Category Archives: Politics

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

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

Lessons of Recent History

Culture, Politics

Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.

Underpinning all these failures was a single, fatally inaccurate belief that Hamas lacked the capability to attack and would not dare to do so. That belief was so ingrained in the Israeli government, officials said, that they disregarded growing evidence to the contrary.

~Ronan Berman and Adam Goldman
New York Times/December 1, 2023

When asked about this revelation, Israeli government officials replied the primary concern now is execution of the war against Hamas.  A full investigation of the October 7 terrorist attack will come later.  The United States can save whatever investigative body emerges the time and resources needed to explain the past mistakes and recommend changes for the future.  Just send them a copy of the report released on July 22, 2004 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.  The commission concluded, “Above all, the failure on 9/11 was a failure of imagination.”  Despite intelligence which suggested Al-Qaeda was planning an assault on American soil, failure to imagine an enemy 6,700 miles away could coordinate an attack on New York City and Washington, D.C. Failure to imagine commercial airliners could be used as guided missiles. Failure to imagine the hijackers were suicidal.  

Ted Singer, former CIA official with years of experience in the Middle East is quoted in the New York Times story.  “The Israeli intelligence failure on October 7 is sounding more and more like 9/11.”  He added, “The failure will be a gap in analysis to paint a convincing picture to military and political leadership that Hamas had the intention to launch the attack when it did.”

However, such a “gap in analysis” was not supposed to happen after a similar failure in October 1973 when Egypt and Syria surprised Israeli troops in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.  I’ll let Max Brooks (Mel Brooks’ son) explain the fundamental post-Yom Kippur War change in Israel’s intelligence process to ensure there would not be similar gaps in analysis in the future as laid out in his fictional account of a global conflict with a supernatural enemy.

In October of 1973, when the Arab sneak attack almost drove us into the Mediterranean, we had all the intelligence in front of us, all the warning signs, and we had simply “dropped the ball.” We never considered the possibility of an all-out, coordinated, conventional assault from several nations, certainly not on our holiest of holidays. Call it stagnation, call it rigidity, call it an unforgivable herd mentality. Imagine a group of people all staring at writing on a wall, everyone congratulating one another on reading the words correctly.

From 1973 onward, if nine intelligence analysts came to the same conclusion, it was the duty of the tenth to disagree. No matter how unlikely or far-fetched a possibility might be, one must always dig deeper.

~Max Brooks/World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War

You might logically ask, “Why wasn’t there a tenth analyst who would make the case that the threat of a terrorist attack of the magnitude of October 7 was real?”  Actually, there was, a female analyst identified in the Times story only as “a veteran of Unit 8200.”  She argued the Hamas plan was more than aspirational, providing evidence of training exercises conducted by senior Hamas commanders in July 2023.  She shared her concerns with colleagues. “We already underwent a similar experience 50 years ago on the southern front in connection with a scenario that seemed imaginary, and history may repeat itself if we are not careful.”

The reason I raise these issues is not just the Israeli government’s failure to learn from the American experience on 9/11.  It is to ask whether Americans understand the underlying causes which enabled Hamas to carry out its attack on October 7 and the extent to which similar forces are on our horizon.  Without speculation about Bibi Netanyahu’s motive or intent, consider the following facts.

  • On November 21, 2019, prime minister Netanyahu was indicted on three counts: accepting bribes, fraud and breach of trust.
  • In December 2022, Netanyahu became prime minister for the sixth time.  He filled his cabinet with far-right hawks and theocrats.  They include his national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, a West Bank settler who opposes Palestinian statehood and was convicted of incitement against Palestinians in 2007.  And interior and health minister Aryeh Deri, an ultraorthodox rabbi who was convicted of tax fraud in 2021.
  • On July 24, 2023, the Knesset (Israel’s parliament), with Netanyahu’s support, passed a law to weaken the nation’s judiciary.  The vote resulted in massive protests including many reserve officers who said they would no longer report for duty.
  • This year the Israeli government has authorized an additional 12,855 housing units for Jewish settlers on the West Bank, some in areas challenged by the Israel Supreme Court.

These facts point to a regime that, before October 7, was focused on self-interest, fealty to the most extreme members of its coalition, weakening national institutions, challenging long-established norms and creating distractions. 

I do not know if these actions were memorialized in a single document.  But if they were, and you want the English translation, just read about the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which according to the Foundation website, “…paves the way for an effective conservative Administration based on four pillars:  a policy agenda, Presidential Personnel Database, Presidential Administrative Academy, and 180-Transition Playbook described as ‘a comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency’.”  Or the MAGA translation: tax cuts for the rich, loyal friends of Donald Trump, a federally-funded version of Trump University and weaponization of the entire executive branch to go after Trump’s perceived enemies.

Lessons of recent history class dismissed.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP