"Sine qua non".
In legal parlance, it introduces the "but for" legal concept.
To quote from FARLEX: "In order to be liable in negligence, the defendant's conduct must constitute the proximate cause, or direct cause, of the plaintiff's injury. The concept of proximate cause encompasses both legal cause and factual cause, and the "but for" rule pertains to the latter. It is also referred to as the sine qua non rule, which means "without which not," or an indispensable requirement or condition. The "but for" rule is a rule of exclusion, in that the defendant's conduct is not a cause of the event, if the event would have occurred without it."
Why do I bring this up?
(The following is very long and may make some people very uncomfortable. It may seem heartless - but it isn't meant to be. It may seem cruel - but it isn't meant to be. It is meant as analysis - nothing more. And as unfortunate as it may seem, sometimes analysis appears heartless and cruel - even though it isn't.)
==
In a recent briefing, Dr. Birx said (can't find the exact quote) that any deaths involving COVID-19 are being counted as "COVID-19 deaths".
We also know, again from Dr. Birx, that those with preexisting medical conditions appear to be the most susceptible to the damaging effects of the COVID-19 virus.
But what we don't know is how many of those deaths would have occurred solely due to COVID-19, or - to put it more succinctly - how many of those deaths involved COVID-19 as the "proximate cause".
To make it even simpler: how many people with "pre-existing conditions" would have died from other similar medical conditions - conditions that severely attack an already impaired system - such as influenza, pneumonia, or non-COVID ailments?
Ok, let's reverse it. Removing those who died due to complications arising from pre-existing conditions that had already weakened their systems, how many would have lived "but for" COVID-19? How many previously healthy individuals died solely because of infection from COVID-19?
We're hearing some really distressing numbers about deaths. But we're not getting the full picture. ANY death due to a disease is tragic, but it would be even more tragic to blame a death on the wrong cause - or, in this case, to hold COVID-19 responsible for deaths that were (sorry) inevitable.
Governor Cuomo recently said the same thing. He noted that all deaths are tragedies, but there were some people that could not be saved "no matter how hard we tried" (his exact words). If some of those people had (as an example) COPD, they already had seriously impaired lungs and already had difficulty breathing (some are on oxygen all the time). COVID-19 was a contributory cause of their deaths... but was it the primary cause of their deaths?
So the question is: "if not for" COVID-19, how many of those counted as COVID-19 deaths would have fully recovered to their previous state of health?
Yes, it seems cruel to ask, but it's important to know the answer. Here's why:
If 30% (just a guess, but a reasonable guess) of those who died would have died from another contributory cause (influenza, pneumonia, etc), then the number of COVID-19 specific deaths was inflated by 30%. This brings the COVID-19 specific death rate down. That would be good news in a time of nothing but bad news.
Consider this as well: CDC numbers show 30,000 to 60,000 deaths annually from "the flu" (yes, just plain "flu" - influenza). Again, these deaths are tragic but probably not preventable due to the age and medical conditions of those who died.
We are not currently counting the number of people who are dying from only "the flu" (influenza). That count has been suppressed because of the severity of the current COVID-19 outbreak.
How many of those who would have died from complications due to "the flu" died due to complications from COVID-19? Is the number similar, or are there two "tracks" here: one specific to COVID-19, and one specific to influenza? Are we keeping track of the deaths separately, or are we lumping all of the deaths together?
Moreover, have deaths due to "the flu" been reduced by "social distancing"? Are those who might have succumbed to "the flu" still alive (thank goodness) because we are now more aware of the need for washing our hands, maintaining cleanliness, and preventing unnecessary contact that might spread non-COVID-19 germs and viruses?
THIS IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW. We need to know exactly how dangerous COVID-19 is, especially considering the efforts we have taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19. These efforts range from social distancing to the speedy creation of new testing machines and methodologies, the evaluation of existing pharmaceuticals for possible treatment, and the overwhelming pressure placed on the economy (people who aren't working can't pay for food, rent, insurance, or any of the other necessities of life).
==
When the immediate crisis has passed and we are able to finally begin the process to restart our lives, these questions should be answered if only to understand how to truly measure the impact on our lives for the next pandemic... and, to be sure, there will be another one. It's inevitable in a world where bacteriological and virological agents can travel to the other side of the world in less than a day.
Wednesday, April 8, 2020
Monday, March 16, 2020
Is this how tyranny begins?
The governor of NH, Chris Sununu, has joined other governors of nearby states by closing restaurants and bars in the entire state of NH for an indeterminate time (currently until April 7 - but that could change). Restaurants and bars may only provide take-out and/or delivery service.
Yes, COVID-19 is scary. I'm not denying it, nor am I minimizing the danger we face from it.
BUT I have not yet been able to identify the law or statute that empowers the governor to order private businesses to change their business model or to close if they cannot adhere to his order. Some restaurants "on the edge" will go out of business. There doesn't appear to be a remedy to permit any of these businesses to recover their losses due to the governor's order. Those that survive will be operating on shoestring budgets for a long time and may have to lay off employees merely to survive.
If the goal of this order is "social distancing", then I ask "what are the next businesses to be shut down?" Will personal services - barbers, hair salons, acupuncture, chiropractic, etc - be next? If the goal is to prevent people from "touching" each other or being in close proximity to each other, are supermarkets and movie theaters the next targets?
This isn't sarcasm. This is deadly serious.
This is how tyranny begins.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Those words were spoken by Benjamin Franklin. Granted, the context was a different, but the question still stands: how many freedoms are we willing to surrender to attain the illusion of immunity from a disease?
And when the next crisis comes - whether real or something invented by the government - will we allow our governors to use authoritarian means to shut down all commerce "for the sake of safety"?
COVID-19 is a novel vaccine, meaning that we don't have an effective way to defer (immunize) or cure it. The death rate is high, but it isn't the Black Plague or the Spanish Flu. Unlike some "experts" in the media and doctors who are not experts in virology or communicable deases, I don't believe that "millions will die". We may well see the death of thousands, but thousands die every year from influenza.
So, I ask the question again: what law or statute grants the governor of NH the power to arbitrarily order the closure of some businesses in NH, and what are the limits to that power?
Yes, COVID-19 is scary. I'm not denying it, nor am I minimizing the danger we face from it.
BUT I have not yet been able to identify the law or statute that empowers the governor to order private businesses to change their business model or to close if they cannot adhere to his order. Some restaurants "on the edge" will go out of business. There doesn't appear to be a remedy to permit any of these businesses to recover their losses due to the governor's order. Those that survive will be operating on shoestring budgets for a long time and may have to lay off employees merely to survive.
If the goal of this order is "social distancing", then I ask "what are the next businesses to be shut down?" Will personal services - barbers, hair salons, acupuncture, chiropractic, etc - be next? If the goal is to prevent people from "touching" each other or being in close proximity to each other, are supermarkets and movie theaters the next targets?
This isn't sarcasm. This is deadly serious.
This is how tyranny begins.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Those words were spoken by Benjamin Franklin. Granted, the context was a different, but the question still stands: how many freedoms are we willing to surrender to attain the illusion of immunity from a disease?
And when the next crisis comes - whether real or something invented by the government - will we allow our governors to use authoritarian means to shut down all commerce "for the sake of safety"?
COVID-19 is a novel vaccine, meaning that we don't have an effective way to defer (immunize) or cure it. The death rate is high, but it isn't the Black Plague or the Spanish Flu. Unlike some "experts" in the media and doctors who are not experts in virology or communicable deases, I don't believe that "millions will die". We may well see the death of thousands, but thousands die every year from influenza.
So, I ask the question again: what law or statute grants the governor of NH the power to arbitrarily order the closure of some businesses in NH, and what are the limits to that power?
Friday, January 31, 2020
What if the media itself is the problem?
(As I write this, at least one other Republican Senator is wavering on whether to vote for calling witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.)
Senator Lamar Alexander announced that he won’t vote for witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. He called the current impeachment proceedings “highly partisan” and that it is “tearing the country apart”. He also feels that the highly partisan nature of the impeachment, both on the House and Senate sides, sets a bad precedent for the future. The reports are that, without Senator Alexander, there may not be enough votes to call for witnesses.
“tearing the country apart”. He’s only half right. It isn’t the current process that’s tearing the country apart. It’s the overwhelmingly misleading news reports and “analysis” that are failing to fully inform The People of the flaws and one-sided nature of the House proceedings that led to two textually-vague articles of impeachment.
The “press” has sometimes been called “the 4th estate” because, as an organ that implements a Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, the press has incredible power. It can shape both national opinion and politics by how and what it reports to The People. The problem is that the press has failed in its responsibility to exercise “due diligence” far too often since the establishment of The Republic. Instead of acting as a check against government to ensure that governmental power is not being misused, it has used its own power to interfere with the workings of government. It has too often had a knee-jerk reaction to a story without following up whether the story was true. And it has failed to correct the record when it - the "press" - is proven wrong.
In the movie “All The President’s Men”, the executive editor of the WAPO – Ben Bradley – refuses to print any of the rumors about the Watergate incident until Woodward and Bernstein have confirmed those rumors with second sources. As well as finding witnesses and second sources, they have documents with names on them as well as eye-witnesses to actual conversations that took place, conversations that discuss actual crimes. Eventually, even some of the accused members of the Nixon staff pled guilty, meaning that they did it and they knew they did it.
Ever since Watergate, it seems that every reporter on the Washington “beat” is looking for the next “big breaking bombshell” story. Something big enough to earn a Pulitzer. Every unsourced (meaning “anonymous” and thus unverified and sometimes unverifiable) rumor is printed as fact. Every “news agency” is looking for a story to scoop all of the other “news agencies”. Far too often, the “scoop” ends up being a nothingburger, a lie, or a huge distortion. Instead of truth, the press prints speculation disguised as opinion. Reporters bury the lede in the 20th paragraph of a 21 paragraph story.
There is no more due diligence, no more requirements for a “second source”. Ben Bradley may be rolling in his grave over the lack of verification in today’s “press”.
“Because that’s what I think” is an insufficient standard to formally accuse anyone of a crime. In court, what you think is not evidence: what was done is evidence. And if you didn’t actually see it happen, your testimony is worthless – and can be thrown out. The courts require due diligence, and the presiding judge can stop the proceedings if he/she believes that the prosecution is gaming the system merely for a conviction. But in the 21st century, a media opinion writer’s “here’s what I think” takes on the imprimatur of fact. The press gets away with it because it is relying on its own history and standing as justification to publish, and because the Constitution says that that Congress shall make no law "...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Freedom without responsibility: this should be the motto of today's press.
“The Newspaper Of Record” may have meant something in the early 20th century when the NYT was faced with printing facts to defeat the lies and deceptions of Hurst's “yellow sheets”. And it may have meant something when the NYT and WAPO were fighting to publish the Pentagon Papers – actual printed evidence of corruption in the DOD - against the orders of the White House. And it may have meant something during Watergate, when actual crimes were being investigated and “deep throat” was pointing Woodward and Bernstein toward actual corruption in the White House.
But something happened in 2008. The election of Barack Obama changed everything. The press had pushed “the chosen one” into the White House and were ready sell their souls and use all of their power to protect him and his administration. The press knew about “Fast and Furious” and stayed silent. They knew that the IRS was being used as a weapon against political enemies and stayed silent. They knew of the numerous accusations of corruption in the Obama administration and stayed silent. Why? Because they had chosen Obama. They were protecting “one of their own”.
Then along comes the most unlikely of candidates for President: Donald J. Trump, who is a creature of media. He understands the media and how it can be used. Trump begins to use one of the media's favorite social media platforms… and the mainstream media watches their carefully self-crafted reputation begin to crumble. They use all of their power to try to stop Trump from being elected: everything from false accusations of sexual misconduct to replays of “locker room” talk to accusations of corruption in his past businesses.
But Trump is elected President – against the full-throated opposition of the press.
Trump immediately starts “pulling back the covers”, “turning on the lights”, and Tweeting about what he’s finding… and the press realizes that they no longer have control or influence over the highest official in American government. So, the press turns its eye toward the public. It violates Bradlee’s “get verification before we print” standard… and quickly begins to lose the public’s confidence. The harder the media fights to regain the public’s confidence by reporting false evils about Trump, the faster they continue to lose the public’s confidence. They enlist members of Congress to assist them ...
… and here we are, nearing the end of a process that began with nothing more than rumor and innuendo, consisting of nothing more than rumor and innuendo, with a set of impeachment articles based on nothing more than rumor and innuendo.
With at least one Senator now walking away from demanding witnesses that the House never called, and with at least one other wavering, Trump will be acquitted. The media will go absolutely nuts, accusing the Left of betraying them, of being unable to prove the unprovable, and to convict without hard evidence.
I have a strange feeling that this episode – the attempt to impeach the president without a prosecutable crime – may be a turning point. Either some in the press will begin the process of self-examination and ask “why didn’t we do our own unbiased investigation” and return to printing fact-based, verified, and unbiased reports , or some in the press will go even deeper into recrimination and accusation, thus proving – even to their friends – that they are irredeemably biased and untrustworthy.
Either way, it’ll be good for the country. I’m hoping that the current press destroys itself. This could actually free the public to find fact-based media reporters who can point back and show how “the press” corrupted itself in its own chase for political power.
Senator Lamar Alexander announced that he won’t vote for witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. He called the current impeachment proceedings “highly partisan” and that it is “tearing the country apart”. He also feels that the highly partisan nature of the impeachment, both on the House and Senate sides, sets a bad precedent for the future. The reports are that, without Senator Alexander, there may not be enough votes to call for witnesses.
“tearing the country apart”. He’s only half right. It isn’t the current process that’s tearing the country apart. It’s the overwhelmingly misleading news reports and “analysis” that are failing to fully inform The People of the flaws and one-sided nature of the House proceedings that led to two textually-vague articles of impeachment.
The “press” has sometimes been called “the 4th estate” because, as an organ that implements a Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, the press has incredible power. It can shape both national opinion and politics by how and what it reports to The People. The problem is that the press has failed in its responsibility to exercise “due diligence” far too often since the establishment of The Republic. Instead of acting as a check against government to ensure that governmental power is not being misused, it has used its own power to interfere with the workings of government. It has too often had a knee-jerk reaction to a story without following up whether the story was true. And it has failed to correct the record when it - the "press" - is proven wrong.
In the movie “All The President’s Men”, the executive editor of the WAPO – Ben Bradley – refuses to print any of the rumors about the Watergate incident until Woodward and Bernstein have confirmed those rumors with second sources. As well as finding witnesses and second sources, they have documents with names on them as well as eye-witnesses to actual conversations that took place, conversations that discuss actual crimes. Eventually, even some of the accused members of the Nixon staff pled guilty, meaning that they did it and they knew they did it.
Ever since Watergate, it seems that every reporter on the Washington “beat” is looking for the next “big breaking bombshell” story. Something big enough to earn a Pulitzer. Every unsourced (meaning “anonymous” and thus unverified and sometimes unverifiable) rumor is printed as fact. Every “news agency” is looking for a story to scoop all of the other “news agencies”. Far too often, the “scoop” ends up being a nothingburger, a lie, or a huge distortion. Instead of truth, the press prints speculation disguised as opinion. Reporters bury the lede in the 20th paragraph of a 21 paragraph story.
There is no more due diligence, no more requirements for a “second source”. Ben Bradley may be rolling in his grave over the lack of verification in today’s “press”.
“Because that’s what I think” is an insufficient standard to formally accuse anyone of a crime. In court, what you think is not evidence: what was done is evidence. And if you didn’t actually see it happen, your testimony is worthless – and can be thrown out. The courts require due diligence, and the presiding judge can stop the proceedings if he/she believes that the prosecution is gaming the system merely for a conviction. But in the 21st century, a media opinion writer’s “here’s what I think” takes on the imprimatur of fact. The press gets away with it because it is relying on its own history and standing as justification to publish, and because the Constitution says that that Congress shall make no law "...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Freedom without responsibility: this should be the motto of today's press.
“The Newspaper Of Record” may have meant something in the early 20th century when the NYT was faced with printing facts to defeat the lies and deceptions of Hurst's “yellow sheets”. And it may have meant something when the NYT and WAPO were fighting to publish the Pentagon Papers – actual printed evidence of corruption in the DOD - against the orders of the White House. And it may have meant something during Watergate, when actual crimes were being investigated and “deep throat” was pointing Woodward and Bernstein toward actual corruption in the White House.
But something happened in 2008. The election of Barack Obama changed everything. The press had pushed “the chosen one” into the White House and were ready sell their souls and use all of their power to protect him and his administration. The press knew about “Fast and Furious” and stayed silent. They knew that the IRS was being used as a weapon against political enemies and stayed silent. They knew of the numerous accusations of corruption in the Obama administration and stayed silent. Why? Because they had chosen Obama. They were protecting “one of their own”.
Then along comes the most unlikely of candidates for President: Donald J. Trump, who is a creature of media. He understands the media and how it can be used. Trump begins to use one of the media's favorite social media platforms… and the mainstream media watches their carefully self-crafted reputation begin to crumble. They use all of their power to try to stop Trump from being elected: everything from false accusations of sexual misconduct to replays of “locker room” talk to accusations of corruption in his past businesses.
But Trump is elected President – against the full-throated opposition of the press.
Trump immediately starts “pulling back the covers”, “turning on the lights”, and Tweeting about what he’s finding… and the press realizes that they no longer have control or influence over the highest official in American government. So, the press turns its eye toward the public. It violates Bradlee’s “get verification before we print” standard… and quickly begins to lose the public’s confidence. The harder the media fights to regain the public’s confidence by reporting false evils about Trump, the faster they continue to lose the public’s confidence. They enlist members of Congress to assist them ...
… and here we are, nearing the end of a process that began with nothing more than rumor and innuendo, consisting of nothing more than rumor and innuendo, with a set of impeachment articles based on nothing more than rumor and innuendo.
With at least one Senator now walking away from demanding witnesses that the House never called, and with at least one other wavering, Trump will be acquitted. The media will go absolutely nuts, accusing the Left of betraying them, of being unable to prove the unprovable, and to convict without hard evidence.
I have a strange feeling that this episode – the attempt to impeach the president without a prosecutable crime – may be a turning point. Either some in the press will begin the process of self-examination and ask “why didn’t we do our own unbiased investigation” and return to printing fact-based, verified, and unbiased reports , or some in the press will go even deeper into recrimination and accusation, thus proving – even to their friends – that they are irredeemably biased and untrustworthy.
Either way, it’ll be good for the country. I’m hoping that the current press destroys itself. This could actually free the public to find fact-based media reporters who can point back and show how “the press” corrupted itself in its own chase for political power.
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Dazed and Confused
I have news for the MSM and the Left: the reason that there is such “confusion and indecision” about impeachment is that there is no clear-cut path to a legitimate and identifiable Constitutional offense. Most Americans may not have the elitist penchant for barely connected and remotely-related nuance, but they can tell when they’re hearing a used-car salesman trying to make a deal. Meanwhile, the attempt to distract attention by claiming “Nothing to see here” only attracts attention and makes people want to look closer.
Democrats think that their base’s indignation at Trump’s extremely boorish behavior is sufficient reason to justify any action to remove him from office – or to at least inflict traditionally political wounds in an attempt to “teach him a lesson”.
But we’re dealing with Trump, who isn’t a traditional politician and who doesn’t have political ambitions. The politicians who such deep-seated hate for Trump seem to forget that he already occupies the top spot in American politics – and he did it on the basis of his own popularity without "climbing the political ladder".
"Political wounds"? Why would Trump possibly care about being “politically wounded” when he still has full Constitutional authority over the Executive branch?
When the Constitutionally mandated basis for impeachment – high crimes and misdemeanors - needs to be twisted into a confusion of pretzel-logic “justifications” for a non-criminal offense...
When the actions taken by a President mirror previous actions taken by high government (and elected) officials still currently serving in the Government...
When the MSM stops being a voice for the people and starts being a voice for one political party…
…that’s when you begin to clearly see what lies ahead.
The Senate will now take the baton in this meaningless impeachment exercise based on "charges" that reflect nothing more than a deep dislike for the current President. Every president has been accused of "abuse of power" by the opposition party when the opposition party disagrees with the President's exercise of his plenary powers. The charge "abuse of power" is thus meaningless, and using it as a means to impeach a president reduces impeachment from a serious charge to a joke.
Meanwhile, and as The People stand by and watch without doing anything about it, the United States continues the downward race leading to an inevitable outcome: the eventual dissolution of the Republic.
The descent became even more obvious during Bush 41’s presidency and continued during the Clinton and Bush presidencies. Then came Obama’s actions to “fundamentally change” the American experience and destroy the underpinning of both the American economy and the republic itself. The hope was that Hillary would finish the job – but she lost the election to an unexpected interloper.
Trump is hated because he interrupted the “fundamental change” and gave some Americans a brief respite to look around and finally see what was happening. But the process was already well underway and supported by a majority of Americans who were taught to think that America is evil and must be destroyed.
America is done. It’s been done for a few decades. The only difference is that the depth of the rot is only now being seen. Too late, tho: the rot goes too deep to be fixed.
Democrats think that their base’s indignation at Trump’s extremely boorish behavior is sufficient reason to justify any action to remove him from office – or to at least inflict traditionally political wounds in an attempt to “teach him a lesson”.
But we’re dealing with Trump, who isn’t a traditional politician and who doesn’t have political ambitions. The politicians who such deep-seated hate for Trump seem to forget that he already occupies the top spot in American politics – and he did it on the basis of his own popularity without "climbing the political ladder".
"Political wounds"? Why would Trump possibly care about being “politically wounded” when he still has full Constitutional authority over the Executive branch?
When the Constitutionally mandated basis for impeachment – high crimes and misdemeanors - needs to be twisted into a confusion of pretzel-logic “justifications” for a non-criminal offense...
When the actions taken by a President mirror previous actions taken by high government (and elected) officials still currently serving in the Government...
When the MSM stops being a voice for the people and starts being a voice for one political party…
…that’s when you begin to clearly see what lies ahead.
The Senate will now take the baton in this meaningless impeachment exercise based on "charges" that reflect nothing more than a deep dislike for the current President. Every president has been accused of "abuse of power" by the opposition party when the opposition party disagrees with the President's exercise of his plenary powers. The charge "abuse of power" is thus meaningless, and using it as a means to impeach a president reduces impeachment from a serious charge to a joke.
Meanwhile, and as The People stand by and watch without doing anything about it, the United States continues the downward race leading to an inevitable outcome: the eventual dissolution of the Republic.
The descent became even more obvious during Bush 41’s presidency and continued during the Clinton and Bush presidencies. Then came Obama’s actions to “fundamentally change” the American experience and destroy the underpinning of both the American economy and the republic itself. The hope was that Hillary would finish the job – but she lost the election to an unexpected interloper.
Trump is hated because he interrupted the “fundamental change” and gave some Americans a brief respite to look around and finally see what was happening. But the process was already well underway and supported by a majority of Americans who were taught to think that America is evil and must be destroyed.
America is done. It’s been done for a few decades. The only difference is that the depth of the rot is only now being seen. Too late, tho: the rot goes too deep to be fixed.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Nobody wins in a domestic argument
"President Donald J. Trump is going to abandon our friends and leave them to be killed in the streets by a vastly superior force."
Translation: President Donald J. Trump is withdrawing US troops from Syria, where we have been providing military support to only one side in a domestic dispute that has been going on for centuries. This makes him "Orange Man Bad".
OTOH, we are bound by NATO treaty - a treaty approved by the Senate and signed into law - to support the other side in that same domestic dispute. Turkey became a NATO member in 1952, long before its most recent fall (dive?) into Islamic authoritarianism. But we are sworn by treaty to defend it - not attack it.
So, according to the Democrats and the MSM, we're abandoning our friends, the Kurds - with whom we have no written agreement - to support a "frenemy" named Turkey - with whom we have a senate-ratified treaty.
If we want to discuss Orange Man Bad's actions toward (against?) the Kurds, let's step back a bit and see what happened in the recent past in Bashar Assad's Syria. Let's remember that Assad dropped poison gas on his own population while President Obama was in office. President Obama publicly announced that the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" and that using those weapons would result in some kind of punishment. But, to appease Russia and thus work toward the JCPOA (aka the Iranian "deal"), President Obama took no action against Syria. He also took no action to help the Kurds.
To break an untenable and quickly failing stalemate, President Trump sent American troops into Syria to go after ISIS strongholds. After destroying those strongholds and taking thousands of prisoners, he announced that the US would be withdrawing troops from Syria and that the Kurds - some of whom had fought alongside American troops - would be taking charge of the prisoners (some of whom were also Kurds). We would leave some military advisers in place, but would withdraw most American troops from the area.
Now, the same politicians who demanded that we not get involved in Syria, but supported the "boots on the ground" to attack ISIS, are demanding that we stay involved in Syria. Their excuse? "We are abandoning our friends."
Um, no. We aren't "abandoning friends" - we are leaving a perpetual war zone.
President Trump asked, rhetorically, whether we should be involved in a perpetual war "until the end of time". He was completely correct to ask that question. The Middle East was rife with internecine battles for centuries, long before Israel was created, and it will continue to be a war zone as long as Sunni and Shiite Muslims are at each other's throats (as they have been for centuries). The presence of US troops won't stop this: in fact, US troops have become targets and have been killed all over the Middle East because they seen as interventionists and not peacemakers.
We - the United States - may be the most powerful free nation in history, but we - the United States - cannot be the world's policeman. In truth, that's the job of the United Nations, which does have an armed force (the "white helmets" and "blue helmets"). If the general consensus of the United Nations is that these wars should end, then the United Nations should be the organization to enforce the peace.
But it is time for the United States to withdraw from active-fire zones where centuries-old hatred still results in firefights - sometimes between different members of the same family.
Withdraw from Syria first.
Then withdraw from Afghanistan.
Then withdraw from other Middle Eastern countries where Americans are seen as viable targets.
We should maintain a presence there in case American forces are needed, but it should be in non-combat operations in a frenemy country, such as Kuwait.
But until it is abundantly clear that we have an overriding national interest in being the world's policeman, and until the expenses of those operations are defrayed by the rest of the world, it makes sense for the US to reevaluate whether it makes sense to spend American money - and spill American blood - in an area of the world where "perpetual wars" are the way of life.
Translation: President Donald J. Trump is withdrawing US troops from Syria, where we have been providing military support to only one side in a domestic dispute that has been going on for centuries. This makes him "Orange Man Bad".
OTOH, we are bound by NATO treaty - a treaty approved by the Senate and signed into law - to support the other side in that same domestic dispute. Turkey became a NATO member in 1952, long before its most recent fall (dive?) into Islamic authoritarianism. But we are sworn by treaty to defend it - not attack it.
So, according to the Democrats and the MSM, we're abandoning our friends, the Kurds - with whom we have no written agreement - to support a "frenemy" named Turkey - with whom we have a senate-ratified treaty.
If we want to discuss Orange Man Bad's actions toward (against?) the Kurds, let's step back a bit and see what happened in the recent past in Bashar Assad's Syria. Let's remember that Assad dropped poison gas on his own population while President Obama was in office. President Obama publicly announced that the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" and that using those weapons would result in some kind of punishment. But, to appease Russia and thus work toward the JCPOA (aka the Iranian "deal"), President Obama took no action against Syria. He also took no action to help the Kurds.
To break an untenable and quickly failing stalemate, President Trump sent American troops into Syria to go after ISIS strongholds. After destroying those strongholds and taking thousands of prisoners, he announced that the US would be withdrawing troops from Syria and that the Kurds - some of whom had fought alongside American troops - would be taking charge of the prisoners (some of whom were also Kurds). We would leave some military advisers in place, but would withdraw most American troops from the area.
Now, the same politicians who demanded that we not get involved in Syria, but supported the "boots on the ground" to attack ISIS, are demanding that we stay involved in Syria. Their excuse? "We are abandoning our friends."
Um, no. We aren't "abandoning friends" - we are leaving a perpetual war zone.
President Trump asked, rhetorically, whether we should be involved in a perpetual war "until the end of time". He was completely correct to ask that question. The Middle East was rife with internecine battles for centuries, long before Israel was created, and it will continue to be a war zone as long as Sunni and Shiite Muslims are at each other's throats (as they have been for centuries). The presence of US troops won't stop this: in fact, US troops have become targets and have been killed all over the Middle East because they seen as interventionists and not peacemakers.
We - the United States - may be the most powerful free nation in history, but we - the United States - cannot be the world's policeman. In truth, that's the job of the United Nations, which does have an armed force (the "white helmets" and "blue helmets"). If the general consensus of the United Nations is that these wars should end, then the United Nations should be the organization to enforce the peace.
But it is time for the United States to withdraw from active-fire zones where centuries-old hatred still results in firefights - sometimes between different members of the same family.
Withdraw from Syria first.
Then withdraw from Afghanistan.
Then withdraw from other Middle Eastern countries where Americans are seen as viable targets.
We should maintain a presence there in case American forces are needed, but it should be in non-combat operations in a frenemy country, such as Kuwait.
But until it is abundantly clear that we have an overriding national interest in being the world's policeman, and until the expenses of those operations are defrayed by the rest of the world, it makes sense for the US to reevaluate whether it makes sense to spend American money - and spill American blood - in an area of the world where "perpetual wars" are the way of life.
Monday, September 30, 2019
"A Republic... if you can keep it."
Recently, Hillary Clinton has been complaining - once again - about losing the 2016 election. She has been making various claims that her candidacy was sabotaged, or that people didn't pay attention to the evils of her primary opponent, or that she won the "popular vote" and would be President if it wasn't for that nasty Electoral College.
Sorry, Ms. Clinton, but none of those assumptions hold true - for one simple reason:
The United States is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.
There are various memes about a Democracy being "two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner" or "the majority voting on what to take away from the minority". Aside for the ironic nature of those memes, the basic truth is that a Democracy can enable a majority to act in a tyrannical manner against the minority. A Republic can't.
The Founders were wise enough to know that a pure Democracy would be a failure if implemented in an environment where each of the original 13 Colonies had its own customs, economies, and products. They knew that forcing some of the Colonies to submit to the demands of other Colonies was a recipe for an inter-Colonial war (which actually happened in the mid-1800s, but that discussion is for another time).
Instead, The Founders designed a "federalism" system of government (remember, we are a "federation of States"). Each State would provide its own State-level governing structure. The citizens of each State would elect Representatives to their State-level government. The citizens of each State would also elect Representatives to the central Federal government as well.
The intention was to allow each State to implement laws that it felt were good for its citizens, and that the Federal Representatives would implement laws that all of the States could agree on. The laws of each State would only affect the citizens of each State, but the laws passed by the Federal government would have supremacy over the actions of every State.
Since this is a Republic, how could a Federal chief executive be elected in such a way that the majority could not completely overwhelm the minority, and where the minority could defeat a tyrannical majority?
The Electoral College was the solution. Here, "electors" from each state, based on the number of Representatives and Senators to that state, would elect the President. In this form, a state with a huge population would be no more powerful than many smaller states bound together.
This idea works because the President is the chief law enforcement officer of Federal laws- but has no power over State laws. He is also empowered to enact or veto Federal bills - a "check" on the power of the Legislature.
The President is not empowered to change State law, nor is he empowered to change Federal law. Hence, the electors from each State must cooperate to determine who "runs" the Federal government. The Founders solved that problem by using the same rules as the rest of government: the members of the Electoral College, each representing their own State, elect their own Representative - the "President of the United States".
It's actually a very clever system and one where no individual, group of individuals, or outside agency - such as Russia - can shift an election one way or the other.
We are a Republic, and the Electoral College enforced the same rules of the Republic
Now, Ms. Clinton wishes to eliminate the intent of the Founders by changing the most important aspect of the Federal government from a Republic to a Democracy.
This is the lip of the slippery slope. If we begin to change the Constitution - the "rules" for the United States - we could destroy the United States.
Ms. Clinton is not happy that she lost the election. I suppose that's only natural. But changing the Constitution because you aren't happy that you lost an election?
Perhaps, Ms. Clinton, you were unable to convince citizens of several states to vote for you instead of your opponent. Perhaps you counted too much on States that supported your candidacy and not enough on states that were "unsure". Perhaps you depended too much on "status quo" politics when your opposing candidate played according to different - but entirely legal - rules.
In any event, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the tearing down the current form of government because you depended too much on the "popular vote" and not enough on the Electoral College.
One last thing: if there was "interference" in the 2016 election, that interference would have had to be so extensive and so widespread that it would be obvious to a blind person. It wouldn't be hidden from view and only seen through cracks and crevices by only those who make improbable connections between unrelated events.
You legitimately lost the election because there were sufficient States, and thus Electoral College members, who declined to support you. And as I have explained, it had nothing to do with the "popular vote".
Sorry, Ms. Clinton, but none of those assumptions hold true - for one simple reason:
The United States is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.
There are various memes about a Democracy being "two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner" or "the majority voting on what to take away from the minority". Aside for the ironic nature of those memes, the basic truth is that a Democracy can enable a majority to act in a tyrannical manner against the minority. A Republic can't.
The Founders were wise enough to know that a pure Democracy would be a failure if implemented in an environment where each of the original 13 Colonies had its own customs, economies, and products. They knew that forcing some of the Colonies to submit to the demands of other Colonies was a recipe for an inter-Colonial war (which actually happened in the mid-1800s, but that discussion is for another time).
Instead, The Founders designed a "federalism" system of government (remember, we are a "federation of States"). Each State would provide its own State-level governing structure. The citizens of each State would elect Representatives to their State-level government. The citizens of each State would also elect Representatives to the central Federal government as well.
The intention was to allow each State to implement laws that it felt were good for its citizens, and that the Federal Representatives would implement laws that all of the States could agree on. The laws of each State would only affect the citizens of each State, but the laws passed by the Federal government would have supremacy over the actions of every State.
Since this is a Republic, how could a Federal chief executive be elected in such a way that the majority could not completely overwhelm the minority, and where the minority could defeat a tyrannical majority?
The Electoral College was the solution. Here, "electors" from each state, based on the number of Representatives and Senators to that state, would elect the President. In this form, a state with a huge population would be no more powerful than many smaller states bound together.
This idea works because the President is the chief law enforcement officer of Federal laws- but has no power over State laws. He is also empowered to enact or veto Federal bills - a "check" on the power of the Legislature.
The President is not empowered to change State law, nor is he empowered to change Federal law. Hence, the electors from each State must cooperate to determine who "runs" the Federal government. The Founders solved that problem by using the same rules as the rest of government: the members of the Electoral College, each representing their own State, elect their own Representative - the "President of the United States".
It's actually a very clever system and one where no individual, group of individuals, or outside agency - such as Russia - can shift an election one way or the other.
We are a Republic, and the Electoral College enforced the same rules of the Republic
Now, Ms. Clinton wishes to eliminate the intent of the Founders by changing the most important aspect of the Federal government from a Republic to a Democracy.
This is the lip of the slippery slope. If we begin to change the Constitution - the "rules" for the United States - we could destroy the United States.
Ms. Clinton is not happy that she lost the election. I suppose that's only natural. But changing the Constitution because you aren't happy that you lost an election?
Perhaps, Ms. Clinton, you were unable to convince citizens of several states to vote for you instead of your opponent. Perhaps you counted too much on States that supported your candidacy and not enough on states that were "unsure". Perhaps you depended too much on "status quo" politics when your opposing candidate played according to different - but entirely legal - rules.
In any event, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the tearing down the current form of government because you depended too much on the "popular vote" and not enough on the Electoral College.
One last thing: if there was "interference" in the 2016 election, that interference would have had to be so extensive and so widespread that it would be obvious to a blind person. It wouldn't be hidden from view and only seen through cracks and crevices by only those who make improbable connections between unrelated events.
You legitimately lost the election because there were sufficient States, and thus Electoral College members, who declined to support you. And as I have explained, it had nothing to do with the "popular vote".
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
18 Years Later
My second cousin worked in the Woolworth building, a block north and a block east of Two World Trade Center - which is across the street from where one of the towers stood (the "north" tower). He was on the subway on his way to work when the train suddenly stopped and an announcement was made that there was an explosion at the World Trade center. It was election day and he had just voted in the primary, otherwise he would have been in his building - which suffered some damage when the towers fell.
My daughter was mad at me the previous week: "You're so unfair!" I hadn't allowed her to take a bus to NYC to meet with some of the faculty members of Boston's School of the Museum of Fine Arts. They were scheduled to have a "meet and greet" brunch on September 11, 2001 ...
... in the Top of the World restaurant at the World Trade Center.
She's not mad at me any more.
For me, 9/11/2001 is a day with mixed emotions. Anger and sadness that so many were killed or hurt, and thankfulness that my family remained safe.
Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a target. A previous attempt to bring them down 10 years earlier using a car bomb wasn't successful, although it did destroy much of one of the underground parking lots.
Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a symbol of America's financial and economic strength, and that there were those in the world who hated us and them for what they represented.
Clinton treated multiple terrorist attacks as criminal acts, not as terrorist attacks. Because of this, investigations were relegated to the local authorities instead of federal agencies. Without calling these multiple attacks "terrorism", no agency or authority was tasked with "connecting the dots".
Post-9/11 recriminations ran rife with attacks against President Bush for not preventing the attack, even though the information about "airplanes being used as weapons to attack American targets" was so nonspecific that it was useless. Questions were asked why President Clinton did not "take out Bin Laden" previously. Accusations flew back and forth about emergency services being unable to communicate effectively. Some in Congress blamed the Bush administration for "not connecting the dots" when the previous Clinton administration had not demonstrated the need to do so - and hadn't "connected the dots" either.
Some even ridiculed President Bush for not angrily racing out of a classroom during the attack. He had been reading a book to kindergarten children.Would frightening the children have solved a thing? The attack had already taken place, every plane in flight was ordered to land at the closest airport after the report of Flight 93 being hijacked, and Vice President Cheney was ready to give orders to Air Force fighters to shoot down any plane refusing to land.
18 years have passed.
In my opinion, we haven't learned a thing. The proof is our failure to take actions to protect our nation since 9/11 and the proof that America is no longer protected by "ocean borders on either side".
We haven't strengthened our power transmission systems against EMP or other attack.
We haven't fully secured our southern and northern borders to prevent incursions (look at the statistics - some illegal entrants are from the Middle East).
We haven't significantly improved our methods to inspect goods received by container vessels at our multiple ports (marginal improvements, yes - but too many items still make it through the border).
We haven't reassessed our foreign policy to determine where the US military should be involved and where the US shouldn't even get involved.
These are only a few of the "open holes" in our nation's security. Forums already exist where the question of national security are being legitimately discussed and where possible answers are being proposed.
For decades, we have paid attention to issues that some believe are necessary to demonstrate "who we are". In many of the "who we are" arguments, some have argued against a strong military capable of defending America because "who we are" should not include using the military. Ever. At. All. Even when necessary. Some have even argued that we shouldn't defend America because this nation doesn't deserve to exist.
Maybe Washington is keeping itself occupied with nonsense issues because the big issues - the ones that need to be solved to actually protect America - are SO big and SO hard to solve that both sides are afraid to take the first move... and be accused by the other side of being "provocative".
9/11 both tore this nation apart and brought it together. We were one nation for a short time - but only for a short time. And then politicians on both sides of the aisle decided that "playing games" was more important than defending the nation.
Are we back where we were on 9/10/2001?
My daughter was mad at me the previous week: "You're so unfair!" I hadn't allowed her to take a bus to NYC to meet with some of the faculty members of Boston's School of the Museum of Fine Arts. They were scheduled to have a "meet and greet" brunch on September 11, 2001 ...
... in the Top of the World restaurant at the World Trade Center.
She's not mad at me any more.
For me, 9/11/2001 is a day with mixed emotions. Anger and sadness that so many were killed or hurt, and thankfulness that my family remained safe.
Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a target. A previous attempt to bring them down 10 years earlier using a car bomb wasn't successful, although it did destroy much of one of the underground parking lots.
Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a symbol of America's financial and economic strength, and that there were those in the world who hated us and them for what they represented.
Clinton treated multiple terrorist attacks as criminal acts, not as terrorist attacks. Because of this, investigations were relegated to the local authorities instead of federal agencies. Without calling these multiple attacks "terrorism", no agency or authority was tasked with "connecting the dots".
Post-9/11 recriminations ran rife with attacks against President Bush for not preventing the attack, even though the information about "airplanes being used as weapons to attack American targets" was so nonspecific that it was useless. Questions were asked why President Clinton did not "take out Bin Laden" previously. Accusations flew back and forth about emergency services being unable to communicate effectively. Some in Congress blamed the Bush administration for "not connecting the dots" when the previous Clinton administration had not demonstrated the need to do so - and hadn't "connected the dots" either.
Some even ridiculed President Bush for not angrily racing out of a classroom during the attack. He had been reading a book to kindergarten children.Would frightening the children have solved a thing? The attack had already taken place, every plane in flight was ordered to land at the closest airport after the report of Flight 93 being hijacked, and Vice President Cheney was ready to give orders to Air Force fighters to shoot down any plane refusing to land.
18 years have passed.
In my opinion, we haven't learned a thing. The proof is our failure to take actions to protect our nation since 9/11 and the proof that America is no longer protected by "ocean borders on either side".
We haven't strengthened our power transmission systems against EMP or other attack.
We haven't fully secured our southern and northern borders to prevent incursions (look at the statistics - some illegal entrants are from the Middle East).
We haven't significantly improved our methods to inspect goods received by container vessels at our multiple ports (marginal improvements, yes - but too many items still make it through the border).
We haven't reassessed our foreign policy to determine where the US military should be involved and where the US shouldn't even get involved.
These are only a few of the "open holes" in our nation's security. Forums already exist where the question of national security are being legitimately discussed and where possible answers are being proposed.
For decades, we have paid attention to issues that some believe are necessary to demonstrate "who we are". In many of the "who we are" arguments, some have argued against a strong military capable of defending America because "who we are" should not include using the military. Ever. At. All. Even when necessary. Some have even argued that we shouldn't defend America because this nation doesn't deserve to exist.
Maybe Washington is keeping itself occupied with nonsense issues because the big issues - the ones that need to be solved to actually protect America - are SO big and SO hard to solve that both sides are afraid to take the first move... and be accused by the other side of being "provocative".
9/11 both tore this nation apart and brought it together. We were one nation for a short time - but only for a short time. And then politicians on both sides of the aisle decided that "playing games" was more important than defending the nation.
Are we back where we were on 9/10/2001?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)