The Letter the Democrats Should Send

Last night I wasted about an hour and fifteen minutes of my life listening to Donald Trump's State of the Union speech (I gave up before it was over). It was about what I'd expected to hear, and it suggested how the Democrats need to proceed with the mess over the Great Wall of Trump.

Were I Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi, here is the letter I would send to Mr Trump:

QUOTE:

Dear Mr President,

In the interest of cooperation and conciliation, and in order to put the issue of your proposed border wall to rest so that we can move on to other pressing issues facing the nation, we offer the following:

Congressional Democrats will provide 100% of your requested wall funding upon receipt of documented proof, based on official government documentation, facts, and analysis, that prove both the existence of a border crisis and that such a wall is necessary to solve that crisis. Acceptable documentation would include formal National Intelligence Estimates, official studies conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, official Justice Department records of arrests and prosecutions for border violations, and similar official records. Data without documentation to show its provenance, irrelevant or anecdotal data, and emotional references to "Angel Moms" are not sufficient - we are prepared to provide the funding you want as long as you can prove the existence of the problem and the efficacy of your proposed wall as a solution.

Because you are clearly certain of the existence and severity of the crisis, we are sure that you must be in possession of hard data that proves your case. Therefore, we ask that you provide this information to the appropriate Senate and House committees no later than February 28, 2019 so that it can be shared with the American public to prove the case for your wall. Once this information has been received and verified, we will provide the funding you request.

Sincerely,

The Democrats

END QUOTE

That's what I think ought to happen ... what do you think? Leave a comment.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

A Two-State Solution?

In the unhappy Middle East, one of the abiding beliefs is that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse lies in the "Two-State Solution," under which Israel coexists in peace with an independent Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip*.

Official support for the Two-State Solution has been the official US policy for many years, although there's some indication that the Trump administration may be willing to jettison it in favor of full support of Israel.

But if the Two-State Solution doesn't work for the Middle East, perhaps it will work here at home as a way of separating Republicans and Democrats. Consider the electoral college results for the 2016 Election, represented as a map showing red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) states ...

The discontinuous areas of the West Bank under Palestinian control and surrounded by annexed or controlled by Israel are analogous to the situation of the blue states in the American heartland, surrounded by seas of red. Perhaps we are moving toward our own Two-State Solution, in which angry, bitter Conservatives live together in their own walled-in, law-and-order nation bordering a sister nation of angry, bitter Liberals**.

Have a good day here in the Disunited States of America. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* There are precedents for a geographically-divided nation ...  following the partition of India into Hindu and Muslim nations in 1948, the Muslim portion consisted of "East Pakistan" and "West Pakistan." "East Pakistan" later broke away to become what we now know as "Bangladesh." Another precedent can be seen in the one-time "United Arab Republic," a short-lived union between Egypt and Syria that existed from 1958 to 1961. History appears to show that such geographically-divided nations don't work in the long run.

** There's also a precedent for a geographically divided political entity in this country ... look at Michigan.

Not Your President? Not So Fast.

At the end of a nasty, bitter, uncivil, and fact-challenged election, Donald Trump emerged victorious as our next president. He did not win the popular vote, although some on the right claim he did, but he clearly won the Constitutionally-prescribed process by which he amassed the commanding number of votes in the Electoral College. For good or for ill, the results of the popular vote are not legally or Constitutionally relevant.

Many people, myself included, strongly opposed Donald Trump for a variety of reasons. We weren't thrilled with Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but in an election in which most of us voted while holding our noses, she seemed to me to be the better of two unfortunate candidates.

Now that the election is over, demonstrations - indeed, riots - have broken out in various cities across the country as people who are horrified at the thought of a Trump presidency turn out with chants of "Not My President."

Well, folks, you're wrong.

Donald Trump is your president. You may not like him, but he won the election in full compliance with the Constitution. I agree that Mr Trump doesn't appear to understand the Constitution* and the responsibilities, limitations, and freedoms it prescribes, but nevertheless, he's the president-elect. The time has come to suck up our disappointment and, as President Obama reminded us, do everything we can to help make Donald Trump a successful president. This doesn't mean failing to strongly (and within the constitutional process) object to his policies** that are misguided. It does mean that we should give him the benefit of the doubt and hear him out.

Donald Trump is one of the most distasteful persons ever elected to the presidency. He advocated some things I could support, but many others I couldn't. He ran a campaign based on lies***, hatred, and fear-mongering, and I personally believe that he will be a disastrous president. But he's now my president-elect, and yours, too.

Let's calm down and help him where we can, and oppose him where we must.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* And I don't mean that he doesn't know how many articles there are in the Constitution. Hell, I don't think I could have told you that, either. I mean that he has, throughout the campaign, advocated measures that are blatantly unconstitutional and unamerican.

** To the extent he has any.

*** And please don't try to equate the huge number of pants-on-fire howlers Mr Trump refused to walk back, even when PROVEN to be wrong, with those told by Secretary Clinton. All politicians have at most a nodding acquaintance with the truth ... Mr Trump wouldn't recognize it if it bit him on the backside.

Final Thoughts Before the Election

Tomorrow, people across America will go to the polls to decide which of two flawed candidates will be our next president. If, like me, you're sick of the whole distasteful thing, just skip this post and tomorrow's post and come back in a few days for a return to my usual kvetching about this and that. If, however, you are interested in my final pre-event thoughts on this ugly circus*, read on.

Because I'll be working tomorrow at my local precinct as an election official and am likely to be very busy all day, I voted early ... and with gritted teeth. The candidate for whom I voted was Hillary Clinton, and this is why.

Let me say first of all that, in a more rational political world, I would not have to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I would have a choice between two parties fronted by admirable, statesmanlike candidates with honest philosophical differences in their approach to government and a sincere, pragmatic vision for where they would like to take 21st-century America. Sadly, neither party offers such a vision**.

Many people more famous, better-educated, and more intelligent than I have explained in tremendous detail all the reasons Donald Trump is catastrophically unqualified and would be a disastrous choice as president. I'm not going to waste your time reiterating all of them ... I'll just say that anyone who votes for a man like Mr Trump will have to answer for the consequences should he be elected.

Likewise, many famous, better-educated, and more intelligent people have explained in tremendous detail all the reasons Hillary Clinton should not be president. On study and reflection, I find many - if not most - of these reasons to be short-sighted, if not stupid. My main issue with Secretary Clinton is not that she is, either temperamentally or by experience, unqualified to serve as president, but that she displayed staggeringly bad judgement back at the dawn of the home e-mail server controversy. Is she a "congenital liar?" She's a professional politician - it goes with the territory***. Does she belong in jail? Considering that she's never been convicted of anything, no. Benghazi!!! Sure ... let's waste a few million more dollars on more investigations and give Congress another excuse for not doing anything useful.

We are faced with two unappealing choices for president, and two parties that have proven unresponsive to the needs and desires of ordinary Americans who are unable to pay for the Platinum-Plus^TM level of representation available to the wealthy and well-connected. A world that used to look to America as a beacon of democracy and common sense is horrified at our epidemic of political and economic foot-shooting.

I voted with gritted teeth for the person I believe is by far the better of two unappealing options, and am not looking forward to the next four years, regardless of who wins.

Have a good day. Vote your conscience and your common sense, but vote. I'll be back after the election.

Bilbo

* I'm reminded of a comment made by a grizzled old lieutenant colonel many years ago when he was forced to march in a change-of-command parade in the broiling sun at Barksdale AFB. Standing behind me in the formation of wing officers that our commander had decreed would lead the parade, the older man grumbled under his breath, "The only difference between this parade and a Shriners' parade is that in a Shriners' parade, the clowns are all smiling."

** You may recall that last month, I brought back a national vision I first proposed back in 2008 - "A prosperous America within secure borders, enjoying peaceful relations with all nations." Wouldn't it have been nice to hear something like that instead of bitter attack ads?

*** How can anyone accuse Hillary Clinton of being a "congenital liar" and not say the same of Donald Trump - a man who not only lies constantly but - when confronted with absolute proof of his lies, simply doubles down and says the same stuff, louder, to cheering crowds?

I Voted with Gritted Teeth

Yesterday was "Super Tuesday," the day on which a large number of states and territories (14, to be exact) held their presidential primary elections or caucuses. On the way home from work I stopped at my local polling place and cast my ballot. I'll tell you who I voted for later, but first I'd like to say a few words about this election season.

This is the first presidential election since I came of voting age that I am without a candidate I can completely support, unless it's ...

I first voted in a presidential election in 1972, and the first vote I cast was for Richard Nixon. I voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election up to and including the first candidacy of George W. Bush. After that, I have voted consistently for the Democratic candidate.

Frankly, the GOP scares me. There is no one running on the Republican side that I believe is qualified - by education, ability, or temperament - to be president. Donald Trump is an utterly unqualified megalomaniac and probably a sociopath, Ted Cruz is Trump Lite and a scary religious bigot, Ben Carson is a well-meaning nonentity, entirely out of his depth, and the other candidates are less overtly dangerous but still pander to the worst elements of the electorate. None of them appears ever to have read, much less to understand, the Constitution.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is not the Screaming She-Demon from Hell that the GOP thunders about, but I question her judgment because of her use of a private home e-mail server for the conduct of national diplomacy while she was Secretary of State. The issue of classified material on that server is, in my opinion, an overblown smokescreen that is of less importance than her use of the server itself. There is no direct and reasonable comparison to be made between the cases of Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, as much as the GOP would like to make it so. I can go into that in more detail another time if anyone is interested enough*. I think she is as much of a political opportunist as Trump or Cruz, but with a veneer of humanity.

Bernie Sanders is the only true and authentic person running for president. He cares about Real People and is consistent in his beliefs and actions. While I support most of his positions, particularly on education and health care, I don't think we can afford everything he'd like to do, and the country as a whole is probably not ready to go quite as far as he is. If he's elected, and you thought the GOP was reflexively opposed to anything President Obama ever said or did, you've got quite a show coming.

I cast my primary vote for Bernie Sanders as the least bad option in a year full of abysmal candidates.

Sue me.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* And having spent my entire professional life in the intelligence community, dealing with highly-classified material and the rules for its creation, handling, storage, and transmission, I think I can speak with some authority on the subject. In this, I know I will be at philosophical odds with many of my fellow intelligence and military veterans, but that's the way it is when you have Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

The Things We Choose to Believe

It has been said by people wiser than I that there are subjects one should never discuss. Politics is one. Anything to do with guns (other than worshipful praise) is another. And religion is a third.

As you know, I don't mind discussing politics, although discussing is not always the right word when one's points are often rebutted with ad hominem attacks, non sequiturs, and blind nonsense. Nevertheless, I soldier* on.

As you also know, I have decided no longer to get into the national "debate" on guns, because the rationality train on both sides of the argument sailed a long time ago, and I'm tired of thoughtful discourse being replaced by stupid memes, accusations of my personal stupidity, historical irrelevancies, and arguments of false equivalency. Go ahead and ignore reality if you like, just leave me out of it.

That leaves religion, and depending on how this post is received, it may be the last time I choose to chum those most dangerous of waters.

In the aftermath of the horrific terror attacks by Islamic lunatics in Paris and Bamako, and the murder of several people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs by a man who was apparently an anti-abortion Christian zealot, the level of hysterical rhetoric has reached levels that surprise even me. Lunatics like Donald Trump advocate building databases to track Muslims, political figures who should know better advocate creating government agencies to advance "Judeo-Christian values"**, and more than half of the nation's governors have demanded that no refugees from Syria or other middle Eastern countries be resettled in their states.

Between the religious crazies of Daesh, Boko Haram, and other radical Islamist groups and the religious crazies of the American Christian far right, it looks like a race to the bottom to see who can espouse the most foul and despicable expressions of religious belief.

With that as an introduction, let me say by way of disclaimer that I am not a religious scholar, nor am I even a "religious" person in the generally accepted sense. I was baptized as a Byzantine Rite Catholic, grew up in a Roman Catholic household, and attended Mass regularly (also serving as a lector) all the way through my college years. As I grew older, traveled more, and saw and experienced more of the world, I gradually fell away from organized religious belief and adopted a more spiritual (for want of a better word) approach. We can discuss the grand philosophical implications of this another time ... what I want to do now is make some comments about the ugly and angry religious fights that make our current world so dangerous. In a series of occasional posts, I want to talk about why I see little difference between the worst Christians and the worst Muslims, beginning with how practitioners of both faiths approach their holy scriptures.

In his great satirical work "The Devil's Dictionary," writer Ambrose Bierce defined Scriptures as, "The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based." This is about as true as it gets.

For Christians, the Bible is the final, complete, and unerring word of God, true and complete in every detail ... devout Christians spend countless hours in Bible study, seeking deeper understanding of the text.

For Muslims, the Quran is the final, complete and unerring word of God, true and complete in every detail, with every letter of every word exactly as it was passed (in Arabic) from God to Mohammed by way of the angel Gabriel ... many devout Muslims devote themselves to memorizing the entire Quran as an expression of faith.

It seems fairly clear to me that both books can't be the final, revealed word of God ... and who's right depends on whether you are a Christian or a Muslim.

But regardless of how deeply each religion believes in the absolute and complete truth of its scripture, the real truth is that Christians and Muslims must each learn to read and accept those books selectively. The Bible of the New Testament is the story of a loving God of peace and acceptance, whereas the Bible of the Old Testament (see the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus in particular) specifies some fairly savage punishments for transgressions of The Law*** ... in order to accept Christianity as a religion of love and tolerance, modern Christians learn to believe around these parts of the Bible. Likewise, Muslims - in order to live with their picture of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance - must read the Quran selectively, ignoring the verses that, for instance, allow men to beat their wives⁺ and tell believers to fight and subjugate those who follow other faiths⁺⁺. Few good Christians nowadays kill adulterers or stone their rebellious children to death; likewise, few Muslim men (outside of ultraconservative garden spots like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan) beat their wives or randomly murder their Christian neighbors⁺⁺⁺.

Consider the argument about whose religion is one of peace and compassion. Muslims like to point out that the Quran begins with the words, "In the name of God the merciful, the compassionate," and yet some Muslims manage to wreak horrible violence on innocents through selective reading and interpretation of the rest of the text. Christians point out the beauty of the Beatitudes (Matthew 5: 1-12), the peaceful and beautiful story of the Nativity (Luke 2: 1-20), and phrases like "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me" (Matthew 25:40), and yet some Christians manage to shoot up abortion clinics, rail against social programs to help the poor, and scream in outrage at the admission of Syrian refugees into this country.

People of good will, mercy, and compassion will find verses in both the Bible and the Quran to which they can point to justify their deepest beliefs. People who wish to use God as a weapon with which to force their beliefs on others can find the same. Belief tends to be selective.

I realize that I am - to use a religious expression - preaching to the converted. If you understand my point, you're probably nodding your head in agreement; if, however, you are a devout believer, you are probably shaking your head in disbelief that I fail to grasp the total, ultimate truth of the (insert your choice of holy scripture here). It's a matter of perspective.

Have a good day. Read your chosen scripture with an eye toward the Golden Rule, and you'll help to make the world a better place^†.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* No offense intended to sailors, airmen and Marines.

** I realize that the only part of the Constitution that many Americans care about is the Second Amendment, but we do also have a number of other Amendments, including the very First, which begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This seems pretty clear to me, if not to some of the bozoheads running for president.

*** For example: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus, 20:10); “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear" (Deuteronomy, 21: 18-21)

⁺ "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." (Quran, 4:34)

⁺⁺ "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Quran, 9:29)

⁺⁺⁺ It is a crime in Saudi Arabia to adhere to any religion other than the Wahabi version of Islam, and Pakistan is not noted for its gentle tolerance of other faiths.

^† Offer not applicable in much of the Middle East and the American Bible Belt.

Happy New Fiscal Year

Yes, it is a relatively happy new fiscal year, as Congress pulled its head out of its collective backside and avoided stepping over the fiscal cliff.

For the time being, anyhow.

Instead of presenting a budget (as the Constitution requires them to do), our elected reprehensives have once again resorted to the dodge of a "continuing resolution" to keep the government lurching from one manufactured crisis to the next. What they've done is to ensure that the next manufactured crisis will come right at the beginning of the holiday season - an action that will surely endear them only to the most rabidly hysterical partisans of the anti-government fringe.

You may recall that just over a week ago Pope Francis reminded them (without evident effect on their behavior),

"Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you."

To reiterate the Pope's words,  Legislative activity is always based on care for the people.

Not the oil people. Not the big pharma people. Not the big business people.

All the people.

Not just the 1%.

We deserve better than than a Congress that bickers and argues and points fingers. We deserve better than a Congress that resorts to blackmail and useless gotcha votes intended only to show one side or the other in a bad light. And before you blame the President for the whole mess because he threatens to veto some legislation sent to him for signature, consider that he's announced what he won't approve ... if Congress goes ahead and sends it to him anyway, the result is likely to be pretty obvious, isn't it?

My conservative friends will strongly disagree, of course, and that's fine ... as long as they have better ideas and are willing to press their chosen representatives to negotiate in good faith rather than legislate by blackmail.

Happy New Fiscal Year. Let's see if we're still celebrating come December 11th ... which will be the next test of whether statesmanship and reason win out over partisan ass clownery.

Don't hold your breath.

Come back tomorrow for the latest collection of Great Moments in Editing. More thoughts then.

Bilbo