The concept of the filibuster has made headlines this week and it very existence has been threatened. What is a filibuster, its an attempt by the minority to slowdown, thwart or stop legislation they do not agree with. The filibuster is not explicitly granted in the constitution but is a part of the Senate rules, a process that is allowed by the constitution. The concept of filibuster goes back to Roman times and has been used in other governments. The philosophy behind the filibuster is much the same driving force that has been a part of American political philosophy since the beginning, protect the minority opinion from being smashed by an overbearing majority.
The constitution has a dual purpose, to set up the government and then to restrict its power. The filibuster is an extension of that restriction. It is also a political tool to prove that a Senator is representing their States wishes and some form of ideology. Senator Strom Thurmond used the filibuster several time while opposing civil rights legislation. Not only did he oppose the legislation he also went against his own party, Democrat, to represent what he felt was the opinion of his state. South Carolina. It takes a super majority. 60 Senators, to close debate which in many cases will allow it to go on for a long time.
Today, many of the majority Democrats have pushed to remove the filibuster from the Senate rules. This would allow for legislation that is popular for the moment to be passed by simple majority vote. The removal of rules that protect the minority from having any power to shape legislation is not a victory for democracy but a move toward a dictatorship of the majority. I would also point out to those who seek this to PLEASEThink what it will mean when they are no longer in the majority and the other party can legislate with no restrictions.
I would like to say I am happy that Congress finally passed a covid-19 relief bill. I would like to but cannot since this is the wrong bill at the wrong time with most of it aimed at the wrong things. I am happy that an additional $1400.00 will be going out, but it not going to impact the economy and could have been accomplished months ago had the Democrat party been more concerned with the people then trying to make sure President Trump did not get credit. I listened to Chuck Shummer today say that the money will help reduce poverty, how? The poverty level is currently at 10.5%, the lowest it has ever been and has declined steadily for years, but that does not fit the lefts narrative. It is suppose to help reopen schools and help struggling businesses through loans and grants, but at what cost? While only 9% is actually directed at direct covid relief the rest is designed to send tax dollars to state and local governments to offset the cost of implementing mitigation programs. Those of us who have followed how government programs are run know that most of the money will get eaten up by an increased in bureaucracy with little ever getting to the intended target. No this is a bad bill that will cost the tax payer and accomplish little.
The US House of Representatives passed HR 1 also known as “For the People Act.” The intent of this act is, as stated in the bill, “To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.” While this sounds wonderful and people will question how anybody can oppose this, the answer is simple, it is an undemocratic intrusion on legitimate citizens voting power. Overall, the problem is that it intends to usurp State control over their election process and bring it under control of the federal government. If you recall from civics class, when they had such things, one of the main concerns of the States was an all-powerful central government. This bill is a move toward that. It limits the actions to elections for federal office, but to be serious the only election of a federal office that is nation wide is that of President/Vice-President. Senate and House elections are intended to vote in, or out, persons representing the State or districts.
In the first section of the act, titled Voter Registration Modernization,” it attempts to bring in the internet. Again, a noble objective with ignoble intent. I have no objection to using online registration but there has to be some form of validation. In an attempt to assure validation the applicant must:
(a) Requiring Availability Of Internet For Online Registration.—Each State, acting through the chief State election official, shall ensure that the following services are available to the public
“(1) Online application for voter registration.
“(2) Online assistance to applicants in applying to register to vote.
“(3) Online completion and submission by applicants of the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission pursuant to section 9(a)(2), including assistance with providing a signature as required under subsection (c)).
“(4) Online receipt of completed voter registration applications.
“(b) Acceptance Of Completed Applications.—A State shall accept an online voter registration application provided by an individual under this section
“(1) the individual meets the same voter registration requirements applicable to individuals who register to vote by mail in accordance with section 6(a)(1) using the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission pursuant to section 9(a)(2); and
“(2) the individual meets the requirements of subsection (c) to provide a signature in electronic form (but only in the case of applications submitted during or after the second year in which this section is in effect in the State).
“(c) Signature Requirements.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, an individual meets the requirements of this subsection as follows:
“(A) In the case of an individual who has a signature on file with a State agency, including the State motor vehicle authority, that is required to provide voter registration services under this Act or any other law, the individual consents to the transfer of that electronic signature.
“(B) If subparagraph (A) does not apply, the individual submits with the application an electronic copy of the individual’s handwritten signature through electronic means.
“(C) If subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B) do not apply, the individual executes a computerized mark in the signature field on an online voter registration application, in accordance with reasonable security measures established by the State, but only if the State accepts such mark from the individual.
In other words, almost anything counts as a signature, and anyone can register.
Next, the act demands that all eligible voters be registered automatically by other agencies such as motor vehicle departments when you get a driver’s license. This will be automatic, and the person needs to decline if they do not wish to be registered. All States must also allow for same day registration and mandate a minimum of 15-day early voting. It makes it very difficult for States to purge voter list of ineligible voters. It also allows for mail-in ballots for any reason and once an application for mail-in ballot is made it is considered a request for all future elections. It continues with prohibition of foreign entities election interference, which is already established in law. Demands that all candidates release 10 years’ worth of tax returns, guess who that is aimed at. Strengthens oversight of online political advertising, which depending on all is making decisions on what is wrong likely will run afoul of the 1st amendment. It declares the Supreme Court wrong in Citizens United and moves to remove large corporate contributions to political campaigns. Good luck with that. It also aims to end gerrymandering, again good luck.
There is a good deal more in this act, but the bottom line is that the Federal Government is imposing liberal ideology on States for the purpose of ensuring a left-wing voter majority. This will include those who should not be considered eligible or even existing. There is very little in this act that is designed to enhance citizens right to vote or protect that right. In fact, it does just the opposite. I do not think this has much chance in the Senate, but it may pass. There will be a number of lawsuits to come out of this and should the republicans recapture the house and senate in 2022 will be repealed. This bill of course is designed to make sure that does not happen.
Reparations to the African American community for the sin of slavery has once again made it into the mainstream conversation. Cedric Richmond, a White House advisor has indicated that the President may take unilateral action to bypass Congress and institute some form of reparations to Black Americans. This would not be the first time the US government has paid reparations for past actions including to native American tribes, Native Hawaiian and others for mistreatment and land confiscation. These reparations in most cases were paid to the actual victims of government misdeeds, such as those Japanese Americans interned in camps during World War II or those African Americans subjected to horrific experiments such as those in Tuskegee. The question now, so many years later, is who is to receive these reparations and who is to pay for them.
According to Richmond a purpose of reparations is because “we have to start breaking down systemic racism and barriers that have held people of color back and especially African Americans.” “We have to do stuff now.” The problem with this is that systemic racism is a myth perpetuated on the country and most people of color have made great strides and live a normal middle class American existence. There are no survivors of slavery to be paid. Those horrors that many point out are part of history and have been imposed on many of our citizens, black and white.
While the slave trade is one of the earliest and most repugnant forms, there are other types of ethnic and racial suppression. One of the earliest groups known to have been enslaved in mass were the Jewish tribes in the middle east. Anti-Semitism was well established before the holocaust and the German government has been paying reparations since the end of the war. Anti-Semitism continued after the war; I remember the story my parents told of being told that when trying to book their honeymoon they were turned down. The reason given by the travel agent was that the resort was restricted, no Jews. When it was offered to try again explaining they were Christian, to their great honor they said they did not want to stay at such a place. Today of course we see the continuation of this by the liberal left including BDS. Irish, Italian, Asian and Polish have experienced prejudice and violence over the years. To set the record straight what others have experienced is nothing compared to what African Americans have over the years.
Regardless of the harm done are reparations the answer. Beyond reparations Richmond supports making Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) tuition free. In the past there have been a number of civil rights acts and legislation that was meant to address and redress the wrongs of the past. Such actions as the Voting Rights Act, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Affirmative action legislation other action to grant special considerations to historically deprived groups. These made way for the beginning of full citizenship rights for blacks in America, rights that should never have been denied.
Fifty years after, we should be beyond the point of continuing special considerations. While we need to keep an eye out and ensure all have an equal opportunity, we are past interfering with normal growth. Reparations have become a buzz word of the left without any substance behind it or reasons for it. It is time to move forward to solve actual problems today.
As you can tell from the title, I am no Dr, Suess. I do need to talk to you today about him. By now we all know that Dr. Suess has come under attack for his books having “undertones of racism.” While others have mentioned in the past some of the imagery in Dr. Suess books did portray racial stereotypes, the main study being used today is an article in “Research on Diversity in Youth Literature,” by Katie Ishizuka and Ramón Stephens.
Since the authors have reached back to Suess’s past to prove a racist predilection it is important to look at the authors past and current positions. To their credit they mentioned it in the paper “Katie is a director and Japanese American researcher for the critical literacy organization, The Conscious Kid. Her grandparents were incarcerated at Manzanar and Minidoka concentration camps during World War II, so her family was directly impacted by the anti-Japanese rhetoric and hysteria that Seuss fueled and espoused. Ramón is a director and Black male educator for The Conscious Kid. A CRT (Critical Race Theory) framework was employed due to his professional training and to address Black teacher advocacy in teaching.”
March 2nd is Read Across America Day; the date was picked because it is Theodor Seuss Geisel’s birthday. This year he would have been 117, which means he was born in 1904. He was raised in Springfield MA and went to Dartmouth College as an undergrad and then attended Lincoln College, Oxford. Intending to be an English teacher he was diverted by another student, Helen Palmer who would be his wife, to use his skills at drawing and illustration. Following collage, he launched a career doing Political cartoons and illustrations for marketing. Now we have a Youngman in the mid-1920s to early 1930’s working in advertisement the authors of depict it as “In spite of Dr. Seuss’ extensive body of explicitly racist published works dehumanizing and degrading Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), and people from other marginalized groups (including Jewish people and Muslims), many differentiate and defend the author’s children’s books as “promoting tolerance,” and even “anti-racist.” This last, seems to piss the authors off to no end.
I will admit I did not read every word of the paper but read most of it and understand the intent of the authors. In explaining how they went about their study; “Our study sought to evaluate the claims that his children’s books are anti-racist, and was shaped by the research question: How and to what extent are non-White characters depicted in Dr. Seuss’ children’s books? We designed our study to provide important insights into the manner and extent to which White characters and characters of color are portrayed, and assess their implications to the development and reinforcement of racial bias in young children.”
The question is, did they really search out the truth or did they look for information that supported their predetermined conclusion? In the background of the paper under Seuss’ History of Publishing Racist Works they go back to his Undergraduate days; “In the 1920s, Dr. Seuss published anti-Black and anti-Semitic cartoons in Dartmouth’s humor magazine, the Jack-O-Lantern. He depicted a Jewish couple (captioned “the Cohen’s”) with oversized noses and Jewish merchants on a football field with “Quarterback Mosenblum” refusing to relinquish the ball until a bargain price has been established for the goods being sold. In the same issue of Jack-O-Lantern, Seuss drew Black male boxers as gorillas.” I cannot defend these images they are fairly common for the time. If the depiction of the Quarterback causes censorship we will need to ban “The Merchant of Venice.” Much of what he did as a political cartoonist and illustrations he did in marketing reflected mass appeal and that is what politics and marketing is all about. Most of the advertisements in the 50’s and 60’s depicted women in subservient roles wearing stings of pearls while in house dresses. Should we ban everything Mary Taylor Moore did because she once dress as a fairy and danced around a refrigerator? Ishizuka personalizes his anti-Japanese work during the war and talks about his work with Frank Capra to dehumanize the Japanese. I am sorry but this was a war and Pearl Harbor was very fresh in the minds of America. If Suess is to be punished let us ban the works of Capra such as “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
The paper starts out with the premise that Suess was an unrepentant racist. The biases of Ishizuka and Stephens runs through this paper, In particular we must address the concept of Critical Race Theory which deep in the assessment. Stephens academic career has focused on race and CRT as well as critical literacy. These subjects have been subjected to the complaint that they are too judgmental based on the assumption that all white people suffer from white privilege and support in one form or another white supremacy. These terms run as a consistent theme in the paper. When researching this subject, the authors point out that the cat in the hat is based on blackface and minstrel shows indicates a deep-seated misunderstanding of the books. They also state that any defense of Suess in based on whiteness.
Keep reading Suess to your children, it encourages reading and teaches tolerance.
We have heard a lot about something called diversity, brought up again form the Golden Globe awards. The awards are voted on by the members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. For many years there have been complaints about how the nominations are made and voted on. Recently it was pointed out that the studio that made ‘Emily in Paris’ treated members of the association to an all-expense paid visit to Paris and the area where the show was filmed. This is as opposed to studios taking out full page ads and putting up billboards to get their films pushed forward during Oscar time. Now, in this age of political correctness, the main complaint is lack of diversity in the voting members.
Which leads us to today’s topic, DIVERSITY. As always let us define the word. Generally, diversity means variety, having ranges of different something. When discussed in a social, business, or academic setting it means inclusion of different races, political thought, sexual orientation, gender, or ethnic backgrounds. I can agree with all of this and desire it in my life. Today however we are using the term to mean quota.
Making any group maintain a membership based on percentages of any of the above does not guarantee a better group. It may guarantee the appearance of diversity but not the desired outcome of a diverse grouping. If someone is hired based on a racial quota it would likely mean that person is only going to interact with that racial group with little chance to grow professionally.
America today has the most racially diverse population on the planet. In the past they have been segregated and that was wrong, and from a business and social growth standpoint, stupid. It has been over the years. through legislation and self-correcting, changed. Yet we are being bombarded with calls to greater diversity. We have diversified but are being pushed into quotas which will serve no one.
The reason for his hue and cry is because those calling for greater diversity are those on the left who reject diversity in political speech. The left is the least diverse group in composition and thought. If we look back on the last couple of presidential campaigns the right had the most diverse group of candidates while the left personified old and white. What we should be striving for is the ability to bring in different ideas and discuss them. Both the left and right do come to the table with different ideas but there is no discussion, just yelling and hatred.
The political leadership will not change so it is up to us to PLEASEThink about what we want and where we want to be and force the change.
To recap last week, a plastic potato was neutered and Dr. Suess was declared a racist. On the plus side President Biden did take action on the Iranian proxy militias that attacked US interests in Iraq. Let’s return however to the first items and discuss cancel culture. Let us define, according to Wikipedia:
Cancel culture (or call-out culture) is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those who are subject to this ostracism are said to be “cancelled”.Merriam-Webster notes that to “cancel”, as used in this context, means “to stop giving support to that person” while Dictionary.com, in its pop-culture dictionary, defines cancel culture as “withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive.” The expression “cancel culture” has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship… Former US President Barack Obama warned against social media call-out culture saying “People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids and, you know, share certain things with you.” Former US President Donald Trump also criticized cancel culture in a speech in July 2020, comparing it to totalitarianism and claiming that it is a political weapon used to punish and shame dissenters by driving them from their jobs and demanding submission.
Cancel culture today goes far beyond ostracism and censorship, it can go as far as physical violence has manifested itself from what is known as postmodernism. Postmodernism is a recent addition to western philosophy. Postmodernism is seen in artistic thought, architectural design and social criticism. The first two are not a concern it is the last. I will let you look up postmodernism on your own, but a short intro in to the basic concept is ignore all that is know, teardown anything from the past and rebuild from scratch. Which brings us back to cancel culture.
What we have seen over the past decades has been an attack on the very foundations of our civilization. A true attempt to cancel the American and other western cultures. Many of those in the front line of this war call themselves “Social Justice Warriors.” What is wrong with fighting for social justice, nothing, unless your are not and just using the term. Most past philosophies have contributed to the growth of society from the classics to modern time. Around 1500AD (CE if you like) modern philosophy brought us through the enlightenment to today, constantly adapting and moving forward.
We are subjected daily to the consequences of believing in such ideas as White Privilege and Critical Race Theory. To go along with this nonsense you have to believe that every white person in the world is racist and that all actions taken are designed to deny people of color a fair chance. Most recently a group in Washington State demanded that the bicycle helmet law be repeal because it is racist. The reason is that all people of color are poor and cannot afford helmets. Another aspect of tearing down society is to maintain that there has been no progress in racial equality and therefore we must reduce the country to ash and start over.
I am not saying racism does not exist, if does of course all over the world. The House just passed what they call the Equality Act meant to protect LGBTQ+ citizens. The problem is a misunderstand, intentional or not, that total and unquestioned equality is a good idea, it is not. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of God, in the eyes of the law and in political action. Not everyone is equal to every one else. The Idea that transgender males should be allowed to compete with biological females is absurd. I hate to tell the left that there is a difference between the genders that cannot be overcome by legislation.
This argument can go on forever , I just wanted to begin the process of having everyone PLEASEThink about what is going on. More to follow.
Yesterday President Biden finally acted regarding the recent attacks on US interests in Iraq by Iranian backed militias in SYRIA. While I congratulate the President for acting, I question the what and wherefore of the attack. According to reports there were several options presented to the president and the one chosen was the smallest target. This would not be a problem provided there was a political or military reason for the target selection. The only political reason seems to be domestic consumption. The other reason for target selection is the impact it will make and the message it will send.
The stated purpose was to launch a measured and proportional attack that would send a message but not lead to any escalation. This explanation shows that the new administration knows nothing about the politics or culture of the region. The hatred for the west is deep and profound. There are conflicting reports as to the results of the attack. They go from only infrastructure was attacked up to 17 people killed. In any case attacking these militias will always result in retaliation and escalation.
In 1993 then President Clinton ordered retaliatory attacks into Baghdad aimed at punishing Iraqi intelligence for their part in a plot to assassinate former President Bush, and Afghanistan and Sudan in response to the bombing if US Embassies in Africa. For the most part the buildings attacked in Baghdad were damaged but since it was done in the early morning. In Afghanistan and Sudan mush the same, in Afghanistan the camps targeted were empty. The reasons given were once again, to send a message. The effect of these messages was stepped up terror attacks in Europe and the US with the 9/11 grand finally.
Internally prominent republicans have applauded the move while several democrat law makers called it an illegal move. Internationally the Russians complained they were not informed in time to deconflict the battle space, Syria called it a violation of their sovereignty. Iraq was informed as well prior to the mission and likely informed the militias in time for them to vacate the area, at least most.
It is unlikely that this attack will do more than heighten tensions in the region and Iran will likely put Biden on notice that this will only delay the process to reestablishing the Iran deal. As said, I am happy Biden did something and hope it is successful but feel it will not be. It was the wrong action in the wrong area. Biden will learn it will take more force to impact terrorist.
After the January 6th riots House Speaker Pelosi asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to have the nuclear launch codes removed from President Trump. To his great credit General Milley explained to her that it could not be done but that there were safeguards in place to ensure that any lunch could not be ordered on a whim. To let everyone, know the president does not have a launch button on his desk that he can push anytime he would like. He has access to the launch codes that will authorize the military to attack preset targets. Should he call for the codes there will be a number of people that will follow the “football” in, and they will have the authority to not follow the president’s orders if they feel it to be capricious or unlawful.
Recently 30 democrat members of congress authored a letter with the intent of changing the system that would remove the president from being the sole authority in issuing the launch codes. What could cause these members of congress to take up this request in unknown. They either have no idea has the system works or do know and are trying to make political hay. I do not believe that this would ever get far but if it were to, we need to understand the second and third order effect this would have on national security.
Should a counterstrike, or even a first strike, ever become necessary the current chain of command contains cool heads and experience in what would be required and to what degree. Compare this with a partisan congressional committee trying to make a split-second decision. So far congress has not been able to come up with a budget or a workable plan to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. One of the accepted doctrines of the time that kept the cold war cold was MAD “Mutually Assured Destruction.” The doctrine held that if any one side launched an attack the other would respond immediately assure both sides would be destroyed. Now imagine that a future enemy, say Iran or North Korea, developed the capacity to launch a nuclear strike on the US or more likely in the short-term China. If they assessed that a US counterstrike would be delayed or maybe never happen then there is no deterrence. All because a partisan group made a power grab owing to their political philosophy that all power resides in the collective rather than the individual.
When next we get a chance to vote PLEASEThink about the individual candidate, regardless of party, and vote for that person’s ability to represent you not some ideology.
Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor several investigations followed that always ended up blaming lack of intelligence for the fact that the military was not prepared. In fact several reports indicated that the Japanize intended to attack there. One in particular, the Martin-Bellinger report, issue in March of 1941 was a virtual copy of the actual Japanese plan. This along with other reports and indications fell on deaf ears since it was assume Hawaii was too far from Japan to be a target and that the Japanese forces were not capable of launching such an attack. Lack of adequate intelligence was cited as the reason the military was not prepared.
On January 6, 2021 the US Capitol building was attacked by an out of control mob attempting to stop the certification vote for Biden. The Capitol police were overwhelmed as they appeared to be totally unprepared for the assault. We now know that there was at least one FBI report that indicated violence. We also know that Speaker Pelosi had been offered re-enforcement the night before but turned the down, the House Speaker has authority over security. We also know that based on the numbers and types of people entering DC that something was likely to happen. The leader of the proud boys, Enrique Tarrio, had been stopped the day before the riot and denied access to the city. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) had told his staff to stay home and only had his Chief of Staff with him that day, citing fear of violence. Yet the Senate hearing highlighted intelligence failures for the lack of adequate protection.
I do not mean to compare Pearl Harbor with the riot at the Capitol, but to point out how those in charge always come up with the same excuse. Intelligence failure is the most prominent excuse in for military failure and can be used anywhere when intelligence is ignored (can you tell I am a retired intel guy).
The point I am trying to make is that it is time we stop trying to come-up with excuses and work to fix problems. One constant with past investigations into “intelligence failures” is lack of communications between responsible agencies. This includes the Pearl Harbor commission report, the Church Commision report (Vietnam), the 9/11 Commission report and now it is being set to b a problem with the Jan. 6th riot. On the front page of the Washington Post under the headline it reads “EX-SECURITY CHIEFS TESTIFY ON BREACH – Warnings missed, threat underestimated, they say.”
In the Article of Impeachment passed by the house, with no real investigation or hearing, they said the President should have known his words would cause the riot. We can now say that law enforcement should have known there was a problem coming and been better prepared. PLEASEThink about what happened and how it should have been handled. Lets hold those in leadership positions to account.
pleasethink1 