How to Manufacture a Scandal

Donald Trump, in the opening days of his second term in the White House, has revealed a huge scandal involving the US Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is a government program that makes grants, primarily in poor and developing countries. Trump and others in the MAGA movement have been ultra critical of these grants recently, claiming that they take US taxpayer dollars and provide extravagances for foreign countries while Americans go hungry and homeless.

In recent interviews, Trump claimed that USAID was rife with corruption, and said that money from the grants given by USAID was being used for ridiculous purposes, often in ways that end up harming the United States. One of his favorite examples of wasted spending is a grant given to Gaza for $50 million worth of condoms.

Obviously, such a grant on it’s face seems wasteful. Why are we providing condoms to people living in Gaza? And if we’re going to provide condoms, why would we spend so much. After all, fewer than 2.2 million people live in Gaza. The whole premise reeks of mismanagement and the potential for corruption.

The only problem was, it wasn’t true. (It took Elon Musk several days, but he finally admitted it wasn’t true) The grant Trump referred to spent exactly zero dollars on condoms for Gaza. That didn’t stop him from doubling-down, claiming that Palestinians were using the condoms to build bombs, although it wasn’t clear exactly how that was possible.

The controversy brewing up around USAID is a test case for the Trump Administration. It is a trial balloon that Trump and his accomplices hope they can use to dismantle government agencies and institutions, and consolidate power in the Executive.

Author Joel Emery has written about how Trump is using the totally manufactured scandal over USAID, and his writing has been eye-opening. I normally don’t share complete articles from other writers, but I was so impressed with what Joel had to say, I wanted to share it here in its entirety.

Here’s what Joel wrote on 2/8/25:


From Joel Emery:

The USAID “Scandal” and the Playbook of Manufactured Outrage

The dismantling of USAID isn’t about fraud. It’s not about waste. And it’s certainly not about making government more efficient. Instead, it’s a test case for a new era of governance—one where facts are optional, reality is shaped by cherry-picked narratives, and faith in a leader replaces independent sources of truth.

Rather than conducting an actual audit, Musk and Trump have used a familiar tactic—manufacture a scandal, flood the space with selective outrage, and use it to justify dismantling an agency they already wanted gone. It’s an attack on facts themselves—and if it works here, it will be repeated elsewhere.

***

Misinformation doesn’t have to be an outright lie to be effective. The most powerful form of disinformation is cherry-picking—taking a real event or number, stripping it of context, and reframing it for maximum outrage.

Take a look at a few of the White House’s official justifications for gutting USAID:

Claim: “USAID spent $6 million on tourism in Egypt.”
Reality: This funding was for education and economic development in North Sinai, not tourism. The grant was announced in 2019 during Trump’s first administration. Stripping away the date and purpose makes it sound like a recent, frivolous expenditure rather than part of an established economic aid initiative.

Claim: “USAID spent $1.5 million to promote workplace diversity in Serbia.”
Reality: This was part of a broader economic initiative to increase job opportunities in Serbia—where workplace discrimination limits economic participation. The program focused on helping businesses grow by improving inclusivity—but was reframed as an ideological “waste” rather than an economic development effort.

Claim: “USAID spent $47,000 on a transgender opera in Colombia.”
Reality: This was not a USAID grant at all—it was issued by the State Department, not USAID. The grant supported an arts program aimed at increasing representation in Colombia’s opera scene. By misattributing the funding to USAID and framing it solely as a “transgender opera”, the claim was designed to provoke cultural outrage rather than discuss arts funding in global diplomacy.

Could an actual audit be conducted on how these funds were used? Absolutely. In a functioning government, there should always be room for debate over whether certain initiatives are priorities or whether they are effective. But that is not what is happening here.

Instead of evaluating whether these programs delivered results or whether better alternatives exist, these numbers were stripped of context and framed for maximum outrage—not to improve policy, but to justify dismantling an agency outright. A real debate would analyze impact and effectiveness, not manipulate selective facts to push a predetermined conclusion.

The biggest red flag? If USAID were truly corrupt, they would be showing full financial audits, not vague accusations.

***

If the goal were actually to root out inefficiencies, a proper USAID audit wouldn’t be done in a day or two based on cherry-picked spending line items. Audits—even for small organizations—are lengthy, comprehensive, and detail both strengths and weaknesses.

A real audit would:

  • Be conducted by independent agencies (GAO, OIG, CBO), qualified and experienced leaders, or objective, appointed and vetted contracted individuals or organizations.
  • Use full financial forensic analysis, not cherry-picked line items.
  • Compare USAID to other government expenditures for context.
  • Provide publicly available, transparent findings.
  • Recommend measured reforms, not mass firings.

Real audits include:

  • Positives and negatives—not just failures.
  • Strengths and weaknesses—where the agency is effective and where it isn’t.
  • Successes and failures—not just the failures someone wants to highlight.
  • Annotated findings with full transparency—each claim links back to data.

This takes months, not days—because an audit can’t be done by just extracting data, running it through an algorithm (AI or otherwise), and issuing selective pronouncements. Instead, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) simply declared USAID “beyond repair” and started shutting it down—no audit needed.

This isn’t about USAID—it’s about eliminating institutions. And if they can do this to USAID, they can do it to the CDC, NOAA, or any other agency that provides inconvenient facts.

***

The attack on USAID is just the beginning. If this strategy works, other congressionally created and funded agencies that provide oversight, enforce regulations, or provide objective information will be next.

The same manufactured outrage playbook will be applied to:

  • The CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) – Criticized for interfering in free markets and overregulating financial institutions.
  • The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) – Framed as an obstacle to economic growth by restricting corporate and investment practices.
  • The IRS – Cast as a weaponized agency persecuting political enemies.
  • The Pentagon – Attacked over spending inefficiencies and social policies.
  • The Federal Reserve – Accused of economic manipulation and globalist control.
  • The DOJ & FBI – Portrayed as corrupt institutions waging partisan investigations.
  • The Department of Education – Framed as a wasteful bureaucracy pushing ideological agendas.
  • The EPA – Blamed for stifling business growth through overregulation.

Each will be misrepresented and undermined not through comprehensive audits and evidence-based reform, but through cherry-picked data, selective outrage, and preordained conclusions that justify dismantling their authority.

The irony? Real audits of these agencies would be fantastic. If the goal were truly efficiency, effectiveness, and responsible governance, independent reviews would be welcomed. A thorough, transparent audit of USAID, the CFPB, the SEC, the IRS, or the Pentagon would provide critical insights for better decision-making. But that’s not what’s happening.

Instead of pursuing genuine oversight and accountability, the administration is manufacturing outrage and using it as a justification to dismantle institutions outright—not to fix them, but to eliminate their independence.

***

The final step in this process isn’t just about cutting waste—it’s about removing any part of the government that isn’t directly controlled by the executive branch.

  • No independent oversight.
  • No neutral agencies providing inconvenient data.
  • No checks on power.

This isn’t about USAID—it’s about whether any institution will be allowed to exist outside the direct control of a single leader.

The next time an agency or institution is suddenly declared “too corrupt to fix,” ask yourself:

  • Where’s the full audit?
  • Why is the data missing?
  • Who benefits from removing this institution?

When facts disappear, power takes their place. That’s what’s happening here.

Addendum: One aspect of this attack on USAID that isn’t getting enough press is that it is being led by Elon  Musk, an unelected tech entrepreneur and the world’s wealthiest person. Musk claims that USAID is corrupt, is pushing a far-left Marxist agenda, and is a criminal organization. However, until recently, neither Musk nor Republicans in Congress have had much negative to say about USAID. In fact, Musk’s businesses have been the recipients of USAID grants.

Musk heads up the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an organization created out of whole cloth. This “department” is made up of Musk and six “DOGE Bros” aged 19-24. The Doge Bros are computer programmers, not forensic accountants, some of whom have a history of illegal computer hacking and racist behavior. Only the best and brightest.

It’s odd that Musk and his minions started their supposed attempt to save taxpayer funds by going after USAID, an agency who’s budget accounts for only about 0.5% of the government’s budget. They could have gone after the Pentagon, which is the single largest discretionary item on the US budget and which failed the last seven audits it has undergone, but instead, he went after one of the smallest. Why?

You may be surprised to learn that prior to his assault on USAID, Musk was under investigation by that agency for money his StarLink business received as part of America’s contribution to Ukraine in their ongoing war with Russia. Ironically (or maybe not), Musk has not mentioned anything about the now defunct investigation or the money his company received.

But that’s not all. Tesla and Space X, both Musk-owned companies, were the target of 17 separate open investigations by the Department of Labor. The Department of Transportation had an open investigation looking at Tesla. The Department of Defense was investigating SpaceX, and the Agriculture Department was investigating Neuralink, a Musk-owned company involved in brain-computer interfaces. In every one of these departments, the inspectors general–the very people tasked with investigating and exposing fraud, corruption, and abuse–were fired once Donald Trump took office. Does that make sense?

And despite Musk’s attack on USAID and other agencies, it’s important to remember that Musk himself is one of the biggest beneficiaries of government largess. He received money to help start Tesla, the electric car company, including a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy. Tesla also received government grants that helped the company develop its supercharger network.

Space X, has received more that $18 billion in government contracts over the past decade, helping to grow the business into the world’s largest aerospace company. In fact, in 2025, Elon Musk-owned companies are scheduled to receive $8 million per day in taxpayer funds. It seems odd having one of the biggest individual beneficiaries of government spending also be the one investigating corruption and fraud in government spending, doesn’t it?

The bottom line is, as Joel Emery points out above, actual audits of government departments would be welcome. If there’s fraud or corruption–and there almost certainly is–it should be discovered and addressed. That is done by forensic accountants, not an unelected billionaire and six guys of questionable background. Do the audits, publish the results, and hold wrongdoers accountable. But don’t allow some rando, who just happened to spend more than $270 million to get the President elected, rummage through the government departments, disrupting  their work and tearing things apart. The chaos he’s causing effects real people.

Facebooktwitter

Life Advice From Jimmy Buffett

Jimmy Buffett lived an enviable life. He spent his days in the sunshine, seemed to always have a good time, played music for adoring fans, and he became wealthy in the process. Love him or hate him, Jimmy knew how to live.

Despite his untimely passing last year, Jimmy left us a few tips on how to live a happy, satisfying life, even as we get older. Here’s what he had to say:


Some advice to others from a fellow aging fella… 😂

  1. “Take naps like they’re happy hour.” Don’t let anyone shame you for nodding off. Naps are nature’s way of giving you a little slice of paradise.
  2. “Remember: sand in your shoes is better than snow in your driveway.” If retirement hasn’t taught you to be a snowbird yet, well, what’re you waitin’ for?
  3. “When in doubt, flip-flop it out.” Ditch the fancy shoes. Life’s too short for anything that’s not comfortable.
  4. “Drink your margaritas frozen and your coffee lukewarm.” Hot coffee’s for people with somewhere to be, sip yours slow and take it easy.
  5. “You’re only as old as the friends you call to bail you out.” Keep a few rowdy buddies around. Who says mischief has an age limit?
  6. “Forget the beach body. Just make sure your hat has a good brim.” Cover up, sunscreen up, and enjoy the beach—life’s better with a good tan and no sunburn.
  7. “Don’t worry about remembering anyone’s name. Just call everybody ‘buddy’ or ‘darlin’.” Works like a charm and keeps the peace.
  8. “Splurge on the good guacamole, your kids can fight over the will.” Why save all the fun for later? Enjoy it now. Life’s short, guac is extra, so live a little.
  9. “If you can’t change it, paint it a wild color.” Bored with the porch? Paint it turquoise. Who says a little color can’t fix the soul?
  10. “Dancing’s for everyone. Just give ‘em a warning if you’re goin’ to do the twist.” Loosen up the hips and keep a sense of humor, you’re never too old for a little boogie.
  11. “Trade secrets for good stories.” At this age, there’s no need to keep all those secrets. Tell those tales, embellish a little, make ‘em laugh.
  12. “Smile lines are just proof you’ve lived right.” Wear those wrinkles with pride, they’re a souvenir from the ride.
  13. “Always carry two things: reading glasses and a sense of humor.” Life’s clearer with both.
  14. “Go barefoot whenever you can.” Life’s more fun with sand between your toes and grass under your feet.
  15. “Tell your kids you’re off to chase the sunset.” They may think you’re joking, but there’s magic in those last golden rays. Chase ‘em, catch ‘em, soak it all in.
Facebooktwitter

The Five States of Texas

John Nance Garner, known to many as “Cactus Jack,” may be most famous for his time as Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president, but his legacy extends far beyond that. A prominent Texas congressman, Garner was known for his bold ideas and his enduring love for his home state. One of his most audacious proposals was the suggestion that Texas could, and perhaps should, break itself into five distinct states—a notion that has lingered as a fascinating “what-if” in the state’s history.

Garner’s idea wasn’t born from a mere desire for political power. Rather, it was a response to the immense size of Texas and its rapidly growing population. As a legislator and a leader in the House of Representatives, Garner argued that Texas, with its vast landscape and burgeoning cities, deserved far more influence in Washington. His solution was simple: divide Texas into five states, each of which could send its own senators to Congress and gain more representation.

At the time, Garner’s proposal seemed far-fetched. However, it rested on a unique provision in Texas’ admission to the United States in 1845, which granted the state the right to divide itself without requiring the approval of Congress. This clause, included in the joint resolution admitting Texas, set it apart from all other states and made Garner’s suggestion not entirely as wild as it seemed.

The idea of dividing Texas into multiple states wasn’t new, though. In fact, the concept had been debated ever since Texas became a part of the United States. But its roots stretch even further back, to the time before Texas was a state at all.

Texas Before Statehood

Before becoming a state in 1845, Texas had a long and complicated history. In the early 1800s, the land that would become Texas was part of the Spanish Empire. After Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, Texas became a part of Mexico. However, tensions between the Anglo settlers who had moved to Texas and the Mexican government quickly escalated. By 1835, the settlers, led by figures like Sam Houston, declared their independence from Mexico, starting the Texas Revolution.

The rebellion culminated in the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, where Texas forces defeated the Mexican army and captured General Antonio López de Santa Anna. With this victory, the Republic of Texas was born. For the next nine years, Texas existed as a sovereign nation, independent from both Mexico and the United States. It operated with its own government, currency, and military, although it faced ongoing pressure from Mexico to rejoin the country.

Despite its sovereignty, the Republic of Texas struggled to maintain its independence. It was financially unstable, with a large national debt and limited resources. Moreover, the issue of whether to join the United States became a major point of contention. Some Texans, particularly in the east, saw annexation as the best route to economic prosperity and security. Others, particularly in the west, were wary of becoming part of the U.S. for fear of losing their autonomy.

The Texas Annexation and the Four-State Clause

In the early 1840s, as tensions with Mexico remained high, the desire for annexation grew stronger. Eventually, the United States, under President James K. Polk, agreed to admit Texas as a state in 1845. However, the terms of Texas’ admission into the Union were unlike any other state in the nation. In the joint resolution passed by Congress, it was specifically stated that Texas had the right to divide itself into as many as five states, with the consent of its citizens. This unusual provision was included due to the unique circumstances surrounding Texas’ annexation.

At the time, the question of slavery was a major point of contention in U.S. politics, and the addition of Texas to the Union had the potential to shift the balance of power between free and slave states. The clause allowing Texas to divide itself was seen as a way to placate both Southern and Northern interests. By dividing the state into multiple parts, the South could ensure that Texas remained a stronghold for slavery, while the North could avoid giving Texas too much influence in the Senate.

The provision came about largely due to the efforts of Isaac Van Zandt, a prominent diplomat from the Texas Republic. Van Zandt worked closely with Southern senators and representatives to secure Texas’ entry into the Union on favorable terms, including the four-state clause. The clause passed with Texas’ admission to the Union in 1845 and became a part of the state’s legal framework.

However, the idea of dividing Texas was not only about politics. It also reflected the practical difficulties of governing such a vast and remote land. In the years following its annexation, many Texans in the western and northern parts of the state felt neglected by the central government in Austin. The idea of creating smaller states was seen as a solution to these concerns, and some, like Van Zandt, believed that dividing the state would allow for better governance and greater political influence.

Early Attempts to Divide Texas

The notion of splitting Texas into multiple states did not fade quickly. In fact, the idea was seriously considered during the mid-1800s. In 1847, Isaac Van Zandt ran for governor on a platform that included dividing Texas into up to four states. His reasoning was twofold: first, he believed that a divided Texas would wield more political power in Washington, and second, he argued that it would make governing the sprawling state more efficient.

Despite his arguments, Van Zandt did not win the election, and the idea of dividing the state lost some momentum. However, the issue was brought up again in 1852, when a proposal to split Texas along the Brazos River was put before the state legislature. The plan was to divide the state into two parts: one for the eastern and more populous regions, and another for the sparsely populated western territories. The proposal, however, was rejected by a wide margin, as many Texans were unwilling to give up the pride of having a single state.

In the years following the Civil War, as Reconstruction took hold, the question of division resurfaced. Radical Republicans, who had gained control of the Texas state government, proposed creating a West Texas state that would be more aligned with Union ideals. They hoped that this new state would be able to rejoin the Union before the rest of Texas. However, this plan was fraught with challenges. Texans were unable to agree on the details of how to divide the state, and the idea was ultimately abandoned.

The 1920s and 1930s: A Revival of Division Talk

In the early 20th century, as Texas experienced rapid growth and development, the idea of dividing the state resurfaced once again. In 1921, Governor Pat M. Neff vetoed a bill to build a college in West Texas, and in response, a large group of frustrated West Texans gathered in Sweetwater and drafted resolutions calling for the state’s breakup. They demanded that the legislature redistrict the state and build the promised college or face the threat of division.

The proposal, however, did not gain much traction, and it was temporarily quieted when Texas Tech University was established in Lubbock in 1923. However, just a few years later, Garner once again brought up the idea of division, this time in the context of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. Garner suggested that a divided Texas could wield more political power in Washington, but his idea was largely dismissed.

The Enduring Legacy of Texas’ Unique Status

Though no serious attempt has been made to divide Texas in modern times, the idea persists as a curiosity in both political and cultural discussions. Over the years, various political analysts and commentators have toyed with the idea of dividing Texas into five states, each with its own political identity. Some have even suggested that such a split could change the balance of power in Congress.

But despite these ongoing discussions, most Texans are fiercely proud of their state’s unity and independence. There’s a deep-seated pride in being part of a state so large and powerful that it could theoretically divide itself at will. This pride is rooted in Texas’ unique history as a former independent republic and its status as the only state with the legal right to divide itself.

As Donald W. Whisenhunt, a Texas native and author of The Five States of Texas: An Immodest Proposal, pointed out, the idea of dividing Texas may be appealing at first glance, but the reality is much more complicated. The state’s vast oil wealth, its major state universities, and its deep-rooted identity make division an unlikely prospect. “Texas is the biggest, the best, and the first,” Whisenhunt says. “That’s a pride that’s hard to give up.”

In the end, while the idea of dividing Texas may remain a captivating thought experiment, it’s unlikely to ever become a reality. The state’s unique history, its cultural pride, and the practical challenges of division all ensure that Texas will remain united, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

Facebooktwitter

Embracing a Fact-Based Reality

Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the NYU Stern School of Business, recently wrote an article for The Atlantic comparing our currently fractured and fragmented society with what is described in the Bible following the building and ultimate destruction of the Tower of Babel. In his article, entitled “Why the Past Ten Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” Haidt recounts how before the Tower was built, the people were one, sharing a common language, common references, and a common reality. After the Tower was built and then destroyed—some say by God—the people splintered into factions, speaking different languages, using different references, and living different realities.

Sound familiar? Haidt thinks so.

Rather than having a Tower to blame for our current fragmented society, Haidt points the finger of blame at social media. He writes:

“Social scientists have identified at least three major forces that collectively bind together successful democracies: social capital (extensive social networks with high levels of trust), strong institutions, and shared stories. Social media has weakened all three.”

The “shared stories” part of Haidt’s quote jumped out at me. I have been amazed in recent years how people living in the same country, often the same state or city, can have such wildly divergent views of reality. For comparison’s sake, consider the United States during the Vietnam War.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Americans got their news about the war from local newspapers, national newspapers, magazines, and TV network news. For the most part, all of these outlets presented a similar view of reality. There were no wild speculations, conspiracy theories, or easily debunked claims about the war, at least not coming from the sources we depended on to shape our reality.

Despite the cohesiveness of our information sources, people drew very different conclusions about the war. Some supported it, some opposed it, but everyone saw the reality of it in the same light. We all saw the video footage, we all heard the same reports, and we all accepted the truth of what we were seeing and hearing.

If the Vietnam War were to happen today, as a society, we could not agree on the reality of the war or the circumstances surrounding it. Some would support it, some would oppose it, some would claim it was being orchestrated by a race of lizard people, some would blame George Soros and other liberal billionaires, some would claim it was nothing more than a conservative plot to distract us from the truth of climate change, and others would swear that the war wasn’t real and was being produced on a sound stage in Hollywood. And all of the claims would have some platform wiling to spread the claim, regardless of whether or not there were facts available to support it. Our reality is fragmented to the point where we no longer live in the same world as our family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

The American Founding Fathers may not have envisioned the rise of social media, but they did have a fear for what social media has ultimately wrought. Haidt points to the anger and outrage that social media often produces, and says this about our Founding Fathers:

“It was just this kind of twitchy and explosive spread of anger that James Madison had tried to protect us from as he was drafting the U.S. Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution were excellent social psychologists. They knew that democracy had an Achilles’ heel because it depended on the collective judgment of the people, and democratic communities are subject to ‘the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions’…The tech companies that enhanced virality from 2009 to 2012 brought us deep into Madison’s nightmare. Many authors quote his comments in “Federalist No. 10” on the innate human proclivity toward ‘faction,’ by which he meant our tendency to divide ourselves into teams or parties that are so inflamed with “mutual animosity” that they are “much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good…But that essay continues on to a less quoted yet equally important insight, about democracy’s vulnerability to triviality. Madison notes that people are so prone to factionalism that ‘where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.”

Even in Madison’s day, there was a concern for “alternative facts.”  In Madison’s day, falsehoods could spread because it was difficult to distribute information based in reality. No wide-spread outlets existed to share the truth of what was going on in the world. Today, with the internet and social media, everyone has the ability to spread their version of reality, regardless of whether facts exist to support the spreaders version of reality or not.

I say all of this as a kind of prelude to the larger point I would like to make about our current fragmentation. Haidt is correct that social media has played a major role in our societal fragmentation, but at least for me, his article paints a picture of us as helplessness victims to an all-powerful social media. I don’t see it that way. Despite social media’s ability to spread lies as well as or better than the truth, the truth is still out there for us to access.

One of the tactics used by the MAGA movement—and voiced by one of the architects of that movement, Steve Bannon—is to “flood the zone with shit.” What Bannon and others mean by that turn of phrase is to overload people with so much information that they don’t know what to believe. As a result, they give up on the concept of truth. Instead, they turn to a strongman—in this case, Donald Trump—and believe whatever he says. They ignore news outlets that say anything against their fact-free beliefs and gravitate toward those outlets that tell them what they already believe. And they continue to follow those outlets, even when the outlets are exposed for spreading falsehoods, preferring to believe a comfortable lie than a difficult truth.

I recently read a social media post that illustrates this point well. It involves a conversation between two men, Dan and Denny. I won’t use their last names because my intention isn’t to shame or expose anyone. I simply want to illustrate what people believe and say when they’ve given up on the concept of truth and have chosen to accept lies rather than seek facts.

The exchange between Dan and Denny started when Dan posted on his Facebook page. His post read:

“Waking up to not hearing my Trump friends say a single word about his tyranny. Shameful!”

In the comments, Dan explained that he had posted the quote to give his Trump-supporting friends a chance to comment on what Dan believed was tyrannical behavior by President Trump. It’s worth noting that Dan is very good about having informed, civil conversations on his Facebook page and calling out people who are rude or who resort to name-calling.

Dan’s friend Denny, a supporter of the President, chimed in with the following comment:

“Ok there’s so much here. 1st of all Dan, I’m lucky if I get on Facebook once a week if not less so that’s why you don’t hear a response from me. I prefer to spend my free time doing other things.

“2nd, he (Trump) is a convicted felon because he was targeted by his political opposition.

“3rd the Jan 6 shit is what it is, shit. We’re there a few bad people there? Yes but not all of them. Whoever they could identify went to jail just because they were there. Insurrection?? Please, like 300 rednecks are going to overthrow the govt. The word was used to make it sound more serious and then Harris compares it to 9/11, Wow! Most of those people were wrongly imprisoned all because they wanted to connect Trump to it. Then Biden pardons the Jan 6 committee. Why? They will still investigate it and investigate the pardons. Biden isn’t pardoned. Dems and the media criticized Trump because they thought he would pardon his family but he didn’t because there’s no reason to pardon. Then Biden pardons his family and many others and silence from the libs and media.

“4th, now this one is so ridiculous. The nazi salute. Have you seen all the pics of about every top democrat doing the same thing? Did you call them nazis? If you watch the video, you will see that when he puts his hand on heart he says My heart is with you. And when he puts his hand out, it’s turned sideways a little. I can’t believe you all still call the right nazis, they aren’t the ones who want socialism. You know he is on the spectrum for autism right? Therefore that’s why he is awkward in many social settings. I’ve seen many people post this salute thing and I just shake my head but when you did it Dan, I was surprised because I just figured you would know it was bs.

“5th, what has he done the 1st 4 days that make him a tyrant?”

“6th, It’s actually quite exhausting constantly reading the same shit, that’s why I don’t get on here that much anymore. Now by the time you respond to this, I might not be back for 5 days or so lol”

The first thing I want to point out about Denny’s response is the way he presents his opinions and beliefs (none of which are really responsive to Dan’s original post) without providing any supporting facts. For instance, he says that the only reason Trump is a felon is because he was targeted by his political opposition. He neglects to provide any support for his statement, and he ignores the overwhelming evidence that contradicts his contention.

Likewise, he claims that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was not an insurrection because it only involved a few hundred “rednecks,” as if the term “insurrection” doesn’t have an actual definition. Again, he didn’t engage with any facts. He simply gave an opinion that, with even the slightest bit of research (i.e., Google) would have revealed that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was not only an insurrection by definition, but it has been held to have been an insurrection by courts across the country.

Let’s dissect Denny’s post, applying facts (as opposed to opinions) about what he had to say.

“2nd, he (Trump) is a convicted felon because he was targeted by his political opposition.”

Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsification of business records by a court in New York. The indictment against Trump was issued by a Grand Jury, and he was prosecuted in a NY trial court. The jury was made up of his peers, and his attorneys, along with the prosecutor, were involved in selecting the members of the jury.

At trial, Trump was defended by attorneys of his own choosing and was allowed to call witnesses in his defense. Those that testified included his former attorney, the editor of The National Enquirer who was and is his friend, as well as former and current employees of his company. None of his political opponents were involved in the trial. The jury of his peers heard all of the testimony and ultimately convicted him on all 34 counts.

Those who share a belief with Denny that Trump was railroaded by his political enemies often claim that Joe Biden initiated the prosecution. Of course, Trump was prosecuted in New York—his former home and where the crimes took place—and Biden had no authority over prosecutions in New York.

People who share Denny’s belief also often point to the fact that the prosecutor in Manhattan, where the trial took place, is a Democrat. While true, this is hardly proof of Trump being targeted. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan prosecutor, is charged with prosecuting crimes in his jurisdiction, and despite him being a Democrat, there are safeguards in the system to make sure that prosecutors are not carrying out political vendettas. Could it happen? Sure, but it wouldn’t be easy and there’s no evidence, other than the political affiliation of the prosecutor and the defendant, to suggest that anything untoward happened in Trump’s prosecution.

“3rd the Jan 6 shit is what it is, shit. We’re there a few bad people there? Yes but not all of them. Whoever they could identify went to jail just because they were there. Insurrection?? Please, like 300 rednecks are going to overthrow the govt. The word was used to make it sound more serious and then Harris compares it to 9/11, Wow! Most of those people were wrongly imprisoned all because they wanted to connect Trump to it. Then Biden pardons the Jan 6 committee. Why? They will still investigate it and investigate the pardons. Biden isn’t pardoned. Dems and the media criticized Trump because they thought he would pardon his family but he didn’t because there’s no reason to pardon. Then Biden pardons his family and many others and silence from the libs and media.”

There’s a lot here to unpack. Let’s start with Denny’s claim that people went to jail just because they were there at the Capitol on January 6. Of course, this isn’t true. In round numbers, 1600 people were convicted of crimes for their behavior on January 6. About 1000 were convicted of misdemeanors (trespassing, destruction of property) and about 600 were convicted of violent felonies and/or sedition. It’s important to point out that when I say convicted, I also mean people who pled guilty rather than going to trial.

We all saw the video evidence of what went on at the Capitol on January 6. Despite claims to the contrary, the assault on the Capitol was a bloody, violent affair, with protestors using anything they could get their hands on, including flag poles, fire extinguishers, bear spray, pepper spray, bike racks, etc., to assault police and break windows to gain entry to the Capitol. We also know from Secret Service reports that several protestors had guns with them that day.

There can be no doubt that the people who were arrested and convicted for their actions on January 6 deserved to be prosecuted. Unlike what Denny claimed, they were not just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were caught on video—often video taken by themselves and posted to social media—committing criminal acts. There is no evidence to back up the assertion that innocent bystanders were rounded up and wrongly prosecuted just because they attended the Stop the Steal rally on January 6.

Was January 6 an insurrection? According to the Oxford Dictionary, an insurrection is “a violent uprising against an authority or government.” Britannica goes a bit further and defines an insurrection as “an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.”

So, at least colloquially, what happened on January 6 meets the definition of insurrection. But what about the legal definition?

Under 18 U.S. Code § 2383—Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Courts have held that three elements must be present for an insurrection to have occurred: (1) A violent uprising, (2) Organized resistance to the government or it’s regulations, and (3) Acts intended to disrupt, overthrow, or challenge the authority of the United States.

Notice, none of these definitions or court holdings require that the insurrection be well organized. They don’t require that a certain number of people participate in the insurrection, and they do not require the insurrection to be successful before it can legally be called an insurrection.

So, to Denny’s point, the number of people (redneck or not) is immaterial. His claim that the word “insurrection” was used just to make it sound more serious seems to be nothing more than projection on Denny’s part. In fact, I would submit that Denny’s use of the word “redneck” and his claim that there were only 300 people involved, even though 1600 were convicted of various crimes, is an attempt to downplay the insurrection, making it seem less serious than it actually was. Of course, those are just my opinions. I don’t have any evidence to prove Denny’s motivation or intention.

Denny claims people were wrongly imprisoned because they wanted to connect Trump to it. I assume Denny means Democrats when he uses the word “they” and he means the insurrection when he uses the word “it.”

So, is there any evidence that anyone was wrongly imprisoned? I know some Trump supporters, like Denny, believe that, but I’m not aware of any evidence to support that notion. Of course, Denny didn’t provide any evidence to support his own claim, so it’s hard to know what he is basing his opinion on. What I will say is that courts were involved in all of the trials and plea agreements, and all of the defendants either had legal counsel or the right to legal counsel, which they waived. Prosecutors cannot convict on their own. There are safeguards in place to make sure defendants’ rights are observed. And to the best of my knowledge, no evidence has been presented that would support Denny’s claim of wrongful prosecutions or convictions.

It’s hard to understand, and therefore respond to, Denny’s beliefs about pardons for the January 6 Committee or for Biden’s family. I’m not sure what point he’s trying to make, so I’ll just let that one go.

“4th, now this one is so ridiculous. The nazi salute. Have you seen all the pics of about every top democrat doing the same thing? Did you call them nazis? If you watch the video, you will see that when he puts his hand on heart he says My heart is with you. And when he puts his hand out, it’s turned sideways a little. I can’t believe you all still call the right nazis, they aren’t the ones who want socialism. You know he is on the spectrum for autism right? Therefore that’s why he is awkward in many social settings. I’ve seen many people post this salute thing and I just shake my head but when you did it Dan, I was surprised because I just figured you would know it was bs.

Again, there’s a lot to unpack here. First, did Elon Musk give a Nazi salute? It’s hard to know for sure. He didn’t just do it once, he did it twice. Musk says it wasn’t a Nazi salute. However, far right-wing groups, including Nazi groups in the United States and in Germany, took it to be a Nazi salute. Musk’s own daughter said she believes it was a Nazi salute and that it was done intentionally. So, it’s hard to say with any confidence either way. But I will point out Denny’s certainty that is was not a Nazi salute as well as his lack of fact-based support for that assertion. As with many of Denny’s claims, they are opinions stated as facts, but in truth are not facts. They are unsupported opinions.

I find this next statement from Denny interesting. He says “I can’t believe you all still call the right nazis, they aren’t the ones who want socialism.” This statement indicates that Denny does not know the history of Nazism, the definition of socialism, or both.

Nazism is a far-right political ideology that was embraced by Hitler and the Germans prior to and during World War II. Despite the name of the Nazi Party—The Nationalist Socialist German Worker’s Party—the Nazis were neither socialists nor a party intent on benefitting workers. They were nationalistic, anti-Marx (Karl Marx is considered the father of the modern socialist movement), and racist. On the political spectrum, they were far to the right.

By contrast, socialism is an economic ideology that believes that the means of production and distribution should be controlled and regulated by the people (usually defined as the workers). Marx saw socialism as a necessary step away from capitalism and toward communism. Socialism is far left on the political spectrum.

Contrary to what a lot of Americans have been taught and believe, things like Social Security, Medicare, entitlement programs such as food stamps, the national highway system, etc. are not in and of themselves socialist. They are perfectly in keeping with a well-regulated free-market, capitalist economy. In fact, I would argue that they are mandated by the Preamble to the Constitution that sets out the three main aims of the government as establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, and promoting the general welfare.

Never in the history of the United States have we widely embraced a socialist agenda. The fear of socialism has been so overblown in the United States that we still have people stoking those fears even while an authoritarian (some would say fascist) is elected to the presidency. Denny provides a good example of someone who has been trained to (1) fear socialism, (2) equate Democrats and/or liberals with socialism, (3) is blind to the fascist tendencies of his own preferred president, all while not understanding socialism.

I point out Denny’s lack of understanding not to shame or humiliate him, but to point out the willingness of so many to spout a belief or opinion without any factual grounding. Or worse, to believe that their opinion is just as valid as your fact. Of course, that’s a ridiculous belief, but it is one that is held by a lot of people within the MAGA movement.

“5th, what has he done the 1st 4 days that make him a tyrant?”

Although Denny isn’t making a statement here, I take his question to mean that he doesn’t believe that in the first four days of his new administration, Trump has done anything that would be considered tyrannical.

Again, facts matter. As Dan pointed out to Denny, in his first four days in office, Trump signed Executive Orders or otherwise made arrangements to:

  • Suspend a portion of the 14th Amendment that deals with birthright citizenship
  • Offer support for military action to take Greenland and the Panama Canal by force
  • Unilaterally suspend immigration, including canceling appointments with asylum seekers
  • Pardon or commute the sentences of all people arrested and convicted for both misdemeanors and felonies associated with January 6
  • Withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement
  • Withdraw from the World Health Organization

Despite Dan’s best efforts to engage Denny, he never responded.

It’s been a long time coming, but here is the bottom line point I want to make: Like society as a whole, Dan and Denny are currently living in two different worlds. Dan has chosen to remain factual, allowing the facts to guide his opinions and beliefs. Denny has done the opposite, allowing his opinions and beliefs to override any facts that might inconveniently challenge his world view.

Because of these different ways of engaging with the world, we live in different realities. For the past four years, Denny likely believed that immigrants were pouring over the border, raping and killing Americans, and stealing our jobs. I’ll bet he also believed that our economy was horrible, crime was out of control, our cities were overrun by illegal immigrant gang members, and that Haitian immigrants were eating dogs. The fact that none of this was true likely only made Denny double down on his beliefs and opinions, ignoring any facts that challenged or contradicted his world view.

By contrast, Dan relied on facts to determine what he believed. He did his homework and found out that border crossings were lower at the end of Biden’s term than the end of Trump’s first term. He learned that our economy had rebounded incredibly following Covid and was the strongest in the world. He found out that crime hit a fifty year low during the Biden Administration. He learned that the claims made by Trump that cities like Portland and Seattle had been taken over by gangs and ANTIFA was a lie, just like it was a lie when Trump claimed that Haitians were eating dogs in Dan’s home state of Ohio. And when Dan learned the facts, he formed beliefs and opinions based on what he had learned.

We have been given the powers of logic, discernment, and rational thinking. We don’t have to believe what others want us to believe. We can investigate for ourselves and find the truth. It’s out there. But unlike on X-Files, it’s not that hard to find. We don’t have to live in separate realities. There is one fact-based reality and it’s available to all of us. But until we’re all living in it, our society is going to remain fragmented and our politics polarized.

There’s much more to Haidt’s article than I discussed here. But to me, until we all get on the same page and share a common story, things will not improve. Haidt’s ultimate goal is compromise, which I find strange. How can we compromise with the truth. Should we accept a few lies for the sake of compromise? I don’t think so.

As I said earlier, fact matters. And until we all embrace facts and stop inventing lies designed to explain away our unsupported beliefs we can never have a harmonious society. Because a shared reality—a shared story—is necessary for a harmonious society to exist.

Facebooktwitter

If This is Wrong, I Don’t Want to be Right

Following the 2024 Presidential Election, I unplugged for a while. I spent much less time on social media, I stopped watching news programs and reading political articles, and I stopped writing on the blog. I needed a break from what was an intense, eye-opening, and disappointing campaign and election season, and I didn’t feel much like working on any extracurricular writing.

The truth is, I don’t know if how I’ve been living the past few months is the right way to live. For a democracy to succeed, I think citizens need to be informed and involved. In fact, I’d say one of the reasons the election turned out the way it did is because too many citizens were uninformed. I think we need to push back when lies are told by people asking for our vote and challenge those that would dismantle our democracy for their own gain.

Even so, I don’t like feeling tense and pissed off all the time. I don’t like hearing about the chaos and outrageousness going on in the government, and I don’t want to jump back into the fray arguing about politics. So, at least for now, this is how I plan on living.

Although I don’t miss the political arguments and misinformation, I do miss writing about things that are on my mind or otherwise interesting to me, then sharing my writing with my friends. So, while I’m going to avoid political issues for the foreseeable future, I will be sharing my writing on Facebook and on my blog again. I’ll be writing about books I’m working on, history I find interesting, motivational articles, and maybe even some things going on in my personal life. I hope I write some things you find interesting and want to engage with.

Facebooktwitter

Someday, I Would Like To Go Home

 

A prose poem from Henry Rollins…

 

Someday, I Would Like To Go Home

“Someday, I would like to go home. The exact location of this place, I don’t know, but someday I would like to go. There would be a pleasing feeling of familiarity and a sense of welcome in everything I saw. People would greet me warmly. They would remind me of the length of my absence and the thousands of miles I had travelled in those restless years, but mostly, they would tell me that I had been missed, and that things were better now I had returned. Autumn would come to this place of welcome, this place I would know to be home. Autumn would come and the air would grow cool, dry and magic, as it does that time of the year.

“At night, I would walk the streets but not feel lonely, for these are the streets of my home town. These are the streets that I had thought about while far away, and now I was back, and all was as it should be. The trees and the falling leaves would welcome me. I would look up at the moon, and remember seeing it in countries all over the world as I had restlessly journeyed for decades, never remembering it looking the same as when viewed from my hometown.”

–Henry Rollins

Facebooktwitter

I Was Wrong

“It’s gonna be so much fun. It’ll be nasty… at the beginning in particular… You’re gonna see things that you’re not gonna believe” –Donald Trump, on the first days of his second term

I have gotten into the habit of not eating breakfast. Even so, this morning, I’ll be having a big helping of humble pie. Why? Because I was wrong about the 2024 Presidential Election. In fact, I was loud wrong. To my horror, Donald Trump won the election.

Several days ago, I wrote this:

“I expect Harris will win the traditionally blue states, as well as Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. North Carolina and Georgia are in play for Harris, and although I think she’ll lose Florida and Texas, I believe it will be closer than expected.”

As I write this, Trump has won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, he won Georgia and North Carolina, and he is leading in Arizona, Nevada and Michigan. To add insult to injury, Florida and Texas were not nearly as close as I expected. In other words, I was wrong about everything.

To be honest, I’m stunned. In my mind, there was no way Trump could win the election because I couldn’t conceive of a world where the United States would elect a candidate who was openly authoritarian. I couldn’t conceive of a world where the United States would elect a man convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for sexual assault, impeached twice, and who spoke in a crude, unhinged way about his political opponents, journalists, people of color, and women. I lacked the imagination it required to accept the very real possibility that the United States would elect a man like Donald Trump for a second time. It just didn’t seem possible.

So, what’s next. If Trump does what he has said he will do, the United States is in for some dark days. Trump’s plan to use tariffs liberally, to slash the national budget, and to round up millions of illegals (which includes those in the country legally) will drive up prices and destroy the economy. His plans to lower taxes even further for corporations and the wealthy will skyrocket the national debt. His plans for a nationwide abortion ban will increase maternal deaths (we’ve already seen this play out in Texas) and will embolden Republicans to go after contraception, same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. And his plans to withdraw from NATO and end support for Ukraine will damage our alliances and empower our enemies, including and especially Russia.

In fact, conservative commentator David Frum had this to say about what the future holds:

“Trump and his vice president–elect, J. D. Vance, will now try to transform the federal government into a loyalty machine that serves the interests of himself and his cronies. This was the essence of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and its architects, all Trump fans, will now endeavor to make it become reality. Trump will surely try again to dismantle America’s civil service, replacing qualified scientists and regulators with partisan operatives. His allies will help him build a Department of Justice that does not serve the Constitution, but instead focuses on harassing and punishing Trump’s enemies. Trump has spoken, in the past, of using the Federal Communications Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to punish media organizations and anyone else who crosses him, and now he will have the chance to try again.

“Perhaps the greater and more insidious danger is not political repression or harassment, but corruption. Autocratic populists around the world—in Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela—have assaulted institutions designed to provide accountability and transparency in order to shift money and influence to their friends and families, and this may happen in America too. This is not just a theoretical threat. As loyalists take over regulatory agencies, filling not only political but also former civil-service jobs, American skies will become more polluted, American food more dangerous. As a result of this massive shift in the country’s bureaucratic culture, Trump-connected companies will prosper, even as America becomes less safe for consumers, for workers, for children, for all of us.”

Understand, none of this is wild speculation. These are things Trump has said. They are things that are part of his platform. They are things included in Project 2025, which he tried to distance himself from, but I suspect will embrace now that the election is over. He’s been very upfront about his plans.

To my Trump supporting friends, it is now time to reap what you have sowed. Your guy won, but I don’t think it has dawned on you yet what that will mean to you and your families. I understand that, despite his considerable baggage, you liked the fact that he went after people you consider your enemies, but I don’t think you understand that eventually, those programs and policies you championed that will hurt your enemies, will also come around to hurt you. The United States and the world are about to undergo a profound, horrible change. And just because you supported Trump, that doesn’t mean you get to avoid the changes that are coming.

As for me, I’m going to take a break from politics for a while. As I wrote a month or so ago, I do not have the capacity to understand anyone that would support Trump. I don’t understand how anyone with Trump’s record of corruption and abuse could appeal to anyone who truly cares about the country and the future. For a while, I’m going to stop trying to understand. Instead, I’m going to concentrate on writing about other things that interest me.

In Trump’s first term, the guardrails held, and Trump wasn’t able to do many of the things he wanted to do, whether that meant killing peaceful protesters or overturning a free and fair election. Now, in a second term, after he has learned how to dismantle the guardrails, and with a compliant Republican Party behind him, I fear what the next four (or more) years will bring. If he just does what he promised, we are in for a world of hurt.

Facebooktwitter

A Letter to My Kids About the Election

Dear Shelby & Lou–

I know it’s unusual for me to write a letter to you, but we are living in strange times. In fact, the upcoming presidential election is the most consequential in our lifetimes, maybe the most consequential in the history of the nation. Because of that, I think it is important for me to share some thoughts with you.

I will not tell you how to vote. You know my opinion, but you are both adults and you can make up your own minds. What I do want to talk to you about is the idea of ancestors and legacy in relation to the election. Under normal circumstances, you may not even consider your ancestors or your legacy, but in this election, I think you should.

Your great-grandfather (and Louis’ namesake) came to this country when he was just sixteen years old. (That’s right, we are fruit from the immigration tree.) He was poor and didn’t speak English, but he desperately wanted a better life for himself and his future family. He met your great-grandmother on the ship from Romania to the United States, and they went on to have eight children.

Together they faced hardships, but they also realized their dreams in the United States. They moved first to New York, then Grand Rapids, and finally settled for good in Aurora. There was a big Romanian community in Aurora, and there were jobs. Your great-grandfather got a job, first in a factory, and then for the City of Aurora. He was a hard worker and was respected by his fellow employees for his energy and work ethic.

During World War II, my father (your grandfather) and his brothers all served overseas; two in the Pacific and two in Europe. On your grandmother’s side of the family, she had three brothers (all raised by a single mother), who served during the war, two in the Army and one in the Navy. Thankfully, they all  survived, and they helped save the world from fascism. They risked their lives to make sure that the United States remained safe and free. They have been called the Greatest Generation. Considering what they accomplished, it’s hard to argue with that description.

The hard work of those that came before us set us up to live safe, comfortable lives in a wonderful, prosperous, and free country. We stand on their shoulders and owe them a huge debt of gratitude. We also owe them our diligence and best efforts to pass on to our children, their children, and their children a country that is every bit as safe and free as they passed on to us.

Today, we take our democracy for granted. But when our country was created, the idea that citizens could decide for themselves who would lead them was revolutionary. And the idea that those leaders could be replaced and they would give up their positions peacefully was unheard of. And for the next 244 years, that’s exactly how our country operated. That is, until 2020 when Donald Trump refused to accept the results of the election he had lost. He encouraged an insurrection of the Capitol and interfered with the peaceful transfer of power that had been a hallmark of our democracy.

Since he was forced to vacate the presidency, Trump has been indicted in four different jurisdictions, has been convicted of 34 felonies, has been found liable for sexual assault and civil fraud, and he has promised to rule the country as a dictator if he is re-elected. He has said he’ll prosecute his enemies, carry out mass deportations, use the military against American citizens, abandon our NATO allies, and play politics with disaster relief funds. Through his rhetoric and actions he has vilified non-Christians, people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and women. These are not Christian values. They are not democratic values. They are not American values.

Some day—maybe in five years or in fifty—historians will write about the state of our nation at this moment and the presidential election we are about to experience. They will write about what American citizens did at a time when our democracy and our most sacred freedoms were under attack. They will look at us in the same way we look at German citizens from the 1930s when Adolf Hitler came to power, and they’ll wonder what we did and why we did it. Did we give into the urge to have a strongman run our country and believe his claim that only he could fix our problems, or did we stand on our values and history, and vote to keep and strengthen our democracy? I want you to be aware of what the future holds—the questions that your children and their children will ask—and I encourage you to act in a way that, somewhere down the road, you can look your children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren in the eye and be proud of what you tell them

When I speak of ancestors, I’m talking about the people that came before us and the things they did in their lives to help create the country and the world we live in today. And when I speak of legacy, I’m talking about the things you do that will impact those that come after you. Your decisions and actions are creating the country and the world that your children and grandchildren will inherit. You’re not being asked to emigrate to a new country or fight in a World War. Yet, what is being asked of you is every bit as important and will have as great an impact.

On Tuesday, you have the opportunity to cast your precious vote in a free election. It really is an amazing opportunity and a solemn responsibility. But unlike previous elections, this one is not about Democrat vs Republicans, left vs right, or liberal vs conservative. This election will decide whether we carry on the Great American Experiment in democracy or we give it up for a form of authoritarianism that, in other parts of the world, has kept the trains running on time, but has stripped citizens of their rights.

To steal a line from the musical Hamilton, history has its eyes on you. I am committed to being on the right side of history. I hope you are too.

I raised you both to be strong, kind, and compassionate. And I have always encouraged you to think for yourselves. I am proud of the adults you have become. Whatever you decide, I want you to know that I will always love and respect you. Whatever happens in this election, we are still family. Nothing will ever change that, no matter who you vote for or who wins this election.

Love you always,

Dad

Facebooktwitter

What to Expect After the Election

Tuesday, November 5 is election day. Million of people will head to the polls to vote for Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, or one of the third-party candidates for President of the United States. It’s an extremely important day, made all the more important because of the vastly different visions the two main candidates have for our country.

Once the votes are all counted and the results are announced, what can we expect to take place in the days (and months) following the election?

I don’t have a crystal ball and I’m not clairvoyant, but I do have an expectation of how things will go. Here’s what I’m thinking:

I’m “nauseously optimistic” that Harris will win the election by a significant margin, more than most people have predicted. Why? Because I think the polls are way undercounting the votes of suburban women who I predict will vote in higher numbers than expected for Harris. I also think that more men than expected will vote for Harris primarily on the issue of abortion. After all, abortion doesn’t only impact women. It is a human issue, not just a women’s issue.

I expect Harris will win the traditionally blue states, as well as Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. North Carolina and Georgia are in play for Harris,  and although I think she’ll lose Florida and Texas, I believe it will be closer than expected.

As many have predicted, I don’t think Trump will accept the election results or concede. He’s already setting up an expectation that the election is going to be rigged, and I won’t be at all surprised when he claims voter fraud. I also won’t be surprised when he is unable to prove any voter fraud widespread enough to affect the outcome of the race. He’ll likely file lawsuits and hold “Stop the Steal” rallies, but he’ll be unable to point to any credible evidence of voter fraud.

Trump claims to have a secret with House Speaker Mike Johnson that will be revealed after the election. I obviously don’t know what it is (they don’t share their secrets with me) but I have to imagine it has something to do with certification of the electors. Each state certifies their own electors, and in many states, even if the legislature refuses to certify the winning slate of electors, the governor can do it. In other states, a court can force a certifier to certify the election results once a writ of mandamus is filed. Finally, there are states where a certifier who refuses to certify the election results can simply be removed. In other words, it seems impossible for a state not to certify its election results.

It’s also been suggested that the House of Representatives could decide not to accept the certified electors on a party line vote (Republicans for, Democrats against) and would send the election vote back to the state legislatures to decide. This is the fringe theory known as the Independent State Legislature (ISL) theory that was being pushed in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. However, in the case of Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court already weighed in and found that the ISL theory was a misreading of the Constitution, so I’m not sure how Trump and the Republicans would make it work for them this time around.

Honestly, Congress does not have a lot of discretion when it comes to accepting the certification of electors. So, I’m at a loss to explain what this secret is that Trump and Johnson plan on rolling out after the election. It very well could be something that my imagination can’t conger up, but it seems to me the more radical the idea, the less likely it is to work.

So, there are guardrails in place to stop Trump from overturning a free and fair election, but what happens if/when Trump’s efforts fail in Congress? What is the next potential step?

Unfortunately, if Trump and his supporters don’t get their way in the courts or in Congress, the only way to try to overturn the results of the election is through brute force. Will Trump supporters take to the streets to protest? Will those protests turn ugly and violent? Many on the right have been preparing for a civil war for years and have threatened one if Trump is cheated out of the presidency. The problem with these people is that they don’t require a particularly high level of proof to believe that Trump was cheated. In fact, many of them are claiming that voter fraud is taking place already, although they’ve been unable to provide any evidence to back up their claims.

What little prognosticating ability I have falls apart at this point. I want to believe in the goodness of my fellow Americans. I want to believe that they will accept the results of the election and will not think there was any fraud unless there is, in fact, credible proof of fraud. I want to believe those things, but the aftermath of the 2020 election and the rhetoric during the lead up to the 2024 election does not inspire much confidence in that wish.

We are entering uncharted territory with this election. Never before have we faced the possibility of the end of our Constitutional democracy if one candidate wins, or a potential civil war if he loses. My hope is that he will lose and we will keep our democracy, but also that his supporters will see that the election was free and fair, and they will accept the results without protests or violence. As we approach the 2024 presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in our history, this is my sincerest hope for the nation.

Facebooktwitter

The Difference That Makes All The Difference

Matthew Sheffield is a conservative Christian journalist who became disillusioned with the Republican Party and right-wing journalism. I read an essay he wrote a couple of years ago comparing mainstream media, which he had once believed was liberal, with the conservative media ecosystem.

According to Sheffield, mainstream media was about process. They may have had a left-leaning bias, but in almost all cases, they went where the facts led them, they followed widely accepted journalistic standards, and they reported what they found, regardless of who it hurt or benefited.

By contrast, conservative media outlets were outcome oriented. More often than not, they decided what story they wanted to report, and then they only paid attention to facts that bolstered that story. In the end, the resulting story they reported was what mattered to them, not the process they used to get there. Their conservative readers and viewers didn’t want their chosen media platform to challenge their beliefs. They would only accept stories that confirmed what they already believed.

This outcome over process methodology is at the heart of many of the differences we see between conservatives and liberals, and by extension, Republicans and Democrats. It’s the difference that makes all of the difference in our politics.

A good example of this concept at work can be seen in Donald Trump’s many civil and criminal trials. For Trump, as with any civil or criminal defendant, due process is essential to having a fair and just outcome of their trial. And like all civil and criminal defendants, Trump was afforded due process.

In the criminal trial where he was convicted of 34 felonies, an investigation was conducted, evidence was presented to a grand jury, an indictment was issued, a trial date was set taking into account his schedule, a jury was selected with input from his attorneys, witnesses were called by both sides and both sides were allowed to question the witnesses, the jury that Trump’s attorneys helped select deliberated over the evidence and unanimously found him guilty on all charges. The legally dictated process was followed. The outcome was a result of that process.

But talk to a Trump supporter and they will ignore the due process Trump was afforded and instead talk about who financially supported the campaign of the prosecuting attorney. They will bring up the political affiliation of the judge’s daughter. They’ll claim that the jury was rigged and the witnesses against Trump lied (although the witnesses for Trump were beyond reproach). They’ll make the unfounded accusation that Biden weaponized the Department of Justice to go after Trump, despite the fact that the charges against Trump were state charges, the trial was held in a state court prosecuted by attorneys for the state, and the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the case.

Those who support Trump are not concerned with the process that was followed and legally mandated to insure the fairest trial possible. The only thing they care about is the outcome. And when the outcome wasn’t what they wanted, they went on the attack, defending Trump and making excuses for his conviction.

This attitude of outcome over process can be seen in the calls to “lock her up” at Trump rallies. It can be seen in the call to deport immigrants, including those who are in the country legally. It can be seen in Trump’s pledge to prosecute his political opponents. No process is required, such as the breaking of an applicable law, a trial, a vigorous defense, etc. If Trump says it, then it should be done, regardless of process.

Of course, this attitude extends to the election as well. In 2020, Trump’s own administration acknowledged that the presidential election was the freest and fairest in our country’s history. Despite that fact, Trump and his supporters refused to accept the results of the election. The process didn’t matter. The only thing that mattered was the outcome.

Trump is already setting the stage to claim voter fraud in the 2024 election, and he has all but said that, unless he wins, he will not accept the outcome. He routinely tells anyone who will listen that the only way he can lose the election is if Kamala Harris and the Democrats cheat. He provides no proof for this claim, yet his supporters parrot it.

The electoral process (there’s that word again) is set up to provide the fairest results possible while still making voting convenient for American citizens. History has proven that there is no outcome-determinative fraud in early voting, mail-in voting, or in-person voting. We have seen the proof of this in election after election. Yet Trump and his supporters attack the process, claiming widespread fraud without providing any evidence, and claiming that, unless he wins, the election is rigged.

Process is provided for in nearly every aspect of democracy. But Trump and his followers have abandoned process (except when it favors them) in favor of outcome. They don’t want to follow the process before achieving a result. They simply want to dictate the outcome, with no regard for process. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between democracy and fascism. And if Trump is elected, process will take a backseat to his desired outcome, regardless or the rule of law or our established traditions.

Facebooktwitter