Imagine

 

                                         Imagine

Imagine that Rush Limbaugh was reincarnated as a young Black woman. Come on, you can do it, …think Star Parker. Here is her current screed’s headline: “The cries from the left predicting the end of the world in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe V Wade is a familiar sound.”  She then speaks of “Morality rooted in Biblical Truths” which she alleges provide the rules and framework which “sustain life and living.”  She does this to openly pander to those of the religious right who see abortion as somehow having a negative Biblical connection, which it does not. My previous column detailed exactly how abortion has become “weaponized” by the Right to obtain votes, and morality is a very small part of that for those who are in position to benefit from it.

It would be a fool’s errand, even if it were possible, to ask Ms. Parker which of the numerous “Biblical” contradictory sources and rules regarding the “sanctity of life” she thinks are applicable. Does she mean Genesis which defines life as the first drawn breath? Does she mean the divinely mandated slaughter of 3,000 Hebrews who dared worship a golden calf? If she’s speaking of “precious” then why did God kill the Egyptian young males? Is it the annihilation of an entire city to teach some of the inhabitants a lesson? Or maybe it’s just Far Right evangelical, political, dog whistle politics? Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s it.

This approach is, at least, blatant enough to immediately recognize it as the same old “It’s not sufficient that I am free to believe and worship as I see fit, but you must do so too.” Of course, that applies to Christians only, since Jewish tenets don’t speak to abortion, and Talmudic Law stipulates life beginning with breath. The fetus in the womb is considered part of the mother and specifically excluded in the penalty for the taking of a life. So does this mean Jews favor abortion? Of course not. It simply means it is personal decision not religiously dictated. Many American Christians also share that belief.

Miss Parker ventures much further off the rails as she goes on to speak about the “appreciation for the sanctity of life,” while supporting the idea that states like Texas and Mississippi, where legal executions are still carried out, automatic weapons abound, and school children are murdered as police stand by, should be allowed to impose severe penalties on a woman who chooses to determine her own reproductive fate, even if diagnosed with a fatally compromised embryo or carrying the result of a rape or incestuous assault.

Most of the above are examples of opinion, stated as fact, with the hope that no one will actually perform a reality check. Ms. Parker natters on to say that the Roe V Wade decision caused the collapse of the institution of marriage and of childbearing. She further states that the fertility rate in the United States today is an historic low and well below the rate necessary for the population to replace itself. So, “What's wrong with that?” you say. In the first place the statement regarding the “collapse” of the institutions of marriage and childbearing is simply an opinion which is unvalidated by any statistical analysis. Linking it to abortion is patently ludicrous. While it is true that the birth rate in the United States is insufficient to replace the current population, that fact has little or nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with the post-World War Two “baby boom.” whose progeny are now drawing Social Security and slowly. but surely dying off.

        In the post war era, the average fertility rate for white females was about 120 live births per 10,000 women, peaking around 1950. By 1965, (8 years prior to the Roe V Wade decision!!!) it had declined to 65.3 live births per 10,000 and, contradicting Ms. Parker’s allegation, has changed very little since. By the choice of the people involved, that birth rate is now about two live births for women of childbearing age, or about half of the Baby Boom era. Just like terminating a pregnancy ought to be, family size is a choice. The fertility rate among white women has decreased from 1950 simply because families today are choosing to have fewer children.

        While speaking of insane assertions, let’s detour, briefly, to Fox News talking head Jeanne Pirro. In early May, following the “leak” of USSC intentions re: Roe V Wade, she told the Fox sponges, “My stats, that I have, are that there are 63 million abortions a year in this country.”  I say “sponges” because they will never actually question this blatant lie but will absorb it and certainly repeat it as if it was factual. Pirro was actually exaggerating by a factor of 70!

        While we’re at it, let’s consider that these are many of the same folks who systematically minimized the threat of COVID early on, based on the assurances of what we are, today, being shown is the most corrupt man ever to disgrace the oval office. Covid has, for each of the previous years, killed more than1/3 the number of US abortions, still anti-vaxx indignation and disdain flourishes in the same group of true believers.

        Some statistics related to unwanted births are staggering and tragic: 92% of the roughly one million abortions that are performed in the United States each year are the result of unwanted pregnancy and less than 4% of unwanted pregnancies result in adoption. The literature on foster care is voluminous and experiences vary widely, but for those unwanted births, 96% of whom are unadopted, and end up in the child welfare system, the following statistics are sobering:

In a nationwide study, children who spent their whole childhood in foster care were compared to adopted children who hadn’t spent time in foster care, those who had been adopted from foster care and those living in a variety of family arrangements, including single-mother and economically disadvantaged households. Using logistic regression models, researchers found that kids who’d been in foster care were: seven times as likely to experience depression, six times as likely to exhibit behavioral problems, five times as likely to feel anxiety, three times as likely to have attention deficit disorder, hearing impairments and vision issues, and twice as likely to suffer from learning disabilities, developmental delays, asthma, obesity and speech problems. 

        Finally, Ms. Parker plays the Race card against the Congressional Black Caucus for decrying the USSC decision and saying they support “the culture of death” (yes, she said that!) She points out that single mothers head an inordinate number of Black households. We are, I suppose, left to draw some conclusion that Roe V Wade is somehow responsible for that, too. And in all this, regardless of race, discussion of male responsibility is notably absent. How about that?

Civil Rights For Who?

 

                               Civil Rights For Who?

 

The actions of the United States Supreme Court this past week have induced, in many of us, a wave of revulsion unlike any other single previous decision. For me, the reasons are several- fold. In the first place, the reversal of Roe v Wade clearly evidences that the USSC, in a majority decision, has allowed religious dogma to undermine the rule of law. Secondarily, and almost as concerning, is the fact that several of the justices who handed down and concurred in the majority decision overturning Roe vs Wade lied or were, at most, disingenuous under oath in their Senate confirmation hearings where they all indicated that they viewed that decision as stare decisis, meaning established under the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. All agreed at th time that they viewed the matter as established in law. Several are liars.

Most previous reversals have involved the righting of long-established wrongs in the area of deprivation of civil rights to all citizens. Plessy v Ferguson (upheld segregation) and the Dred Scott (Blacks weren’t equal citizens) were essentially overridden by Brown v Board of Education which outlawed segregation in education and, by inference, affirmed equal status of all Americans under the law. Congress had also acted in the spirit of Brown with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

Driving much of this, is the “weaponization” of opposition to abortion by a number of religious groups acting as if their beliefs must be mandated to all. A key piece has been the carefully manipulated morphing of opinion by conservatives who see it as a voter trigger issue. Reading modern issues of the Southern Baptist publications, one might be shocked to read what the official Southern Baptist Convention to Roe v Wade was:        

What follows is the initial reporting from Baptist Press (house organ of the Southern Baptist Convention) on the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973:

Question: Does the Supreme Court decision on abortion intrude on the religious life of the people?

Answer: No. Religious bodies and religious persons can continue to teach their own particular views to their constituents with all the vigor they desire. People whose conscience forbids abortion are not compelled by law to have abortions. They are free to practice their religion according to the tenets of their personal or corporate faith.

 The reverse is also now true since the Supreme Court decision. Those whose conscience or religious convictions are not violated by abortion may not now be forbidden by a religious law to obtain an abortion it they so choose.

In short, if the state laws are now made to conform to the Supreme Court ruling, the decision to obtain an abortion or to bring pregnancy to full term can now be a matter of conscience and deliberate choice rather than one compelled by law. Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.

Yep, that was the word from the top for Southern Baptists regarding the Roe v Wade decision…...then!

In America, pre-Roe, while there were persons with strong opinions either way on the topic of abortion rights it was not a partisan political issue. In fact, many Democrats many of whom were Catholic were opposed to abortion as a matter of faith but not as a political tenet. Following the Roe decision, conservative laypersons understood that they could turn abortion into an election issue. This was a time when Republicans, now quite different from Dwight Eisenhower, were still smarting from the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Brown versus Board of Education and what they viewed as a general levelling and far broader civil rights application to all Americans.

Complicating matters for these people, then and now was, and is, the fact that they feared that someday they might not be the majority and that someday white folks might not dictate policy to the entire body politic (see Carlson, Tucker). The term “dog whistle politics” applies here. This was much like Nixon's southern strategy, in which the words Law and Order were understood to imply control of certain elements of society deemed just not quite as deserving as “us.” These were also the policies of Newt Gingrich (Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress? Yeah, it happened in 1994) and others who realize that if you can find a marquee issue to unify your voters, once you get to Congress you could sneak a lot of other garbage into the legislation to ensure “your” continued societal dominance and superiority. Later Ronald Reagan would “come out” as Pro-Life to gain the Nomination and, eventually the White House.

Add to this the tweaking of Evangelicals and others toward abortion as a trigger/litmus test issue and, sadly here we are. We have an ex-President who actually tried to get his first trophy wife to abort their child who, all of a sudden, became pro-life (a misnomer if ever there was one) to gain conservative support when he turned to politics. We saw him designate USSC nominees to cater to a power base he loathes.

Sadly, this has resulted and people with little or no understanding of the issue simply viewing the word abortion as a bull supposedly sees the matador’s cape. This manifests itself in many ways. In some cases, we see people carrying signs proclaiming “abortion is murder” while opposing the aborting of a dead fetus or unviable fetus to save the mother. This results in people who would be horrified by the thought of rape or incest who still seem to feel that “Well as long as it's not me, the victim has to carry the results of those crimes.”

By 1977, the Baptists were on the way to where the Far Right wanted them but still tempered their position:

 Therefore, be it RESOLVED

That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.

Not anymore, in some states like Texas, other than health of the mother. Of course, that excludes the mental health of a woman legally forced to carry a rape or incest pregnancy to term.

As an aside,  as is true of all religious dogma, these positions, ever changing, are the result of ordinary people for their own purposes, whatever those may be, deciding what they want naïve and gullible folks to believe. Many of the more fundamentalist bent deride science (see Galileo) and continue doing so today, in favor of religious tenets handed down almost 2 millennia ago. Yet St. Augustine’s position that life begins with a child’s initial breath has been rejected because it doesn’t for the narrative.

And, finally, this is also about denying women their right to control their own bodies. Looking at the faces of the current Republican Party, with the inclusion of the mentally challenged Greene and Boebert, one sees persons such as Gaetz, Hawley, Kavanaugh and others who are simply fine with that. Of course, two of the three women on the court who heard the case (Justice Jackson did not) dissented. But even though females are a majority of the US population, they remain a minority on the Court which can control their destiny.

 Additionally, this decision is economically biased. While probably not so by intent, it is so in reality, since women with means will still be able to travel to a state where abortion is legal. Unfortunately, Women living below the federal poverty line experience unintended pregnancies at rates five times higher than higher income women do, and nearly half of women who seek abortion care live in households below the poverty line.

Much of the above is about emotional, vote getting, partisan control which primarily benefits those who are, for the most part unaffected and care little for those who are or may be. My fondest hope is that women will, in the upcoming elections, throw off the shackles of Far Right and pseudo-religious rhetoric and join their sisters in voting in their own best interests. 

 

 

 

 

 

Economics: Fact and Fiction

 

                    Economics: Fact and Fiction

 

In keeping with the subject of numerous previous columns which is that basically some (too many) Republicans cater to people who don't know how government works, here are several more indices of just exactly how that's working in the current political climate.

First of all, let's consider inflation. Far Right talking heads from Betsy McCaughey to Star Parker to the deplorable Tucker Carlson have all attempted to blunt the force of what is becoming an ever more revelatory January 6th committee open hearing by claiming that President Biden is responsible and solely responsible for inflation. As an adjunct to that they simply toss out the blatant lie that President Biden is also responsible for the high gasoline prices we’re currently experiencing.

 

Let's deal with the first lie last, because it is more complex, and address initially the second lie, that of gasoline prices. As Republicans scream that Biden should open up more federal lands to drilling for petroleum, what slips by relatively unnoticed is that there are currently over six thousand authorized gas and petroleum drilling leases not being used by the petroleum industry. One would be reasonable to ask, “Why is that?” and answer is twofold. In the first case US petroleum refiners are not refining at capacity; rather they are at about 90% capacity and making no real efforts to increase production. Why? Simply because shortage causes higher prices and higher prices are good for the bottom line of the petroleum industry, which is showing record profits, while the rest of us pay $4.95 per gallon at the pump. It must also be noted that proven petroleum wells produce a product which is costing refiners no more as a raw material, no more to refine but, because of the shortage, the market economy that we have allows prices to rise.

 

In a recent column Star Parker made the comment that Biden is responsible for the inflationary cycle we're in simply because he is “More ignorant of economics than a college freshman.” That statement which is blatantly unrealistic actually indicts Parker as having less knowledge of economics than many high school students.

Any criticism regarding the economic literacy of the current administration must be weighed against the miserable economic failures of the Trump administration. This begins with the baseless claim by Trump that “Mexico will pay for the wall” which, of course, they did not. It also brings to mind Trump's comment that “China will pay the tariffs,” which are currently costing each American household about an extra $850 annually. Any high school economics student knows that tariffs are paid by the importer not the exporter. Thus, it has always been and thus it is today. In fact, in 1828, South Carolina came remarkably close to seceding from the Union because of tariffs passed at the request of northern industrialists on British imports of which the South was a disproportionate consumer. Only Andrew Jackson’s threat of armed force, accompanied by a massive reduction in the tariff, soothed that conflict. Remember, Trump couldn’t get into an MBA program and graduated sans honors of any type. It seems he also was not much of a history student.

 It is amazing how quickly the supposedly fiscallly conservative Republican Party has either forgotten or simply ignored the fact that, during what Trump touted as the “best economy ever,” we saw the deficit rise in the pre-COVID years by record amounts. In similar fashion, Betsy McCaughey alleges that the reason we have the current inflationary cycle is that the Biden administration has “Irresponsibly increased the money supply.” Ms. McCaughey is apparently too young to remember 2002 When the previous (Bush 43) Republican administration allowed a huge injection in the money supply with an accompanying record spike in inflation, all to fight a futile war.

How soon Republicans forget this 2020 headline from the conservative Forbes magazine: “Donald Trump And The Fed Are Destroying The U.S. Dollar.” in the body of the following article is this statement: “The Fed has pumped over $1 trillion to the system in recent weeks, with its chair Jerome Powell promising never before seen levels of money printing and so-called quantitative easing to infinity through an unlimited bond-buying program”. FED chair Powell, a Trump appointee, is still in that office.

While the Biden administration has also done significant deficit spending, via the “Build Back Better” initiative passed by Congress, that money is being spent primarily on much needed infrastructure upgrade and repair which puts people to work instead of simply giving them money, as COVID disbursements did in the Trump years. In point of fact, the largest single increase in the money supply in the last 10 years was during the 2018 to 2021 period, part of that pre COVID. I reiterate, Republicans also don't want constituents to understand the difference between giving away money and putting it to constructive use creating jobs in the process.

As to the claims that Biden is responsible for and should do something to end the current inflationary cycle, again it escapes, most people that other than a wartime surge, market economies such as ours have historically had ups and downs. In fact, the U.S. economy has experienced twelve different recessions since World War II until the COVID-19 pandemic, which ended the longest period of economic expansion on record. That period of expansion was “rebound” from the depths of the housing bubble collapse. For the math challenged that’s about one every 6.5 years. Sometimes that has been due to market manipulation by unscrupulous individuals and sometimes it is not in the control of any individual but, as is the current situation, reflects lingering concerns over a global pandemic, continuing supply chain shortfalls and. as I pointed out about the petroleum industry. willingness of people in positions to make excess profits to do so at the expense of their compatriots.

In this economic climate the President of the United States is almost powerless to do anything by himself to change the status quo. Control of the economy is in the lap of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System who are supervised in that role by the Chairman of said board who is currently a Republican (Trump) appointee confirmed by a Republican Senate, one Jerome Powell. Understand this, I am not being critical of chairman Powell, who is under pressure to do what he can to improve the current economic climate. However, it is also true that, as with Psychology and Sociology, Economics is a relatively “soft” science in which, sometimes, one plus one equals “Who the hell knows?”

In Chairman Powell’s case, the tools he possesses are generally limited to changing the interest rate that banks are charged for borrowing from the Fed and or to increase or recommend an increase in the amount of federal debt that is being incurred by the sale of federal securities as a means of injecting money into the system. A discussion of Modern Monetary Theory is far beyond the scope of this column, but it is worth learning. I say that because there has been, for probably 20 years or more, continuing debate about how the money supply should be regulated and why. Rest assured the vast majority of MAGA hat wearers have no idea as to the meaning of what I just wrote. They are instead content to go to their gas station, bitch about the price of gas, and slap a sticker of Biden saying “I did that” next to the price meter.

And finally, as they say, “This just in!” High school dropout and MTG wannabee Lauren Boebert is in the news again. Here’s the headline: “Rep. Lauren Boebert called Biden's infrastructure bill 'wasteful' and 'garbage.' Now she wants $33 million in infrastructure funding for a new bridge.” And so it goes.

 

January 6th Fallout

 

In what has become a continuing litany of Far Right lies regarding the January 6th insurrection in our nation's capital, one of the most outrageous statements yet was made on June 9th by Sean Hannity on his television show. He said, and I quote,  “Donald Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the capital but was rejected by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.”

There are several characteristics of this statement that highlight the general motives of the Republican Party and of Trump, Hannity, and their ilk specifically. The most obvious is that they assume that many of their Red Hat wearing sycophants know nothing about the way government works. This means that most of their bloviations of bovine excreta are unexamined by the unwashed masses and simply accepted as factual. The above is a classic example of the genre.

The facts (remember facts?):

In point of law, DC National Guard is responsible to only one individual in the entire nation and that individual is the President of the United States. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer could have screamed their heads off and it would have made no difference, if Trump had actually attempted to activate the DC National Guard, which he did not. In fact, the only mention of anybody suggesting activating the National Guard was attributed to Vice President Mike Pence who, if you recall, Donald Trump later suggested should possibly "be hanged" because he refused to subvert the Electoral College process. Jane Campbell, president of the U S Capitol Historical Society made it even more clear: “No congressional official or body has the authority to activate the National Guard to the U S capitol, only the President. And if the President does so no congressional official has the authority to decline its service.”

This of course is simply a continuation of the litany of outright lies and half-truths that those desperate Republicans still clinging to Trump’s petticoats are throwing at the wall hoping that some may stick. Along the way however, we have seen remarkable backbone from Liz Cheney and even Betsy DeVos who was certainly the least prepared person for a cabinet post in recent history, but who actually acknowledged that the cabinet had considered invoking the 25th amendment to remove the President in light of the events of January 6^th!

In addition to continuing stream of Hannity bullshit, we were treated on June 10th to this, by Tucker Carlson: “Not a single person in the crowd on January 6th was found to be carrying a firearm. Not one.”  As is generally the norm with Tucker Carlson, when confronted with the fact that video evidence and news coverage shows rioters with firearms and dozens more with knives and bats and other real weapons, some made up on the spot, he simply refused to respond to the request for clarification.

Validating his statement would have been difficult simply because it's a lie and here’s one quick example. One Lonnie Coffman, who came all the way from Alabama, showed up at the capitol with multiple weapons in his vehicle and in his personal possession. His truck was loaded with weapons including a handgun, rifle, and shotgun, all loaded. There were also hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several illegal high-capacity magazines, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails. None of the firearms were registered.

It has also come to light in congressional hearings that, prior to the insurrection, a Justice Department underling, sensing an opportunity to curry favor with the Cheeto in charge, was engaging in unauthorized face to face scheming with Trump.

 Evidence has been brought forward from earlier Judicial Committee testimony that a lawyer in the Justice Department went over the head of the attorney general and went directly to Trump with a plan to simply declare the election “in question” and request states to set an alternate slate of electors. Three days before Vice President Pence was to certify the election in front of the Congress, a minor official in the Justice Department, one Jeffrey Clark, suggested to Trump in a meeting (un-sanctioned by his supervisors) that the Justice Department should identify “significant concerns” about the vote and, as mentioned above, suggest that states provide an “alternate” slate of electors.

Clark initially was held in contempt of Congress after he declined to answer questions claiming his interactions with Trump were privileged and then he later did appear and invoked the 5th amendment and therefore his testimony from that appearance hasn't been released to the public. It is worth noting that while he is a Harvard Law graduate, Clark's background is strictly in environmental law and regulation, not constitutional law. This led to speculation as yet verified, that the gist of memo and impetus for the message he gave Trump was provided to him by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), one of the earliest proponents of Trump’s voter fraud claims.

 

When Clark’s boss, acting A.G. Jeffrey Rosen, heard of this he told the President that the Justice Department couldn’t “just flip a switch and change the election,” to which (Rosen later testified) Trump responded, “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressman.” it is significant that Rosen was “acting” A.G.  because Trump appointee, William Barr, had already told the president that the election was valid and left office because he couldn't stomach what was about to happen. Remember, this was Bill Barr, a partisan if ever there was one!

Clark also proposed that Trump fire Rosen and appoint him (Clark) as AG so he could pursue several wild-eyed allegations. Trump then suggested this move in an Oval Office meeting with, Clark, Acting AG Rosen, and a cadre of assistant Attorneys General. Almost immediately, Trump was assured by all these senior Justice Department persons, appointed by Trump, and confirmed by the Senate, that appointing Clark to AG would immediately result in mass resignations and undermine confidence in Trump, himself, who had appointed them.

 It was also pointed out, with Clark in the room, that Clark, whose career was entirely in environmental policy, had zero experience in criminal law. Another assistant AG suggested that Clark should “call Trump the next time there was an oil spill.” Trump figuratively patted Clark on the back and told him he wouldn’t be appointed at this time. This is noteworthy, in that it shows how susceptible Trump was (and is and always has been) to hare brained offers from underlings if he sees any chance he may gain from them.

This, then, pretty well sums up the actual extent of such election fraud (none) which was found in the most examined election in the history of the country.

With regard to the opening discussion of the Hannity and Carlson lies, how much of the June 6^th insurrection will be made to stick on Trump, himself, remains to be seen, but hope springs eternal!