Stolen Valor?

After having mothballed this blog for over two years, charges against the Democratic nominee for Vice President, Tim Walz, were just too rich to pass up! First, just to remind everyone, Donald Trump NEVER served this country in the uniform of any of its Armed Services. Indeed, he seized on "bone spurs" as an excuse to avoid serving this country during Vietnam. He also has a history of denigrating the service of those he didn't like who have served honorably in our military (e.g. Senator John McCain). Moreover, those closest to the former president have asserted that he has disparaged our soldiers who have died in war as being "suckers" and "losers."

Now, apparently, Lieutenant Colonel John Kolb, who took over command of Walz's unit after his retirement (after twenty-four years of service) has pushed back against Walz's military resume. For me, it is reprehensible for a person in Kolb's position to denigrate or criticize the honorable service of any enlisted person. Indeed, the criticism of Kolb and his Republican allies reminds me of my own honorable service in the United States Army more than thirty years ago, and it is more deserving of the charge of stolen valor than anything in Governor Walz's background.

Before my own honorable discharge from the Sixth Infantry Division, I carried weapons of war - all military personnel do at one time or another (e.g. M-16, 9mm, mortars, SAW, etc.). Likewise, I was recommended for the rank of E-5/Sargeant before my discharge. Although I never acted on the recommendation, all of us (my superiors, fellow soldiers, and I) looked upon that recommendation as a great honor. Moreover, my assignment to Alaska was regarded at the time as being overseas, and the army acknowledged my service during a time of hostility (Persian Gulf War), even though I had not actually served in combat.

In other words, we should honor anyone who has seen fit to wear the uniform of one or more of our Armed Services. These individuals have been willing to serve our nation in a way that most folks never do - it is special - it demands sacrifice and courage, and it should NOT EVER be denigrated by anyone! As I always do, I appreciate and commend Governor Walz for his service to this country (having myself been there and done that - although certainly not for twenty-four years).

Lauren Boebert is a prime example of what's wrong with the U.S.

During the State of the Union Address earlier this week, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert heckled President Biden when he talked about not wanting to see more flag-draped coffins of U.S. service members. More particularly, Biden was talking about U.S. personnel being exposed to carcinogens from open burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan (noting that his own son had died of brain cancer). She shouted out that the President was responsible for the thirteen American soldiers who had died in Afghanistan - that he was responsible for thirteen of those flag-draped coffins.

Whatever one thinks about the President's culpability in those deaths, we should all be willing to acknowledge that Boebert's remarks were inappropriate in this setting. While we might expect hecklers at concerts and sporting events, a joint session of Congress requires a little more decorum! Moreover, one would think that the standards of common human decency and empathy would dictate the inappropriateness of heckling a parent who was discussing the death of his son!

Nevertheless, when she was later challenged about her behavior, she expressed no regret and said that she would gladly do it again if given the same opportunity! For those of us who were astonished by her behavior, we are left to wonder: What would cause someone to act in such a way, and NOT feel any shame about having done so?

First, we should state that Mrs. Boebert is an avid supporter of the bully-in-chief and principal architect of the destruction of all forms of civility in the public square in America, Donald Trump. In addition to this, it should be pointed out that Boebert never completed high school because of a teen pregnancy, and she married a man who did time in jail for exposing himself at a bowling alley. Hence, while some folks would characterize the Boeberts as a certain kind of waste material, it should be noted that they are not poor! Can we all see that it's just not nice, when we are not nice to each other? 

Forget trying to persuade people to vote for you or your policies!

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard about the spectacular failure of the Democrats to push voting rights legislation through the United States Senate. On the other side of the aisle, Republican state legislatures have been more successful in passing legislation to curtail the access of people of color to the ballot box.

From my perspective, it seems that both parties have given up on trying to persuade folks to support their candidates and policies and have instead focused their energies on enhancing/protecting the access of their voters to the ballot box! In fact, it seems that ALL of the political energy in the United States is now focused on making sure that the folks who support you and your party have a leg up on the folks who support the other guys and their party.

Apparently, folks in both parties have decided that there just aren't enough persuadable folks left to bother with traditional notions of campaigning. It's all about stoking the anger/hatred of their supporters for the other side. This has become even more important than trying to gin up enthusiasm for one's own candidates or policies. In fact, Republicans appear to have given up on even putting forward a positive agenda of their own. For them, opposition and obstruction to/of the other guy's agenda seems to be enough!

If you're wondering if all of that sounds very negative, defeatist and dangerous to the health of a democratic republic, I believe your anxiety is justified. In fact, I believe it's always a bad sign when people retreat into defensive postures. When that happens, incessant fighting and stalemate ensues (and isn't that exactly what we're all currently witnessing?).

Republicans Discover a Right to Privacy

Many Republicans have attacked the idea that the Constitution provides a right to privacy because the principle was used in the landmark case of Roe vs Wade (guaranteeing a woman's right to obtain an abortion before viability). Folks who adopt this position are quick to point out that the right is not explicitly spelled out in the text of the U.S. Constitution.

Nevertheless, in an article for Live Science, Tim Sharp pointed out that "The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences." In this connection, he went on to point out that "Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers

The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches

The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information

The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment"

Sharp also pointed out in his article that a right to privacy has been explicitly protected by various statutory laws (like the Privacy Act of 1974, the Financial Monetization Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, HIPAA). Moreover, in addition to Roe, Sharp mentioned a number of other decisions by the Supreme Court which have established this right (like Griswold vs Connecticut, Stanley vs Georgia, and Lawrence vs Texas).

Now the principal argument that Republicans have employed against almost all of the Supreme Court's decisions in terms of a right to privacy has been their tendency to "undermine traditional values." In other words, they don't like any decisions which would undermine the morality which they would like to impose on society. Never mind that imposing one group's moral values on the whole of society could be said to establish a state religion (which is clearly unconstitutional). For many of these folks, the state has a compelling interest in the perpetuation of these values (the standard which the courts have used to limit the right to privacy).

Along comes Covid-19, however, and all of that stuff is thrown out of the window! Years and years of arguing against what Justice Louis Brandeis characterized as "the right to be left alone" has suddenly become sacrosanct to Republicans. It is amazing just how many of these folks have developed an attachment to this concept almost overnight! When it comes to public health requirements relative to Covid-19 (like wearing masks, social distancing and vaccination mandates), Republicans have finally embraced the fact that they have a right to be left alone - to make their own decisions. And, they've also suddenly decided that other folks' right to life should NOT stand in the way of their right to be left alone and make their own decisions. As usual, however, most of these folks see absolutely no contradiction in their new position.

Here We Go Again!

With or without Trump, Republicans seem determined to destroy American democracy. The GOP's House Leader Kevin McCarthy is currently following the example of the Great Orange One in his attempt to openly obstruct justice. On his official Twitter account, McCarthy made the following statement about the  decision of the House committee investigating the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol building to review the communications of Republicans connected to those events: "Adam Schiff, Bennie Thompson, and Nancy Pelosi's attempts to strong-arm private companies to turn over individuals' private data would put every American with a phone or computer in the crosshairs of a surveillance state run by Democrat politicians. If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States. If companies still choose to violate federal law, a Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law."

In other words, just as Trump told his associates not to cooperate with investigators and openly threatened those who did, Kevin McCarthy has decided that his own personal interests and those of his party are clearly superior to those of protecting the rule of law or American democracy. Of course, these blatant attempts to undermine justice are always cloaked in the language of protecting everyone's rights. To be clear, it isn't just inappropriate to interfere in a lawfully constituted investigation, it's ILLEGAL. It isn't just inappropriate for someone to suppress evidence or try to influence others to do so, it's ILLEGAL. Is McCarthy ever likely to face any repercussions for these crimes? No, because like Trump before him, he has committed them in broad daylight and has wrapped himself in the blanket of protecting political discourse.

Add to all of this, the purposeful obstruction of the current president's agenda by Republicans both in and out of government, their open interference in foreign policy decisions which are normally the prerogative of the current occupant of the Oval Office, and their continued support for Trump's false narrative about the 2020 election, and it is clear that Republicans have given up on the notion of democracy. After all, in a representative democracy, the folks whom the citizens have chosen to represent them are the ones who are supposed to set priorities and policies. Yes, the opposition is expected to continue to try to influence and shape those policies, but they are not expected to usurp those powers. In a democracy, the people decide who takes the helm at any given time, and the only legitimate way to change or modify that is by another election. In other words, Republicans have given up on waiting their turn - acceding to the will of the people. In their view, the end clearly justifies any means (including undermining or overturning long established laws, traditions and norms). And, for the record, these trends do not bode well for the survival of this republic!  

One of the WORST Foreign Policy Decisions in History?

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky recently characterized President Biden's decisions relative to the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan as among the worst in our history (see Biden’s Afghanistan decisions among worst in history). Really? Is it possible that the senator is engaging in just a little bit of hyperbole in these remarks?

To be sure, the deaths of thirteen service members and the injury of numerous others in the suicide bombing attack near the airport in Kabul was tragic; but how does that compare to the thousands of American and Afghan lives lost in Afghanistan over the last twenty years of war? How does that compare to George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction? How many U.S. personnel lost their lives in that conflict? McConnell said that Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal was even worse than our exit from Saigon after the victory of the North Vietnamese. How many U.S. service members did we lose in that war? The worst foreign policy blunder in American History? What about the Bay of Pigs? What about Iran-Contra? What about Obama's red line in Syria? What about Trump's trade war with China or his decision to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens?

Of course, since we are still in the midst of watching the implementation of Biden's policies in Afghanistan, it is probably a little too soon to be trying to engage in any serious or meaningful evaluation of the consequences of those policies! I've said it before - the withdrawal of our personnel and friends from Afghanistan could almost certainly have been handled with greater finesse and grace. Even so, we are still a very long way away from designating that effort as a failure - only time will fully tell that story. McConnell and his allies should be rooting for Biden's policies there (and around the world) to succeed. After all, the successes and failures of any occupant of the Oval Office are the successes and failures of our entire nation (the president is supposed to represent and defend our interests before the rest of the world). In other words, maybe it would be prudent to dial back the rhetoric a little? What do you think Mitch? A little over the top?

Biden's failed policy in Afghanistan?

Tucker Carlson NEVER disappoints my expectations of him. He is ALWAYS reliably partisan and can be counted on to utter some of the most outrageous claims with a straight face! In an opinion piece posted on the Fox News website, Carlson argues that We must hold someone accountable for what is happening in Afghanistan. Any guesses as to who that someone might be? The intrepid reporter wrote: "So rather than just complain about it, let's hold somebody accountable for it for once. Half the Biden State Department had a hand in our failed Afghanistan policy, yet they're still employed there." To be fair, he does mention Pentagon leadership (General Mark Milley in particular) as sharing in culpability for the disaster, but he trains most of his criticism on President Biden for promising that we wouldn't see another fall of Saigon debacle from the American embassy in Kabul.

To be clear, in the 2020 presidential campaign, both Trump and Biden advocated for ending America's longest war in Afghanistan. The rationale went something like this: Our original mission (dislodging Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda from the country) had been accomplished, and nation-building was NOT a realistic or legitimate exercise for U.S. armed forces. In other words, Afghans should be responsible for what happens in their own country.

Fast forward to August 2021, and we are witnessing the rapid collapse of the corrupt regime formerly propped up by the United States, and the re-establishment of the Taliban. For me, this is proof positive that Biden made the right decision to end our long involvement there. After the expenditure of billions of dollars and many lives lost, the country seems to be no better off or more prepared or disposed to prevent the return of the Taliban than it was twenty years ago. Hence, I think that it is a legitimate question to ask: How many more billions of American dollars and lives lost would it take to secure Afghanistan's future? Would a longer U.S. military presence in that country serve to secure it from the reactionary forces which seek to dominate it? If so, how long?

No, I'm sorry - it is clear that America can't fix Afghanistan, and that we have no business trying to. Our interests are clearly tied to making sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a sanctuary for exporting terrorism to the rest of the world. I wish that Afghans would treat their women and religious minorities better. I wish that Afghanistan was a democratic republic that ensured the rights and freedoms of all its citizens. That, however, is the responsibility of the Afghan people. We have a very large beam in our own eye right now. In other words, the United States has quite enough on its own plate to deal with at present. It is disheartening to see the Taliban sweep over the country so easily, but I'm not willing to lift a finger to stop it (and I think that I'm probably not alone in this feeling).