The Invasion

President Trump has sounded the alarm about the migrant caravan slowly snaking its way from Central America toward our southern border. He has called this an invasion of the United States and has announced that he is sending thousands of active duty troops to the border.

Nevertheless, it was refreshing to see that our demagogic tyrant-in-chief was refuted by Shep Smith of Fox News! He said: "Tomorrow the migrants, according to Fox News reporting, are more than two months away, if any of them actually come here...But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election, which is what all of this is about," he added. "There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about." https://thehill.com/media/413732-shep-smith-rips-trump-rhetoric-on-migrant-caravan-there-is-no-invasion-no-one-is-coming

The caravan is one of those bright and shiny objects that Trump tosses out there to distract from things that take the focus off of him. We need a meaningful check on this guy folks! Whatever your political persuasion (conservative, liberal, libertarian, Democrat, Republican), you need to vote for the Democrat this time around!

An Opportunity To Mute Trump's Critics?

In the wake of the pipe bomb mailings and the tragic attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue, many folks have pointed to Trump's divisive language as being inspirational to these fringe elements of our society. Not only did Trump reject any suggestion that anything he has said or done might have contributed to these events, he pointed to one of his old "enemies" and renewed his attack on them.

Trump tweeted this morning about the Press: "There is great anger in our Country caused in part by inaccurate, and even fraudulent, reporting of the news. The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly. That will do much to put out the flame of Anger and Outrage and we will then be able to bring all sides together in Peace and Harmony. Fake News Must End!" --https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1056879122348195841&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-renews-attacks-on-media-as-the-true-enemy-of-the-people%2F2018%2F10%2F29%2F9ebc62ee-db60-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

In other words, if you folks in the Press would just stop talking about the negative aspects of what I'm saying and doing, it would be much easier for me to hoodwink and unite the entire country under my rule! Remember, Trump's modus operandi is to hit back harder when he thinks anyone is throwing a punch at him. Moreover, by not accepting ANY responsibility for what has happened, he is free to shift most of the blame to a group which he considers to be one of his chief nemeses.

Do you think that it's an accident that he uses the term "News Media" instead of the term "Press"? Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the Press? Trump doesn't want any restraints on HIS free speech, but he does want the Press to exercise such restraint! Hmmm, history demonstrates that tyrants do like scapegoats to divert attention away from their own failures and unite their supporters - is that what's happening here? What do you think?

Score Two for the Radical Right! or Left?

Pure evil struck a peaceful synagogue in Pittsburgh during a Sabbath service this morning. At least eleven people lost their lives, and two others are reported in critical condition. The gunman believed that Jews were helping those dirty little brown people from Honduras known popularly as the caravan. Of course, the gunman and the pipe bomber were really leftists who are seeking to destroy Trump's Republicans' chances in the midterm elections. They have been posing as right wingers for years, waiting for this opportunity to derail MAGA! What a bunch of EVIL BULLSHIT!

It's Just A Matter of Time!

The person who sent pipe bombs to nine (as of this writing) of Trump's critics, whatever his/her motivation, is probably only the opening salvo in this latest episode of the Culture War. Trump's tweet this morning certainly suggests such a conclusion (see my comment on The Culture War Gets Real). The reality is that Trump divides, incites, aggravates, excites and encourages this kind of behavior from both extremes of the political spectrum. If this turns out to be the work of a Trump supporter, do any of us honestly believe that there aren't folks on the left who are capable of (and willing to engage in) the same kind of behaviors (remember the shooting at the Republican baseball practice)? We have entered a very dangerous time in the life of this republic, and I'm not trying to be cute when I use the term explosive in describing this new era! The kindling is stacked and ready - who will throw the match on the pile?

Emotion Gives Way To Reason - Senator Warren IS Native American!

Julian Brave NoiseCat posted an article at Huffington Post entitled "Elizabeth Warren is Not Native American" see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-elizabeth-warren-native-ancestry_us_5bc5f8d9e4b055bc947a6e13 The article reflects the consensus that has emerged among people on the left and right about Warren's right to claim this portion of her heritage. Sure, many of these folks frame their remarks in terms of tribal and racial identity (the tribal angle is definitely a straw man since she never claimed affiliation with the organization known as Cherokee Nation).

The majority of their arguments, however, are based on emotion - NOT on logic. And that emotion is based on their feelings about Native American culture. For many of these folks, it's about belonging to a community and having the right to say who does/doesn't belong to that community. It's also about identity - a distinctive identity that they believe belongs to them and those who share their experiences. Nevertheless, we will deal first with how many of these folks frame their own objections: The inheritance of ethnicity and generational distance from the Native American ancestor. Later, we will explore the cultural phenomenon which I believe is the true motivator of their objections to Warren's claim.

We will begin with a discussion of how DNA is inherited. The chart below was borrowed from the website link which follows it and reflects (on average) how we inherit DNA from our parents and ancestors:

Generation	# You Have	Who	Approximate Percentage of Their DNA That You Have Today
	1	You	100%
1	2	Parents	50%
2	4	Grandparents	25%
3	8	Great-grandparents	12.5%
4	16	Great-great-grandparents	6.25%
5	32	Great-great-great-grandparents	3.12%
6	64	Great-great-great-great-grandparents	1.56%

https://dna-explained.com/2017/01/11/concepts-calculating-ethnicity-percentages/

Now, while this chart is very helpful in explaining the concept of genetic inheritance, the way that ethnicity is inherited can be much more complex. DNA is inherited in blocks, and we can sometimes inherit an entire block (virtually intact) from one of our parents. Moreover, if the ancestor who is the source of a particular ethnicity is less than 100% of that ethnicity, the math in the above chart will obviously change (e.g. If your grandparent is 50% Native American, then you are only going to be about 12 1/2% - not the full 25% of DNA you would be expected to inherit from that grandparent). Finally, notice how much the DNA received from an individual ancestor is diluted in just six generations! And yet, as I said before, take away any one of these generations and you wouldn't be here!

And, keep in mind, we've been talking about Autosomal DNA. What if we look at paternal or Y-chromosome DNA? I know an Alabama lady with Georgia roots who is "as white as you can get" whose paternal ancestor was African (some of her male cousins were tested, and she's not unique). How far back? Since the Y-chromosome doesn't change much over time, that African male ancestor could have literally lived thousands of years ago. Same thing with Mitochondrial DNA and maternal ancestry - we could be talking about a matriarch who lived thousands of years ago!

I also mentioned that the perspective of many of these critics of Warren is distorted. For many of these folks one hundred or two hundred years is a long time. Likewise, six generations seems far removed from the person who is studying his/her ancestral heritage. Nevertheless, if we take just a moment to reflect on historic sweep and lifespans, our perspective clarifies and becomes more informed.

We must remember that humans have existed on this earth for less than a fraction of one percent of the time which life has existed on this planet. Indeed, entire species have lived and died before humans arrived on the scene. Thus, we can clearly see that two hundred years is as the "blink of an eye" relative to the whole story.

In terms of how we reckon generations, we should also remember that  Queen Elizabeth II is only the seventh generation since the reign of King George III (the British monarch at the time of the American Revolution). In fact, it has only been about one hundred twenty-four years between my birth and that of my great great great grandfather - 6 generations. Moreover, we all know that it is  not uncommon for four generations to overlap (e.g. my mom and dad, me, my daughters and my grandchildren). Hence, we can see that six generations isn't that distant from the present.

There is also the question of the human lifespan to consider. The average lifespan of a White Oak is 300 years (and this remarkable tree can live 300 years beyond that). The average lifespan of a Redwood is 600 years (and it can live over 2,000 years). Red Sea Urchins can live 200+ years, and Bowhead Whales can also live about 200 years. Hence, we can see that our 70-80 years on the scene is rather brief when compared to some of the other organisms with which we share this planet!

On the other end of the spectrum, we know that Domestic Rabbits live 8-12 years, Guinea Pigs 4 years, Mosquito Fish 2 years, Chameleons 1 year, and Fruit Flies about 40-50 days. Moreover, by studying these organisms, we have learned that these abbreviated lifespans often go hand in hand with short gestation periods and astounding rates of reproduction. Allow yourself to think for a moment about how many generations of rabbits we might see in the space of ten years!

Thus, when we include the above observations into our calculations about the inheritance of ethnicity, we see that the perspective of many of Warren's critics is short-sighted and distorted. But what about those cultural considerations?

In attempting to evaluate culture in as dispassionate a way as possible, I think that it is instructive to ask some questions. For instance, has the criteria/standards for tribal membership changed over the years? Are folks who can claim at least 50% Native American ancestry considered Native American if they don't belong to a tribe or live on a reservation? Are only certain surnames acceptable in claiming this ethnicity? Should Native Americans who live like most Americans of European, African and Asian descent be recognized as belonging to a distinctive cultural community? What if a person does not speak the language, read the literature, listen to the music, wear the clothing or participate in the art work associated with his/her tribe? What if a person does not practice or participate in traditional religious beliefs? What if a person is not an integral part of the economic life of the community? What if I appreciate my drop of blood, and you revile/reject/ignore your status as a "pure/full-blood"? Are African Americans who are descended from slaves who were owned by Native Americans part of that community/tribe?

I believe that cultural identity is a very personal thing (which accounts for the emotion evident in these arguments about Senator Warren). Do we deny George Soros the right to claim a part in the Jewish community because his parents didn't practice the religion? Do we deny him that right because his family concealed their background, secured false identity papers and claimed to be Christian during the Nazi occupation of Hungary? I believe that each of us is entitled to define our own identity, especially if we have the biology and experience (like family tradition) to support it.

Finally, when we Google the term multiculturalism, we get a lot of different definitions (as one would expect of a term that seeks to encompass such a notion). Many of those definitions talk about support for different cultures and ethnic groups and include references to equality of rights and opportunities within the larger society. Among the many definitions, I was particularly partial to the one provided by The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA): "'Multiculturalism' is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviours, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles" (emphasis mine). In other words, the key to the entire concept is several cultures living and working together within a greater society/community.

In my previous post and as part of the commentary on them, the point was made that race is an artificial construct when we are discussing humans - that there is really only one race, the human race. The U.S.A. is the epitome of this concept which is encompassed in one of its mottos: e pluribus unum (out of many, one). And, to preempt any criticism of that statement, I am not suggesting that the U.S. has achieved anything approaching complete harmony or equality. Nevertheless, there are several distinct cultures present and living together within its borders, and they all profess fidelity to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They have intermarried, influenced the cultures of each other and left their mark on the greater community of which they are a part.

Take a moment to consider the impact of Native American culture on the community known as the U.S.A. Think about all of the Native American place names (e.g. Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee, Mississippi, Okeechobee, etc.) How would one quantify the impact and place of things like corn, chocolate and tobacco on the entire community? Where do we think the concept of sacred natural places (National Parks and Monuments) originated? Think about the impact of salicylic acid (aspirin, and other drugs) on the greater culture (think arthritic Native Americans chewing on Willow bark). What about the wide dissemination and appreciation for Native American symbols and art work? Think about how Native Americans have contributed to the story/history of the United States. Consider for a moment the scope of the things that the greater culture has sought to preserve and protect as a heritage from the first inhabitants of this land we all now share (e.g. pueblos, mounds, collections of artifacts, languages, stories, music, dances, etc.). Yes, European culture destroyed/swallowed up much of Native culture; but just consider the impact that Native culture has had on the European and African communities within America. The scope of that impact is truly astounding!

So, yes, Elizabeth Warren is white and mostly European in her ethnic heritage, but isn't it just a tad disingenuous to suggest that she isn't also partly Native American?

The Culture War Just Got Real!

After years of harsh conservative/Republican rhetoric against them, someone has sent explosive devices to the Clintons, Barack Obama, George Soros (billionaire philanthropist and Democratic contributor), and CNN (addressed to Trump critic and former CIA Director, John Brennan) see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/nyregion/clinton-obama-explosive-device.html Late breaking reports have suggested that devices were also sent to Congresswoman Maxine Waters and former Attorney General Eric Holder.

Whether the devices turn out to be real or not, it seems obvious that the objective of the perpetrator was to sow terror among those on the left/Democrats who have been critical of Trump. And, whatever Trump or his allies may say about this episode after the fact, it is clear that his/their rhetoric has a part to play in this sorry affair. Some one out there was so upset at these very visible Trump critics that they decided to deliver a powerful message of his/her own. This is a seminal moment in American politics - We should all be watching what happens next!

Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation in America: The Culture War

In the comment thread for my last post, Byker Bob and nck made some interesting comments about the ongoing back and forth over cultural issues in the United States. We're talking about issues like abortion, affirmative action, immigration, gay marriage and transgender rights. Of course, clashes over these issues have occupied center stage in America for more than fifty years now. Over that time, most of us have become accustomed to viewing these issues as a clash between those who support a traditional/conservative approach and those who support a progressive/liberal approach.

In that thread, Byker Bob observed: "Based on what we've seen over the past several months, it is beginning to appear that we will have one set of laws during Democratic presidencies, and another set during Republican presidencies." Michael Kazin made a similar observation in an article that appeared in The New York Times this summer entitled America's Never-Ending Culture War (Read the entire piece here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/opinion/sunday/chicago-protests-1968-culture-war.html) He wrote: "Liberals and leftists still battle with conservatives over most of the other big issues that roiled the nation back then <1968>: affirmative action, the right to abortion, freedom for gays and lesbians, curbs on corporate power, environmental protection, the politics of academia — and rulings by the Supreme Court that cheer one camp and infuriate the other." He went on to conclude: "As a New Leftist in 1968, I did not worry that Americans were fighting one another on the streets of Chicago and around the nation. I only wanted to figure out how my side could come out on top. Now, as a professor, I teach the virtues of empathizing with one’s adversaries, of understanding why those with whom you vehemently disagree think what they think and do what they do. But as a historian, I also know that civil wars, even cultural ones, seldom end with settlements that please both sides. Until the left or the right wins a lasting victory, America will remain a society rent in two."

In response to Byker Bob's comment, nck observed: "It seems things are going a bit too fast for some. People are hearking back to 'the good old times'." He went on to conclude: "If a society is not ready to change then change should be implemented through discussion, debate and compromise. I mean if a society is not ready to have gay marriages. Why not give couples 100 percent equal rights but not call it a marriage."

These astute observations about America's "Culture War" point to the reasons why we may have another fifty years of this back and forth, or why we may eventually have another civil war! The discussion over these issues has deteriorated into a screaming match between the opposing sides, and compromise is now considered an abandonment of principle and a dirty word. If abortion is murder, then how can we allow for any circumstances where it could be practiced legally? If marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, then how can we ever permit two men to be married? If women have a fundamental right to privacy and making their own decisions about reproduction, then how can they accept any infringements on/limitations of those rights? If the state really does have an interest in regulating/promoting the institution of marriage, how can it deny the benefits of participating in that institution to any of its citizens?

The fact is that all of these issues reflect very different perspectives on race, gender and sexual orientation. Our views on these subjects very much depend on how we view our collective past. When you look at our story/history, do you see paternalism, misogyny, injustice, oppression and prejudice? OR Do you see the "good old days," when America was God-fearing and everybody did what they were supposed to do? Taken to the extremes: For some, any change (whether slow or fast) is too much. For others, immediate destruction of any remaining barriers to the full enjoyment of personal rights is warranted.

It seems to me that our culture wars boil down to a few fundamental questions: Are there eternal values? If so, what are they? and How do they apply to today's society? Is change inevitable? If so, what is the best way to manage that change? Is it possible to honor the views of both sides by allowing everyone to reach their own decisions/conclusions about these issues? Does my exercise of some supposed right somehow infringe on your exercise of your supposed right? If so, how might we ameliorate that infringement without taking away the rights of either one of us? Do we have a moral obligation to correct or mitigate the negative consequences of past injustices? Does God give us permission to ridicule or hate anyone? Does God give us permission to hurt/harm/destroy people who differ with or oppose us? What do you think? 

Race in America

It turns out that race is a much more complex subject than most of us have previously imagined. For many years, Americans looked at race through the prism of white/black or white/people of color. It turns out, however, that these models and ways of looking at race were much too simplistic and were frankly a distortion of the reality which actually exists. And, make no mistake, this has profound cultural, social, religious, political and economic implications for all of us.

DNA testing has dramatically changed the way that many Americans look at their racial identity. Testing of autosomal, y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA has revealed that most Americans are complex mixtures of several ethnicities and races. To their consternation, some white Southern Americans have discovered an African paternal ancestor. Likewise, black Americans have been receiving test results that demonstrate African, European and Native American ancestry (see https://splinternews.com/if-you-re-black-dna-ancestry-results-can-reveal-an-awk-1793862284)

We have an interesting case in point in former President Barack Obama. This controversial man not only defies traditional labels and categories, his ancestry defies much of our former thinking about race among black and white Americans.

In 2007, Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates asked "Is Obama Black Enough?" You can read the full article in Time here: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html The question arose because many blacks and whites pointed to Obama's biracial identity (and the fact that his father was from Kenya) as evidence that he simply did not share the same experiences and outlook as the folks descended from West African slaves. Coates, however, went on to point out that "Obama understands what all blacks, including myself, know all too well — that Amadou Diallo's foreign ancestry could not prevent his wallet from morphing into a gun in the eyes of the police." He went on to conclude that "Back in the real world, Obama is married to a black woman. He goes to a black church. He's worked with poor people on the South Side of Chicago, and still lives there. That someone given the escape valve of biraciality would choose to be black, would see some beauty in his darker self and still care more about health care and public education than reparations and Confederate flags is just too much for many small-minded racists, both black and white, to comprehend."

In 2016, Ben Carson left no doubt that he didn't think Obama was black enough. In an interview with Politico (Glenn Thrush), Carson contended that Obama was "raised white." He pointed out that many of the President's "formative years were spent in Indonesia," and that it was therefore "a bit of a stretch" for him to claim that he shared the experience of most black Americans. You can read the entire piece here: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/ben-carson-obama-was-raised-white-219657 Carson went on to contend that Obama had never experienced the kind of racism that was extant back in the 50's and 60's. For Ben Carson, Obama just didn't measure up in the area of blackness.

In the post-Obama era, we sometimes forget that these kinds of issues were ever raised, but they were. We recall Trump raising the issue of Obama's birth certificate and claiming that it was highly likely that he had been born in Kenya, not Hawaii. For many, Obama was never "one of us." He was one of the other guys - not part of our group.

The reality, however, is not so simple. Most folks like contrast. They like for things to be either/or, and Obama's racial identity (like racial identity in America more generally speaking) could not be neatly and tidily discerned. For instance, Obama's only slave ancestor of West African descent came through his white mother's line. Through her, he was also descended from white slave-owners. Moreover, his maternal ancestry made him much more "American" in the classical sense than Donald Trump! (Trump's paternal grandparents were born in Germany, and his mother was born in Scotland).

My own ancestry is another case in point. I have Native American ancestry, and I'm also descended from white men who fought "Indians." Two ancestors were killed by Native Americans and a Great Grand Uncle massacred a band of Sioux on Blue Water Creek in Nebraska. To further complicate matters, my Native American ancestor owned black slaves. Confused yet? I also have an African ancestor who was enslaved in Virginia. I have three white great grand uncles who were abolitionists and two who were active in the underground railroad. I have many ancestors who fought for the Confederacy and some who fought for the Union during the American Civil War.

Do you begin to see the implications for all of this? African Americans with both slave and slave-owning ancestry. Who gets reparations? Are you one of the oppressed or part of the oppressors? Native Americans who owned slaves and intermarried with black folks. Were your ancestors the good guys, the bad guys or both?

And we've only scratched the surface in talking about experience. Do current members of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma reflect the Native American experience? Have you ever been to one of our nation's many reservations? I've been to Wind River, Pine Ridge and Rosebud. How many Native Americans do you think are still living in traditional housing? What are the conditions which confront Native Americans living on reservations? What are the conditions which confront Native Americans living in urban areas? How many folks with significant Native ancestry are living as white or black Americans?

Horror of horrors, is it possible that Americans can share their experiences with each other? Is it possible that we have more in common than we previously imagined? Is it possible that your history is also my history? Is it possible for me to like and enjoy "your" music? Are these questions unsettling? Maybe it's time to reevaluate our notions about race and what that means for each of us? Maybe it is possible to walk in each others shoes and imagine ourselves as the mixed-up and dysfunctional family that we really are?

Let's Talk About Ancestry!

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been pilloried by Democrats and Republicans for releasing the results of a DNA test that confirms part of her ancestry. In a recent editorial in The Washington Post, Dana Milbank added his voice to those who have condemned her. For those who are interested, you can read the entire piece here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/join-my-tribe-elizabeth-warren/2018/10/16/3fb0867e-d181-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6e96f48c5020

He wrote: "This is why Warren’s DNA stunt was such a blunder: She took Trump’s DNA-test dare and let him divide us — again — by race and ethnicity, just as he did when he goaded President Barack Obama to prove his legitimacy by producing his birth certificate." First, Trump doesn't need any prompting - dividing us is his modus operandi. Second, NO ONE has the right to say that anyone else is not entitled to claim part of his/her heritage - NO ONE.

Milbank noted that "“Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage,” proclaimed the Cherokee Nation, decrying her “inappropriate and wrong” use of a DNA test, a “mockery” that dishonors “legitimate” tribal citizens." While her DNA does not entitle her to tribal membership (which she acknowledged), the tribe DOES NOT have the right to eliminate one of her lines of descent or disparage the obvious pride she feels in that portion of her heritage.

And, yes, I've read Vine Deloria and understand why some Native Americans do not like White Americans claiming Native descent. Nevertheless, our history on the subject of race is much more complicated and nuanced than the views of some of these folks allow. Barack Obama often pointed out that our history in these matters is tortured and very complex.

The majority of my own ancestry is European. However, like Warren, I have trace amounts of Native American DNA. And family tradition and traditional genealogical research confirms what my DNA test demonstrated. Because some of the Eastern tribes intermarried with Europeans several hundred years ago, Native DNA was diluted among many people who were considered full-fledged members of the tribes. Hence, a White ancestor marrying an "Indian" might have entailed that person joining themselves to someone who was genetically more European than Native. Finally, current testing of Autosomal DNA only has the ability to pick up ethnicities back to about six generations.

This testing can reveal all kinds of interesting heritages. Most African Americans, for instance, have large percentages of European DNA as part of their ancestry. And, like many White Americans, I have trace amounts of African DNA (also demonstrated by genetic testing). Now, while I do not have any experience living as a Black man, the fact that African ancestry is part of my genetic story is undeniable. My father's test also identified Ashkenazi heritage. He's not a Jew, but that heritage is still his.

When we look at our tortured history, we see instances where "one drop" of African blood meant that you were less than a full citizen of the United States. There was also a time when many of our ancestors sought to Anglicize their names and conform to the ways of the English majority so as to escape the ridicule and prejudice that greeted them when they got off of the boat. We should remember these instances when we seek to exclude folks from our camp.

My own Autosomal DNA test results showed large percentages of heritage from Britain, Scandinavia and Central Europe. Now that doesn't mean I'm English, Irish, Swedish, German or French; but that doesn't prevent me from taking pride in those heritages. My brother, on the other hand, didn't want to claim his French heritage; but I quickly pointed out that whether he claimed it or not would not exclude it from his heritage - it was still a part of him.

Charlemagne may have lived and ruled twelve centuries ago, but I'm still a descendant of his and proud of the fact that I am! The fact is that we are all the product of thousands of ancestors. Each of us has two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, sixteen great great grandparents, thirty-two great great great grandparents - well you get the picture. And, while our genetic heritage from each one of these folks diminishes over many generations, take away any ONE of them and you wouldn't be here!

Sorry, I'm claiming all of my heritage, and I really don't care who likes it! It's mine, and NO ONE can take it away from me. It's all an integral part of who I am - part of my very fiber and being. I understand if you don't want me to be a part of your tribe, but you will not deprive me of a legitimate point of pride in my heritage. I'm an American, and that is a very messy identity. I can embrace it or deny it, but I can't change it (and neither can you).

Liberals: Get Real!

I've listened to liberals whine about Joe Manchin (WV), Joe Donnelly (IN) and Jon Tester (MT); and I think it's time for a reality check. Yes, these men are more conservative than you; but they are also much CLOSER to your positions on the issues than the Republicans who are running against them.

Let's put this into some perspective. Do you want Republicans to retain control of the Senate? Do you want the Senate to serve as a check on a Democratic House? Do you want a Republican Senate to protect Trump from congressional oversight? If not, then you better swallow that bile and support these candidates.

What do you think "Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" means? In Spielberg's Lincoln, the President chides Thaddeus Stevens about the futility of maintaining a course for true north if you get mired in the swamps and valleys that exist between you and your destination. How do you think Trump got elected in the first place? Here's a hint: it's because you couldn't hold your nose, get off your ass and vote for Clinton!

Should we be more worried about men than women?

In the aftermath of the recent confirmation battle for a seat on the Supreme Court, some folks have vocalized their fears that their husbands, brothers, sons and grandsons are in real peril in the age of #MeToo. Is this concern justified? In all of the concern for our wives, sisters, daughters and granddaughters, have we overlooked the men in our lives? Stated another way: Has this concern for the safety and welfare of the women we love placed the men we love in jeopardy?

An article posted on the Yahoo homepage today caught my attention. It is titled, "Men as the real victims? After Kavanaugh, #HimToo gains attention." You can view the entire article here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/men-real-victims-kavanaugh-himtoo-gains-attention-055317573.html The article quotes an attorney who claims to have represented hundreds of young men against allegations of sexual predation. He says that "it's a very frightening time" for men and goes on to say, "I don't really believe you can be alone in a room with a young woman now in this climate." Does he have a point?

Laying aside all of the clear instances of paternalism and misogyny that litter our history, we should all be willing to acknowledge that women currently have less power (economic, political, religious, etc.) in our society than men. Moreover, at the risk of invoking the criticism of everyone who will point out all of the exceptions, most of us would still be willing to acknowledge that the male gender is generally physically stronger than the female gender. The point being: Is it fair/wise to ignore all of these clear advantages of the male gender?

Although it is difficult to gauge, experts tell us that up to ten percent of the accusations of sexual assault which women file may be false. (see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684) Now, admittedly, that statistic should make all of us concerned about giving any men who are so accused a fair hearing; but we must not lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of these accusations are valid.

I have a suggestion. If we are really concerned about the men in our lives, let's do more to teach them about the meaning of no, appropriate sexual behavior/attitudes, respect and courtesy, the inappropriateness of locker-room talk and the value of treating other people the way in which you would like/expect to be treated. If we continue to say that "boys will be boys," we are setting our men up for real failure and are placing their futures in real jeopardy. I have a hunch that men who have been inculcated with the right values will be far less likely to ever be falsely accused of sexual assault. What do you think?  

Winning At Any Cost

After reading Tom Nichols' article "Why I'm Leaving the Republican Party in The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/tom-nichols-why-im-leaving-republican-party/572419/, I experienced a bit of deja vu (I used to be a Republican). Like Nichols, I don't recognize the party of Donald Trump. It is not the party of Ronald Reagan. It is not the party I joined many years ago.

For Nichols, the final straw was the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. He rightly excoriated the behavior of many of the Democrats in the same battle. I find myself in complete agreement with his assessment of some of their key senators in this circus. Nichols observed: "But during the Kavanaugh dumpster fire, the performance of the Democratic Party—with some honorable exceptions like Senators Chris Coons, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar—was execrable. From the moment they leaked the Ford letter, they were a Keystone Cops operation, with Hawaii’s Senator Mazie Hirono willing to wave away the Constitution and get right to a presumption of guilt, and Senator Dianne Feinstein looking incompetent and outflanked instead of like the ranking member of one of the most important committees in America." (I would have also singled out Senator Corey Booker's performance as execrable)

Nevertheless, Nichols saved most of his gunpowder for his former party. He wrote: "The Republicans, however, have now eclipsed the Democrats as a threat to the rule of law and to the constitutional norms of American society. They have become all about winning. Winning means not losing, and so instead of acting like a co-equal branch of government responsible for advice and consent, congressional Republicans now act like a parliamentary party facing the constant threat of a vote of no-confidence."

Nichols continued: "That it is necessary to place limitations, including self-limitations, on the exercise of power is—or was—a core belief among conservatives. No longer. Raw power, wielded so deftly by Senator Mitch McConnell, is exercised for its own sake, and by that I mean for the sake of fleecing gullible voters on hot-button social issues so that Republicans may stay in power. Of course, the institutional GOP will say that it countenances all of Trump’s many sins, and its own straying from principle, for good reason (including, of course, the holy grail of ending legal abortion)."

Republicans used to complain about using the Judiciary to initiate changes that could not be achieved at the ballot box, but they are apparently on board with that now. Republicans and Democrats have exchanged positions vis-a-vis the role of the courts in making law.

In the article, Nichols makes the point which I was trying to make in my last post about Republican attitudes toward Russia. He writes: "Not only have Republicans abandoned their claim to being the national-security party, they have managed to convince the party faithful that Russia—an avowed enemy that directly attacked our political institutions—is less of a threat than their neighbors who might be voting for Democrats."

Nichols also echos the views expressed here that this cannot end well for Republicans or the country. He concludes: "The Trumpers and the hucksters and the consultants and the hangers-on, like a colony of bees who exist only to sting and die, have swarmed together in a dangerous but suicidal cloud, and when that mindless hive finally extinguishes itself in a blaze of venom, there will be nothing left." I completely agree.

The Mueller Report Will Be Rejected By Trump's Supporters

After watching On Assignment with Richard Engel https://www.msnbc.com/onassignment last night, it finally dawned on me that a majority of Trump's supporters will reject whatever Robert Mueller finds with regard to evidence of the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russians in the 2016 election. On some level, I suppose I already knew this; but I really hadn't comprehended the mechanics of why that would be the case until last night. Previously, I had supposed that a large number of Trump's supporters had been convinced by him and his attorneys that the entire investigation really was a "witch hunt," rendering it and its conclusions illegitimate.

Engel's report, however, made clear to me that Trump's efforts to discredit the investigation are clearly secondary in the minds of many of his supporters. The real reason that many of them will reject any evidence that the campaign colluded with the Russians is that they don't see cooperation with the Russians as a bad thing!

In short, many of these folks see Vladimir Putin and his cohorts as being more like them than Obama and his supporters. They admire Putin's support of gun rights and his campaign against homosexuals. They admire the fact that many Russians have returned to the Christian fold via the Russian Orthodox Church. Moreover, they relate to Putin's efforts to make Russia great again. For many of these folks, MAGA (Make America Great Again) is of a kindred spirit with what Putin is doing in Russia. In other words, these folks like strong, jingoistic leadership. For them, Putin's Russia is a powerful ally against the forces of darkness (the American Left).

Taken together with the elevation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court (and what that has done to Republican prospects for retaining control of Congress), I am not optimistic this morning about the immediate future of my country. I don't see this all ending well. Trump and his supporters are determined to stay put and see their agenda fully implemented - an agenda that is foreign and reprehensible to a clear majority of Americans. Where does this all end? Is a second civil war on the horizon?

Inheriting Wealth and Obtaining Capital

The New York Times released the results of its special investigation into how Fred Trump's children (especially son, Donald) inherited their father's wealth. The piece is a well-researched and very detailed account of how the patriarch of the Trump clan transferred much of his wealth to his children before his death and avoided paying inheritance taxes on most of it. Much of this was accomplished through the manipulation of the value of the senior Trump's assets (assigning higher or lower values as it suited his and his children's interests relative to credit needs and tax liabilities). For those who are interested in the details, you can read the article here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

The article by Barstow, Craig and Buettner was published yesterday and directly contradicts the carefully crafted myth that Donald Trump is a self-made millionaire. Indeed, the evidence presented in this article (Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father) makes clear that the Donald received much more from his dear old dad than a one million dollar starter loan. In fact, the article details how Fred Trump Sr. supported his son throughout his lifetime and often rescued him from bad financial decisions.

Although most of the folks who read this article will naturally focus on its implications for the current occupant of the Oval Office, I was struck by what it says about the attitudes of many of our wealthiest citizens toward the maintenance and perpetuation of their wealth. Our government has instituted policies relative to taxes and the extension of credit that are designed to discourage the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few (e.g. graduated income tax, inheritance tax, rules about collateral and assessed value, etc.). Unfortunately, the wealthy are often expert at avoiding these checks on the concentration and perpetuation of their wealth. The burden of these regulations falls mostly on the average citizen who inherits a family farm or a home in the suburbs valued at $250,000 or less. Hence, the wealthy avoid the "death tax" and enlist the man in the street as their ally in opposing this "interference" by the government.

The Trumps are not unique in their schemes to avoid inheritances taxes and manipulate collateral and assessed value. In the United States, money continues to be concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer folks. And the vast majority of us who are not wealthy continue to buy into the myth that we are playing by the same rules that govern our betters. We continue to admire the people who inflate invoices so that they can justify the rent increases that we will struggle to pay. We continue to believe that we have access to the same opportunity for credit that they do. After reading this article, the question that came to my mind is: When are we all going to wake up and smell the stuff that these folks are excreting?