All posts by Dr. ESP

Hell Freezes Over

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 26 – In an unexpected surprise announcement, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), during questioning of American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, suggested unwanted pregnancies should be terminated as opposed to being raised by women or men who were not their biological parents.

You probably missed this story because it is not true.  That is not EXACTLY what she said.  But she might as well have.  Here is what Greene actually did say to Weingarten during a hearing on the continuing effects of the coronavirus pandemic on students and teachers.

MTG: Are you a mother?

RW: I am a mother by marriage.  And my wife is here with me, so I’m really glad that she’s here.

MTG: I see.   People like you need to admit that you’re just a political activist, not a teacher, not a mother, and not a medical doctor.

Wait, is this is the same Marjorie Taylor Greene who claims there are thousands of adults, ready and willing to adopt the unwanted children the Supreme Court and GOP legislators demand must be carried to term?  Now she questions the ability of those same women and men to provide a caring and nurturing environment for these infants.  I normally would not risk “mansplaining” an issue to a member of the opposite sex, but in this case, I will make an exception.

Ms. Greene, the only thing EVERY biological mother has in common, is that they produced a child via intercourse.  There are no mandated eligibility criteria, background checks or required training to become a parent.  Think of it like the gun laws in your home state.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority accept the responsibility from that act, providing a loving and safe environment for their offspring.  Some, however, do not fulfill that obligation resulting in the emotional or physical harm or even the death of an innocent child.  Do the names Susan Smith, Andrea Yates and Casey Anthony, all biological mothers, ring a bell?

In contrast, EVERY adoptive parent makes a conscious decision to take on the responsibilities of raising a child.  There are no “accidental adoptions.” They are subjected to background checks.  Have strangers scout out their homes to ensure the child will have a safe and healthy setting.  They often persevere through false starts or wait more than nine months to realize their dream.  Becoming an adoptive parent can be excruciating, which makes the rewards of success more cherished.

When the late Colin Powell founded America’s Promise, pulling together more than 400 private, non-profit and public sector partners “to improve the lives of children and youth,” he never talked about biology.  Instead, his goal was to ensure every boy and girl had a “responsible, caring adult in their lives.”

I will give former RNC chairman Michael Steele the last word. He posted the following response to Representative Greene on his Twitter page.

“…not a biological mother…?” Well @RepMTG, the woman who adopted me, cared for me, raised me, loved me, inspired me, disciplined me, educated me and at 95 still smiles when I walk in the room didn’t need biology to be my mother. #Adoption

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

On the Beach

On the Beach (1959) - MoriaYou may recognize this picture as the final scene in Stanley Kramer’s 1959 adaptation of Nevil Shute’s novel On the Beach.  The book and film describe the aftermath following a nuclear war geographically isolated to the Northern Hemisphere.  Falsely believing the Southern Hemisphere will be spared, the commander of a U.S. nuclear submarine (portrayed by Gregory Peck) heads for Australia, only to learn that, within months, down under residents will also succumb to radiation poisoning.

The banner reading “There is still time…brother,” which appears several times throughout the movie, is erected by the Australian Salvation Army.  The message morphs over the course of the narrative.  At first it is a cry for sanity, urging a halt to the stockpiling of nuclear weapons. In the end, it is a call to residents to make peace with themselves and their deity of choice before they perish.

When I drafted last Saturday’s post about red flag laws, I was unaware of the execution style massacre of five members of a family in Cleveland, Texas.  It became the fifth incident in less than two weeks during which a gunman (yes, all males) shot at and wounded/killed someone who did nothing but make an honest mistake (e.g., getting into the wrong car or ringing the doorbell at the wrong house) or, in the most recent case, asked a neighbor  to curtail firing his rifle at night as the noise kept their infant child from falling asleep.

Which brings me back to On the Beach.  I now realize it is the perfect metaphor for the stockpiling of firearms, especially semi-automatic assault rifles, and the increasing probability that the slightest perceived offense will trigger the next mass shooting.  In this allegory, Texas, after El Paso, Uvalde and Cleveland, is the Northern Hemisphere, a hair trigger away from the apocalypse.  It has not happened yet, but sadly it is just a matter of time.  Teenagers, enjoying a day on South Padre Island, will be playing their music a bit to loud.  A young couple may be a little too affectionate in public.  A dog escapes its leash.  And a random stranger, after having one beer too many, will have ready access to the AR-15 he carries with him wherever he goes.  Within seconds the sand will be strewn with mutilated, unrecognizable bodies.

“Why do we let people carry a weapon of war to the beach,” an eyewitness will ask.  The NRA and gun manufacturers lobby will reply, “If only more good guys had guns, someone would have stopped him.”  Where have I heard that before.  Oh, right, we need to stockpile enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on earth multiple times to ensure no one will use them.  It is called “mutual assured destruction.”  But all it takes is one error in judgment, miscalculation or system failure to become “assured destruction.”

“But that only happens in Texas,” you say.  Echoing the Australians in On the Beach, you add,  “I don’t live in Texas.  I can survive the fallout as long as it is not generated in my state.”  Not for long.  Assault weapons do not respect state lines.  They do not even respect international borders.  The Mexican foreign ministry estimates over 500,000 firearms, a majority of which are AR-15 style assault weapons, were purchased legally in Texas in 2022 and transported across the border.  They have become the major contributor to the wave of drug cartel violence, centered in Mexican states across the Rio Grande River from Texas

Instead of stemming the personal ownership of these weapons of war, many state legislatures make them easier to purchase and enable their presence in public places.  Politicians who defend the Second Amendment over the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, glorify assault weapons in campaign ads and on Christmas cards.  Is this not the same strategy employed by nuclear powers that parade their warheads and delivery systems through the streets on national holidays?

Nevil Shute has given us a preview of what America will look like if our leaders refuse to act.  And reminds us, “There is still time…brother.”  We should listen.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Red Flag Laws Deserve Their Own Red Flag

A St. Louis police officer was shot and wounded Friday afternoon during a welfare check for a man whose relatives were concerned about his mental health, law enforcement officials said.

Associated Press/April 28, 2023

“Red Flag” laws are gun safety measures which  allow law enforcement officials to confiscate firearms, following a judicial process, from individuals who exhibit behaviors which suggest they might use such weapons to harm themselves or others.  Advocates, at first glance, might say the above AP story is a perfect example of why “red flag” laws are necessary.

I am not so sure.  No, I have not suddenly become a rabid defender of the perverted interpretation of the Second Amendment on display at the recent NRA annual meeting in Washington, D.C.  Nor do I believe the right to defend one’s property is absolute.  This morning, however, I wonder if the responsibility for enforcing “red flag” situations is unnecessarily putting law enforcement officers at risk of injury or death.  If I am guilty of anything, it is aiding and abetting true conservatives (as opposed to MAGA world) who believe government should not be responsible for solving all of society’s ills.

Take another look at the first sentence in the AP story from a journalistic perspective.  The lede is supposed to be a factual summation of the critical aspects of the narrative.  You know, the what, who, where, when and why.

  • What?  There was a shooting.
  • Who?  Of a law enforcement officer who went to check on the mental health of a citizen.
  • Where?  The citizen’s home.
  • When? After relatives reported the shooter might be mentally unstable.
  • Why?  Because a 71-year-old man who relatives claim was delusional saw two police officers approaching his home.

Advocates of “red flag” laws say this is a “common sense” solution that will reduce gun violence.  My “common sense” tells me something different.  You do not send uniformed police officers or even a mental health expert in civilian clothes to interact with an armed, perhaps paranoid individual.  Especially if that individual is exposed to cable news or social media, day in and day out, spreading stories how the authorities are coming to get him.  You do not need to call a psychic like the late Jeane Dixon to predict the outcome

Consider an alternative in this case. Start with an assumption, Grandpa’s relatives knew he owned a handgun.  If not, why would they call the police, rather than a social worker, to check in on him.  They knew he was dangerous.

When they realized he was exhibiting signs of mental instability, would it not make more sense for one of them to suggest, “Maybe it’s not such a good idea for him to have access to a firearm.”  They devise a plan.  “A couple of US take the old man out for dinner while another one of US searches his home for weapons and, if still present, removes them from the residence.  Then, if he gets mad, the worst he can do is throw the TV remote at somebody”

Do not take my word for it.  The Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), the largest mental health teaching hospital in Canada, lists contacting the police as the last of four actions one should consider when concerned about a family member.  The first three rely on a relative or friend as an intermediary, someone the person in need of help trusts.  Someone who will talk with the troubled individual in terms of “I” or “WE,” instead of the more judgmental “YOU.”  NOTE:  To ensure their own safety, CAMH recommends relatives or friends read up on mental health care and get training before initiating an intervention with a loved one.

Interventions by a stranger, much less uniformed police officers, are more likely to exacerbate the situation.  We need look no farther than the April 13 shooting of a black teenager Ralph Yarl by 84-year-old Andrew Lester.  Or the death of 20-year-old Kaylin Gillis four days later at the hands of 65-year-old Kevin Monahan.  Their crimes?  In Yarl’s case, mistakenly going to the wrong house to pick up his brother.  Gillis’?  Pulling in and turning around in the wrong driveway.  In this era of “fire first, ask questions later,” law enforcement officers are just as vulnerable as everyone else.

As CAMH suggests, red flag laws still make sense as a last resort.  However, incidents such as the one last Friday in St. Louis are less likely when someone whom a troubled individual knows and trusts takes the lead in deescalating the situation.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Why I Watch MSNBC

In this morning’s New York Times, former CNN Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter writes about the faux invincibility of cable news headliners such as Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon.  He should know, having been ceremoniously dismissed by CNN in 2022.  He predicts both Fox News and CNN will survive the “Monday Morning Massacre” of two of their most recognizable anchors.

Reading an insider’s take on the shakeup at the two networks reminded me why MSNBC has won my allegiance when it comes to political punditry.  Or should I say three particular shows: Morning Joe, Deadline White House and The Beat.  What do these three programs have in common?  Not their Democratic or liberal bias since two of the three feature a former conservative Republican congressman (Joe Scarborough) and the communications director for George W. Bush (Nicolle Wallace).  Only one, The Beat’s Ari Melber, was active in Democratic politics.  He went back to school and earned his law degree at Cornell following John Kerry’s 2004 unsuccessful presidential bid during which Melber served as the campaign’s deputy political director in California.

What then do the three hosts have in common?  Pretty simple.  All have spent time in the arena.  When Joe Scarborough rants  House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is being held hostage by an extreme fringe of the Republican caucus, he know of what he speaks.  He was a member of the 40 renegade GOP members elected in 1984, dubbed “the New Federalists,” who held Newt Gingrich’s tenure as Speaker in their hands.  As soon as Gingrich lost favor with these outsiders, his fate was sealed.  When Scarborough explains how tough it was for Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to put together the coalition responsible for passing the Inflation Reduction Act last year, it rings true.  He had a seat at the table for similar negotiations.

Wallace is equally qualified to enumerate the number of times the Trump administration crashed through legal and ethical guardrails she faced as she carried out her West Wing responsibilities.  Just this week, during a discussion of the questionable ethics of Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, she shared her experience signing an annual financial disclosure statement which required the certification of the entries as true and accurate “under penalty of law.”  She asked, “Why shouldn’t every federal official, especially someone with such constitutional power and a lifetime appointment, be held to the same standard I was?”

Melber brings his years as a First Amendment lawyer and time in a public defenders office to his analysis of the legal questions and procedures du jour.  His continuing faith in the judiciary is the result of having practiced before judge after judge who put the law before personal considerations or ideologies. Even in those instances where a rogue judge makes headlines, as did U.S. district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who would deny access to the FDA-approved drug mifepristone, Melber trusts the appeals process will rectify the situation.  When he critiques a judge it is not based on ideology, but as guardian of an institution in which he had a professional and personal stake.

Aspiring aviators do not take flying lessons from someone who has never occupied a pilot’s seat.  Cardiac patients facing a bypass do not trust a surgeon who only studied medicine but never held a scalpel.  Nor would any voter rely on a 67 year old Senator from South Carolina, a bachelor with no children, for guidance on women’s reproductive health care.  Oops, maybe that last one is not the best example.

Don’t get me wrong.  I have great respect for political reporters such as the Times Susanne Craig who deciphered years of Donald Trump’s tax return to prove this supposed “self-made billionaire” was anything but one.  Or ProPublica’s Joshua Kaplan who exposed the relationship between Justice Thomas and Harlan Crow.  However, if you want to understand how the sausage is made in Washington, D.C. or state capitals, ask those who have actually turned the crank on the meat grinder. And have the scars to prove it.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Political Eugenics

The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by people presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits.

Eugenics/DICTIONARY.COM

The Republican Party is not yet engaged in the genetic engineering of individuals who are susceptible to fearmongering, alternative facts or election denial.  Instead, they are focused, for lack of a better word, on political eugenics, defined as “discouraging voting by people presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits.”

Yesterday, Cleta Mitchell, a prominent GOP attorney and fundraiser, updated attendees at the RNC donor retreat in Nashville of the latest experiment in the dark art of voter suppression.  Washington Post reporters Josh Dawsey and Amy Gardner described Mitchell’s presentation, labeled “A Level Playing Field,” as “a window into a strategy that seems designed to reduce voter access and turnout.”  Not surprisingly, Mitchell targeted voting on college campuses, a population segment which the Knight Foundation and College Pulse estimates voted for Joe Biden by a margin of 71 to 18 percent.  Predictably, her geographic focus included (drum roll) campus voting in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Virginia and Wisconsin.  Her proposed remedy?  Limit on campus voting stations and preregistration, “allowing 17-year-olds to register ahead of their 18th birthdays so they can vote as soon as they are eligible.”

In a fire hose of irony, Mitchell who actively participated in the “big lie” including being on line with Trump during his infamous call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, justified such actions claiming, “Our constitutional republic’s survival is at stake.”  According to audio obtained by the Post, Trump phoned in to the attendees to endorse her message and promised to make changes in student voting if elected in 2024.

Republican controlled state legislatures are not betting on a second coming of Trump.  Idaho has banned student ID cards as a form of voter identification.  New Hampshire requires out-of-state college students to obtain a NH drivers license to vote.  (The ACLU has challenged the requirement claiming the license fee represents a poll tax.) In 2019, Texas has closed early voting sites on college campuses and is considering legislation that would completely eliminate college polling places.  A pending bill in Arizona would not let students use their college dormitory address for voter registration.

Why this visceral response to voting by college students?  Two factors.  First  according to ALL IN, a non-profit focused on civic engagement by younger voters, their has been a significant increase in student registration and voting.  In the 2020 general election, the percentage of student voters climbed to 66 percent, 14 percent more than in 2016. 

Second, those voters chose Biden over Trump by huge margins.  Consider the following which explains why Mitchell is most concerned about states like Arizona, Georgia and Michigan.  In Arizona, Biden’s margin over Trump among youth voters was 126,000 votes in a state Biden won by just 21,000 votes.  Georgia? Biden’s net youth votes (+188,000) contributed to a 7,000 vote statewide victory.  Michigan?  Biden youth vote (+194,000).  Statewide margin (+148,000). [Source: Tufts University Tisch College Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.]

Which brings me back to Mitchell’s concerns about a level playing field.  One explanation might be Democrats have out-organized Republicans on college campuses.  The data suggest just the opposite is true.  There are three national college republican organizations.

  • National Federation of College Republicans (NFCR)
  • College Republican National Committee (CRNC)
  • College Republicans United (CRU)

Additionally, there are 52 state Federations of College Republicans affiliated with one of the three national organizations or operating as independent entities.  Democrats are less structured but outreach tends to be issue oriented: reproductive rights, gun safety, environment.  One could argue campus based GOP clubs are their own worst enemies.  Let me share one example, the Young America’s Foundation.  It provides a speakers bureau for college Republican organizations.  Among its list of available speakers are Stephen Miller, Dana Loesch (NRA), Kellyanne Conway (of alternative facts fame), Oliver North (Iran/Contra) and Trump sycophants Sean Spicer, Ben Shapiro and Fox News host Jesse Watters.  Instead of forcing cancellations of YAF-endorsed speakers, liberals should welcome these folks on college campuses as they are the best messengers to drive more young voters into the Democratic column.

One more thing.  According to its 2021 IRS 990 filing, YAF had total revenue of 28 million dollars of which 26.5 came from contributions and grants. Major donors include the Koch family and the DeVos family. Total expenses were 20.7 million of which 6.6 million were paid in salaries and benefits and 1.8 million in fundraising.   The current YAF president, former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, received compensation in 2021 totaling $799,357.  Is anyone surprised OLDER Americans are the ones making money under the guise of supporting YOUNG Americans?

Based on its reluctance to support child nutrition and day care programs, the long-standing joke has been Republicans believe “life begins at conception and ends at birth.”  This latest effort to eradicate student voters suggests an equally appropriate meme.  “Life begins at conception and ends at college matriculation!”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP