, vulnerability to the slightest criticism, a lack of empathy for others, and a mask of extreme confidence, suffers from a mental condition known as narcissistic personality disorder [NPD]. Symptoms and signs of NPD may include:

1.     Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance.  Example, exaggerating the number of people at your inauguration or claiming you could be president of the US and run your business at the same time. (Recall that statement before the election in 2016).

2.     Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration. Example, claim that you, could pardon any number of people including yourself of any crime.

3.    Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it. Example, claim that you are a multi-billionaire, but refuse to cough-up your tax returns.

4.     Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate.  Example, if president, claim a national emergency when one is not, claim that you know more than “the generals” in your military, sport an outrageous hair do, and accumulate trophy wives.

5.   Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior.  Example, govern by Twitter and label people who oppose you with degrading names.

6.   Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations. Example, walking out of summit meetings and downgrading NATO members for not paying their dues rather than working patiently with those struggling to comply.

7.   Take advantage of others to get what they want. Example, holding 800,000 of your own government workers hostage in uncompromising stand-off with Congress for a wall.

8.  Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious. Example, any signing of a Presidential Order or disparaging sport figures who kneel for the national anthem.

9.     Take advantage of others to get what they want.  Example, lying in public every single day you are in office.

10.   Become impatient or angry when they don’t receive special treatment.  Example.  Behavior when meeting in the Oval Office with congressional leaders, Pelosi and Schumer.

     Do you recognize any one that demonstrates those symptoms?  You got it, Donald Trump! Our president displays a mental disorder [NPD], and is getting worse every month.  He needs a doctor which is out of the question because any person with NPD, as part of the disorder, cannot think that anything is wrong. 

     Therefore, the only solution is an act of congress, which is politically unlikely (frequently followers of those with NPD also suffer from it), or patiently wait to vote him out of office in 2020 with the hope that he will not get us all killed in the meantime.  

     What is the lesson here?  Pay a little more attention to mental status of the people you elect to public office.

Have We Lost Democracy?

     De Tocqueville's observation during Andrew Jackson's presidency was, "The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal, but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism to prosperity or wretchedness".  My contention, after events on Charlottesville, VA is that servitude, barbarism and wretchedness are winning.  We may have already lost our democracy and simply  do not know it!

     The crisis in our democracy extends to our foreign relations, being degraded by our own president, whose right wing fringe of supporters have no problem with entertaining first strike policy in dealing with North Korea.  As Edward Luce points out in The Retreat of Western Liberalism, "we have put arsonists in charge of the fire brigade".  I can only conclude that the origin of this absurdity is a president who does not understanding the meaning of the term "nuclear winter". But there is precedent here, is there not?  Witness Lyndon Johnson conspiring with Robert McNamara and the US Navy to start the infamous Vietnam war, staging a phony  attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. The erosion of democracy is not a sudden single event.

     One of the greatest forces in this erosion is money. The Supreme Court in Citizens United case (5-4) five years ago decreed that, "Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation" This led to creation of the super PACs, which act as shadow political parties accepting unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations and unions and use it to buy advertising that buys elections.  Couple this with the enormous concentration of wealth in the 0.1% and it spells control of democracy by the super-rich, not the people. It means corruption of the legislative branch of government at all levels.
     One of Luce's central contentions is that an example of our failing democracy was the financial crisis of  2008, specifically due to failure of the regulators.  This was coupled with a degradation of corporate treatment of employees, indignity and lack of respect.  Certainly the desire to take back control of their lives was a theme in the recent presidential election. Luce notes that nearly 60% of the workforce is now paid hourly. The disparity in incomes and the contraction of the middle class is a critical failure of the rich.  He sums by saying that the rich need to emerge from their post-modern Versailles. The failure of  democracy to maintain a balanced income between haves and have-nots is why the people have lost faith that their system can deliver.
     We know there is no way to measure the health of a democracy-- no litmus test, but we do know what forces are at work to destroy it.  The concentrated power of lobbies for example.  We the people seem powerless in the face of the NRA [National Rifle Association] and the big Pharma lobbies. Even after the killing of  20 children and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the senate refused to pass even the most common sense gun control legislation.  The power of big Pharma is evidenced in the congress preventing the government bargaining the price of drugs.
     The most egregious example of loss of democracy and polarization is gerrymandering--the practice of fixing district boundaries to protect the political interests of incumbents.  "Fixed seats" means no compromise and is the core of the Tea Party.  This condition together with the effort of Republicans to infringe upon voting rights of blacks and minorities may prove irreversible. Indeed, the Republican Party as Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein note in  It's Even Worse Than it Was, has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional under-standing of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of legitimacy of its political opposition, all but declaring war on the government."
     Let me stress that neither party is without blame.  The tampering with senate rules by playing majority voting against 2/3s, the dissolution of process--witness absence any healthcare reform hearings in this congress, and the poor record of congressional oversight of intelligence and national security agencies is sickening.  But the crowning force tearing down democracy is the lack of constructive effort by the two party system.  The Republican Party is primarily to blame. As David Brooks pointed out in a recent editorial in the NewYorkTimes, (Aug 29th) "..the Republican Party has changed since 2005. Their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict".  "It's ironic that race was the issue that  created the Republican Party and that race could very will be the issue that destroys it".
     It has been said many times that democracy is an experiment, which like any experiment may very well fail.  More depressing is the  absence of a force that will turn it around.  At this point in time, I just don't see it happening; not while the Koch brothers are running the show.
     

     

     

     

What is Extreme Vetting and What Does It Mean?

     The Executive Order temporarily banning immigration from seven Muslim countries,which has ignited a major legal skirmish, was based on a campaign pledge to prevent immigration of Muslims who are national security risks.   In candidate Trump's words, to be placed, "Until we know what the hell is going on".  Translated, this clearly inferred to the public that we are unsafe now under current vetting procedures, and that what we needed was to find security against Islamic terrorism by developing "extreme vetting".  Putting aside the hasty incompetence of the White House legal staff in the preparation of the order and fast forwarding beyond whatever legal outcome evolves, the question remains. What is extreme vetting and what will it mean to national security?

     "To appraise, verify, check for accuracy, authenticity, validity etc." is the given definition of vetting.  I can only assume that extreme vetting is pressing the current level of effort to some exertion of both in time and effort that provides a level of security deemed better or where we as a nation want to be.  Set aside again the adequacy of the present level of vetting and how well it has been working and go to the heart of the issue.
     
      The central question is this:  How can the vetting process be upgraded to prevent entry of any radical Islamic believers?  I do not know what they are doing now, so this is pure speculation but it must have to do in part with their religious beliefs.  So what religious beliefs do they have that are a security threat?  The answer must be the radical beliefs that threaten us.  And where are they found?  They are found in Koran--the extremist passages often cited by the Islamic terrorists obligating them to violet jihad or holy war. No need to quote them as any Koranic scholar can point them out.

   So the extreme vetting questioning goes like this;  Are you from (fill in the blank of which of the seven countries cited in the order are you coming from)?  Then are you a Muslim (mark yes or no)? If yes, then you believe in the Koran (confirm yes or no).  If the answer is yes then the next obvious question is do you believe in all of the Koran (mark yes or no).  If the answer is yes, then are we to believe that since there is no repudiation of the Koranic verses that are offensively radical, that exclusion is automatic?  Could be. But this is unlikely to hold legal challenge on constitutional grounds (First Amendment).  

     Lets proceed assuming the answer to the last question is no, then the respondent must detail those verses in which he or she is not a believer.  Any answer is threatening to the respondent's conscience because any believing Muslim believes that the Koran is the sacred word of God and cannot be changed or deleted.  He cleverly conceals his true beliefs and  then where does the extreme vetting go? Do we pull a Guns of Navarone (movie) and break out the scopolamine?  Time for a little water boarding Mr. Trump? No! The situation is clear.  There is no degree of vetting, extreme or otherwise that does not come down to word against word. Future behavior can only be pledged, never guaranteed.

       This is why laws governing separation of church and state are so critical.  When words are broken then the law and the constitution come in to restore the boundaries.  So the conclusion is simple.  Extreme vetting is nothing more that a scare tactic aimed at deceiving the electorate that they are unsafe and that this noxious nothing called extreme vetting is going to make them safe.  Didn't we learn anything from Senator Joe McCarthy?

      So Mr. President, you want to know what the hell is going  on!  I'll tell you.  We are paying attention!