All posts by Dr. ESP

Shoot the Messenger

Politics

I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat.

~Will Rogers

In 1980, Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan asked a question which many believe turned the tide in the November election.  “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  To make sure the answer among a majority of Americans was “NO,” he provided a statistic which became known as the “misery index.”  The calculation consisted of the sum of the inflation rate (measured by change in the consumer price index/CPI) and the unemployment rate.  In October, 1980 the misery index totaled 20.37 percent, consisting of inflation of 12.77 percent and unemployment of 7.5 percent.  Four years later, Reagan was overwhelmingly reelected, touting Reaganomics for having reduced the “misery index” by almost half to 11.66.  Though unemployment decreased by only 0.1 percent, inflation was only a third of what it was (4.26 percent) at the end of Jimmy Carter’s administration.

In case you have not noticed, every GOP candidate for the 2024 presidential nominee daily refers to the failed Biden economy.  Yet none asks, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  And any reference to “misery index” is a faded memory. Why?  Because it no longer serves their purpose.  Today, the “misery index” is 7.7 percent (4.0 percent inflation and 3.7 percent unemployment), 3.96 points BELOW that at the time of Reagan’s landslide re-election.  Pun intended, when it comes to the “misery index,” Bidenomics easily trumps Reagonomics.

Speaking of Trump, maybe you wonder why he is not attacking Biden based on the “misery index.”  After all, Biden’s 2.5 years in the White House have barely moved the needle.  The index was 8.08 when Trump involuntarily left office.  While unemployment stood at 6.9 percent, his misery index number benefitted from an inflation rate 1.18 percent.  Maybe he would prefer not reminding voters why inflation was so low.  The average daily rate of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. exceeded 3,300.  Or there was a net loss of 2.9 million jobs between January 2017 and January 2021 while job growth in the first two years of the Biden Administration increased by 10.7 million. Or that no one was spending money as demonstrated by a consumer spending decline for the first time in 50 years.

Despite this available evidence, an October, 2022 ABC News-Ipsos poll of registered voters showed, by a margin of 14 points, respondents trusted Republicans to do a better job handling the economy than Democrats.  While there is some truth to an assessment the media have not given Biden’s economic accomplishments the positive attention they deserve, it is not their responsibility to do so.  That is the job of the director of White House communications and the director of communications for the re-election campaign.  They are the president’s primary messengers and they are clearly not doing their job.

Let me give you one example.  At a major intersection between two U.S. highways in Northeast Florida there is a billboard with head shots of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.  Superimposed above them are the words “Dumb and Dumber.”  It is viewed every day by workers who take either route between Amelia Island and Jacksonville while they wait for the traffic light to turn green.  Now I am not suggesting Democrats should emulate the incivility and lack of respect exhibited by MAGA-world, but they could take a clue concerning the medium.

Last week, the Biden campaign tweeted the following in response to Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville announcing that his state would receive $1.4 billion from the federal government for affordable broadband access.  “See you at the groundbreaking.”  Biden’s point, Tuberville had voted against the $555 billion infrastructure bill which authorized the project’s funding. But it was a one-day news story.  And if Biden does attend the groundbreaking, it will be another one-day news story.

What should they do?  Rent billboards on major highways in and around the communities that will benefit from the infrastructure project.  It should read.

The broadband access you’re enjoying today would not have happened if  a Republican had been in the White House or Republicans like Tommy Tuberville, who voted against funding it, controlled the U.S. Senate.
You’re welcome.  President Joe Biden.

Democrats share majority values on a number of issues including women’s reproductive right and sensible gun regulation. They do not believe in book banning or the right of one parent to decide what all children can or cannot see or do.  They do not belief a single, lower court judge should be able to overturn years of legal precedent.  Nor that Supreme Court justices should not be held to a code of ethics, as is EVERY other federal official.

I am reminded of a true story about the Apollo moon mission when engineers working on the lunar module were faced with an issue of weight versus fuel capacity.  They suggested to the project manager Thomas Kelly the vehicle did not need four large windows (the original design) if the astronauts stood closer to two smaller triangular portholes.  It would also eliminate the need for seats, another weight factor.  Kelly rejected the proposal saying, “I don’t see it.”  Instead of blaming Kelly for his lack of appreciation of their brilliant idea, one of the team members said it was their job “to make him see it.”  They did by creating a mock-up of the interior of the lunar module, sans seats.  When Kelly could experience rather than just hear about what they suggested, it made the difference

The Biden White House and campaign need to have its own “misery index.”  It should be defined as how underwater the incumbent stands on issues which polling suggests are at the forefront of voter concerns.  Especially those on which Biden and Democratic candidates for Congress are more aligned with the majority than any of their potential GOP opponents. If the current team cannot change that dynamic, it is time to put them out of their misery (pun again intended) and find messengers who can make enough voters “see it” to ensure victory in 2024.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Whole Lotta Grooming Going On

Politics

Last week’s Moms for Liberty convention in Tampa, Florida was a banner occasion for the anti-groomer community.  Among the speakers was Dr. James Lindsay, a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist, who is credited with having coined the term “groomer.”  Moms for Liberty and the parade of candidates for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination quickly jumped on his bandwagon.  Senator Tim Scott (REP-SC) has hosted fundraisers for the organization.  Former VP Mike Pence decried an Iowa school district’s accommodation of trans-students which he labeled “a gender transition plan.” Ron DeSantis released an anti-LGBT video which criticized Donald Trump’s empathy for victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, which even members of the Log Cabin Republicans thought was a bridge too far.

Despite all their bluster, there is not one documented instance of a school teacher being responsible for a homosexual or a transgender conversion.  Not that evidence of grooming is necessary in today’s legal environment following last Friday’s Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis. The owner of 303 Creative LLC Lorie Smith sued the state of Colorado because (in the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion), “Ms. Smith worries (my emphasis) that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to compel her–in violation of the First Amendment–to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse.”  Every imaginary fear is now an accepted basis for litigation in an already too litigious society.  If only that elderly lady had known she did not have to scald herself to sue McDonald’s for serving too hot coffee.  Just like Trump and declassification of secret documents, she could have just thought it.

From the above, you might assume I pooh-pooh (to quote Nancy Pelosi) the concept of grooming.  However, you would be wrong.  I believe there is an overt case of grooming in America, just not the one Moms for Liberty avows nor is it directed at school teachers.  It is called the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (FedSoc).  Their target is not impressionable third-graders, but impressionable law students. Founded in 1982 at Yale, Harvard and University of Chicago law schools, FedSoc has chapters in over 200 law schools.  But the grooming does not end upon graduation.  FedSoc has established divisions to reinforce their view of American jurisprudence for law faculty and practicing lawyers.  When it comes to judicial appointments, FedSoc has been described by one of its own members Amanda Hollis-Brusky “as the de facto gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents.”  Is there any more powerful evidence FedSoc’s view of the Constitution is not based on ideology but its hold on and manipulation of the GOP?

In a classic example of gaslighting, FedSoc’s stated mission is “checking federal power, protecting individual liberty and interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning.”  And how do federal judges and Supreme Court justices, who have been groomed by FedSoc, fufill that objective?

  • Declaring “money is speech” and “corporations are people” under the First Amendment despite no evidence of such claim in the language or in the writings of Madison or other drafters of the U.S.  Constitution.
  • Ignoring the inconvenient phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” to justify expanding the right to gun-ownership.
  • Denying women the individual right to determine their own health care and allowing government to intervene between a woman and her health provider.
  • Approving Trump’s ban of travelers from Muslim-majority nations despite his many statements that it was tied to their faith, not evidence of any documented terrorist threat (the official party line).
  • Endorsing discrimination against protected groups in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as was the case in Friday’s 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis decision.
  • Selectively nullifying actions by the President and Congress which are reserved for those branches of government under Articles I and II.  In other words, checking everyone’s federal power except that of the judiciary.
  • Accepting cases in which the plaintiff does not have standing or there has been no discernible harm.
  • Using the shadow docket to make consequential rulings without benefit of a full briefing, oral arguments or any written opinion justifying the decision.  For example, in June 2022 the six FedSoc approved justices used the shadow docket to reinstate Louisiana’s racially gerrymandered congressional map previously voided by the Fifth Circuit Court.
  • Violating the Establishment Clause in the first amendment, the six FedSoc justices sanctioned a coach-led Christian prayer on the field after football games.

This list goes on and on.  And is not likely to end any time soon as the Federalist Society expands its influence in one of the two major political parties and hones its grooming skills at the nation’s law schools.  Of course, all this costs money, which is where Leonard Leo comes in.  Leo, who most recently made headlines as the individual who introduced Samuel Alito to his fishing buddy Paul Singer, is credited with bundling as much as $250 million in dark money to fund FedSoc.

Chief Justice John Roberts wonders why the Supreme Court’s favorability rating is at an all time low.  What else could one expect when it is at the center of a perfect storm consisting of dark money, rejects a code of ethics and is dominated by six justices who live by the mantra “watch what we say, not what we do.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr.  ESP

Affirmative Entrepreneurship

Culture

Friday, June 30, 2023, will be remembered by those most affected as the day the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) turned its back on those less-advantaged Americans for whom admission to one of the nation’s premier colleges and universities could provide the resources and mentoring by which they have a chance to fully develop their innate interests and talent.  But it is about more than education.  When a Harvard or North Carolina used race as a (not the) factor when considering a potential student’s application they were practicing what could be called “affirmative entrepreneurship.”

The curriculum in every American institute of higher learning with a major or minor in entrepreneurship includes a discussion of risk and reward.  It goes something like this.  You can do what everyone else is doing and make a decent profit.  But if you can see something no one else sees, even though the risks to pursue it are high, the rewards can be even greater.  Affirmative action in education was the willingness to see the less than apparent (through SAT scores or being president of the French club) potential of an applicant and produce something that was more unique and of higher value than what was readily available in the marketplace.  In other words, the justices who made up the 6-3 majority in Friday’s decision sent a second, more covert message.  American universities need to be more like risk-averse, large corporations, rather than entrepreneurial ventures.  Stick with the proven commodity, not identify and develop the market disruptor.  Be more like American Motors, TWA and Sears (remember them?) instead of Apple.

If you really want to know how affirmative action can work, one of the best examples is not in education, but in sports.  It was called “the Royals Baseball Academy.”  When Ewing Kauffman acquired the rights to a Major League Baseball (MLB) team in Kansas City, he chose not to repeat the dismal tradition of new franchises.  For new MLB entrants, initial rosters consisted of cast-offs and has-beens waived by the more established teams.  Mr. K (as he was affectionately known to his business associates and citizens of his hometown)  decided to take a different approach.  In 1969, the Royals held tryout camps in 41 states, the only attendance criteria being athletic ability regardless of sport.  Of the 7,682 attendees, 42 were chosen to attend the baseball academy at which they were mentored by the best in the business such as Ted Williams.  Of those 42, eight had never played on a high school or college baseball team.  Three of the 42 ended up playing for the Royals, including Hall of Fame inductee Frank White.  Mr. K knew there were potentially great baseball players out there.  You just had to look for them and offer them a path to reach their potential.

Perhaps those who oppose affirmative action would be less antagonistic if they considered how they have benefitted from the practice.  You do not have to be a minority, as my own experience demonstrates.  Based on my undergraduate GPA at the University of Virginia, I should never had been considered much less accepted into the Ph.D. program at Johns Hopkins University.  However, I had the good fortune to have John Ellwood as one of my professors.  John earned his doctorate from Hopkins and wrote a recommendation in support of my application.  He told the admissions office, although I was not much of a traditional student or test-taker, he thought I would thrive in the seminar-dominated environment for which the political science department was known.  I know I was given an opportunity I probably did not deserve based on objective criteria such as test scores or GPA.  I also know, an equally qualified (or in my case under-qualified) minority candidate would never have had a John Ellwood as a mentor.

I am not alone.  Every successful individual, if perfectly honest, can identify one or more instances where they received some immeasurable, subjective advantage in life.  Often due to nothing more than being in the right place at the right time.  And though they might not want to admit it, that hand up was a form of affirmative action, something that gave them an advantage over equally or more qualified competitors.

One last point.  Economically, affirmative action is not in the best self-interest of great universities.  Endowments, which are becoming an increasing portion of a school’s financial resources, come largely from successful alumni.  When a university admits a student from a family of less means or whose lineage does not consist of multi-generational success, the school is less assured that graduate will have the means to make a major donation in a future campaign.  Yet, successful minority graduates continually show their appreciation for the life-changing effect of a college experience offered them, often at a giving rate higher than non-minority alumni.  As an example, Morgan State University alumnus, Calvin Tyler, who worked as a UPS driver to pay for his education, parleyed his degree in business administration to become a senior vice-president at the delivery company.  In 2021 he and his wife Tina added $5 million to an endowed scholarship fund, bringing the total to $20 million.

Any major university in America, before Friday, could have taken that same risk and reaped the same rewards.  Today they are less likely do so.  And future Calvin Tylers, the universities they might have attended and America are more disadvantaged as a result of SCOTUS’ repudiation of “affirmative entrepreneurship.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Those Exceptional Conservatives

Politics

Some sequels are years in the making.  After all, 13 years elapsed between the 2010 premiere of James Cameron’s Avatar and the recent release of Avatar: The Way of Water.  In contrast, it took only four days for the subjects of yesterday’s blog, the three non-hypocritical Supreme Court justices–Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch–to write the next chapter in their high court saga. The justices joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the two other Trump appointees in the decisions to end affirmative action at Harvard University (6-2) and the University of North Carolina (6-3)  Both cases were the result of challenges by a non-profit corporation Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. to the use of racial identity as a factor in college admissions.

You might ask, why would anyone think it hypocritical for these justices to take that position?  Clarence Thomas repeatedly voiced his belief affirmative action was unconstitutional.  And, post-Dobbs, no reasonable person would assume the three Trump appointees would defer to legal precedence in the decision in Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) which outlawed racial “quotas,” but ruled “affirmative action” was constitutional.

My first inkling something was afoot came when the Huffington Post led with the news the decision did NOT apply to United States military academies. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson responded to this call-out in her dissenting opinion, questioning why diversity in one field is constitution while not in others.

Racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom.

But she missed the even more ludicrous rationale for Robert’s justification of the military academy exemption. Buried in a footnote to his opinion, the Chief Justice added:

No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context.

Is that the standard the Chief Justice really wants to apply to Supreme Court decisions?  A high court decision affects only those who bring the issue before the judiciary? If so, one could argue the landmark case Brown, et. al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) only pertained to the local school board, or more narrowly, only required the school district to afford Olivia Brown and the other plaintiffs access to an integrated educational experience. Or in the case of Roe v. Wade (1973), Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe) was the only resident of Dallas County, Texas who had a constitutional right to an abortion.

Talk about hypocrisy.  In a decision by which the conservative members of the Court decry the unequal treatment of individuals based on racial or ethnic identity they have no problem endorsing unequal treatment of educational institutions.  Again, no one should be surprised at this conservative hypocrisy.   Exceptional conservativism has become the stock in trade of Republican officials.  One need only look to the ruby red state of Florida.  On April 4, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 543 into law, a bill which (according to the Tallahassee Democrat) “allows people in Florida to carry concealed weapons and firearms without background checks, training or a concealed license.”  It is now legal to carry any weapon allowed under state law (including assault rifles) in most public places, e.g., grocery stores, movie theaters and outdoor festivals.  There are, of course, exceptions including:

Section 790.053 Open carrying of weapons.–
Subsection (12) (a) A license issued under this section does not
authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a
concealed weapon or concealed firearm into:

8.  Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;

While the geese are being slaughtered going about their daily activities, the ganders can feel safe as they conduct business within their sheltered nest.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

No Laughing Matter

Politics

Today’s post is about life imitating comedy, in cinema and on television.  The two examples I have chosen to make this point are responses to major news stories this past week.

The End of an Elusive Search

The first case is inspired by a pivotal scene in Ivan Reitman’s 1984 production of Ghostbusters.  The commercial potential of a company which purports “to serve all you supernatural elimination needs” is questionable until a call comes in from the manager of the Sedgewick Hotel.  To which receptionist Janine (Ann Potts) shouts, “We got one!”

That was exactly how I felt when I realized my search for a non-hypocritical conservative finally ended.  The occasion was Tuesday’s 6-3 decision in Moore v. Harper by which the Supreme Court rejected “the independent legislature theory” that state legislatures were not subject to judicial review.  For the record, this theory which would have nullified the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government when it came to federal elections was at the heart of Trump campaign lawyer John Easton’s “fake electors” strategy.

What does this have to do with a search for non-hypocritical conservatives?  On video presented by the January 6 House Select Committee, White House lawyer Eric Herschmann testified he told Eastman he could expect unanimous dismissal of the theory if it came before the Supreme Court.  So, even though the 6-3 decision in the North Carolina case was a welcome relief, the dissenting justices suggested the broader issues may not be resolved.

Who were the three dissenting justices?  Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.  And what do these three have in common besides their support of the plaintiff Moore?  

  • On April 6, 2023, ProPublica confirmed Justice Thomas was regularly treated to lavish vacations by Texas real estate developer Harlan Crow.  It was later reported Crow bought Thomas’ mother’s home where she continues to live rent free and covered private school tuition for a nephew who lived with the Thomas and his wife Virginia.  Thomas did not report any of these gifts.
  • On April 25, 2023, Politico reported Justice Gorsuch failed to report the buyer of a 40-acre tract of land in Colorado in which he had a 20 percent interest.  Gorsuch made a profit in excess of $250,000 on the deal.  The buyer was identified as Greenberg Traurig, who has been a party to or filed an amicus brief in 12 cases while Gorsuch was on the Court.
  • On June 20, 2023, ProPublica reported Justice Alito was treated to an Alaskan fishing holiday, including transportation and lodging by hedge fund manager Paul Singer, who came before the Court 10 times following the fishing trip. Alito did not report the gift.

Furthermore, these three justices have opposed any Congressional oversight of these alleged violations of judicial ethics.  Therefore, no one should be surprised they do not believe potentially unconstitutional actions by a politically motivated state legislature should be subject to judicial review.  Do not get me wrong.  They represent a threat to the system of checks and balances which ensure none of the three branches of government are unilaterally able to impose their will.  But at least they are not hypocrites.  In the same sense an armed criminal who instantly kills his victim can be credited with being a skilled marksman.

Rochelle, Rochelle: The Sequel (with apologies to non-fans of Seinfeld)

Several episodes of the sitcom Seinfeld included references to an imaginary motion picture Rochelle, Rochelle.  In Season 4, Jerry, George and Elaine arrive at a multiplex cinema only to learn tickets are sold out for the movie they wanted to see.  They decide to stay and take in Rochelle, Rochelle, advertised as “a young girl’s strange, erotic journey from Milan to Minsk.” Unimpressed, they leave half-way through.  Later in Season 4, George wants to see how it ends and rents it at the local video store but is charged an exorbitant fee when he forgets to rewind the VCR tape.  In Season 6, the film is adapted as a Broadway musical starring Bette Midler, in which the title song includes the following lyrics.

Well, you made a long journey from Milan to Minsk,
Rochelle, Rochelle.
You never stopped hoping now your in a Pinsk.
Roshelle, Rochelle.
When the naysayers “nay” you picked up your pace.
You said nothing’s going to stop me so get out of my face.
I’m having adventures all over the place.
Rochelle, ROCHELLE!

Since there have been gender-reversal adaptations of movies such as Ghostbusters and Oceans 11, I decided maybe Rochelle, Rochelle deserved a similar treatment.  Therefore, I am pleased to present Yevgeny, Yevgeny: The Musical, starring Terry O’Quinn, best remembered as John Locke in the series Lost.  It opens with the following title number:

Well, you made a long journey from Mariupol to Minsk,
Yevgeny, Yevgeny.
You planned to stop in Moscow but you landed in Pinsk.
Yevgeny, Yevgeny.
When the naysayers “nay” you loaded the tanks.
You headed for the Kremlin but your coup was only a prank.
Now you’re likely more destined to just walk the plank.
Yevgeny, YEVGENY!

I know.  Now that I finished the novel, I have way too much time on my hands.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP