Factoring in the Believers

On Sunday mornings I enjoy watching the program This Week with George Stephanopoulos. I particularly like the panel discussions, though I'd like to see them be a bit more structured and run longer.

This morning the discussion centered basically on the relationship between Trump, his future activity and his relationship with the Republican Party. The majority of the discussion focused on GOP politicians; how they voted and what they said afterward and would they continue to be influenced by Trump. Except for one panel member the consensus seemed to be that Trump's influence would fade. I completely disagree. The panelists ignored the largest segment in this entire saga...the public, and particularly that very large segment of the public that views Trump's acquittal as a vindication of him and a validation of his continued nonsense regarding the stolen election and pandemic hoax. They won't hear what many of the Republicans who voted to acquit Trump are saying; that they felt that Trump was in part intentionally responsible for the riot but that to impeach him after he is out of office is unconstitutional. That element of the public is not going to fade away.

One concept that has been strongly reinforced for me during the Trump era is the depths of people's beliefs, even when contradicted by facts. I truly believe that if Trump were to appear on national TV and acknowledge that he lost in a fair election, and that his words were in part responsible for the Capitol riot his followers would not believe him. Conspiracy theories would quickly spring up explaining why he was forced to say what he said on TV, among them possibly being that Nancy Pelosi was off-camera holding a gun at his back, or that Ivanka and Jared were being held hostage in Venezuela, or that the TV appearance was a fabricated video, and other such outlandish notions. Democracy provides protection for these beliefs and the freedom to speak them and to act on them within the limits of the law. That is why democracy is the best form of government. As annoying as it may sometimes be.

Just a second thought about those Republicans who voted to acquit, saying the impeachment was unconstitutional, that it was unprecedented. Think about that. Everything that has ever happened was unprecedented; happened for the first time. Trump's actions were unprecedented. No sitting President has ever incited a riot. On the Capitol no less. So if Trump had been found guilty in an unprecedented manner for his unprecedented actions, I'd call that fair play.

A Birthday Celebration

Today is a happy day because Maribel's father Caesar will celebrate his 90th birthday in Chiclayo, Peru. It will be a day of friends and family stopping in, and lots of WhatsApp sessions with sons, daughters, friends and relation in other cities and countries. 

Some of Caesar's family pictured above (right to left) are son-in-law Augustine, grandson Luis, daughter Natalia, Caesar, daughter Magali, grandson Brian (Maribel's son) granddaughter Claudia, and Brian's girlfriend Rosemary. The letters on the cake say "King of the house."

We wish we could have been there with them. Right now information regarding the status of Covid vaccinations in Walker County, Georgia is non-existent and it is a frustrating situation. When we have certifications in hand for the vaccinations and negative tests we'll be on a plane to Peru as soon as possible. And if the timing works out, Maribel will make the trip for the first time with a United States passport. It will feel so good to be among our Peruvian friends and family again.

Happy Birthday Caesar!

A Party in Pieces

After every political commentary post I publish I tell myself to back off...to give it a rest, but then I see or read something on the news that riles me and brings me to this keyboard like a magnet. This morning it was the 'progress' of the impeachment trial, and Nikki Haley's comments. I'll get back to her in a minute.

The impeachment trial is a farce. It's a beauty contest. It's nothing more than a platform for Senators to pontificate their outrage, hopefully seen by their constituents and leading to reelection in 2022. The trial outcome was known in advance. How many thousands of man-hours and dollars are being wasted on this straw hat and cane show? 

The Republican Party as I see it now is rudderless and needs to choose a new path. The worst action the party could take would be to not distance itself from Trump. The second worst action would be to factionalize into splinter groups rather than uniting. There are signs that that is happening. Some examples:

The Lincoln Project has been around since November 2019 and was formed by Republicans seeking to prevent the reelection of Trump and those Republicans supporting him. As of late the group seems bent on self-destruction but still exists. 

A recent Reuters news article reported that "dozens of the party faithful are in talks to form an anti-Trump third party. Two of the leaders, Evan McMullin, a former chief policy director for the House Republican Conference who ran for president in 2016 as an independent, and Miles Taylor, a former Trump administration Homeland Security official, told CBS News that that a decision on this has not been made yet. The discussions may also result in creating a faction within the GOP." 

Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger from Illinois has started a PAC called Country First exhorting both Republicans and Democrats to abandon the extremism in both parties, and calling for the GOP to remember who they are and why they exist. Adam was censured by the Illinois Republican Party for voting to certify the electoral vote, but seems not to care, apparently acting out of conscious rather than ambition. I have subscribed to his newsletter, like what I'm seeing and will be watching him. It and he probably won't go anywhere but at least it is an attempt in the right direction.

Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and US ambassador to the UN broke with Trump, saying something about him going down the wrong path and that "we" were wrong to follow him. Did she suddenly have a startling revelation? She had to have seen where he was heading many months ago. And it was just a few short weeks ago that she campaigned for the Georgia Senators Perdue and Loffler, both of whom were nothing more than Trump hand puppets. Nikki has established a PAC (Stand for America PAC) for the stated purpose of helping those Republicans up for reelection in 2022. Something doesn't seem right to me. My guess is that she's betting that Trump will lose his luster and is setting herself up for a run at the presidency in 2024.

The only thing uniting the GOP now is opposition to the impeachment trial. After that, what? The Biden administration is working hard on typical liberal give-away programs, making the US a haven for illegal immigrants past and future, will probably listen to the American Civil Liberties Union's push for reparations as repentance for slavery and who knows what else. The Republican Party has got to stop the infighting. It's got to get off the Trump bandwagon. It has to get back to its roots and win back the Senate in 2022. And most importantly its got to find a viable candidate for President in 2024. A guy I like is Geoff Duncan, Georgia's Lieutenant Governor. He's only 45 with limited political experience, but is charismatic, has a strong presence, appears moderate in his thinking and seems to be a straight shooter. He won't be ready for 2024 but may be a player in the future. 

The Lonely Life of a History Aficionado

This is the era of the 'now' generation. I think maybe every generation is/was/will be a 'now' generation. I mean, who cares about history?...we live in today. I'll tell you who cares about history. Historians and librarians and history aficionados. And they lead lonely lives. Because they can't talk about what interests them. I guesstimate that 0.0002% of the population is interested in history. People's eyes glaze over in 5 seconds at the mention of genealogy or any historical subject.

I told a visiting friend that the silver goblet he was drinking Baily's Irish Cream from was 140 years old. He said, Oh yeah?...interesting. Hey, how about those Falcons?" I wanted to to ask, "What if I told you that the guy who originally drank from that goblet drove a horse and buggy, never saw a TV, didn't know what a phone or radio was and possibly fought in the Civil War?" But I didn't because he might have said, "So what?" So what...? When I drink from that goblet I can feel the original owner. I am transported back to his time, and experience what I imagine his surroundings were when he was imbibing, and the existence he and everyone else lived that is so different from today. That goblet is a portal...a direct link from me to the 1880s and that man. That's so what.

I have an ancestor who in 1846 moved to what was then the Territory of Wisconsin and bought 40 acres in what is now Vernon Township. He farmed that land for over 40 years. Sometime prior to 1955 that land became part of a public hunting ground known as Vernon Marsh. In the late 50s I unknowingly hunted the very land that my ancestor farmed over 100 years ago, before Wisconsin was even a state. That's incredible to me. I haven't been on that land in over 50 years but I know that if I once again stood on that ground the hair on my arms would stand up, and I would sense his presence and wonder if he had guided an oxen- pulled plow over his axe-cleared land in the exact spot I was standing. History has that effect on me.

Yesterday Maribel and I were in an antique store. Actually this one is more of a junk shop, but sometimes there is little difference between the two. Any junker will tell you that there are times when an item catches your attention...forces you to pick it up, look it over closely, put it down and continue on, but being unable to get it out of your mind you return to it. For me it's as if the item is talking to me, saying, "You know you can't leave here without me." That happened again yesterday.

What initially drew my attention to the paper weight pictured above was the black marble with the thin gold veins running through it like ripples on water. Like wood, marble has always held a fascination for me. The words on the medallion, "American National Bank & Trust Co. - Chattanooga Tenn." further piqued my interest because I have never heard of that bank and suspected the item was old. Turning it over confirmed my suspicion. 

The memento itself dates back 52 years, which isn't really old (I consider anything younger than me to be new) but the description states that the marble it was made from came from the original building which I assumed would date back to the late 1800s (which is older than me). I was wrong. A little research reveled that construction began in 1927 on the corner of 8th and Market Street, and the bank opened for business on December 21, 1928. The building was demolished in 1967, to be replaced by the 20 story sky scraper shown on the medallion. American National Bank & Trust Co later merged with the Third National Bank which was purchased by SunTrust Bank in 1995. SunTrust still occupies the 1968 building. While searching I found two vintage photos of the exterior and interior of the old bank. They don't make em' like that anymore.

The black marble counters in the lobby of that majestic building are clearly visible. Sitting right next to me as I type this is a piece of that marble. It is known as Portoro Black Marble, is quarried from sites near Portovenere, Italy and has been used for building and decorative purposes for many centuries. When was my marble quarried? What path brought it to Chattanooga? How many people in the bank walked past or touched my piece of marble? Were they the captains of industry...the social creme de la creme of Chattanooga, or ordinary working folks? Those questions combined with my imagination will occupy my thoughts off and on for days. But I won't discuss them with anyone. I don't want to see their eyes glaze over and hear then say, "Hey!...how 'bout those Tampa Bay Buccaneers?" 

Okay, so I can't talk with anyone about my piece of history, but for $7 I bought myself hours of enjoyment via researching and imagining. Not a bad deal.

Putting Aside the Constitution

The United States Constitution became operational on March 9, 1789. The framers had the foresight to realize that as the country grew and progressed there would be future situations and circumstances that the Constitution did not address, so provided for an amendment mechanism. It is a deliberately complex process to insure that frivolous changes to the Constitution would not be made. 

There have been 27 amendments to date. The first ten amendments were proposed quickly and ratified in 1791, becoming the Bill of Rights. There were just four in the 1800s and 12 in the 1900s. In some instances where the Constitution is not clear the Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay give some guidance as to the intent of the Constitution's framers. In cases where the Constitution is silent, the United States Supreme Court is charged with the responsibility of interpreting its intent. 

The intent of the Constitution is now being hotly debated by Congress and constitutional lawyers regarding the impeachment and upcoming Senate trial of Donald Trump. At issue is whether the Constitution provides for the impeachment of a President after he has left office.  As usual the two political parties are diametrically opposed on the issue. 

Supreme Court nominees are proposed by politically affiliated Presidents and confirmed or denied by politically affiliated Senators. Thus Supreme Court judges have political biases that are reflected in their ideologically driven decisions, of which roughly only 35% are unanimous. The judges entrusted to interpret our Constitution do not agree on two-thirds of the cases argued before them. How can we expect them to correctly understand the intent of the Constitution? But perhaps the real question is, does it matter? 

Why are we getting all hung up on what the Constitution may or may not say about impeaching a President after he has left office? The issue is, is Donald Trump complicit in the January 6th attack on the Capitol? That's it. This should be a judicial trial, not a Senate matter. The situation should be in the hands of the Department of Justice, specifically the office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, and if probable cause is found Trump should be charged and tried, no different than the hundreds of rioters are being treated. He is not immune from prosecution. In the 1981 case of Nixon vs Fitzgerald the Supreme Court ruled that, ".... the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office." The accusation of inciting an insurrection is certainly criminal.

Personally I have no interest in seeing Trump punished. In my opinion he is delusional and I don't see punishment changing that. I would however want to see him prevented from holding office again. 

And then there is the issue of Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is the Congresswoman representing Georgia's 14th Congressional District, of which I am a resident. If Trump is delusional, what words could possibly describe Greene? I'm sure that the Founding Fathers could never have imagined someone with her attitude and mentality being elected to Congress, otherwise there would have been some provision to prevent nut jobs from serving in Washington.

The Reasonable Man Paradox

What is reason? What does it mean to be reasonable? As usual I went to Google for an answer and as usual found many different definitions, though most had a common thread, that thread being:

"Reason is the faculty or process of drawing logical inferences. Reason is in opposition to sensation, perception, feeling, and desire."

That makes sense to me. As I interpret the above it means that a reasonable person has the ability, and utilizes that ability to arrive at sensible conclusions when considering a non-factual matter. I say non-factual because reason is not required when considering fact. Something that is factual is irrefutable and does not require conclusions. A fact is self-evident. 

The second part of that definition states that, when there is conflict between reason and what one may sense, perceive, feel, or want to believe, reason should prevail. To quote Hamlet, Aye, there's the rub." We all of us live our lives guided mostly by values and beliefs we've formed, not fact, and we don't give up our beliefs easily. Which leads me to the reasonable man paradox.

Some weeks ago I saw an older California couple being asked on television in California why they weren't wearing masks. The man replied that, "It's not as bad as they make it out to be", as the wife dutifully nodded in agreement. In the past ten months I have heard that same comment so often from so many people. I want to ask them who is "they", and what are you basing your conclusion on, but experience has taught me that's not a good thing to do. Some friendships are fragile. 

I believe that Covid-19 is deadly and continue to mask up, carry pocket hand sanitizer, maintain physical distance and avoid gatherings. My reasoning is based on information from a number of medical websites including John Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota School of Medicine and several more, all providing numbers and explanations regarding the seriousness of the disease. And on various legitimate internet news sources detailing the seriousness of the pandemic. And on the news videos showing hospitals stretched to their limits in terms of space, equipment, personnel and morgue space. And on the Covid dashboards of nearly every state showing the number of cases and deaths. And on the advice of every credible doctor, scientist and medical institution across the world who implores and even pleads with us to wear masks, wash hands frequently, and most importantly to avoid gatherings and travel. Given all of these sources my reasoning tells me that the pandemic is extremely serious and that I need to take it seriously.

Hundreds of thousands of people, like the couple mentioned above don't believe that the virus is, "....as bad as they make it out to be". Many refuse to wear masks and are living normal social lives including traveling and gathering over the Holidays. I've given the reasons why I have taken a position on Covid-19. I don't understand what their logic is for arriving at an opposite conclusion. Is 2,245,649  global deaths and 450,000 deaths in the USA not serious? Or perhaps they believe that the numbers are mistaken or are deliberately being inflated? Or maybe it's just a matter of, "Yeah, it's bad but it won't happen to me.' 

Some weeks ago former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie commented that, "Seventy-four million of us voted for Trump. We're not stupid." I respect Christie. He is a reasonable and objective thinker. I consider myself to be a reasonable and objective thinker. How can Christie and 74 million people arrive at a different conclusion than I and 78 million who voted against Trump?  How did the people who dismiss Covid-19 precautions arrive at a different position than I and those like-minded have? Have we or they allowed feelings, beliefs or desire to override reason? Shouldn't a body of reasonable people, looking at the same circumstances arrive at the same conclusion? One possible answer to those questions might be that a purely reasonable man does not/can not exist, that we cannot overcome our biases. Or maybe we differ because there is no correct answer. Maybe the seriousness of the pandemic is totally subjective. Maybe the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of Trump's administration is purely subjective. Those last two suggestions don't seem right to me...I'm pretty sure there is a correct point of view but maybe I'm not a reasonable man.