The news every hour of every day is political wrongdoing and conflict. The pandemic news is all about conflicting information and warnings about our future. The outside air is smoke and harmful to our lungs. And, I haven't even started on Seattle politics, graffiti, arson and looting. So, here's a change of subject. It's not very important, but it's better than the news.
The Importance of Keeping Things in Proper Perspective
In 1545 Duke Cosimo de Medici commissioned frescoes for the main chapel of the Church at San Lorenzo in Florence. He selected Jacopo Pontormo to do the work. Pontormo filled the chapel ceiling with Biblical scenes – the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark. He worked in the chapel for 11 years rarely leaving it. He had closed the chapel off with walls and partitions so that no one could witness the creation of this masterpiece until he was finished. He died before he could complete the work. When his work was finally seen for the first time the observers were shocked to find the paintings were totally out of proportion to one another. Figures in one scene were entirely too larger or too small in proportion to figures in adjoining scenes. The artist had lost his sense of proportion. He had developed an obsession with the details of what he was painting without taking into account the adjoining scenes. He had lost the ability to see the whole picture. As a result, 11 years of work had to be replaced.
Does that remind you of our present situation in the United States. Everyone has fixed views about politics, religion and life. Discourse is impossible because the issues are seen as extremely important. Having a big picture about life, politics and religion is an objective for most of us.
The Struggle for Women’s Dignity and Role Has a Long History
In 1831 a young woman, Amandine Lucile Aurore Dupin, moved from provinces with her family to Paris. She was a writer and she wanted to publish her work, so she took it to a Paris editor. After reading it he told her “You should make babies, Madam, not literature." Every attempt to publish her work was rejected because she was a woman. Paris and Europe, at the time saw writing as a man's occupation. So, in 1832 she decided to submit her first novel, Indiana, under a pseudonym" George Sand." Not realizing she was a woman the publisher accepted it and it was a major success. From then on, she wrote under the name George Sand and dressed for publishers in men's coats, hats, and boots. Even smoking cigars like a man to continue her writing career.
Not a whole lot has changed since 1831 when it comes to issues of women and their role in our culture. They still struggle as do minorities. Our attitudes about these issues are slowly improving however.
The Bigger the Lie the Easier it is To Sell When Greed is a Factor
In May of 1925 five of the most successful scrap metal dealers were invited to a confidential meeting with the Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Post Telegraphs in Paris. The secret meeting was held at the hotel Carilion which was then the most luxurious hotel in Paris. They met with the Director General himself, Mr. Lustig. The director told them this was an urgent matter requiring complete secrecy. He shared with them that the government was going to have to tear down the Eiffel Tower because it was desperately in need of repairs. Since it was only intended as a temporary structure for the exposition of 1889, its maintenance costs had soared over the years. He explained that rather than spending millions to fix it the government had decided to dismantle it. He told them they had been selected to bid on the dismantling and metal. He invited them to make an offer for the Eiffel Tower, but in total secrecy. After bids had been received one of the five was notified that his bid was the winner. To secure the sale he was instructed to come to the same suite at the hotel with a certified check for winning amount (the equivalent today of about $1 million dollars). The winning dealer followed the instructions, but after arriving began to express doubts about the deal. In response, the director began to complain about his financial status and made other comments that led the dealer to believe the man was looking for a bribe to go through with the deal. That convinced the dealer that this man was genuine and the transaction legitimate because that’s what he would expect from a Paris government official. He handed over the money and was given in exchange an impressive looking bill of sale. He was told he would be notified directly when he could start the demolition work. However, since the matter was secret to not say or do anything until then, Over the next few days he waited for the notice from the government. When he heard nothing, he began to realize something was amiss. He began to make frantic telephone calls only to learn there was no Deputy Director and no plans to dismantle the Eiffel Tower. The scam had been pulled off by Victor Lustig, a highly skilled con artist from Austria-Hungary. He was counting on the dealer being too ashamed and embarrassed to go to the police. He left the country but continued to check newspapers for any reports of the scam. After waiting he returned to Paris and tried to pull the same scam a second time, but this time one of the dealers went to the police and Lustig had to flee to the United States to evade arrest. Eventually he was caught and sent to prison.
Pride, ego and greed are part of our human nature, but it is always shocking to see how some obviously fraudulent projects are so easily sold to others, especially when greed is a factor.
There is a virtual unlimited supply of nonsensical claims and arguments that have been made by president Trump, but two of the recent are truly noteworthy for being logically inconsistent and just plain absurd.
One involves his recent attacks on mail in voting as fraught with the risk of fraud and manipulation. His claim in a tweet, in capitals for emphasis, was: ""MAIL-IN VOTING WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE FRAUD AND ABUSE." He further claimed: "IT WILL ALSO LEAD TO THE END OF OUR GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY."
Mail-in ballots, he said, referring to conspiracy theories, could be stolen from carriers, counterfeited or forged by either forces inside the United States or by “foreign powers who don’t want to see Trump win.” It was recently reported “There is tremendous evidence of fraud whenever you have mail-in ballots,” Mr. Trump claimed during an appearance in Arizona, a statement that has no basis in the experience of the states that give voters the option of voting by mail.
However, on Friday, he urged Americans to use absentee ballots: “People should go and they should vote — or do it absentee ballot.” He said absentee ballots “are great because absentee ballots you have to go through a process to get ’em,” Trump explained. “It’s actually a great thing, absentee ballots. I’m going to be voting absentee,” Trump told reporters. Voters have to go through a process for any mail-in ballots."
However, both mail in votes and absentee ballots are mailed in. They are processed in the same way. There is no distinction between them and Trump's own lawyers acknowledged that there is no difference between "mail-in voting" and "absentee voting" last month in a lawsuit involving Pennsylvania's mail in voting rules.They acknowledged they are the same. Trump and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany have claimed that they voted "absentee" in Florida. But, there is no "absentee" voting in Florida. Instead, the state has a "no excuse" vote-by-mail system that allows anyone to cast a ballot by mail for any reason. They vote by "mail in" voting. His attack on mail in voting while recommending "absentee voting" makes no sense as they are processed in the same way. On top of that, there is no evidence of voter fraud involving mail in ballots anywhere in the country.
Another totally mystifying argument president Trump has been repeatedly making involves testing and the reported number of Covid 19 cases. He has continuously said if we didn't test the number of reported cases would be less. "Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40 million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the cases,” Trump said at a press conference at the White House. “If we did another, you cut that in half, we would have, yet again, half of that. But the headlines are always testing.” He says he has argued for less tests being administered because: “When you test, you have a case,” Trump said. “When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases.”
Think about the total lack of logic of this argument. It is: If you do less tests you will have less reports of the virus. Less virus is needed to get back to normal. So less knowledge about the true facts is an improvement. It's like saying we have too many reports of mass shootings around the country. That is not good for America. If we didn't report them in the news, there would be less shootings to report. It's a nonsensical argument that ignorance of facts changes the facts. It's like arguing the disease of Ebola is infecting and killing people in Africa on an increasing scale.We want less Ebola in the world. If we stop testing for Ebola there will be fewer reports of the disease. As if hiding the truth somehow improves the situation. This is illogical nonsense. Concealing the facts does not change the reality it only produces ignorance about it. In the case of the virus, it also creates a dangerous situation where public leaders have no clue as to the extent of the problem and therefore can't deal with it properly. How could the president of the United States promote dealing with a pandemic which has infected and killed so many people make such a absurd, illogical and dangerous argument?
Mondays killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis was another in a long list around the country of questionable killings by police officers of citizens, especially African American citizens. The death of George Floyd caused by police officer Derek Chauvin is particularly incriminating. It clearly shows an intentional and unnecessary killing of a citizen who was not armed nor resisting arrest.
The video shows a man with his arms handcuffed behind his back while the police officer kneels on the man’s throat. Floyd gasps out “I can’t breathe” 12 times while the officer continues to keep pressure on his neck. Finally gasps “I’m about to die. They’re going to kill me.” He calls out for his mother and dies. For eight minutes Chauvin ignores all of the Floyd’s pleas. It’s hard to imagine a more deliberate and callused murder. Worse, there are other officers standing there witnessing the situation and do absolutely nothing to interfere.
When the video was made public the city’s reaction was to fire Chauvin and the other officers but not arrest him or file charges until there was a riot. When charges were filed it was against Chauvin only and for the least serious of possible charges for causing death. The police officer should have been immediately arrested and promptly charged with second-degree murder. The other officers should have been arrested and investigated for appropriate charges. That failure resulted in rioting in the city. The city seemed unprepared for the inevitable response had considerable damage plus looting occurred.
African Americans and other marginalized citizens have the right to expect accountability for police crimes against them involving abuse of their power. Yet they, and the rest of America, have witnessed over and over again a failure by government to hold the police and others accountable for their crimes and abuse of their power. The constitutional concept of legal accountability applies to all citizens including the police and the public both. This accountability includes people who respond to injustice with violence, riot and looting. The reaction in Seattle and Bellevue to the Floyd killing involved arson, violence and looting. In Seattle the news showed two groups protesting. It began with peaceful protesters demonstrating and later another group arrived. The last group was filmed arriving with backpacks full of explosive devices, fuel for arson and other devices to cause damage. This group began a rampage of graffiti, broken windows, setting police cars on fire and breaking into businesses for looting. Nearly every storefront at the Westlake Center was damaged. The news showed people carrying armfuls of clothing and other property they stole and looted from the stores. There was little if any police confrontation and the crowd seemed to be allowed to do what they wanted for a significant period of time and after considerable damage to downtown Seattle shopping center.
The next day, the city of Bellevue was hit by a crowd who invaded the shopping center, smashed the windows and doors of stores and department stores to begin looting. Groups of people freely moved in and out of the stores carrying armloads of clothing and goods they had stolen. While this was happening there was no police interference and the crowd was unrestricted in their criminal acts. That raises serious questions about the police response in both Seattle and Bellevue to promptly and properly respond to the situation they had to know was likely to occur. However, it appears the police in both cities were unprepared for the extent of the rioting conduct. And, when the police did respond they did so after extensive damage and looting. Their response was too late to prevent the extensive damage done in Seattle or the looting of stores in Bellevue.
Since the rioting, a significant question has been raised about the crowd reaction involving accountability. It has been suggested by thoughtful people that the crowd reaction of violence, arson and looting are an understandable outcome as a result of the continuing failure of leaders to hold the police accountable for their actions. The suggestion is this rioting is a direct consequence of how groups of society, particularly African Americans, have been treated economically and politically in America. The actions of the crowd, they argue, is understandable and justified or at least should be tolerated because of the injustice that they have endured.
My view is that this idea is not logically, morally or legally accurate. I believe that we must hold people personally responsible for their actions and be held accountable for their conduct. Most people agree that there has been a failure to effectively and fairly deal with racism in America. Most people agree that the police and law enforcement generally have not been held accountable for their abuse of power particularly involving people of color and the African American community. However, that fact does not in any way justify a response of arson, violence, rioting and looting because these actions are intrinsically illegal and immoral actions in a constitutional country. Looters carrying armloads of stolen goods out of stores cannot be equated with legitimate protesters on any logical basis. These are not starving people stealing food to feed their children. These are not legitimate protesters. These are people who have taken advantage of a situation and are common thieves who should be held accountable and prosecuted.
The two most well-known leaders of protests involving abuse of human rights are Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Both did advocate violating civil laws as a protest against unfair government abuses of power. Gandhi advocated violating laws relating to the British rule over India. King advocated violating laws calling for separation of races in America. However, throughout their lives they consistently advocating peaceful protest. They strongly condemned violence, arson and looting as a means of achieving the goals of human rights. In fact, both died as a result of violence they condemned by assassination.
The historical fact of unfair and discriminatory treatment in America is undeniable. The overwhelming frustration of people being discriminated against without any change of significance is understandable. The demand for an end of these unfair situations is also fully understandable. However, that does not excuse nor call for toleration of looting stores, burning buildings or violent acts. In both logic and morality, it is undeniable that the end may never be said to justify the means. Just because these actions are understandable doesn’t take them right.
The wrongdoers, whether police or citizens, must be held accountable and responsible for their actions in a constitutional nation like America.
In 1999 the World Trade Organization held a convention in Seattle. But, the convention meeting was quickly overshadowed by street violent protests outside the hotels and convention center. There was rioting, damage to buildings and violence from a crowd estimated at some 40,000 people. The event lasted over several days and became known as the "Battle of Seattle." Yesterday's Seattle riots resulted in more damage and destruction then the Battle of Seattle.
The largely peaceful protests started at about noon on Saturday May 30th protesting the police caused death of George Floyd in Minnesota. While largely peaceful at first, the demonstrations grew chaotic when, within s few hours, a separate group began burning, looting and destroying everything possible. Cars, including police vehicles, were torched. Looting was extensive and Molotov cocktails were thrown. Police discharged tear gas filling the air. Multiple people were injured during the riots including police officers. Protesters confronted officers and were throwing water bottles and fireworks. Flames and black smoke came from burning vehicles people began looting in the Westlake wall shopping area. Groups of people grabbed merchandise by the armful from stores. While downtown businesses have been damaged in the past in Seattle with protests it was never to the extent of this damage. Some broke into Nordstrom Department stpre and began throwing merchandise to the crowd.Nearly every storefront near Westlake Center was shattered. Unfortunately, many of the businesses that were targeted had been closed for weeks because of the pandemic and were already facing extreme financial hardship. Southbound Interstate 5 was closed after protesters walked on the highway.
After extensive damage had been done, Mayor Jenny Durkin issued a two night 5 PM to 5 AM curfew. Gov. Jay Enslee called up 200 National Guard troops for the next seven days at the request of the city. This was the first time the National Guard had been called into Seattle since the riots of 1999. In a statement issued just before 1 AM, SPD Chief Carmen Best described the overnight policing efforts. “Currently, we are still addressing a number of groups of offenders who continue to assault officers and loot the downtown core, indiscriminately,” she wrote. “The National Guard is assisting in controlling the situation downtown. We will continue to respond swiftly to all acts of violence and destruction.” These responses were long after the damage had already been done.
Admittedly, I know very little about crowd control, rioting and law enforcement appropriate action in a situation like this one. Certainly, I also concede these events are relatively rare and particularly so in Seattle. However, the issue of proper crowd control in a situation like this is not a new one. There are established procedures that law enforcement is trained to use. There are classic crowd control formations, appropriate equipment for protection of the officers, pre-planning outlines with protocols, medical and fire assistance available, proven crowd control formations and other known techniques that are taught to law enforcement in situations like this. I'm not aware of any pre-protest planning by the Seattle police chief or Mayor Durkan for this kind of crowd response even though other cities including Portland had experienced it. The mayor didn't call for a curfew or ask the Governor for National Guard assistance until it was totally too late. Seattle Police Department Carmen Best issued a 1:00 am statement, long after the damage was done.
As someone without training or experience in dealing with situations like this, my question is where were the law enforcement personnel? Why wasn't there advance planning by the Mayor and Chief of police given the out of control crowds in other cities. Why hadn't the Mayor and Police Chief been prepared for the likely protest violence when it had occurred in other cities? The pictures I saw on television showed crowds of people totally unrestrained in any way burning vehicles, breaking into stores and doing whatever they wanted to do with little or no law enforcement restraints. I saw barricades and police protecting the municipal building some distance away but not at the scene where the vandalism was being carried out. After extensive looting, burning and damage there was a police movement to move the crowd with tear gas and other devices, but by then the damage had been done. What is the reason this situation wasn't anticipated and planned for to prevent this from getting so out of control? Perhaps we'll learn the answer as the facts become known, but it was very disheartening and shocking for me to see this happen in Seattle.
For entirely too long the news has only been on two subjects: Donald Trump's press campaign conferences which only bear a resemblance to corona virus news and all the negative reporting the virus. It's very depressing. For lack of something else to discuss I'm sharing some favorite stories. Stay well and wash your hands frequently.
Two Southern women listening to a fiery tent preacher: When he condemned stealing, they shouted "Amen." When he condemned lying they shouted "Right On Preacher" But when he condemned gossip they said to one another "Now he's quit preaching and started meddling."
During a severe thunderstorm a mother tuck her little boy into his bed. The boy pleads: "Mommy can I sleep with you?" She tells him, “No I have to sleep with daddy." The boy tells her: “That big sissy."
A man who had been on a safari hunt bragged to all his friends that he had cut the tail off a Man eating lion with only his pocket knife. When they asked him why he hadn’t cut the lion’s head off instead of the tail, he told them “Well, someone had already done that.”
Two pirates, Morty and Sol, meet in a bar. Sol has a patch over one eye, a hook for a hand, and a wooden peg leg. "Ye gads, Sol," says Morty. "What happened to you?" Sol says, "Me pirate ship was attacked, and a lucky shot lopped off me leg. So now I got me a wooden peg." "And your hand?" asks Marty. "When me ship sank, a shark bit me hand off. So now I got me a hook." "OK, but what’s with the eye patch?" "I was standing’ on a dock, and the biggest seagull I ever saw poops right in me eye." "But you don’t go blind from no seagull poop." "True," says Sol. "But it was me first day with the hook."
Bob goes on vacation. He asks his brother Joe to take care of his cat. After a few days on vacation, Joe calls Bob and when he answers, Joe blurts out “Your cat is dead.” Bob is outraged for how he broke the news. He tells his brother, “You could have said, ‘the cat is on the roof and the fire department is trying to get him down,’ Then the next day call and say ‘the cat fell from the roof and is at the vet’s.’ Then you could call and say you were sorry but the cat didn’t make it’ “OK, sorry” the brother says. The next day the brother calls again. When Bob answers, the brother blurts out “Mom’s on the roof.”
A climber fell off a high cliff, and, as he tumbled down, he caught hold of a bush sticking out of the cliff side. Hanging on for dear life, he begins yelling, “Please God, is there anyone up there?” After a pause, a voice says “I will save you through faith.” “Wonderful. Thank you" the man shouts. The voice then says: “All right. I want you to let go of the branch now.” There was a long pause and the man shouts “Hello, is there anybody else up there?”
In the 1949 movie, The Third Man, staring Joseph Cotton and Orson Welles, Welles says to Cotton: “You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”
America’s founding fathers created a government of checks and balances to prevent absolute concentrated power in any one person or group They created a federal system that differentiated between state and national control, as well as three branches of government with distinct powers and responsibilities that had to answer to one another. But, not satisfied that that was enough, they added ten amendments to the Constitution. And in the very first of those amendments, they established a free press. A free and independent press is the keystone of a working democracy and a guard against government power concentrated in one person or group.That's why dictatorships all began by crippling and eventually eliminating the free press in exchange for propaganda.
Even in America, government has attempted to restrain the free press from time to time. Antiwar journalists were arrested in World War I and during the Red Scare. In 1971, the U.S. government attempted to cease publication of the Pentagon Papers. Journalists such as former New York Times reporter Judith Miller have chosen jail sentences rather than reveal confidential sources, and in 2007, Joe Arpaio, then sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona—agitated by investigations into his commercial real estate transactions by the Phoenix New Times—arrested journalists at their homes on false charges.
One of the more outrageous examples of enabling a dictatorship by silencing the free press occurred when the Nazi propaganda ministry, directed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, music, movies and radio. Viewpoints which contradicted Nazi beliefs or attacked the regime were censored or eliminated from all media. During the spring of 1933 a list of books was created that should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They threw books into huge bonfires and that night more than 25,000 books were burned. With the free press eliminated, the dictatorship controlled the media. They flooded it with false propaganda and gained control over the people.
The German example should give all American's concern when similar tactics are employed by our leaders. As a candidate, and ever since serving as president of the United States, President. Donald Trump has consistently attacked any news media which is critical of his conduct or decisions. His common allegation is: "The Fake News Media is doing everything possible to make us look bad. Sad!" The irony of this false claim is that experience has proven the primary source of "fake news" is whenever Mr. Trump has said something.
News reporters and journalists who ask questions that make him uncomfortable are personally attacked, attempted to be intimidated and otherwise being bullied in every way possible by President Trump. The most recent example occurred when Trump called NBC News correspondent Peter Alexander a “terrible reporter” during Friday's White House news briefing for asking what the president would say to Americans who are scared about the coronavirus. Peter Alexander asked, "What do you say to Americans who are scared?" Trump, shaking his head, ripped into Alexander in response.
"I say that you are a terrible reporter," Trump replied. "That's what I say."
The President proceeded to launch into an extended rant against Alexander, saying he asked a "nasty question" and assailing NBC and its parent company, Comcast. "You're doing sensationalism," Trump charged. "And the same with NBC and Comcast. I don't call it Comcast. I call it 'Con-Cast.'"
"Let me just tell you something," Trump added. "That's really bad reporting. And you ought to get back to reporting instead of sensationalism."
Moments later, Kaitlan Collins, a White House correspondent for CNN, asked Trump if it was appropriate to embark on tirades against members of the news media during a public health crisis. Trump defended his verbal assault on Alexander, saying he's "not a good journalist" and launching into another rant against him."Coming together is much harder when we have dishonest journalists," Trump said.
At Thursday's coronavirus press briefing, Trump attacked The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, who have written news questioning his conduct in office. "They're very dishonest," Trump claimed. He went on to then attack the gathered journalists with sarcasm:
“You're actually sitting too close,” said the president, who stood on a crowded podium with administration officials. “Really, we should probably get rid of about another 75, 80 percent of you. I'll have just two or three that I like in this room. I think that's a great way of doing it.”
A question from reporter Jim Acosta at Tuesday’s news conference in New Delhi about foreign electoral interference and Trump’s new acting director of national intelligence quickly degenerated into the president taking aim at CNN’s credibility.
“Mr. President, I think our record on delivering the truth is a lot better than yours sometimes, if you don't mind me saying,” Acosta replied. “Let me tell you about your record,” Trump said. “Your record is so bad you ought to be ashamed of yourself.”
“I’m not ashamed of anything, and our organization’s not ashamed,” Acosta said, as Trump continued, “You probably have the worst record in the history of broadcasting.”
In another example, Trump snapped at PBS News reporter Yamiche Alcindor last week for her “nasty question” about why he doesn’t accept any responsibility for disbanding the White House’s pandemic office in 2018. Ms Alcindor asked Mr Trump to clarify: "You don't know anything about that?" As her microphone audio was cut off, the president said: "We're doing a great job."
Journalist's who ask questions that make Trump uncomfortable, no matter how valid the question, are punished by his response and reaction. He refuses to engage in an honest discussion. His first reaction is to ignore the question and instead make an angry personal attack on the person for asking the question. He always attempts to silence the questioner from responding by turning off the reporter's microphone or instructing aides to take the microphone away from the reporter or talk over the top of the person or demanding the person stop talking. This is a man who is clearly unwilling to stand toe to toe debating an issue and instead takes measures to "cover his ears" to avoid hearing what is being said while trying to silence the other person by bullying and intimidating tactics. His fear of having his failures pointed out and his inability to justify his conduct is also the reason he surrounds himself with those who are willing to agree with him and to get rid of any who aren't willing to do so.
America needs an independent media who are dedicated to questioning the conduct of people we elect to office. It is an important role in the balance of power called for in the constitution. The president of the United States serves the people and not the other way around. If that person is unwilling to respond to questions regarding their conduct in office they should be removed from that office.
The virus has taken over the news which is understandable given the seriousness of the situation. There is a problem when politics become involved in health. The president measures the virus impact on his political reelection. When faced with a worldwide potential pandemic the obvious requirement is honesty and transparency. But, when involved in a pending presidential election, politics becomes part of the problem. The President counts on the strong economy as an important factor supporting his reelection. The virus impacts the economy in a very significant way. Consequently, the politically driven decision is to either immediately control the spread of the virus or misrepresent the seriousness of it with the hope that will restore the stock market and the economy along with reelection chances. That has resulted in confusion, inaction And outright lies from the president.
Consequentially, we should pay attention to the independent health authorities and be skeptical of the national reporting from the Whitehouse. We are fortunate that Washington’s governor has taken such a professional and commanding control over our state problem. He, and Seattle political leaders appear to be doing a very professional and competent job of dealing with the issue.
On a personal subject, my failure to be current in this blog was due to a knee revision surgery on March 3rd. It appeared to have been successful until I developed a problem of minor bleeding from the surgical site. In spite of my icing the knee day and night and elevating, it continued to have a minimal bleeding. It appears that there is no specific site of bleeding but rather a collection of blood from the surgery. That was in part due to the blood thinning medicine that I'd been taking even though I quit taking it as instructed three days before surgery. Additional stitches were taken and the knee re-bandaged. I am very optimistic or favorable resolution. We see the doctor again next week. Best of all I'm not in any real pain or discomfort. Fortunately, I have prayer groups on my side & a great doctor.
IS IT CHRISTIAN TO DECIDE THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
The New York Times ran an article "Evangelicals Closing Ranks with President" regarding evangelical support for Donald Trump after a Christian publication supported his impeachment. One letter to the editor was this one:
“Like many Americans, I don’t like President Trump’s rude and hostile tweets and comments; I abhor his lack of both repentance and humility. For these reasons, as an evangelical Christian, I would never hold up Mr. Trump as an example of someone who lives out his Christian faith. But morality has never been a qualification for the office of president…Many on the left are up in arms because some Christians do not want to do things that conflict with their
religious beliefs, like provide abortion services or wedding services for same-sex couples. We may or may not agree with these beliefs, but we should support the right of our fellow Christians and people of other faiths to believe these things. Mr. Trump will support those rights; Democrats would trample them. Our country and our Christian faith can survive immoral presidents…”
The sentiments expressed in this letter are the common justification given by Christian evangelicals, including American Catholic bishops, for supporting President Trump in spite of his words and conduct. Like someone holding their nose, they are fully aware of his lies, his undemocratic presidential actions and his personal immoral conduct, but continue to support him anyway because he is promoting their selfish interests. In poll after poll of evangelical Christians have condoned their hypocrisy in supporting Trump by arguing he has kept his promises to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices and that his actions regarding their religious beliefs show he is “on the right side of God.” Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, said the only explanation for Trump being in the White House was that “God put him there.” Worse, their actions say: " He may be unchristian in all of his conduct, but we still support him because our goal is to impose our religious beliefs on everybody else by passing laws and packing the courts with judges who agree with us." That justification is in violation of the the U.S. Constitution and fails every basic Christian test.
All of these excuses rest the idea "the ends justify the means." This discredited notion has several names: "Situation Ethics," "Moral Relativity," "end justifies the means," "practicality," and other terms. One man called it "using the devil's tools to do God's work." However, it is never right to do what is wrong. Christianity has always taught that this rationalization is flawed and contrary to Christian beliefs. Christians are the last people who should offer this as an excuse for condoning and a political leader they know is being immoral and undermining the constitutional fabric of this country. Teddy Roosevelt once said: "No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency."
What I do not understand is why Americans, who have this point of view, do not see the evil in having the objective of imposing their personal religious beliefs through laws on all Americans whether they are Christian or not? What kind of a constitutional democracy do we have when one group of Americans are campaigning to pass religious laws which would impose their personal religious views on everyone else? Why would they in good conscience support an immoral and dishonest leader whose policies undermine American values, the environment while benefiting big business and corporations, but who is willing to help them pass laws Imposing their personal religious views on everyone else whether they agree or not?
Governor Mario Cuomo of New York was criticized by religious leaders for not promoting a state constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. In response he said, “When should I argue to make my religious value your morality? My rule of conduct is your limitation? What are the rules and policies that should influence the exercise of the right to argue and promote values? I believe I have a mission as a Catholic. Does that mean I am in conscience required to do everything I can as governor to translate my religious values into the laws and regulations of the state of New York or the United States?” On another occasion he said: “politically, I’m saying, I’m not required to do that. I’m not required because I’m a Catholic, to make everybody else Catholic. To make everybody else Catholic by passing a law. I’m not required to use politics to achieve with the church cannot accept to the pulpit. “
I fully agree everyone has the right to the opinion Donald Trump's actions don't justify removal from office through impeachment. However, everyone should be also obligated to comply with the law and are also obligated to tell the truth. Politicians like everyone else have a duty to make logical arguments and not rely upon groundless excuses in support of their opinion.
When the House was conducting it's investigation, Donald Trump and his Republican supporters called it a "Kangaroo court" and a hoax which they said was anything but a fair tribunal. Trump refused to follow the law by complying with subpoenas for witnesses and documents. Instead, he ordered the documents to be concealed from the subpoenas and directed witnesses to refuse to testify. As a result, important relevant information was denied the House investigation. There was a total stonewalling by the president to protect himself from exposure of any wrong doing. He kept insisting he was waiting for the trial in the senate where he would get a "fair hearing" and when he would fully cooperate. Once the trial began in the senate, however, he changed his tune. Now, he and his lawyers insisted they wanted the case immediately dismissed on the grounds there was insufficient evidence for removal because of a lack of evidence. Yes, that same evidence he had ordered concealed and had refused to provide the House because he said they were waiting for the trial in the senate.
In fact, the Trump administration and the republicans have shifted from one set of excuses to another. Their excuses include one of the more illogical excuses which the Wall Street Journal recently adopted in an editorial which attacked the House managers for asking the senate to subpoena the missing and concealed documents and relevant witnesses. The paper labeled their request for witnesses and documents “more than a little disingenuous” because it claimed it was the House’s fault for failing to go to court over the Trump stonewalling refusal to cooperate.
That rationalization is not only disingenuous but preposterous. The House did subpoena witnesses and demand documents but were denied access by president Trump. The witnesses and documents were not obtained because he ordered the witnesses not to appear or testify and directed that the agencies and persons holding documents to refuse to produce them. They weren't obtained because the Trump administration obstinately disobeyed the rules and comply with the subpoenas. When the trial of the impeachment began, the House managers asked the Senate to obtain the documents with their Senate power but so far the senate under Moscow Mitch has refused and ordered the trial to go ahead without the missing evidence. What's preposterous is that the Trump supporters have taken advantage of this situation to now argue the case should be dismissed because of lack of evidence. By that, they mean the evidence president Trump has been hiding and which the senate won't order produced. It is analogous to filing a lawsuit and having the defendant just refuse to follow the rules of discovery and blatantly refuse to provide key, relevant documents and witnesses under their exclusive control. At trial, to then take advantage of their wrongdoing by arguing the case must now be dismissed for lack of the evidence they are illegally concealing.
The Republican senators have now listened to the opening argument of Trump's lawyers and have gone on television to say that the charges against him have no merit because not one witness has testified who actually spoke directly with Trump or heard first hand. Amazing! And, why is this the case? Because Trump has ordered the witnesses who did hear him and were present, to refuse to testify. How can any honest, rational person base an argument on the failure to produce testimony when the reason is they have been compelled not to testify?
In addition, these same Republican senators were the ones saying the case had no merit before the hearings began, then hypocritically took the oath to fairly try the case when they had already announced they had made up their mind. Now, before the trial is over, they again announce their mind is made up. Their oath and basic justice requires jurors to not make up their mind until all of the evidence has been presented and full discussion. Yet, these hypocritical foot soldiers of Donald Trump have no hesitation in falsely taking an oath as well as ignoring their sworn duty of fair judgment.
if you want to see evidence of one of the most grievous of the hypocritical senators, see this: https://youtu.be/knMIXTTVKx4
In view of the absurd illogical suggestion and the compelling reasons for production of witness testimony and documents now being concealed, the Senate should reject their “Wizard of Oz” plea to “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” and issue the subpoenas.
What is the senate and the Trump administration hiding they are afraid will be revealed? Whatever happened to honesty, reason and fair play in Washington DC?
We just returned from Scottsdale. Unfortunately, we were only there a very short time. Not enough time to make contact with friends. The trip was primarily one for completing needed projects. Our first project was bringing the house "up to speed" because everything seems to need something done when we are away from the house for a couple of months. Our projects included a meeting with our realtors since the house on the market to be sold. In the meantime we can continue to enjoy it until there is a sale. We certainly aren't in any hurry to sell it. We are just trying to simplify our lives. Hopefully, we will be able to see friends and be more available on our return in a few weeks. We were fortunate that the weather was sunny. Over the previous several days they had a lot of rain and flash flooding. Each day we were there we had sunny weather with temperatures in the high 70s and mid 80s.
We were surprised to learn on the news that this area, Maricopa County, has the highest rate of West Nile virus in the country. I don't recall having problems with mosquitoes here in Scottsdale at any time in the past, but we certainly have them this time, As soon as cold weather comes the problem should be taken care of, but in the meantime it's a nuisance.
As to the affairs of the state, it is surprising to me that the daily newspaper in Phoenix, the Arizona Republic, is not a supporter of Donald Trump. The state and this county are conservative Republican areas. They traditionally elect Republicans to office. However, the newspaper was a severe critic of the former sheriff, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was notorious for his abuse of civil rights and ignoring legal protections for people. In addition, the paper has not hesitated to expose state government and local government wrongdoing as well as political improprieties.
Like every other newspaper and television station in the country, local TV and the newspaper have widely covered the recent developments involving Donald Trump and his contacts with the president of the Ukraine over solicitation for political dirt on Trump's chief political opponent Joe Biden and his son. The Republicans and the White House have developed a list of "talking points" to defend the actions of President trump and his lawyer Mr. Giuliani. What is striking to me is that none of the talking point responses deal with the truth of the facts. Instead, they employ well known logic evasion tactics. which are well-recognized logical fallacies. They include the technique Trump has employed from the time of his candidacy to the present time of ignoring the allegation and instead making a personal attack on the person making claims. This tactic of name-calling and personal attacks on integrity and
character of the person making the allegation while not responding to the allegation has been Trump's most common tactic since his candidacy. He and his supporters continue to use this evasion tactic.
Another tactic outlined in the talking points deals with the idea two wrongs make a right. This consists of not addressing the claim being made and instead pointing out similar conduct done by others. The response is that the person being blamed isn't the only one who is done the same thing. The idea is that therefore the person blamed should be excused or that the conduct was justified. This kind of excuse making is often referred to as a "strawman" excuse. In this case trump supporters claim that years ago when Joe Biden was vice president he allegedly contacted the Ukraine about protecting his son who had business dealings there. This totally debunked claim has been proven untrue. But, even if it were true it would be irrelevant to the admitted violation of this sitting president of the United States asking a foreign power for assistance in his political race for reelection. It would not justify or excuse such a clear violation of federal law. Nor does it make any difference whether a reward or punishment was offered in exchange for the favor. A "quid pro quo" is not required to have a serious violation of federal law in this regard.
I thought the clearest illustration of Republican response to the facts was House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy's interview on the television program 60 Minutes last Sunday. McCarthy was widely criticized for his total refusal to answer clear questions and instead continually repeat talking points. He wouldn't respond to the fact that it is not insignificant that President Trump had blocked $400 million in military aid to the Ukraine just days before this call was made. He ignored the fact that about President Trump referred to the United States and been "good" to the Ukraine before he then pointedly asked for a "favor" regarding investigating the Biden claim. Yet, McCarthy refused to give any response to these admitted facts.
One wonders about President Trump's thinking when he decided to ask for help from the Ukraine. After all, we had just gone through a two-year investigation whether the trump administration had violated the law by seeking the assistance of Russia in his election campaign. With all of the publicity about the matter over such a long period of time it's hard to imagine that any American and especially President Trump would not fully understand that it is a serious violation of law to ask a foreign power to become involved in an American political campaign. Yet, Mr. Trump first overrode Congress and withheld millions of dollars in military aide to the Ukraine while following that up with a request to the Ukraine: "I would like you to do us a favor." That favor was a political favor to help Mr. Trump in his reelection bid. That request is a clear violation of serious law. Either the President somehow was ignorant of how serious a violation that was in spite of all the Muller publicity or he simply believed he was above the law and no one could touch him. Either way, it is disturbing.
The question then becomes what to do about it. The choices for the Democrats are to either ignore or investigate it. Given his public admission of what he said and the clear violation of a significant law, it's hard to consider ignoring. However, investigation does not require impeachment proceedings which have now been undertaken. My own view about impeachment is the same as that of New York Times columnist David Brooks. The impeachment process involves instituting the investigation of whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a trial for removal from office. The removal from office requires a majority vote of the Senate. In order to have a removal at least 20 Republican senators would have to vote for removal. That's assuming all the Democratic senators voted to remove from office as well. Given the political climate, it's highly unlikely there would be enough votes to make the impeachment successful with a vote of removal from office. If not removed, that would mean that Mr. Trump would have been vindicated. In all probability that would happen before the presidential election which would favor Mr. Trump. In addition, at least now, the American people are divided on whether any investigation or impeachment should proceed.
I don't see the benefit of an attempted removal from office impeachment proceedings. I do see the benefit and the obligation to thoroughly investigate. I think that Trump administration officials who refuse to cooperate or testify should be promptly prosecuted for contempt of Congress. They should be punished for actions which would make them above the law. The American people are entitled to know the truth about this situation.