For decades we heard the cry, “NOT IN MY BACKYARD!”  You did not need to finish the article or watch the rest of the news broadcast to know what it meant or what it referred to.  Communities protesting Section 8 housing in middle class neighborhoods.  City residents, although decrying a rise in crime, blocked construction of a new prison in their municipality.  And perhaps the most famous example, the three decade effort to stop Nevada’s Yucca Mountain becoming the repository for the nation’s nuclear waste.

There were exceptions.  In mid-1980s Texas, rural communities on the verge of extinction competed for these projects.  They brought jobs to towns in which the historical source of family income and public revenue had long disappeared.  Where affordable housing for the unemployed and underemployed was non-existent.  Where the out-migration of young residents robbed these places of their future workforce.

Two news stories this past week foretell a “new NIMBY,” one with a major difference.  The outcry is not about what is being built in a community, but projects which may go forward whether they are needed or not.  The first is an exposé in the September 7 edition of ProPublica about the Navy’s abandonment of the LCS (littoral combat ship) project, conceived in the late 1990s as a smaller, faster off-shore alternative to the more costly and less agile destroyer class. 

In his article, “The Inside Story of How the Navy Spent Billions on the LCS (Little Crappy Ship),” Joaquin Sapien documents the project budget overruns, design flaws and lack of reliability.  According to Sapien, “Scores of frustrated sailors recall spending more time fixing the ships than sailing them.”  He described the LCS’ history as ” a vivid illustration of how Congress, the Pentagon and defense contractors can work in concert — and often against the good of the taxpayers and America’s security — to spawn what President Dwight D. Eisenhower described in his farewell address as the “military industrial complex.”

Perhaps the best evidence of this debacle is the saga of the USS Freedom, the first commissioned LSC which left the shipyard on October 8, 2008.  Despite promises of a 25-year useful life for the vessel, it was decommissioned on September 29, 2021, just short of its 13th birthday.  Three more of the first five ships have been decommissioned, the most recent being the USS Milwaukee on September 8, 2023 after less than eight years in service.

Common sense tells you the LCS would be a good place to start trimming unnecessary expenditures in the FY2024 defense budget.  As early as 2019, the Navy proposed cutting back on production of the LCS, requesting just one more in the FY2020 budget.  In what could only be described as a rare bi-partisan moment, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) recruited President Donald Trump to support American-made products and avoid the layoff of workers in her state.  Sapien reports, “On May 24, in a move that shocked the defense community, the Trump administration inserted one more ship into the budget after it had already been sent to Congress.”

This example of the “new NIMBY,” the eventual inclusion of three more ships than the Navy wanted in the FY2020 budget, shows how the term can now be attributed to a totally different kind of situation.  While every administration and member of Congress talks about balancing the budget, the necessary spending cuts required to achieve that goal “better not come out of my backyard.”  Even when continued spending makes little or no sense.  The easy solution would be to either mothball every LSC or offer them to coastal states for civilian purposes similar to the disposition of military bases following recommendation of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission at the turn of the century.  However, congressional members representing San Diego, California and Mayport, Florida, home bases for the remaining LCS fleet, continue to lobby for continued operations at these home ports.

The next example demonstrates how the “new NIMBY” can convert even the most ardent budget hawk into a dove.  Earlier this year, Representative Randy Weber, a Republican from Friendswood, Texas and a member of the Freedom Caucus, voted against Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s bi-partisan deal to avoid default because it did not go far enough to reduce the federal deficit.  Yesterday, he turned the other cheek.  According to Texas Tribune writer Matthew Choi:

The deeply conservative Friendswood Republican holds a distinction that separates him from several other caucus members: He is Congress’ top requester of earmarks this year at a time when many fellow conservatives have turned their backs on steering funds to local projects in their districts.

His asks include $100 million for the Ike Dike, an ambitious Gulf Coast hurricane protection project, as well as protections for some of the nation’s biggest energy and trade facilities. 

When it comes to backyards, Texas is among the biggest.  And to paraphrase the Lone Star state’s slogan, “Don’t Mess with Texas,” I wonder if the license plate on Congressman Weber’s personal car reads, “DMWMB.”  DON’T MESS WITH MY BACKYARD.  On the bright side, his request for the Ike Dike could be viewed as an admission that “there just might be something to all that climate change hoo-ha.”  But don’t bet on it.  He still has another cheek to turn.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The latest Wall Street Journal poll has Democrats on edge, the headline being Joe Biden and Donald Trump tied at 46-46 in a two-man race.  These “Nervous Nellies” should keep THREE things in mind.

1. There are 14 “independent” polling services of which only THREE have Trump tied or ahead.
2. Poll sampling depends on accurately gauging the percentage of THREE groups of people who are likely voters in the 2024 election: Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  Major shifts in demographics and party affiliation since 2020 make any poll that does not take these factors into account suspect.
3. To win a majority of the electoral college, Joe Biden needs only THREE of the six 2020 battleground states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  All THREE have seen a rise in Democratic voter registrations (largely from younger voters) and an increase in Democratic turnout following the Dobbs decision.

But that is not what I came here to talk about.  In the same poll, respondents were asked, “Is (candidate) too old to run for president?”  The results?  Biden, 73 percent.  Trump, 47 percent.  That is a significant difference for two individuals who are only THREE years apart when it comes to age.  Biden, 80,  Trump, 77.  

But even that is not what I came here to talk about.  Presidential candidates have been able to overcome a plethora of biases.  John Kennedy and Catholicism.  Barack Obama and race.  According to the popular vote, Hillary Clinton and gender.  Biden and age. Perhaps the only remaining bias that continues to dog most presidential aspirants is height. Texas Tech political science professor Gregg R. Murray found that in 67 percent of the presidential elections, dating back to 1789. the taller candidate triumphed over (pun intended) his shorter opponent.

Which is why no one should be surprised Florida’s governor chose not to accompany President Biden during his visit to view the damage caused by Hurricane Idalia. You guessed it.  Ron DeSantis is THREE inches shorter than Joe Biden. Biden, 6 feet tall.  DeSantis, 5 feet 9 inches.  And you can bet the farm one of DeSantis’ campaign consultants told the governor, “The last thing we need is a photo of Biden putting his hand on your shoulder as he did with Zelenskyy.  That picture screams, ‘Son, nice of you to be here.'”

Not surprisingly, a DeSantis/Biden portrait would also debunk Trump’s self-reported height of 6 feet 3 inches he submitted to the Fulton County, Georgia sheriff’s office prior to his booking on August 24.  Former President “Double Down,” of course, would claim to be two times THREE inches taller than his rival for the GOP nomination.  One need only Google photos of Trump and DeSantis, such as the one below of the two men meeting on an Orlando tarmac in March 2020, to see a half-foot difference in height is questionable.

Aristotle first suggested the “rule of THREE,” based on his belief people find it easier to remember three things.  This principle was later applied to writing, psychology and survival techniques.  Think of what we were always told about fire safety.  “Stop, drop and roll.”  You should now add politics to that list of topics for which the “rule of THREE” is relevant.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

There is no dearth of opinions about what is at stake in the 2024 presidential and congressional elections.  Democracy versus autocracy.   The rule of law. A woman’s control over her own body.  Unfettered individual freedom versus community responsibility.  Let me add one more–not just the First Amendment, but the volume at which it is practiced.

Two events last week clearly demonstrated the contrast between the tone of communications represented by the front-runners in the two major parties’ respective nominations for president. At one extreme was Joe Biden’s assessment last Friday of the August jobs report at a briefing on the White House lawn.  You knew it was coming.  It was just a matter of time.  In what has now become a trademark of any Biden speech, especially when he wants to emphasize a point, the president leaned into the microphones and whispered, “You’ve heard me say many times: Wall Street didn’t build America; the middle class built America, and unions built the middle class.”  This mannerism, like his regular use of the word “malarky,” is both endearing and cringeworthy.

At the other extreme was Mark Meadows’ ill-advised decision to be his own witness at a federal court hearing at which he tried to convince the judge his role in the alleged RICO violations to overturn the Georgia presidential election should be held in a federal versus state court.  Under direct examination by his lawyers, Meadows claimed that his arranging phone calls and meetings for the president, despite the substantive content of those proceedings, was what a White House chief of staff does.  Therefore, his guilt or innocence depended on a determination whether he was “just doing my job” as a federal employee.

During the prosecution’s cross-examination, just as predicted in the August 26 post, “Legal TRAPpings,” District Attorney Fani Willis’ team provided several emails and phone conversations in which Meadows explores ways Georgia election officials might reconsider the results of the November 3, 2020 vote count.  They pointed out each instance was a violation of the Hatch Act as proof Meadows was operating outside the legal boundaries of his job description. More damaging was the possibility Meadows committed perjury when prosecution lawyer Anna Cross asked him if he had any role in coordinating the fake electors plot.  “No I did not,”  he asserted. Cross then showed Meadows an email he sent to Trump campaign advisor Jason Miller in which he wrote, “We just need to have someone coordinating the electors for the states.”

On redirect, the defendant’s lawyers then tried to address this damaging inconsistency.  But as is so often the case in MAGA-verse legal circles, Meadows’ team chose not to quit while they were ahead.  In hopes of rehabilitating their client, Meadows’ lawyer asks him about the motivation for the email.

Meadows:  It was mentioned to me that there was litigation going on, and that you had to have a provisional or conditional elector, and what I didn’t want to happen was for the campaign to prevail in certain areas and then not have this.

Defense Counsel: Why did you not want that to happen?

Meadows:  Well, because I know I would get yelled at if we had not.

Defense Counsel:  By whom?

Meadows: By the President of the United States.

If Meadows had only cared about his own interests as much as he claimed he was doing so  to protect Trump.  The Final Jeopardy answer would have been, “Mr. President, you should ask someone from the campaign to coordinate the electors for the states.”  The Final Jeopardy question? “How do you gently remind the commander-in-chief he is asking you to violate the Hatch Act and risk indictment for interfering in a state election?”

Not that it is the most important or objective criterion for selecting the nation’s chief executive, given a choice between the “Hoarse Whisperer” and “Old Yeller,”  I’ll take the former.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP