Let ‘Em Die

 

For many of the innocents in Gaza, the unavailability of antibiotics, surgeons with adequate operating facilities, the constant shelling and missile/drone strikes have led to an expedient and life-destroying alternative: amputation of untreated limbs, hands, fingers and toes… even for little children. Starvation claims lives with increasing frequency. Tetanus, typhoid, cholera, etc. are exploding, killing even more. There may be no excuse for the October Hamas carnage against innocent Israelis, hostage-taking terrorism plus random murder. But there is also no justification for the Israeli overkill reaction, exactly what Hamas had hoped for, against innocent Palestinians.

Uninformed biases will tell you that the Palestinians elected Hamas to lead them. Really? Let’s be a tad more objective: the last election in Gaza pitted extremist Fatah (a branch of the Palestinian Liberation Organization) against Hamas, the latter campaigning on moderation and coexistence with Israel. That was 2006, long before the vast majority of Gazans were able to vote. Over the years since, Hamas accepted “quiet money” driven in cash across the border … from the Israeli government.

At the same time, Iran’s theocracy seized on the opportunity to attack announced arch-enemy Israel through surrogate militants. Hamas (a Sunni force) and Hezbollah (Shiite) also accepted money, modern arms and munitions from Iran in massive clandestine shipments. It was Iran’s avowed purpose to destroy Israel, “from the river to the sea.” And with Iranian support and direction, Hamas segued from moderate to becoming full-on Iranian military tool. The moderate network of Hamas tunnels in Gaza expanded significantly. The destruction of Israel was the focus.

As much as Iran wanted Israel out of the Middle East, ultra-rightwing Israelis wanted the entire Israeli region purged of Arabs and occupied solely by Jewish citizens. Jewish “settlers” forced confiscation of property legally belonging to Palestinians living, working and farming on the purported dedicated Palestinian West Bank, an unequivocal foreshadowing of what was to come. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) often stood by as these “settlers” killed those homeowners to take their land. The mood in Israel, a nation with a unicameral parliamentary legislature (the Knesset) and no constitution, shifted right over the years, and for almost two decades Likud (conservative) called the shots, under a charismatic Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu. Part of a global shift to the right.

As Netanyahu faced a corruption trial, he craved the ability for the Knesset to be able to override the judicial system, but he was no longer able to control parliament without a coalition… and the only players who were willing to sign on were those rightwingers. Pledged to a policy of total eradication of Hamas, rejecting the notion that Israel had long accepted – a two-state solution (which has been US policy for decades, except during the Trump years) – Netanyahu clearly had no post-war solution for Gaza and the West Bank. All of the above is necessary background for the horrible I am focused on today: the continual blocking by Gaza’s neighbors (mostly Israel) of the food and medical aid that represent the hope for survival for what I will call the human shield Gazans living above those well-stocked Hamas tunnels.

Writing for The Morning, New York Times news feed, June 19th, German Lopez describes the scene: “Humanitarian groups have thousands of tons of food, fuel and medicine ready to send to Gaza. That aid is sitting in Egypt, Jordan and Cyprus, just hours away, or less, from the people who need it. But much of it can’t get in… Why? Some problems are typical for a war zone. Aid groups want to protect their workers from bombs and gunfire. Roads and warehouses are destroyed, making the terrain difficult to navigate.

“But there have been bigger problems: Israel has enforced opaque rules that turn back trucks meant for Gaza, citing security concerns. Egypt has blocked aid to protest Israel’s military operations. Hamas has stolen, or tried to steal, aid shipments for its own use… In other words, the people in charge of allowing aid into Gaza have prioritized their own interests over helping hungry Palestinians. In doing so, they’ve repeatedly made decisions that humanitarian groups can’t overcome...

“Israel typically cites two justifications for blocking aid: It wants to stop any supplies that can help Hamas, which attacked Israel on Oct. 7. And it wants to keep aid workers out of harm’s way… The first reason is the more contentious. American officials and humanitarian groups argue that Hamas has intercepted very few shipments. Critics say that Israel has been too careful about an overblown threat — or, worse, has used the aid as a weapon against Palestinians. ‘They are trying to provide a plausible cover story for collective punishment,’ said Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International, a humanitarian organization… But Hamas has intercepted some aid, and Israel says its precautions keep the group from taking more.

“Other Hamas tactics have also made Israel more cautious. The group often hides behind civilians by placing its operatives in hospitals and stashing weapons in schools. Israel worries that Hamas could hide behind humanitarian groups and workers, too. So Israel requires aid groups to report their activities. For example, it signs off on specific routes in part to ensure that these really are humanitarian missions and not covert enemy operations… The Israeli military also announced this week [late June] that it would stop operations in parts of southern Gaza during daytime hours; the pause in fighting could help get more aid to hungry Palestinians… Since Israel controls what goes in and out of Gaza, it has taken a lot of the blame for the crisis there. But it is not the only country that has stopped supplies for Palestinians.

“Egypt has, too. After Israel moved into the southern city of Rafah last month [May], Egypt protested the incursion by blocking aid shipments. It did not want to look like it accepted Israeli control of the Rafah crossing, and was upset that Israel was operating so close to the Egyptian border. (Consider: Egypt once occupied Gaza, but lost control in 1967 in a war with Israel.)” Trucks with food and medicine have been ransacked by rightwing Israelis (see above photo), and the US efforts – requiring the building of a makeshift pier in Gaza on the Mediterranean – have not remotely delivered that aid where it matters. It all comes down to a moral choice!

I’m Peter Dekom, and we seem to live in an era of moral callousness – where Greek immigration officers throw unwanted refugees overboard to drown, where Americans dehumanize immigrants fleeing desperate poverty and cartel-driven violence (using US firearms), and where our own military MAGA extremists pledge death and destruction to their opponents – and where the world only drifts into chaos with few significant humane solutions.

The Supreme Court Rules on Government Integrity – LOL, LOL, LOL

  Clarence Thomas & “Gifts”  

 Indiana Mayor James Synder

  Indiana Mayor James Synder

The Supreme Court Rules on Government Integrity – LOL, LOL, LOL

“Gratuities Are Us”

Two years ago, the Trump-reconfigured Supreme Court reversed its own precedent (Dobbs reversing Roe) but has let stand decisions that have resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths like Heller v DC (a 2008 ruling which, using originalism, expanded the 2nd Amendment, for the first time in over two centuries, creating a ubiquitous fundamental right for Americans to have guns with few restrictions). But wait, there’s more.

In the last week of June of this year, the Court battered federal administrative agencies, effectively emasculating several key agencies charged by Congress with protecting Americans from all sorts of harms. The Chevron Deference (where courts defer to experts at governmental agencies created by Congress) has been denigrated, pushing decisions requiring serious educated expertise and experience, to federal courts with only general knowledge, often appointed for political, not pragmatic reasons. The Court also handcuffed the EPA against acting to curtail greenhouse gasses, the SEC from stemming corporate fraud in financial statements, the FDA from asserting its definitive testing and approval process, to name but a few of the obvious anti-consumer/person rulings.

The same six justice conservative SCOTUS panel, that has been dramatically unable to address the most obvious need for an enforceable body of cannons of ethics for themselves (dealing with receipt of “gifts” from biased donors and sitting in judgment on issues with which they or their spouses were actively involved), ruled in Snyder vs United States that post-government actions that generated serious “gratuities” to the relevant government actors were not crimes. Specifically, not crimes under Congress’ extended the federal bribery law (passed in 1986) to cover officials of state or local agencies that receive federal funds. The measure made it a crime to “corruptly solicit or demand ... or accept ... anything of value of $5,000 or more ... intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business or transaction.”

So those “wink-wink” governmental official’s expectations from relevant parties who directly benefited by an award of a government contract, passage of a bill or issue of a judicial opinion… where you cannot adequately prove a “deal before the government action”… are peachy-keen and just the way we do business in the Banana Republic of the United States of America. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion opened a Pandora’s Box of corruption. He makes distinction between “bribes” and “gratuities.” As Kavanaugh writes, “bribes are payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act.” Given the litany of probusiness, MAGA-leaning rulings, is the Court trying to insulate itself from its own lack of ethical restrictions on conflicts of interest and accepting massive “gifts” from donors with unequivocal political agendas?

Writing for the June 27th Los Angeles Times, David Savage addresses their corruption ruling Snyder vs US (6/26): “[The Court] struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official… By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

“In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal… ‘The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,’ said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.

“Despite his reference to token gifts such as lunches and framed photos, the federal law was triggered only by payments of more than $5,000.

“But the court’s conservative majority said the law in question was a ‘bribery statute, not a gratuities law.’ Kavanaugh said federal law ‘leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.’

“Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented… ‘Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions,’ Jackson wrote in dissent… She said the mayor’s ‘absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s court could love.’… The law as written ‘poses no genuine threat to common gift giving, she said, but it ‘clearly covers the kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment [the mayor] solicited after steering the city contracts to the dealership.’”

The ruling expands the devolving perception of government integrity almost everywhere, but particularly against this Court. And given President Biden’s abysmal debate performance on June 27th, will enough voters stay away from the polls in November to elect not only Donald Trump but enough down-ballot Democrats such that Trump would be able to appoint (and easily get confirmation) of very young MAGA-biased Supreme Court justices to pollute that body for decades to come? Assuming democracy survives at all?

I’m Peter Dekom, and we are living in a time where military grade assault weapons are everywhere, where lying for political or economic gain have been normalized and legitimized, where a white Christian minority is setting the rules for everyone and where reality has been replaced by conspiracy theories promulgated from fear and anger.

Dumber Kids or Better Education?

What’s going on in our nation that has spent the last century plus at technology’s leading edge. With a massive single market and lots of high-tech buyers and sellers, some of the finest engineering and scientific universities on Earth, and capital markets designed to fund and foster innovation, we rose and sustained our highest economic and global power. Yet we seem constantly able to shoot ourselves in the foot. We are fracturing and polarizing to decimate that single marketplace… noting that Europe’s divisiveness has been the single driving force that has prevented that Continent from achieving competitiveness comparable to ours. The EU has never got its act together, and now we seem to be imitating that fractious model.

We pride ourselves on low taxes, but we have financed so much of what we do by living on our past achievements and borrowing to maintain our present lifestyle (at least for the well-heeled). We keep telling ourselves that “rich people with big tax cuts” are the “job creators,” even though isn’t any evidence to support that inane theory. Rich folks did not get that way by randomly hiring when they get a tax cut! What we do know is that education, especially quality education, actually is both the genuine “job creator,” and before income inequality devasted the lower and middle classes, the path to upward mobility. Upward mobility seems to have left our building.

But those incredible universities with amazing faculties require undergraduate candidates who are prepared to learn at the necessary level. And since the Supreme Court effectively eliminated DEI from college admissions consideration and enabled state funds for religious charter schools, the quality of public primary and secondary education has never been more important. Today’s blog focuses on that level of education, and to compare apples to apples, I first looked at the US level of education, prepandemic. My bases for comparison are the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) standardized test results focused on 15-year-olds. A late 2018 comparison showed the U.S. ranked 36th in math and 13th in reading out of the 79 countries and regions that participate in the test.

But oddly, as bad as those results are, an analysis from the December 2019 Hechinger Report (authored by Jill Barshay) adds this twist: “Amid the long-term stagnation, there is an important change to note. Inequality is growing. Peggy Carr, associate commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) points out that both exams are showing a widening achievement gap between high- and low-performing students. One in five American 15-year-olds, 19 percent, scored so low on the PISA test that they had difficulty with basic aspects of reading, such as identifying the main ideas in a text of moderate length.

“But the inequality story is a nuanced one. Part of the inequality is between schools with students at wealthier schools posting much higher test scores than students at schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students. But the vast majority of educational inequality in America is inside each school, according to the PISA test score report. Statisticians mathematically teased out inequality between schools versus within each school and found that, in the U.S., only 20 percent of the variation in student performance is between schools. The remaining 80 percent is inside each school.” Unfortunately, the impact of the tax cuts for the rich has seriously reduced public education budgets.

But the polarization of America has taken an even more disastrous toll on the quality of American primary and secondary public schools. Our culture war has prioritized anti-“woke” interpretation of history and civics, religious doctrine and theory over empirical science and generally denigrated highly trained educators as “out of touch elitists.” Alternative educational paths have opened up, looking good on partisan paper but failing miserably to prepare students for a STEM-driven global economy, further distancing American teenagers from being prepared for quality college courses and life careers that can sustain their futures.

Writing for The Morning news feed from the New York Times (June 17th), Dana Goldstein examines the problem: “An overwhelming majority of American students attend public schools. But that number is falling. In part, that’s because in more than half of states, parents can now use public money to educate their kids — at home, online, in private schools. This year, a million students used some kind of private education voucher, more than double the figure from four years earlier, according to new research from EdChoice, a group that supports private-school choice and tracks the sector.

“The result is a growing movement of choose-your-own-adventure education. Parents are permitted to find any program that they think fits their beliefs and their kids’ needs. Yet it’s unclear how, or whether, accountability or standards will be enforced outside traditional schools.

“What’s driving this change? The pandemic prompted many families to reconsider how their children learn. Republican lawmakers embraced private-school choice as part of a broader push for parental rights. (They also see the issue as a way to appeal to young parents — often Black and Latino — who are critical of how public schools serve their children.) And teachers are reporting intense burnout, with some leaving public schools to open small businesses that can accept these vouchers.”

There’s a lot more home-schooling, but Goldstein observed: “A few were Christian conservatives who want the Bible taught as history. One mother complained about L.G.B.T.Q. public school educators and lamented what she said was an emphasis on gender and race… But more common were parents who had nothing against public school except that their children failed to thrive there. Nicole Timmons said her daughter, Sienna, 15, was not moving forward academically. Sienna now attends C.H.O.I.C.E. Preparatory Academy, a microschool in Gwinnett County [Georgia]. It serves an almost all-Black student body.

“The boom in nontraditional education comes with a new political vocabulary. Conservatives who think the government should give parents money for these programs no longer talk much about vouchers. Now they praise money sent directly to families in education savings accounts and buzz about ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘permissionless education’ — no teachers’ unions or curriculum mandates, and far less standardized testing… Private-school choice programs are popular with parents of disabled children. Public school administrators sometimes suggest vouchers to parents when their children are having difficulty, especially with behavior. But accepting a voucher often means enrolling in a program that is not required to follow federal disability law. Private educators often don’t provide on-site therapies.

“Advocates for private-school choice embrace the lack of regulation. They say the market will correct itself as parents withdraw their children from mediocre programs. “We’re in the midst of a change on what we mean by accountability,” said Robert Enlow, chief executive of EdChoice, a right-leaning group.” Unfortunately, the consequences of this flow can be dire. For the most part the quality of STEM courses has fallen, and the public schools with the resulting lower enrollment suffer significant budgets cuts and facilities closing.

I’m Peter Dekom, and at some point those red states prioritizing conservative teachings over the hard and fast fact-based learning required for success in life, you might think, would get the blues, at least when it comes to good teachers teaching factual accuracy.

Electrifying or Just Plain Revolting?

 

  Natrium Plant                                  24M Battery

We do love the benefits of access to lots of energy. It made the Western World, particularly the United States, unbelievably rich, replaced slavery as the driving force behind our economy, moving from ye olde wind and water wheels and massive coal gas belching industrial plans to… oh, we still have a lot of coal gas belching plants around the world… to electrical power from bigger wheels (hydro-electric dams), sunlight-converting silicon chips and wind turbines to nuclear power plants… generating steam to turn powerful wheels to generate electricity… unless they melt down, implode and toxify a regions for… a really, really long time.

So, it may come as a complete surprise that one of the biggest coal producing states – under a GOP Governor (Mark Gordon) – is coming to accept that global warming is very real, must be addressed and is welcoming to any viable technology that can produce clean energy. Soon, Wyoming will have the largest windfarm in the nation, is evolving carbon emission removal from coal-fired electrical power plants and is about to be the birthplace of a new generation of nuclear power generating stations that do not rely on high-pressure steam, which does seem to be the source of most of the meltdowns we have seen. What?! The same nuclear power that can blow us to smithereens?

Sorry Governor Gordon, you are out-of-step with your party’s “only I can fix it” autocratic leader. Why all this emphasis on the ravages of climate change, asks the 45th President, who happens to live in what is, as of this writing, a heavily flooded South Florida: “Donald Trump has been caught downplaying the threat of climate change, insisting that sea levels will only rise ‘one eighth of an inch’ over the next 400 years… ‘That basically means you will have a little more beach front property,’ he said. ‘I really think… nuclear weapons, which I think are the single biggest threat, not global warming.’” The Daily Beast, June 15th. For complete science skeptics or MAGA adherents who do not believe that Donald – why not use bleach to stop COVID – Trump ever misspeaks the truth, we can all relax. OK, Trump is obviously wrong, but here is what can we do.

TerraPower, an engineering company financed in part by Microsoft billionaire, Bill Gates, also believes that Wyoming is the right state to pioneer a completely redesigned nuclear power plant that relies on stable liquid salt to carry heat (hotter and more efficient) instead of dangerous pressurized water. Gates just participated in a groundbreaking ceremony in Kemmerer, Wyoming. His website tells us that this Natrium Plant is “far safer than any existing plant, with the temperatures held under control by the laws of physics instead of human operators who can make mistakes. It would have a shorter construction timeline and be cheaper to operate. And it would be reliable, providing dependable power throughout the day and night. As I looked at the plans for this new reactor, I saw how rethinking nuclear power could overcome the barriers that had hindered it—and revolutionize how we generate power in the U.S. and around the world.” And soon it will be generating power.

We’re learning. And I suspect that mega-billionaire, Phil Anschutz, who is funding a whole new generation of efficient powerlines that will deliver Wyoming electricity to power-hungry California, has no intention of losing money. Indeed, we are now grappling with this era of energy power generation in transition. We may not solve all the issues in time to keep Mar-a-Lago from being flooded off the planet, and we are having more than a few bumps in the road, but it is pretty clear that the future job creation does not lie with the fossil fuel industry.

One of those bumps in the road (highway?) has been the sudden fall in the sale of all-electric vehicles (EV) for lack of a sufficient number of rapid charging stations. Biden’s infrastructure legislation has not been enough, the cost of maintenance for those that have been built was not factored into initial funding, and “range fear” still dominates many would-be EV buyers. Hybrids have surged in popularity as all-electric car sales (and prices) have fallen. Sometimes, it also does seem that politics and the power transition are strange bedfellows. For example, the new 100% tariff the Biden administration has layered onto very inexpensive Chinese-made cars (under $15K) literally undermines the potential resulting demand for rapid charging stations.

We’re also seeing the development of a new generation of “won’t cost an arm and a leg” batteries with ranges of a thousand miles or more. And that would make EVs sell more, last longer and have a much better resale value. Writing for the June 11th FastCompany.com, Adele Peters tells us: “If an electric car is made with a new EV battery from an MIT spinout, you’ll be able to start driving in New York City and keep going until you reach Orlando. The battery, from a company called 24M, is designed to have 1,000 miles of range on a single charge.

“That could convince more people to buy electric cars, since some drivers still say that range anxiety—being concerned about how far they can make it on a single charge—holds them back from making the switch. The anxiety isn’t necessarily warranted: A typical commute is a fraction of the 300- to 400-mile range on many EVs, and drivers can often charge their cars overnight at home. (Once people actually buy an EV, their worries about range tend to disappear.) But for drivers who live in apartments and can’t plug in their cars as easily, or for anyone taking a road trip, a longer range could make a difference… We think that to get to full competitiveness, or full acceptance for those who are used to an internal combustion engine, something in the 1,000-mile range is going to be needed,’ says Rich Chleboski, 24M’s chief financial officer.” In the end, we can and must accelerate this transition.

I’m Peter Dekom, and we need to reject mythmakers with political agendas and reestablish a world based on facts… or we may in fact “enjoy” a version of The Rapture that doesn’t end well for anyone!

A British Take on the Trump-Heritage Foundation Rightwing Wishlist

A British Take on the Trump-Heritage Foundation Rightwing Wishlist

Project 25 – Retribution and Autocracy on Steroids

“The superficiality of the facts and the vagueness of the crimes magnify the harm that Democrats have inflicted on our political norms… Repairing this breach of constitutional norms will require Republicans to follow the age-old maxim: Do unto others as they have done unto you… In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents.” 

John Yoo, UC (Berkeley) law professor — known for the Department of Justice “torture memos” that he wrote supporting waterboarding, National Review (May 29th)

The summary seems: Project 25 or democracy, pick one; they are mutually exclusive. At its most basic level, the rightwing population in the United States is not coming from a good place. For white Christian nationalists (or their followers), there is deep fear that they are being “replaced” by what they see is a rising un-American “majority of minorities.” Thus, if such minorities are to be accorded a clear right to vote and fundamental citizenship equality, by definition, that traditional white constituency would no longer be in control.

And either favorable and partisan courts must cooperate in disenfranchising these minorities, under some revisionist interpretation of the Constitution or that Constitution must go and be replaced by a white Christian nationalist autocrat, unencumbered by those guardrails. A dictator who can obliterate the threat, impose retribution on those opposing the underlying premise of white rule, disassemble the bureaucracy that is designed to foster equality and use the military to impose the mandated changes, by force if necessary.

Last time, when Donald Trump took the helm as President of the United States, he was as surprised as anyone at the results. But over time, a worshiping cult following, and too much adulation and boot licking among an entire political party harnessed to do his bidding and legitimize his obvious falsehoods became the new normal. Gas lighting Rashomon was born.

And this time, if Trump wins, there would be no waiting around to begin implementing the white Christian nationalist agenda (MAGA power): there is a 900+ page detailed plan (labeled Project 25)… and, additionally, a very detailed loyalist list of thousands of vetted and pre-qualified “candidates” programmed to take over. The same organization (the Heritage Foundation) that prepared the list of “acceptable” rightwing nominees for the federal bench, notably including the Supreme Court, that Trump actually nominated… was now dedicated to staffing the entire federal government. So, if you loved the recent Supreme Court rulings, if Trump recaptures the White House, you ain’t nuffin’ yet!

I’ve read a lot of summaries about this terrifying document, but the most cogent review I have seen comes from Mike Wendling, writing for the June 13th BBC. He starts with this simple observation: “The [main GOP/Trump] blueprint, called Project 2025 and produced by the conservative Heritage Foundation, is one of several think-tank proposals for Trump’s platform… Over more than 900 pages, it calls for sacking thousands of civil servants, expanding the power of the president, dismantling the Department of Education and other federal agencies, and sweeping tax cuts… The Project 2025 document outlines four pillars: restore the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation’s sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely…

“Government… Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control – a controversial idea known as ‘unitary executive theory’… In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas… The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government-employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees… The document labels the FBI a ‘bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization’ and calls for drastic overhauls of this and other federal agencies, including eliminating the Department of Education…

“Immigration… Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border – one of Trump’s signature proposals in 2016 - is proposed in the document… However, more prominent are the consolidation of various US immigration agencies and a large expansion in their powers… Other proposals include increasing fees on immigrants and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium…

“Climate and Economy… The document proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next president to ‘stop the war on oil and natural gas’... Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to increase energy production and security… The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is divided on whether the next president should try to boost free trade or raise barriers to exports…

“Tech and education… Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech and telecoms companies that facilitate access to such content would be shut down… The document calls for school choice and parental control over schools, and takes aim at what it calls ‘woke propaganda’...It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws and federal regulations, including ‘sexual orientation’, ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’, ‘gender equality’, ‘abortion’ and ‘reproductive rights’…

“Many of the proposals would face immediate legal challenges if implemented.” It is a God-fearing checklist any evangelical would adore. It is as open and obvious about creating a new autocracy as was Hitler’s Mein Kampf. And Donald Trump has used so many of the scary words directly himself: dictator, deep state, I am your retribution, vermin, the DOJ are dirty no good bastards… plus, as the above John Yoo quote follows the Trump manifesto, Joe Biden, Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, Letitia James, Juan Merchan and even Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton face would criminal prosecution if Trump is reelected.

I’m Peter Dekom, and if you believe in democracy and expect the United States to protect that underlying premise, if Trump is elected, you just might be the immigrant at some other international border seeking asylum!

The Old Developing China Just May Have Developed

The Old Developing China Just May Have Developed

And Perhaps is Overtaking the United States Where We Arrogantly Do Not Expect It

One of the nastiest parts of Sino-American relations, even back when it seemed we were getting along… enough to make China our leading trading partner… was the People’s Republic’s bad habit of stealing our intellectual property, mandating that US companies doing major business in the PRC share patent information and literally sending cadres of industrial spies into every major relevant tech company they could. China also offered ethnic Chinese academics at major American Universities the laboratory of their dreams, a research budget and staff support beyond anything they could achieve in the US, plus status and lifestyle nonpareil.

As we faced an aging military infrastructure and equipment in need of upgrade or replacement, with some of the highest labor costs on earth, China was pretty much designing their future from scratch. China also really need not need to deploy a massive naval force all over the globe, as we had; they simply needed to deploy heavily only in their region, where they currently out-gun the United States. Yet we contemplate how we can protect our east and southeast Asian allies from PRC threats, given China’s expanding extraterritorial claims. Like that new military base, a man-made expansion in the Spratley chain in the South China Sea. Just based on the number of vessels, China’s modernizing navy is larger than our own.

If you want to feel even less secure, Russia’s recent naval display in Cuba, four vessels, represents a Chinese ally with very serious weapons technology. Two of those ships, the frigate Gorshkov and nuclear super-submarine Kazan, are among the most advanced ships in the Russian Navy and can be armed with a variety of precision and hypersonic anti-ship and land attack guided missiles. Exactly the weapons our Navy is most concerned about. China is also pouring money into such upgrades; many here believe both nations may actually be ahead of us in those areas.

With that explosive Chinese economy accumulating a massive dollar-based trade surplus, all the sanctions in the world were beginning to have little or no impact on China’s ability to fund technology growth and sophistication, often building on purloined US patents. One way or another, perhaps by invading Taiwan, the PRC will have those super microchips they still cannot make. While the US military has a more sophisticated military, more advanced weapons research and manufacturing expertise for the most complex systems, China is throwing so much money and training at this sector that they are threating to eclipse the United States… and in some arenas… already have as noted above.

It seems that notwithstanding a massive American commitment to scientific research and education that began under Republican President Dwight Davis Eisenhower in reaction to the 1957 Soviet launch of the first earth-orbiting satellite, Sputnik, as the years passed, American priorities have changed. Wars in Vietnam, the Middle East and Central Asia sapped our economy. Ignoring the proven economic axiom “guns or butter” (we erroneously assumed we could change the “or” to “and”), pressures to keep taxes on the rich low convinced us to fund these economy-sapping efforts by incurring a rapidly rising deficit. Even after these wars ebbed, the slogans that sounded good but was consistently proven false – “incent the job creators,” “trickle down economics,” and “a rising tide floats all boats” – became accepted (though false) mantras that defined GOP basic policy for the last few decades. We were/are living on past investments by prior generations but borrowing our future away to avoid taxing the rich. Huge mistake!

China had no such idiotic revenue policies (though they had lots of other idiotic policies). They funded scientific research and education, continued to steal western technology, and truly accelerated their sophistication into the future. They are more heavily invested in hypersonic weapons and artificial intelligence than we are. As the June 13th The Economist puts it: “If there is one thing the Chinese Communist Party and America’s security hawks agree on, it is that innovation is the secret to geopolitical, economic and military superiority. President Xi Jinping hopes that science and technology will help his country overtake America. Using a mix of export controls and sanctions, politicians in Washington are trying to prevent China from gaining a technological advantage.

“America’s strategy is unlikely to work. As we report this week, Chinese science and innovation are making rapid progress. It is also misguided. If America wants to maintain its lead—and to get the most benefit from the research of China’s talented scientists—it would do better to focus less on keeping Chinese science down and more on pushing itself ahead… In commercial innovation China is also overturning old assumptions. The batteries and electric vehicles it exports are not just cheap, but state-of-the-art. Huawei, a Chinese telecoms firm brought low after most American firms were barred from dealing with it by 2020, is resurgent today and has weaned itself off many foreign suppliers. Although it earns a third of the revenue of Apple or Microsoft, it spends nearly as much as they do on R&D.

“China is not yet the world’s dominant technological power. Huawei still has limited access to advanced chips; self-sufficiency is costly. The country’s many state-owned firms are sclerotic. Much of the spending on research is guided by the state’s heavy hand. And some mediocre universities still produce mediocre research. China’s innovation, in other words, is inefficient. Yet it is an inefficiency that Mr Xi is willing to tolerate in order to produce a sheaf of world-class results.

“All this poses a dilemma for America. With more good science comes new knowledge that benefits all humanity, by solving the world’s problems and improving lives, as well as deepening understanding. Thanks to China’s agronomists, farmers everywhere could reap more bountiful harvests. Its perovskite-based solar panels will work just as well in Gabon as in the Gobi desert. But a more innovative China may also thrive in fields with military uses, such as quantum computing or hypersonic weapons. It will also aim to convert its technological prowess into economic and diplomatic influence.

“So far America has focused on the threats, by trying to stymie China using sanctions and by limiting the flow of data, talent and ideas. After all, hawks say, China is itself notoriously secretive. It failed to share its early work on the virus that causes covid-19, a shocking breach of its responsibilities that could have cost lives—possibly millions of them. If Chinese science is thriving thanks to these tactics, then perhaps America should simply be even harder line and more restrictive.

“That overestimates America’s ability to constrain the whole of Chinese science. Even Huawei has prospered despite foreign sanctions. And it underestimates the cost to America’s own science—including the technology that underpins its security. Rather than copy China’s tactics, America should sharpen its own innovative edge, by enhancing the traits that made it successful.” As we tariff China’s super inexpensive cars so Elon Musk can pay himself mega-billion-dollar annual compensation, we force US consumers to pay through the nose, are effectively delaying implementing the EV infrastructure we need… and still US consumers cannot buy those $12,000 EV cars.

I’m Peter Dekom, and if we want to preserve our economic and political power, we need to start taxing wealth, stop polarizing bickering/fostering conspiracy theories, and get back to basics: STEM education with massive, related R&D, the real job creators and growth stimulators!

Biden’s No-Win Position on the Israel-Hamas War

 

“You have to finish up your war… You gotta get it done.” 

Donald Trump in an interview with the right-wing Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom in late March

“As we look to the future, the only real solution to the situation is a two-state solution over time… There is no other path that guarantees Israel’s security and democracy. There is no other path that guarantees ... that Palestinians can live in peace [with] dignity.” 

Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, also in March

Despite his and his son-in-law’s forays toward wealthy Arab oil states, Donald Trump’s “follow the money” instincts do not include other Arab states and most certainly show no concern for Palestinian civilians. With most evangelicals committed to a Second Coming/The Rapture biblical belief, requiring a “war to end all wars” in the Middle East (Armageddon) based on a mega-powerful Israel, Trump has their and old-line Jewish communities all locked up on a unilateral “whatever Netanyahu wants” policy. “Finish the job” Trump has no issue with civilian deaths pursuing the “total eradication” of Hamas. Biden has no chance of pulling these voters to his side.

Biden can, however, lose critical and traditional support from younger voters, including many Jews, by his unwillingness to limit, control and even stop shipments of munitions to Israel which he absolutely knows will be deployed against innocents. Token gestures, to limit some weapons and a small effort to deliver food and medical supplies to Gaza by sea via a makeshift naval pier, have not moved the needle much for Biden.

It just might be too late to get those younger voters back; too many innocent Palestinians have been killed by Israeli attacks. Walking a middle ground has also made expensive campaign dinners, usually including major older, traditional Jewish Democrats, problematical for Biden. While overseas issues, where the United States is not itself a combatant, are seldom “deciders” in general elections, given the razor thin difference between the presidential candidates’ polling numbers, this year, Biden’s middle ground seems to be a no-win stance. While these angry traditional Dem voters are unlikely to support Trump, their not voting for Biden could be fatal to his reelection chances.

As Tracy Wilkinson, writing for the June 15th Los Angeles Times notes: “[Biden] has not gone as far as President Obama, for example, who insisted Israel freeze construction of settlements in areas claimed by the Palestinians… But when push comes to shove, Biden has sided with Israel, declining to significantly hold back military aid and vetoing United Nations measures opposed by Israel, including a recent one to formally recognize a Palestinian state… Even so, Biden — like most past U.S. leaders — has sought to maintain some balance and support for Palestinians and to present the United States as a potential mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“By contrast, Trump was the first U.S. chief executive who gave near-absolute, unconditional support to Israel, handing the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu everything it asked for and then some… Trump moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to the disputed capital of Jerusalem, the first major country to do so… As president, Trump also endorsed Israeli control of the Golan Heights, a contested fertile plateau that Israel seized from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. He did so without concessions from Israel…

“Trump was so popular among right-wing Israelis that Netanyahu used him as he campaigned for reelection, adorning cities across Israel with huge posters of the two men together. [see above photo] A Jewish settlement in the West Bank named itself after Trump.” Trump easily supported Netanyahu’s rejection of a two-state solution. Yet, the West Bank settlements, now an Israeli rightwing cause célèbre, have always been a major barrier to the possibility of an ultimate Israeli/Palestinian peaceful coexistence.

By contrast to Trump’s posture, “The Biden administration took the unusual step Friday [6/14] of blacklisting a group of Israelis implicated in the looting and destruction of lifesaving humanitarian aid destined for Palestinians trapped in the Gaza Strip after eight months of brutal war… It is only the second time in recent years the U.S. has punished Israeli groups for their violent and sometimes deadly actions against Palestinians… Last year, the State Department announced it was barring U.S. entry to dozens of Jewish settlers who attacked Palestinian villagers in the West Bank, destroyed their properties and attempted to seize their land.” LAT.

Trump simply scoffs at limits to such Jewish settlements, even where Jewish extremists have attacked Palestinian homes and farms, taking such property by force, as Israeli soldiers just stand by and watch. Generally, “Trump has been dismissive of the aspiration of a Palestinian state, although on occasion he has not discounted it completely. He shut down the de facto Palestinian Embassy in Washington and generally refused to meet with Palestinian leaders as president.

“[On the other hand, the] Biden administration has revived long-standing U.S. policy that the Jewish settlements Israel erects in the West Bank are an impediment to peace. Most of the world goes a step further, saying they are illegal. Still, Israel continues to build them, despite protests from the State Department.” LAT But Trump had opened some doors that could have led to a rapprochement between Israel and major Arab states. “To foster closer ties with Saudi Arabia, Trump showed a willingness to overlook the human rights record of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, including the 2018 government-ordered murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

“Trump’s crowning achievement was the so-called Abraham Accords, wherein two Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, for the first time recognized Israel and opened diplomatic ties… It was a breakthrough seen as the beginning of a possible new regional diplomatic order. Saudi Arabia did not join the detente but clearly endorsed it, allowing the UAE and Bahrain to act. That left Riyadh as the dangling carrot, which the Biden administration now pursues, and which Trump, if elected, would like to make a priority.” Needless to say, the Gaza war complicated this effort… but this effort gives Trump a diplomatic edge as Biden struggles with his walking that middle lane.

I’m Peter Dekom, and it seems that the divisiveness among Democratic voters over Israel’s massive overkill in Gaza could actually determine a Trump victory and thus an end to American democracy.

The Ever-Expanding Parallel MAGA Universe

 

The Ever-Expanding Parallel MAGA Universe

Old GOP Myth Becomes Immutable MAGA Doctrine

The term “cult” refers most often to a group of people with usually atypical beliefs living in relative isolation from the world. They tend to centralize around one charismatic person—the cult leader—who orders the beliefs, behaviors, and customs of all the other members. Many cults stand in as de facto new religions for their followers, but some are irreligious in nature. 

MasterClass, November 10, 2022

“The late, great Hannibal Lecter is a wonderful man.” 

Donald Trump at a NJ rally, May 13th, about a fictional movie character

If you say it enough, not only will lots of people believe it, but many will absorb it into their psyche as an immutable truth. The power of a cult leader absolutely requires an identified vulnerable group, a plan that pledges to address the elements that make that group feel vulnerable whether based in fact or fantasy, and active recruitment of that group. Blame, justified or not, accelerates the formation of a cult and raises the power of the charismatic leader who assesses the blame. Where myth and fantasy are the underpinnings of the rational supporting the cult’s meaning, those “alternative facts” become sacred truths, and denying them is often considered a form of sacrilege. Worthy of punishment and retribution. If the cult leader is suffering from delusions of grandeur or other psychological disorders, such characteristics often imbue that leader with a form of mystical power. When a cult gets big enough (think Nazis in WWII), such bizarre beliefs are no longer “atypical”!

But sometimes those “charismatic” traits fall pretty squarely within medical definitions of mental illness. For example, according to the Mayo Clinic’s website, “Schizophrenia is a serious mental health condition that affects how people think, feel and behave. It may result in a mix of hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized thinking and behavior.” According to that same site, dementia can also include confusion and disorientation, seeing things that aren't there and being suspicious, known as paranoia. It’s hard for me to read these definitions, consider the writings of psychologist Mary Trump assessing her own uncle, read the news, and not believe that ex-president Donald Trump suffers from all of the above symptoms.

But even where mental illness is not the cause of the consistent belief in a theory that sounds very plausible – in this case, “trickle-down/supply side” economics – that people keep repeating the behavior based on that theory, one that has never, never, never worked, and are expecting a different result, well…. A vestige of so-called “Reaganomics,” this theory was based on the notion that rich people, with more money in their pockets from reduced taxes, would use that extra cash to hire more people into good jobs… and thus create many new jobs paying lots of taxes to justify the tax reduction. In short, this theory holds that incenting these “job creators” inevitably will create “a rising tide that floats all boats.” But the rather consistent result of reducing taxes for the rich is no real job creation but rising deficits, underfunded government programs and serious pain for those not in those top earning brackets. The rich don’t just hire just because of tax cuts.

Indeed, convicted business fraudster Donald Trump, with lots of bankrupt companies in his wake, and his pack of supply-side economists, are viewed, under every voter poll I have seen, is regarded as 15-20% more competent to helm the adjustments perceived to be needed by the US economy than Joe Biden, whose inflation reduction and infrastructure construction statutes have created millions of new jobs at seriously higher pay. This is the power of mythology. But wait, America, not only does the potential going forward Trump administration passionately support a supply-economics further federal corporate tax cut – the 2017 reduction from 35% to 21% that delivered no new jobs but instead a trillion-dollar hit to the deficit – so do several states considering such proposals to their local tax structure.

That’s bad enough, but one such state (Kansas) – which enacted such a failed supply-side tax cut a decade ago that literally defunded public education so badly that even the GOP legislature overrode their own Republican governor’s veto to reinstate the tax – is still considering another go at what has become sacred MAGA doctrine: that cutting taxes will create jobs and pay for those cuts. Writing for Capital & Main, reproduced in the June 10th FastCompany.com, Marcus Baram explains… that Kansas is: “not alone. Mississippi and other states are pushing tax cuts for the wealthy, which could dramatically reduce funding for education, health and other vital programs…

“Though these tax reductions were widely considered a failure, some of the same forces that backed them are now pushing through income tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy in Kansas as well as in Mississippi and other states… Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves wants to eliminate the state’s personal income tax… The [comparable bill, farther north, benefits the] top 20% of earners in Kansas—those with average annual incomes above $315,000—[who] would get nearly 40% of the benefits, with [supporter, Kansas billionaire Charles] Koch himself receiving an estimated $485,000 in annual tax breaks under the proposal, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan research group that favors a progressive tax system. It would also cost the state almost $650 million every year once fully implemented, per ITEP.

“The bill was sponsored by two lawmakers who have received campaign contributions from Koch and who have significant ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a national organization of conservative lawmakers and corporate interests that drafts ‘model legislation’ for state legislatures to adopt and has long advocated for the elimination of state income taxes. Kansas state Sen. Ty Masterson was named the chairman of ALEC in December, and fellow Sen. Caryn Tyson was named the country’s legislator of the year in 2021 by the group. Neither lawmaker returned calls for comment to Capital & Main.

“Among other groups pushing for the GOP proposals are Americans for Prosperity, a conservative think tank formed decades ago by the wealthiest men in Kansas, Charles and David Koch. While the proposals were being debated, AFP representatives set up a lemonade stand outside the Kansas State House in Topeka to advertise their views.

“When the bill was first introduced, it was met with intense pushback from both Republicans and Democrats. ‘I’m tired of the trickle-down economics. It doesn’t work,’ said GOP Sen. Rob Olson in a speech on the floor of the state Senate… Facing a likely veto from Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, the plan was tweaked by Republican leaders in the legislature but continued to face fierce opposition… ‘The only true income tax relief that’s being given is being given to the top bracket, the wealthiest,’ Democratic Senator and Senate Minority Leader Vic Miller told the Kansas Reflector. ‘If you’re going to give tax relief, it should be directed to those who need it the most, not the ones that need it the least.’”

When facts and common sense have left the building under charismatic leadership of a convicted felon showing serious signs of severe mental deterioration, you have a classic cult of “true believers and followers.”

I’m Peter Dekom, and sometimes those magnificent vestments so many “see” draping their wondrous leader cause the followers to miss the obvious: their emperor has no clothes!

Ah, Those Pretty Young Brides!

   

Ah, Those Pretty Young Brides!

But at Least It Doesn’t Happen Here, Right?

"There is nothing romantic about child marriage. There is nothing romantic about a human rights abuse and about a Kafkaesque legal trap that minors cannot easily get out of." Fraidy Reiss, founder and executive director, Unchained at Last.

In 2016, with statistical help from Pew Research, the World Economic Forum made this observation: “If current trends continue, the number of girls who marry as children will reach nearly one billion by 2030. That’s according to the UN, which launched an initiative earlier this year [2016] to protect girls from child marriage… Girls who marry as children are less likely to achieve their full potential. They are more likely to leave education early, suffer domestic violence, contract HIV/AIDS and die due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth – their bodies simply aren’t ready.

“But child marriage also hurts countries’ economies. It damages social and economic development and leads to a cycle of poverty between generations… And yet, at least 117 countries around the world allow it to happen, according to the Pew Research Center… Pew looked at 198 countries and found that almost all (192) of them have laws that specify when people can legally marry. (Only six countries – Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen – do not specify a minimum age for marriage.)” Thank God, the United States does not have that problem, right? Not exactly.

According to Equality Now, as of July 12, 2023: “Child marriage occurs when one or both of the parties to the marriage are below the age of 18. Child marriage is currently legal in 38 states (only Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont have set the minimum age at 18 and eliminated all exceptions), and 20 U.S. states do not require any minimum age for marriage, with a parental or judicial waiver. Nearly 300,00 children were married in the U.S. between 2000 and 2018. The vast majority were girls wed to adult men, many much older.” Simply, Americans who want legal child brides can find states where such unions are legal. The May 28th Newsweek tells us:

“Jenn Bradbury is among those who got married before becoming an adult… Bradbury, now 45, married a 44-year-old friend of her father when she was 16 years old, after what she told Newsweek was years of grooming that began when she was 14… She said that when her father found out about the abuse, he blamed and tried to kill her, leading to her mother removing her from her father's home in Louisiana and moving her to Florida, but the abuse did not end, Bradbury said… The friend of her father continued to visit, providing a house phone and utilities for her family while she says he continued sexually abusing her, eventually leading to an ectopic pregnancy…

“Bradbury says that her mother believed the only way to fix the situation was to have the two get married, so they did. Years of challenges would follow… ‘The judge didn't stop it. The clerk didn't say anything. No one stopped it. They just let it happen because it's allowed,’ Bradbury said… She eventually left her marriage and now uses her experience to advocate for states to change their laws to end child marriage. She has testified about her experience in states including Connecticut and Massachusetts, which have both stopped allowing the practice of child marriage.” Young female bodies are often physically unable to engage in expected sexual practices or give birth to a healthy child. Parental “waivers” are particularly disgusting; for too many such parents, it’s about the money. Newsweek continues:

“Child marriage is often ‘hiding in plain sight,’ Casey Swegman, director of public policy at the Tahirih Justice Center, told Newsweek… Children may be forced into marriages for many reasons, such as attempts to control female sexuality, ‘correct’ a person's sexuality or cover up statutory rape, she said, adding the issue affects all communities, regardless of religious background and socioeconomic status… ‘When we think about a child who is entering a legal contract with an adult, an adult who has years more life experience, who better understands their rights and resources, you are entering an imbalanced relationship from day one, whether its forced or not,’ Swegman said.

“Some teenagers may view marriage as an escape from a home where there is addiction or unmet mental health needs, but they are ‘often going from a frying pan to fire situation,’ Swegman warned. There is ‘almost always’ sexual abuse in these marriages, which isolate children from family, teachers and friends.” That “Kafkaesque legal trap” noted in the opening quote above is a harsh, double standard in many states: old enough to get married, but not old enough to have the legal right to sign a contract or file for divorce. It often becomes a wrong with no solution.

Fraidy Reiss noted that “domestic shelters routinely turn away unaccompanied minors. If children try to run away from home to escape a forced marriage [in some states], police may return them because it is a status offense to leave home before the age of 18, she said… An adult in this situation might try to retain an attorney to help them figure out where do I go? What do I do? A minor can't easily do even that because contracts with minors typically are voidable,’ she said. ‘It's a worthless piece of paper. And what attorney wants to take on a child as a client?’” Newsweek. This anomaly generally occurs with greater frequency in poorer, red states, but anybody can travel to a permissive state no matter where in the US they may reside.

I’m Peter Dekom, and this entire disgusting practice must stop, everywhere, but there is particularly no excuse for allowing this practice in the United States of America!