Columns

As soon as the second Republican presidential debate ended, as any enterprising political columnist would do, I pondered the question: Who won? :  

By Berl Falbaum

As soon as the second Republican presidential debate ended, as any enterprising political columnist would do, I pondered the question: Who won?

I had listened intently and took notes because I knew that for several days, the “expert analysts” would debate the question and I did not want to be left out in the cold.

Thus, I am sharing some of my findings exclusively here with readers.

--I was impressed by North Dakota Governor Douglas Burgum, specifically for how silently and patiently he stood before getting a question from the three moderators who finally realized that North Dakota was part of the U.S. In the debate’s two hours, Burgum spoke for all of 7 minutes and 35 seconds (according to official timekeepers) but Burgum suppressed the instinct to complain on the air how costly it was for him to participate.

--I am not sure I liked former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s attempt at humor. Criticizing Donald Trump for not participating in the debate, Christie said the former president soon would be known as Donald “Duck.” Christie appeared very pleased with himself, chuckling confidently when he finished.

Now, I happen to believe we need some humor in our humorless politics but that line just didn’t do it for me. Maybe Christie should hire a writer from SNL.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis also criticized Trump for skipping the debate but he did not mention Donald Duck, probably because of his feud with the Disney empire.

--I did like the spunk of former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. When South Carolina Senator Tim Scott attacked her for outrageous spending, she urged him, to “Bring it, Tim.”

I had this vision of her facing Russian President Vladimir Putin, looking him straight in the eye and challenging him with, “Vlady, bring it on. And remember, I am not Donald Trump.”

--Scott also accused her of spending more than $50,000 on curtains for her office when she was ambassador to the U.N. She informed Scott that the curtains were bought by the Democratic Obama administration, to which Scott asked, “Did you send them back?”

Sadly, to my dismay, the debate moderators did not pursue the issue by asking about the return policy for the curtains.

(Worth noting:  When she was governor, Haley appointed Scott to a vacant Senate seat. Obviously, she was unaware that he considered her curtains too expensive.)

I think by this point readers will conclude that I did not think much of the debate.  Indeed, when you have seven candidates participating (10 in 2016), such debates are a total waste of time.

One-on-one debates are an entirely different matter. Properly handled by moderators, they can provide insights into the respective candidates and their policies.

There was not a word on Ukraine -- yes, that Ukraine -- the climate crisis, the deficit, the auto strike, COVID, and so many other issues which were not considered as serious as the curtains.

In such a debate setting, issues can’t be developed; candidates shout at and over each other trying to get air time; moderators generally lose control; and we are left with what can only be described as meaningless “noise, babble.”
Lack of control, let to an uncontrolled time allocation:

DeSantis spoke almost 5 minutes more than Burgum at 12 minutes and 27 seconds; Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy was next at 11 minutes and 53 seconds; then came Scott at 10 minutes and 42 seconds; Christie at 10 minutes and 32 seconds; former vice president, Mike Pence, at 9 minutes and 35 seconds and Haley, at 9 minutes and 5 seconds.

We should also note that some moderators seem more interested in their questions, hoping to impress the audience, than in pursuing vital domestic and foreign policy issues.

Given the format, it is impossible to make a major difference, particularly when Trump is leading the seven candidates by an average of roughly 40 percentage points.

The candidates realize the futility of trying to have a serious discussion and work principally to levy a one-liner that will get them the headlines the next day.

The ultimate goal: Control the media coverage for a couple of days and perhaps gain a point or two in the polls.

Christie tried it with Donald Duck. Pence took his shot by saying that Joe Biden should not be on the UAW picket line but in the unemployment line.

Some of the others made attempts at a headline-grabbing statement but were so ineffective, I did not bother to write them down.

So, as a public service, the GOP might cancel all upcoming debates during the primary season. (Another debate is scheduled for November.)

I know that Burgum would welcome such a cancellation. The next one is scheduled to take place in Miami and it will cost him a lot more traveling from North Dakota than it did for the last one which was on the West Coast in the Reagan Library in California.

Happiness is not what happens to me. Happiness, a feeling of peace, a feeling of love and a feeling of personal contentment and meaning in this present moment is the result of how I embrace  and experience what happens to me in each moment of life :  

By Fred Cavaiani

Happiness is not what happens to me. Happiness, a feeling of peace, a feeling of love and a feeling of personal contentment and meaning in this present moment is the result of how I embrace  and experience what happens to me in each moment of life.  I cannot control what happens to me in each moment of life. But I can control of how  I discover joy and peace in each moment.

I must gently experience this present moment. When I do this, I am challenged to discover what life is really all about.  

Each of us knows that we will eventually die.  That may take a number of years or it could be just around the corner.  I think that HAPPINESS NOW is experienced when I focus on the present moment and discover the presence of the Divine in each moment. This doesn’t depend  upon what religion I might practice.  It  depends up how gently I let myself experience life in each moment.

It  becomes easy to rush through life and think  that the next moment will bring us happiness.  Life is only in this moment and in the acceptance and experience of this moment something very profound happens. I slow down and go deeper within myself.  In  this journey deeper into myself I begin  to discover something very profound –God.  This experience can only happen when I am not rushing  through life or believing happiness comes in the next moment.  We will all experience pain, love and joy. Sometimes this may all happen in  the present moment.  HAPPINESS NOW  is the result of the embrace of each present moment.  It  slows our whole system down and allows us to realize what life is all about:  an experience of God.  Faith in something deeper can take hold of me when I allow the depth of this moment to be experienced.This moment can be very painful. It can be very joyful.  It can be happy. It can be sad. But there is a Divine Element in each moment of life which is always coming to us no matter the joy or pain we might be feeling. This Divine Element calms us and helps us understand the meaning of life.

Life becomes meaningful in the slow and gentle embrace of the Now.  This embrace becomes an openness  to discovering HAPPINESS NOW because I am not fighting anything. I am just experiencing the present moment which is where the Divine is coming toward me.  

Life is quite simple. We complicate life when we rush to the next moment and avoid what is happening in this moment.

Have  you ever watched a loved one suffer?  It is painful.  But in the embrace of this pain, a profound sense of love is experienced and an appreciation and gratitude for this person in  your life becomes deep and meaningful.  The strength to bring more love to this loved person gets deeper and compassion and love becomes deep so this person experiences  your compassion and love. What first was difficult to see and embrace in watching this suffering of  your loved one, now becomes a journey into pouring more love into this loved one.  It creates a connection and bond that brings the presence of God closer to both of  you.  

Suffering and pain can never be avoided in life.  When I try to avoid the pain I have to experience, I block myself from love and I block myself from experiencing God and bringing more love to others.  HAPPINESS NOW  is always the embrace of the NOW in my life.  And  this embrace of the NOW becomes the door opening into a profound experience of God.

HAPPINESS NOW results from being caring, loving and receptive in the present moment of life. When this happens, I will feel the importance of slowing down. I will realize the importance of being more loving. I will discover that God is always with me in this present moment and all of life is to enter a more profound relationship with God by slowing down and being more loving to everyone in each moment of life.  Life is a journey into LOVE  which becomes a journey into GOD.  And this journey will last forever with peace and joy.

We’ll start with a two-part question: (a) What does the debt ceiling deal do to buttress the country’s financial foundation or (b) avoid a potential bankruptcy? :  

By Berl Falbaum

We’ll start with a two-part question: (a) What does the debt ceiling deal do to buttress the country’s financial foundation or (b) avoid a potential bankruptcy?

The answers (a) nothing and (b) nothing.

Okay, we’ll agree it permits the raising of the debt ceiling but that would have happened even if the powers to be had not met the June 5 deadline. Yes, we may have faced some serious, albeit short-term repercussions, but the President and Congress could not have avoided it.
No self-respecting politician would be party to creating economic chaos and then expect to be re-elected. Yes, some, in both houses, still voted “no” but they knew it would pass and thus, they could stand on “principle.” Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Since 1960, the debt ceiling was raised 78 times, 49 under GOP presidents and 29 times under Democrats. And, there is no reason to conclude it would not have happened the 79th time.

The most serious problem: the national debt was not addressed at all. More on that later.

First, a deeper look at the deal with emphasis on a few major items. Admittedly, it’s complicated; we can speculate that even those who passed it, don’t understand it all. There wasn’t even time to read the 99-page document between the time President Biden and House Speaker McCarthy reached an agreement and the vote.

— The package reduces proposed spending by about $136 billion: $55 billion in 2024 and $81 billion in 2025. It does not -- does not -- cut any existing programs.  To put this figure in perspective, consider that in the last quarter of 2022, interest alone on the nation’s debt was $213 billion, up $63 billion from the same period a year earlier.

— Claims that the deal would cut between $1.4 and $2.5 trillion in the next 10 years are, to be kind, disingenuous. The programs included are “suggestions” and future lawmakers are not bound by them. Worse, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said even if adopted in coming years, while some items would save money others would increase the deficit.

— There are also several non-financial items, including the requirement that able-bodied, childless low-income adults younger than 55 to work 20 hours a week or be engaged in job training or job searches. If they don’t meet that standard, their benefits end after three months.

Not to be ignored, as The New York Times pointed out, the agreement includes numerous “side deals” (which have not been analyzed publicly) and “accounting tricks.”

And it ain’t a done deal yet. Congress now has to pass 12 appropriation bills to implement the debt ceiling deal. As usual, the media centered on the political divide, which makes good copy, rather than the substance of the issue.

Which brings us to the U.S. national debt that was hardly mentioned by President Biden or Congress. And the mainstream media, while gushing, ranting, fretting and hyperventilating about the political standoff, also generally ignored the only issue which can, if faced, save us from eventual bankruptcy.

As I wrote this column, the debt stood at $31,823, 010, ___,___. I could not fill in the last six numbers because they change too quickly. The debt increases $45.486 per second, $2,729.16 per minute, or $163,749,60 per hour. Revenues total $4.6 trillion, but we are spending at a rate of more than $6 trillion.

You might click on usdebtclock.org and witness the debt climb in real time.  It’s scary.

Forbes Magazine reports that the national debt is equal to $247,766 per taxpayer or $94,710 per citizen.

How fast has the deficit been growing? In 1929, it was a mere $17 billion.  It hit the one trillion dollar mark in 1982 at $1.1 trillion, $5.6 trillion in 2000; and $30.8 trillion 2022.

The national debt has more than doubled in the last 10 years; if it doubles again, it will be more than $62 trillion, or three times greater than the current gross domestic product (GDP).

And therein lies the tale.

When the government debt exceeds 85 percent of the GDP, it becomes a drag on economic growth. It is currently at 120 percent.

The President and Congress did absolutely nothing to address the debt-GDP ratio.  They may crow about achieving a by-partisan deal, but it left the country just as financially vulnerable, if not more so, as it was when negotiations began.

Ezra Klein, writing in The New York Times, described the agreement as follow: “…in order to get a deal like this is like threatening to detonate a bomb beneath the bank unless the teller gives you $150 and a commemorative mug. It’s a bizarre mismatch of means and ends.”

One day there will be no more wiggle room.  We will try to kick the can -- you know, that can -- but it will not move. Instead, it will break our toes.
 

If you follow politics, I am going to make a wild guess that you are aware that CNN gave Donald Trump more than a free hour of prime time for a “Republican Town Hall” meeting. :  

If you follow politics, I am going to make a wild guess that you are aware that CNN gave Donald Trump more than a free hour of prime time for a “Republican Town Hall” meeting.

I am confident you heard more than you wanted from the mainstream media how CNN violated responsible journalism and, basically, is picking up where the fired Fox News right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson left off.

The media was awash in criticizing CNN, lambasting the network for its abrogation of responsible journalism; the breast-beating was endless. My chest hurt just reading the condemnations.  

Now, it’s not that I disagree with the criticism, but what the media are missing -- intentionally or not -- is that they were complicit in violating what they described as hallowed journalistic principles. To explain:

Why did they cover the broadcast? If they believed Trump was onerous, lying, repetitious, etc., which he was, why not ignore the event?

But they would reply: He is the leading candidate to win the Republican nomination for president, and recent polls show him beating Joe Biden in a head-to-head matchup.

The problem with that argument: That’s exactly what CNN said in defending its decision to air the town hall meeting.

Which leads us to a “what if?,” admittedly a huge, huge “what if?”

What if 20-30 of the largest media organizations had met before the broadcast and agreed to black out all coverage, they would not publish anything.

Or they would watch the broadcast but only report on it if Trump said something “new” and was “truthful?”

There was nothing novel in Trump lying that he won the 2020 election, or stating that January 6 was a “beautiful” day, or that he refused to criticize Putin.

Surely, they would be able to work out criteria on which to make their decision and, most important, it would not be the first time the media censored themselves in reporting on presidential politics. Two cases in point:

The media never ran a photo of FDR in his wheelchair, cropping photos at his waist. Indeed, that was wrong because the public was entitled to information about the president’s health.

(2) They did not report on JFK’s serious illnesses nor that he was taking medications that could impair/affect his decision-making. They also did not publish articles on his womanizing even though he had affairs which endangered national security. (He had a liaison with the girlfriend of a Mafia boss and, reportedly, a German spy.)

The media was wrong in this instance as well.

When I covered the Detroit City Hall, I frequently did not report on press conferences I covered for a variety of reasons: the press conference was staged for publicity; the “news” had been reported previously; it was not newsworthy, etc.

In the eight years of Donald Trump, I have written hundreds of thousands of words on Trump, including publishing a 500-page book. But about two to three years ago, while I still discussed Trumpism, I have not said a word about Trump himself.

I suddenly realized it was all too repetitious. How many times and in how many ways can you write that Trump is a demagogue, a swindler, a pathological liar, a narcissist’s narcissist, a sexual predator, a man who stokes hate, racism, anti-Semitism or, to paraphrase New York Times Columnist Charles Blow, that he is a disgusting human being.

If the media felt compelled to report on the town hall meeting, how about a brief three-paragraph story, stating that the former president repeated his constant lies, i.e., he won the 2020 election; denied even knowing E. Jean Carroll who accused him of rape, etc.

What was new that we learned about Trump from the town hall? Exactly!

True, the media, at times, have to give morally and legally compromised public officials coverage and publicity to inform the public of their views. But, I think, after eight years and trillions of words, we know who Trump is and what he stands for.
Basically, the media are repeating the same mistakes they made in the 2015-16 campaign. Studies reported that the media, in effect, gave Trump $3 billion worth of advertising with its coverage.

Surveys reported that the CNN town hall was watched by a little more than three million people. The coverage was consumed by tens of millions of Americans.  Somewhere in Mar-a-Lago, Trump is dancing on a table top. What’s more, even the debate on the merits of the CNN broadcast, gave Trump valuable PR.

Of course, I understand the difficult complexities involved in making decisions on what to cover. The point is that we are in a “new normal” and the media need “new” journalistic principles in the interest of defending our democracy.  No one is suggesting to ignore him. But we need a more sophisticated media approach.

This issue will not go away. As we move toward a full-blown presidential campaign, the media will cover debates, press conferences, interviews, etc. -- that will require “new” and fresh thinking. They would be well advised to have in-depth conversations on what needs to be fixed and how to do so.

Meanwhile, they can take a collective first baby-step: Never again publish Trump brandishing the Big Lie that he won the 2020 election.
 

The emigration of British colonists to North America and the events leading up to the country’s founding is one of our most well-worn conventional narratives. :  

By Samuel Damren

The emigration of British colonists to North America and the events leading up to the country’s founding is one of our most well-worn conventional narratives.

The American origins story typically contains a healthy dose of uplifting themes:  indominable perseverance in the face of hardship, the chance for freedom from religious persecution, escape from the class structure of the Old World, and a celebration of the success of hard work in a meritocracy.

As recounted in student textbooks over generations, this glowing portrayal masks various faults of our ancestors and institutions. It does so by suggesting that those faults while real were destined to be overcome by an American spirit that was part of the people from the country’s inception.

Critics of this version have long been a part of our heritage with notable contributions from American literature and other fields.

But when criticisms were recently published by African American educators and journalists in book form, titled “The 1619 Project,” the extreme response from MAGA Republicans was anything but proportional to the tenor and substance of the actual criticisms.

Instead of engaging the critics, MAGA legislators and executives enacted laws that excluded the book, as well as the teaching of “critical race theory,” from the curricula of various schools in their states.

In a similar display of MAGA vitriol, two African American legislators in Tennessee were recently expelled from the state legislature for having the temerity to offend the legislature’s embrace of assault weapons with a proposal to ban them.

The two reactions are symptomatic of racist sentiment to “put” African Americans in their “place.”

Instead of delving into the controversy involving “The 1619 Project,” let’s look at the events of America’s founding from yet another perspective.

In 1584, Richard Hakluyt presented his “Discourse Concerning Western Planting” to Queen Elizabeth I.  Hakluyt was a prominent clergyman who was connected to ambitious investors hoping to profit from England’s entry into colonial enterprise.  He was also a well-known author of the travel adventures of English explorers.

Through what many in England regarded as a creative proposal in “Western Planting,” Hakluyt sought to convince the Crown to back colonization efforts in America by means that would also relieve England of costs associated with its over-populated underclass.

Hakluyt’s proposal was to ship the underclass out of the country on one-way tickets to populate risky, dangerous colonial settlements. Rather than continuing to burden the Commonwealth, under this model for colonization and in Hakluyt’s own words “thousandes of idle persons in this realm” who “stuff” our prisons full, “where either they pitifully pyne awaye, or els at lengthe are miserably hanged,” could be put to honest labor as indentured workers.

It was the 16th century version of a “win-win” solution.

The full story of America’s settlement by what Hakluyt referred to as the “waste” people of England and how they were overseen by privileged Englishmen and merchant associations is detailed in Nancy Isenberg’s 2016 book titled “White Trash. The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America.”

Conservative criticism of this alternative version of American history was muted and focused on less-persuasive connections drawn by Isenberg elsewhere in the book between these Pre-Revolutionary War events and the composition of present-day America.
MAGA Republicans ignored the book. That may be precisely because the critique of American society offered in “White Trash” requires an examination of the effect of class in present-day America not just in the past.

Such an inquiry would be challenging for MAGA loyalists given that their leader is a man who was not only born on third base, but thinks he is privileged to steal home even after election umpires repeatedly called him out at the plate.

History is composed of narratives flowing from different perspectives. To the extent a narrative is composed of facts, it provides benefit. To the extent it ignores relevant facts or substitutes fiction for fact, it does not.

If there is a “conventional narrative” about “conventional narratives,” it is that they can serve agendas having little to do with actual history.

(This is the second commentary in a series.)

 

––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available

Given the controversies in which they are engulfed, it is not unfair to conclude that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Robert Hunter Biden, the son of the U.S. president, both Yale Law School graduates, failed courses in ethics. :  

By Berl Falbaum

Given the controversies in which they are engulfed, it is not unfair to conclude that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Robert Hunter Biden, the son of the U.S. president, both Yale Law School graduates, failed courses in ethics.

Of course, they could have cheated and, given their ethical compromises, it is not unjust to consider that as well.

Both men are involved in questionable ethical behavior, and neither seems to understand what the big bruhaha is all about.

First, Thomas, a Supreme Court associate justice since 1991:  

ProPublica, the online news service, reported that Thomas traveled on billionaire mega-donor Republican Harlan Crow’s 162-foot yacht, vacationed at Crow’s luxury resort, and flew on his plane around the world on trips worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.  (As I was completing this column, ProPublica revealed that in 2014 Thomas and his family sold properties worth more than $130,000 to Crow, but the justice did not disclose the sale, a possible violation of federal law which requires disclosure of such transactions of more than $1,000).

In defending himself, Thomas said Crow and his wife, “are among our dearest friends, and we’ve been friends for over 25 years. As friends do, we joined them on a number of family trips during the more than a quarter of a century we have known them.”

Thomas continued: “Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable.”

He added: “It is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future.”

That prompts the following responses: (1) He should seek more ethical colleagues; and (2) We are disturbed that he does not plan to change his behavior.

Now, Crow may not have had cases before the Supreme Court during Thomas’s tenure -- as Thomas makes clear -- but the justice must be aware of Crow’s political interests, and rulings opposed to those beliefs would most certainly impair their relationship. Would Crow invite the justice on a trip after he voted against a major policy backed by the billionaire?

Sure, Crow, a “mega-Republican donor” may really like his pal, but presumably he is also aware of the direct and indirect political influence he can have on the justice with his relationship -- without saying a word. He is not a “mega-dummy.”

To assure skeptics (like us), Crow is quoted in news articles, stating: “We have never asked about a pending or lower-court case, and Justice Thomas has never discussed one, and we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue.”

The major principle involved here, that Thomas ignores, is that public officeholders must not only avoid direct conflicts of interest, but also the appearance of such conflicts. Thomas may consider that unjust, but that is the sacrifice politicians seeking public office must make to have the privilege -- and it is a privilege -- to serve the public interest.

What is particularly troubling is that while lower courts are bound by codes of conduct, the Supreme Court does not have one. Perhaps it’s time to enact one since it’s clear that justices like Thomas are taking advantage of the void, and the other eight members have been silent on the issue, apparently intent on letting the controversy die on its own.

Oh, and let’s not forget another “minor” conflict involving Thomas’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, who worked actively, behind the scenes, to overturn the 2020 election.

Are we wrong and too cynical to suggest that Thomas should have recused himself from a case involving the release of White House records related to the January 6 insurrection?

Should we assume that since Mrs. Thomas did not have any cases before the court, Thomas was not guilty of any ethical violations?

We will go way, way out on a limb:  Besides talking about what was for dinner, he and his wife might --- just might --- have talked about the election and other related Trump politics that Mrs. Thomas supports.

True, Mr. Justice, your wife did not have a case before the court, but nevertheless we just can’t help envision a scene in which you commend her cooking and then add, inadvertently: “I (agree, don’t agree) that the election was stolen.”

Or we can envision -- again, unfairly -- that your wife tells you she was dusting in your office and has a suggestion for some language in a draft opinion she happened to see on your desk.

Since your colleagues have signed off on your behavior, you might ask Crow to invite them on your next trip.

We’ll cover Hunter Biden in our next column. He is also guilty of ethical compromises even though he doesn’t have a case before the Supreme Court.