All posts by Dr. ESP

The Road to Hell

Politics

Dr. ESP, this is the third post in a row referencing Nikki Haley.  And not in a positive light.  Are you afraid she really could win the election in November if she is the GOP nominee?

~Imaginary Subscriber

Dear Imaginary, thank you for your question.  In the tradition of my people, I will answer your question with a question.  Are you suggesting I share the Biden campaign’s assessment the best hope of victory in the 2024 contest is a rematch between the incumbent and Donald Trump?  If so, the answer is absolutely NOT.  I am pulling for Haley, knowing that Trump will not take a defeat lying down.  He will either run as an independent, start a write-in campaign or preemptively declare Haley cannot win and urge his voters to stay home (just to prove himself right).  He has to somehow stay in the race if he wants to continue arguing his indictments, trials and likely convictions are politically motivated.

Consider the following.  Every protest Trump vote will be one less for Haley.  Abraham Lincoln could not survive a defection of 15 to 30 percent of expected Republican ballots.  And imagine the chaos if down-ballot Republicans have to pick sides.  The civil war within the party will go from tepid to ultra-thermal overnight ensuring a Democratic house and senate in 2025.

So count me among the cheerleaders hoping Haley wins the nomination, but here is why she will not.  She may be the only person in America who could give Donald Trump an opportunity to tell the truth for once.  It began when a nine-year-old boy in Iowa asked Haley how her position on Trump could “flip-flop” so often in eight years.  Once accused of straddling the fence, the best way to make it stick is to provide more examples.  It did not take long.

During the second Republican debate, Haley proposed eliminating the federal gas tax.  On December 30, the Trump campaign released a statement citing Haley’s “troublesome record” when it came to an increase in the South Carolina gas tax during her governorship.  “She pushed for a WHOPPING 60% increase in the state gas tax in South Carolina after promising voters she would never do so.” In essence, Trump was asking potential Haley voters, “She reneged on a promise once before.  Why would you believe she won’t do it again?”

But the back story about the financing of South Carolina highways eclipses the current fray over any inconsistent messaging.  If you have ever driven through South Carolina on I-95, you notice gas prices are considerably lower than in the states to its north and south.  However, you also observe something else.  South Carolina is the only one of the three immediate states and most of the others along I-95 that is limited to two-lanes in each direction.  And maintenance is spotty at best.  Don’t take my word for it.  A May 2023 article by Forbes contributor Gary Stoller included the following on-line testimonials.

FITSNews: Traveling from Georgia, the highway narrows from six lanes to four lanes — with rusty guardrails flanking the roadside. Trash is everywhere, greeting visiting motorists as they pass through a 1990s-era stucco display that might as well be the entrance to a drug kingpin’s barn — or a trailer park…Worst of all is the pavement which resembles an Afghan airstrip following a sustained bombing barrage.

REDDIT: Seriously, just did Boston to Miami and then back, and the stretch through South Carolina feels like driving in a Third World country. What gives?

Therefore, the question is not whether Haley promises to eliminate the federal gas tax and then does not?  The issue is whether she is promising she will make the entire U.S. interstate system emulate South Carolina’s share of it.  Maybe it is a plank in her “bring down inflation now” campaign.  Except it will more likely apply to shredded tires than to the price of consumer goods and services.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Haley’s Comment

Politics

[BLOGGER’S NOTE:  On the Deprogramming101 home page, I warn readers not to take everything I write as gospel.  Today’s post is one for which I urge everyone to take that advice.]

In the runup to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the contenders for the Republican nomination for president have uttered words one would never expect from an individual seeking the highest office in the land.  However, Wednesday night, the unexpected took a hard turn to the left when former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley declared the South fought the Civil War to protect a woman’s choice when it comes to her reproductive health and LGBTQ+ rights..

I know, she did not use those exact words, but what else could she possibly mean when her response to the question, “What caused the American Civil War,” was the following.

I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And we will always stand by the fact that I think the government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people,  It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom.

To emphatically declare “government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life” must have been music to the ears of Americans who are part of the LGBTQ+ community.  If only there were paintings of the South Carolina confederate brigade being led into battle behind a flagbearer holding a rainbow version of the “Stars and Bars” to validate Ms. Haley’s assertion.  Imagine she had used her tenure as governor to educate Palmetto State citizens how their ancestors took up arms to ensure every South Carolinian could enjoy the same rights and privileges regardless of their sexual orientation.  One can even envision the Daughters of the Confederacy and SC United for Justice & Equality, a Charleston-based coalition of LGBTQ+ advocates, coming together to oppose removal of statues of Civil War generals and soldiers who gave their lives for gender equality.

Furthermore, has there ever been a more forceful argument for a woman’s right to choose, than Haley’s declaration, “They [government] don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do.”  But she did not stop there, doubling down by adding, “They don’t need to be part of your life.”  One has to assume that includes judges, politicians and (in Texas) anti-abortion bounty hunters having a seat at the table during a patient’s consultation with her physician.  Women, and the men who love them, living in states where legislatures dominated by old, white males enacted laws limiting reproductive choice, greeted Haley’s change of heart with a rousing chorus of “hosannas.”

Rumor has it (not really) Christian F. Nunes, president of the National Organization of Women, was preparing a statement welcoming Haley into the “sisterhood.”  However, before she could deliver her remarks, Haley realized she now faced a “Hobson’s Choice,” defined by Merriam-Webster as “the necessity of accepting one of two or more equally objectional alternatives.”  Based on an overnight analysis of GOP polling data that would make a sabermetrician blush, Haley picked her poison.  Turns out, MAGA World is more offended by her echoing the words of pro-choice and LGBTQ+ advocates than they are by acknowledging slavery’s role in the Civil War.  Less than 12 hours following her New Hampshire trial by fire, Haley had a second change of heart.  During a Thursday morning radio interview, the penitent candidate declared, “Of course the Civil War was about slavery.”  Welcome back to Earth One.

Her flip-flopping did not go unappreciated.  I hear (again, not really) the owner of Waffle House #233 at 2229 Savannah Highway in Charleston, South Carolina has roped off a counter-side table perpetually reserved for the former governor.  And if this presidential thing does not pan out for her, he hopes she will become the establishment’s official spokesperson.

[NOTE: For an excellent, non-fictional assessment of Nikki Haley’s 24 hours in what some are calling her introduction to the “GOP Thunderdome,” check out Politico senior columnist Matt Lewis’ op-ed, “Nikki Haley’s Slavery Gaffe Shows How Scared She Is of MAGA Republicans.“]

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Word of the Year 2023

Culture

On December 15, Dictionary.com selected “hallucinate” as its Word of the Year 2023.  It is not the word I would have chosen, even considering their focus on hallucination’s relevance to artificial intelligence.  Below is the official announcement.

The definition strikes me as an inaccurate description of both “hallucinating” and “artificial intelligence.”  If they intended to show how information can be mangled, or even corrupted, to make a non-factual observation, based on their own definitions, a better choice would have been the following.

CONTEXT

noun

  1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect.
  2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

SOURCE: Dictionary.com

If we learned anything at all during this off-year political conversation, it is the adage “context is everything” no longer applies.  Today, the more apt lesson is, “If you need context to explain any declaration, you have already lost the argument.”  Just ask the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania.

I should have learned this lesson in 1978, when, as director of development planning at the Maryland Department of Economic and Community Development, my team drafted a development policy agenda titled, “A Five-Part Strategy for the Maryland Marketplace.”  The tag line?  “Maryland, Close to What Counts.”  The document laid out the context for this phrase including the state’s proximity to every major East Coast population center, the Nation’s capital, its shipping access via the Chesapeake Bay and the port of Baltimore, etc.  Within weeks, the Delaware economic development agency launched a new campaign.  “Delaware, What Counts.”  They might as well have added, “Maryland, Close but No Cigar!”

While I hopefully did not continue to make that same mistake, others have been less fortunate.  During the 2023 election cycle, voters in Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia told the GOP leadership and pro-life advocates, “If you have to explain why government should intervene in decisions about reproductive health, take your message elsewhere.”  In contrast, Kentucky governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat in a deep red state, won re-election based on a campaign ad in which the now 21 year-old victim asks, “Should a 12 year-old, who has been raped by her stepfather, have to bring his baby to term?”  Game, set, match.  No context needed.

Wednesday night, Republican presidential contender Nikki Haley, at a rally in New Hampshire, ripped the award for “worst answer of the year” from the hands of the three university presidents who wilted during the House Education Committee hearing on anti-Semitism on college campuses.  When asked, “What caused the American Civil War,” she pontificated about the role of government, individual freedom and capitalism.  She did not mention the word “slavery,” to which the questioner replied, “In the year 2023, it’s astonishing to me that you answer that question without mentioning the word slavery.”  In the video you see Haley hesitate, wondering how to put her response in context.  Lesson #2.  Do not expect, much less ask, those who disagree with you to provide the context in which to explain your position.  Haley responded, “What do you want me to say about slavery?”  In other words, in what context do you want or expect me to talk about slavery?  This response was so ludicrous even Ron DeSantis accused her of trying to whitewash history (after which he vanished in a puff of irony).

Politics and academia are not the sole arenas in which context is used to mask the more obvious reason for any action.  During the holidays, my son-in-law gave me a book by Bruce Schoenfeld titled Game of Edges.  The subtitle reads, “The Analytics Revolution and the Future of Professional Sports.”  A central theme focuses on team ownership and how it has morphed from a hobby of the rich and famous into the most successful investment in their portfolios.  The gift’s relevance was affirmed when the Los Angeles Dodgers spent over one billion dollars to sign two players:  Shohei Ohtani ($750 million over ten years) and Yoshinobu Yamamoto ($325 million over 12 years).

It begs the obvious question about return on this record breaking outlay.  “Will their presence on the Dodgers’ roster generate enough revenue to justify their inflated salaries?”  Sports journalists provided an array of answers about TV contracts, merchandise royalties and income from other activities associated with the team.  Although, I doubt Nobel laureate John Nash could calculate how many #17 and #18 jerseys (Ohtani and Yamamoto, respectively) you need to sell to raise a billion dollars. Schoenfeld suggests such financial gymnastics are unnecessary.  There is a simple answer.  Guggenheim Baseball Management (GBM), headed by majority owner Mark Walter, purchased the Dodgers in 2011 for $2.15 billion dollars.  If sold today, the buyers would pay an estimated minimum of $4.25 billion.  GBM and Walter would recover their investment with a billion dollars to spare.

As we approach 2024, the question for the Biden campaign is whether they have learned the lesson.  Yes, Bidenomics has been successful.  The post-pandemic American economy is the envy of the industrialized world.  Lower inflation.  Higher GDP.  Most job growth in a presidential term.  Increasing consumer confidence.  Inflation reduced by 67 percent without a recession. But that requires context and a longer attention span than most voters have.  You know what does not.  A box score on any sports web site or on the sports pages of any newspaper.  You immediately know which team won and why.  Therefore I suggest the Biden campaign start purchasing billboards across the country with a series of box scores.  Here are two examples.

21st Century Recessions

Obama/Biden 0
Bush/Trump 2

 

21st Century Job Creation (in millions)

Obama/Biden 26.147
Bush/Trump -2.14

 

Let the GOP fumble with the context.

POSTSCRIPT: 2024 Word of the Year

Will journalists, academics and politicians continue to invoke the word “context” in the coming year?  I, for one, hope so.  Although it may take on new significance, requiring  one more definitional variation.

CONTEXT

noun

~a Donald Trump post on social media.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Last Sane Man Not-Standing

Politics

More revealing than yesterday’s decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump as a candidate for President in the state’s primary was the reaction of the other contenders for the Republican nomination.  Let’s begin with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and whatever Vivek Ramaswamy.  Remember all three raised their hand when asked if they would support Trump even if he was convicted of a felony crime.  Here is what each said about the Colorado decision.

DeSantis:  The Left invokes ‘democracy’ to justify its use of power, even if it means abusing judicial power to remove a candidate from the ballot based on spurious legal grounds.

Haley:  The last thing we want is judges telling us who can and can’t be on the ballot.

Ramaswamy:  This is what an actual attack on democracy looks like.

In contrast, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said he would not support Trump if he was convicted of a felony.  However, his support of the American judicial system ended last night with his response to the Colorado ruling.

Christie:  I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States by any court.

Ironically, Christie harbored no similar opinion concerning court intervention when it came to Gore v. Bush following the 2000 election.  In fact, he uses Gore’s concession to contrast Trump’s behavior when it comes to respect for the judicial process.

Sadly, the only candidate for the Republican nomination who said he would not vote for a convicted felon and agreed with the Colorado ruling was former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, who remains in the race although he is polling at less than one percent and has not qualified for the last two debates.

Hutchinson: The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling barring Donald Trump from the presidential ballot is what I raised as a concern in the first presidential debate in Milwaukee. The factual finding that he supported insurrection will haunt his candidacy.

So we now have five candidates, including Trump, who might as well be running on a platform to repeal Article III of the U.S. Constitution.  For you strict constructionists out there, it contains some of the clearest possible language in any of the founding documents.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.

The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to rule on the Colorado disqualification.  On today’s edition of “Morning Joe,” conservative and former Republican attorney George Conway admitted he had been skeptical of the case for disqualification until he read the dissenting opinions of the three Colorado judges who voted against banning Trump from the March 5 primary ballot.  He found them to be logically weak and did not refute the facts.  Trump engaged in insurrection and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars people who engage in insurrection from holding any public office.

He made another observation which undermined the argument that Trump had not physically participated in the January 6 insurrection.  Conway noted that the phrase in the 14th amendment which reads, “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,” especially the phrase “the same” refers specifically to “the Constitution of the United States” in the previous clause.  Therefore insurrection in Section 3 need not be a physical act.  Insurrection, in this case, requires only a failure to follow the Constitution.

Conway concluded that, if the Supreme Court takes up the appeal, Trump’s lawyers will need to make much better arguments (not that such exist) and hope enough justices can tie themselves in knots coming up with a valid rationale to subvert the constitutional language.

One can only imagine Trump’s wrath if “my justices” uphold the Colorado decision.  Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett should hope their benefactor did not keep a copy of Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2 on his bedstand next to “The New Order,” a collection of Adolf Hitler’s speeches.  Otherwise he might get ideas from Act IV, Scene 2 for his Day One dictatorship.  “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the [judges].”

POSTSCRIPT:  PARENTING LESSON

If your children have any interest in becoming conservative Republican politicians or working for one, there is a sure fire way to ensure that do not abandon their moral compasses.  Change their last name to Hutchinson.  If it’s a girl call her Cassidy.  If it’s a boy, Asa seems appropriate.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Even a Caveman…

Culture, Politics

On Tuesday, New York Representative Elise Stefanik asked the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania a simple question.

“…does calling for the genocide of Jews violate (your university’s) code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?”

There are only two possible answers.  #1:  Of course it does.  #2: We never expected we would face this situation.  Therefore, we felt no need to specifically prohibit such speech.  But we know we must now.

All three academic leaders first told Stefanik it depended on the context.  In her response, Penn President Elizabeth Magill clarified, “If the speech becomes conduct.  It can be harassment, yes.”  An incredulous Stefanik shot back, “Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide?”

You might suspect I, being a Jew, am outraged by this exchange and especially the unwillingness of three university presidents to stand up against antisemitism which exploded beginning with false reports the Israel Defense Forces bombed a Gaza hospital when, in truth, the death and destruction was the result of an errant Islamic Jihad rocket.  If so, you would be half-right.  I am outraged at everyone involved.

If any one of my former students had come to class as ill-prepared as the three university presidents I would have excused them immediately.  (For the record, I actually would do that, explaining that I did not want the offending student to benefit by learning from the hard work of those students who did prepare.)  The trio knew exactly why they had been called before the House Committee on Education & the Workforce.  All they had to do was read the hearing title on the Committee’s web page, “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism.”

As professed in a classic Geico commercial, preempting the unfortunate discussion which occurred “…was so easy, even a cavewoman (all three presidents were women) can do it.”  Just imagine one of them had made the following opening statement.

Members of the committee, I share your concerns about the heated and potentially dangerous debate on college campus precipitated by the events of October 7, 2023 and Israel’s response.  I have always held academia should provide an environment for the free exchange of ideas and opinions.  And, as you know, there are strong opinions on both sides.

As a university president, I am required to make decisions that both protect free speech and ensure the safety of our students.  No easy task.  I have met with my leadership team and the university trustees and we came up with a set of ground rules we think does both.  Let me give you a few examples.

    • Condemning Hamas for the terrorist attack on October 7 and challenging Israeli tactical conduct of the war can and should be topics of civil discourse.
    • Equating all Palestinians with Hamas and all Jews and Israelis with government policies is not.
    • Signs, banners and posters supporting or opposing either the Palestinian or Israeli cause are acceptable.
    • Social media posts supporting or opposing either cause are also acceptable.
    • Signs, banners, posters and social media which threaten the free movement and safety of any student, faculty or administrator will be removed and the person originating the message may, following due process, be subject to suspension or expulsion.
    • Calling for the extermination of either Muslims/Palestinians or Jews/Israelis crosses a line we will not tolerate.
    • Anyone who engages in any activity which harms an individual or defaces property will be held accountable.
    • Anyone disrupting normal business including classes and extracurricular events, after due process, may be suspended or expelled.

If and when we observe unanticipated actions outside these ground rules we will amend them as necessary.  I hope you will support our efforts to be as precise as possible what we, as educators, see as the difference between free speech and unacceptable behavior.  Thank you.

Which brings me to my equal antipathy toward Congresswoman Stefanik.  When Stefanik referred specifically to calls of “genocide of Jews,”  MIT president Sally Kornbluth replied, “I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.” It turns out Kornbluth was correct, not just about MIT, but other campuses on which similar claims have been made.  Those claims turned out to be generated by Instagram and other social media users, often misquoting attendees at Palestinian rallies.  The Associated Press provides several examples including this one at the University of Pennsylvania.  The AP reports:

“Students @uofpenn gathered chanting ‘We want Jewish genocide’ ‘there is only 1 solution’ in reference to the Nazis ‘final solution’,” wrote an Instagram user who shared the clip in a post. “There has possibly never ever been a more dangerous time to be a Jewish student as Antisemitism continues to grow as a disease.”

The poster may be correct this is a dangerous time to be a Jewish student.  But it is not a license to make stuff up. The AP continues:

But the anti-Israel chants heard during the pro-Palestine rallies are being misquoted, Jewish and Palestinian groups say.

The protestors are actually chanting, “Israel, Israel, you can’t hide: We charge you with genocide,” the Anti-Defamation League, which frequently speaks out against anti-Semitism and extremism, confirmed in an email Tuesday.

Whether she believes the Israeli airstrikes are necessary to defeat a terrorist organization which brutally murdered so many of the country’s citizens or not, does Ms. Stefanik, a raging advocate for the First Amendment right to free expression when it comes to Donald Trump, really want to restrict debate about the future of the Middle East based on rumors?  Especially ones she perpetrates.  If only she had read the AP report which was published five days before the hearing.

Back to the academic leaders.  They do not need to take sides in this debate.  They need to lead by giving direction to the debate. And ensuring it is based on facts, not rumors and false assumptions.  It might even be a great practicum opportunity for students to hone their research and analytical skills.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP