Choice Change & Interesting Times – Brett Lunger

choice, change & interesting times

THOUGHTS FROM A WORLD-CLASS WISEASS

BRETT LUNGER

choice, change & interesting times

THOUGHTS FROM A WORLD-CLASS WISEASS

BRETT

LUNGER

Snuff Mill Consulting, LLC 2025

All rights reserved. © 2025 by Brett Lunger

For permission to use content from this book, please contact the author. choicechangeinterestingtimes.com

Design: StudioDeluxe.com

Illustrations: Jozef Mi čic

ISBN 979-8-9985467-0-9

Printed and bound in the United States of America

To those who choose to objectively reflect on both the good and the bad of this complex world.

It takes courage. We need more like you.

ONE  IDENTITY

Who Are You?

Who Am I?

Ideals

Change Happens

Drift or Focus

Not a Trick Question

Anal? Maybe Not.

That’s Golf

A Simple Prayer Look at Me

TWO  VOTING

Vote Early & Often

Depends on How You Look at It

Democracy in Peril

Disaster Looms (Again)

Failing Democracy

Election 2020

DNC Debates

Canceled: Washington Redskins

Better Late Than Never

THREE  CHOICES

Finders Keepers

Responsible Choices

New Year’s Resolutions

Three Powerful Words

What Do You Want?

Irritation

Cancel Culture #1

Sticks & Stones

It’s Not About You

Soggy Cereal

Dream Job

Choose Wisely

FOUR  CONGRESS

Fools, Knaves & Politicians

Congressional Spending

What Are Your Priorities?

UFO Hearings

Poor Politicians

McConnell’s Blunder

Garland Confirmation Hearings

Filibuster

Political Poker

Weather Balloon

Balloon Wars

Cost-Effective Hearings?

Magic Wand

FIVE  WHITE HOUSE

We Should Have Seen It Coming

President Trump Does Not Lie

Crazy President

How Much Pain

Maga Hats 2020

State of the Union

Giuliani’s Pardon

Putin’s Gambit 2020

U.S. Snipers in Ukraine 2020

Brilliant Move

BBB

SIX  TRUMP

American Ghosts

Impeachment 2019

Celebrating the Acquittal

Trump 2024

The Emperor’s New Clothes 2019

Trump’s Third Term

Trump Haters’ Best Move

Trump’s Ukraine Solution

Putin’s Removal

Got Him Now

Funeral Procession

SEVEN  OBJECTIVITY

Open-Minded

Challenging You

Civil Discourse

Objectivity

PPPSD

Gun Violence

Defund the Police

Immigration Crisis

Interest Rates 2023

Title 42

Stop Hate

145

EIGHT  ALL THE NEWS 173

Words Matter

Supreme Court Leak 2022

Media Fearmongering

Fear, Anxiety & Blame 2020

Mental Health: Crisis 2022

NYT Sports, A-Changin’

Crisis Management 2020

January 6th Hearings

January 6th Hearings (again)

Hawley’s Fundraiser

Your Worst Nightmare

NINE  LIFE LESSONS

Birthdays

Definition of Hill Training

Top of the Hill Plan B

Ain’t Nature Grand Mirror

Old & Ugly

Old Dog, Young Dog

Can You Hear Me Now? Deadline

INTRODUCTION

In a hurry? Not enough time to sit down and read the pages that follow? Let me distill this entire book into one threeword sentence:

Choices have consequences.

There, you’re done. No need to read further. Be on your way, out the door, headed to whatever has you stressed and in such a rush. Good luck.

But . . . yes, there is always a “but”. . . if you care about choices, and how they affect much of what happens around you, read on. You might learn something about your world. Or maybe even about yourself.

As you read, you will find very little is off limits: sports, politics and the personal reflection that comes with aging . . . the whole messy potpourri of life.

Two topics, however, have been temporarily banished. Gender identity is one. That subject is complex and still evolving. What held true 10 years ago is no longer relevant. Who knows where that one will be 10 years from now? Race is the other. Today passions run too hot and positions are too intractable. Yes, it is important we address all aspects of race. But we must find a way to do so with respect and civility. We are not there yet.

Regardless of topic, as you read on, three lessons will become clear.

First, your actions will define who you are. Your words will not. Yes, words are important. They have the power to uplift or to tear down. However, it will be your actions, and your actions alone, that will establish your true identity. It is what defines our leaders and influencers as well. Many of them will doggedly resist this truth.

Second, the clowns in Washington, our elected officials, will find a way to screw things up. Their inability to see beyond the next election guarantees it. That does not allow you to abdicate your responsibility as an engaged citizen. Please resist the temptation to punt. Voting for the catchiest bumper sticker slogan will not cut it.

The third lesson might be the most important. Dealing with life’s challenges will not be easy. My own life confirms that. The choices I have made have had consequences. Some good and, regrettably, some not so good.

Whether it be during my Marine Corps service in Vietnam, my competing on the Formula 1 Grand Prix racing circuit, piloting humanitarian medical flights in the States or writing my mentoring workbooks . . . success or failure happened because of the choices that I made along the way.

For those who are comfortable with the choices you have made so far, good for you. Just remember life has a way of biting you in the ass when you least expect it. Sudden hostile confrontation, unjustified career setbacks, personal health issues, loss of a loved one . . . it is all out there. Keep your eyes open and be ready to deal with the unexpected.

Some of what follows here might help you deal with such challenges, to consider what is relevant and what is not.

Regardless of topic, my intention through all of this has been to entertain, to stimulate reflection and to encourage civil discussion. Thanks for choosing to join me here.

If you want to discuss any of these ideas, I welcome your thoughts. Send them to me at choicechangeinterestingtimes.com and I will respond.

– BRETT LUNGER

WHO ARE YOU?

Do you know who you are?

You’re not just what you say.

Do you really know who you are?

You are what you do.

Who are you?

Our identity is defined by our actions . . . Ask yourself, “Who am I?” right now, at this precise moment in time. For more on this topic, visit ResponsibilityToday.com.

WHO AM I?

You have the power to establish your own identity. All you have to do is to ask one simple question: “Who am I?”

Our identity is defined by our actions. Decide how you will act in a given situation and you will have confirmed your identity.

Go ahead, ask yourself, “Who am I?” Right now, at this precise moment in time, who are you?

That question is more important than you might realize.

If you know the answer, chances are that you will spend the next few minutes, hours or days productively engaged in some sort of meaningful activity. If you do not know the answer, you will more than likely spend your time wandering aimlessly from one distraction to another.

In most cases, environment will help define who we are, but within your immediate environment, you still have tremendous power to shape your identity.

A job, for example, will set goals to be achieved and boundaries within which you will operate. What you choose to do within those parameters will define who you are. Are you a productive co-worker, a part of an effective team? Or are you a selfish, turf-protecting drag on your organization? Somewhere in-between?

A relationship also can define you as a partner, spouse or parent. Are you present to nurture and support? Or are you in it for your own gratification, leaving the heavy lifting to others?

The choice is up to you.

To make this concept work for you, start each day by asking, “Who am I?” and then a second question: “Who do I want to be?”

IDEALS

Am I going to tell you what ideals to live by? No . . . it’s your life. You pick the ideals to which you can relate.

What I can do, however, is suggest how to use your chosen ideals to guide you throughout your day. After all, what good are ideals if you don’t live them?

Try these four simple steps:

First, select two or three ideals that have meaning to you. There are many to choose from. Think of things that you might want to be known for: honesty, integrity, kindness, trustworthiness . . . the potential list is very long, indeed.

Second, tag each of your ideals with a person or a character. This could be a relative, a celebrity, a heroic figure or even an animal that in some way has inspired you. For example, if you choose “compassion” as an ideal, you might tag that ideal to Mother Theresa, rightfully for her dedication to serving the poor. Or, if you feel that “determination” is an important ideal, you might tag that one to the British statesman Winston Churchill.

Third, identify something that you do at the start of your day. It can be a simple act that you perform every day, whether stretching when you first get out of bed, brushing your teeth or pouring your first glass of juice or cup of coffee. The act itself does not matter, as long as you do it consistently at the start of each day. This will be your trigger point to activate the process.

In the fourth and final step, you bring it all together. Let’s say that you decided to use the moment when you drink your morning juice as your trigger point. As you pour, say the words, “Mother Theresa is compassion. Winston Churchill is determination.” This will bring your ideals to the forefront of your mind.

Follow these steps and there is a good chance that your chosen ideals will be there to guide you throughout your day.

You have the power to manage the changes that will inevitably come your way. For more on this topic, visit ResponsibilityToday.com .

CHANGE HAPPENS

Doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor, powerful or helpless. Nothin’ you can do about it. Change happens.

You are born. From that moment on, you will experience a series of changes, some good and some not so good. One change after another until the final change. You die.

Does that mean you should resign yourself to the vagaries of change, that you should accept whatever fate is tossed your way? Absolutely not.

You have the power to manage the changes that will inevitably come your way, even if you do not know right now what those changes might be.

As a teenager, getting your driver’s license is a big deal. With this or any other change, give some thought to what it will mean to you. New freedom, yes. But also new responsibilities. And new expenses . . . insurance, gas, maintenance. How will you pay for those things? Like all big changes, they can be managed if you plan ahead.

What about when you graduate from high school or college?

Big changes. Your school schedule no longer governs your every move. That may seem cool, but it also has the potential to create hassles. Plan your day to make the most of each moment. Manage the change.

A new job or a promotion? Moving to a new town? Deciding to share your life with a special person? All big changes. And, yes, each can be challenging. Think about them beforehand. Manage the change.

You can drift from one challenge to the next. Sometimes you will get it right, sometimes not. Random outcomes. Or you can be proactive and stay ahead of life’s twists and turns.

You either manage change or it will manage you. Your choice.

DRIFT OR FOCUS

Which would you choose? Hey, don’t get twisted up. Both are okay. It just depends on where you are in your life.

For some, each day will be energized with challenge—lofty goals and driven purpose. Success will come from intense focus, from being intentional in everything you choose to do.

That intensity is both exhilarating and addictive. You have committed to excellence, but recognize that you are now vulnerable. Failing to meet your stated goals can be devastating.

Other people might be satisfied with drifting from one event to the next, with accepting whatever comes their way. For them, there is no need to stress. Simple joys can be found in the most basic encounters.

For example, your partner walks into the room and smiles, just glad to see you are there. Or your dog gives a hearty woof to remind you it is dinner time. Simple joys.

One caution, though. If you are old, as I am, you might feel justified in saying, “Hey, leave me alone. I have paid my dues, and it is time for me to sit back and enjoy whatever time I might still have.” Nothing wrong with that, you say? Maybe, but maybe not.

You might find it comfortable to put up walls and simply drift. Sure, you have earned that right, but is it the most fulfilling choice? Instead, consider sharing your experiences—which just might prove valuable to young people as they forge their own paths.

Do that, and you might help someone learn from your successes or, more important, avoid some mistakes you might have made along the way.

Drift or focus?

NOT A TRICK QUESTION

Tim and Tom are identical twins. Looking at them, you would be hard pressed to tell them apart. Yet, they could not be more different.

It is early morning. On one side of town, Tim’s alarm goes off. He leaps out of bed, brimming with energy and enthusiasm, ready to take on the day’s challenges. And challenges there will be, adversaries to be confronted, battles to be won. He is out the door, looking for trouble. Tim feels great!

On the other side of town, Tom’s alarm goes off. He hits the snooze button and catches another five minutes of sleep. No worries. His commute is easy and there is nothing on his desk that cannot wait. All is good. Tom is content with his world.

Which would you rather be, Tim or Tom?

This is not a trick question. There is no “right” answer. Either is acceptable.

Just understand that the answer you choose will define you in ways you might not imagine. You are what you do. Make your choice. Is that really who you want to be?

ANAL? MAYBE NOT.

You are on your morning walk, ambling down the road. You see a couple of rocks sitting there where the road begins to turn to the right. They are four or five feet from the edge of the road. You go over and kick them into the dirt. There, that’s better.

Does that make you anal-obsessive? Maybe, maybe not. I would have done the same thing. I am a cyclist. Going around a turn at speed, finding a couple of rocks in the middle of the road can lead to a nasty crash. Not fun.

This, however, is about more than rocks in the road. Road rash aside, I always try to make the world around me better for my having passed.

You can do the same. In your day, you will come close to many people, encounter many evolving situations. Try to make a positive difference. Kick some metaphorical rocks off the road. Try to make it better for your having passed that way.

Anal? Maybe not.

My friend stepped up to the tee . . . before he was halfway through the swing he knew this was it, the perfect golf swing.

THAT’S GOLF

Experts will tell you that the perfect golf swing is achieved when 20 specific biomechanical functions are integrated into one smooth motion.

A friend recently took up the sport. His early days were innocent enough. Good weather, a pleasant walk and mild exercise. Keeping score was of secondary concern. It just felt good to be out there.

Then, one fateful day, all that changed. It happened on a difficult par 5. My friend teed up and, imitating the pros he had seen on the Golf Channel, wound up and delivered his drive.

Huh? What happened? My friend had taken what he thought was his usual, awkward, swing; but the sound of club striking ball was different. More astonishing, his ball was disappearing in the distance, straight down the fairway.

The innocence was gone. In that fleeting moment of unexpected prowess, my friend had become totally addicted. The months that followed were a non-stop blur in pursuit of the perfect golf swing.

My friend recorded Golf Channel Academy episodes to be replayed again and again. Instructional books were purchased and devoured in hopes of advancing the effort.

New clubs? Of course. The TV advertisement all but guaranteed he would be on the tour within a short amount of time. Did it work? No but it had to be tried.

What next? Maybe the perfect swing might be gained by signing up for a series of lessons at the local golf club. At first lessons did seem to move my friend in the right direction, but then he regressed. Trying to adopt too many “fixes” confused the issue. His game stalled.

In desperation my friend bought a series of high-tech lessons from a nationally recognized coaching resource. The package included video tools and software to measure his swing and to review progress throughout the course.

Yes, at last, at long last, there was progress. After months of effort, after much frustration with unproductive ideas, my friend seemed to be on the right track. He was able to consistently reproduce 18, then 19 of the “magic twenty” swing functions.

And finally, the day of the “magic 20” arrived. My friend stepped up to the tee, again imitating the pros that he had been watching for months, wound up and delivered his drive. Even before he was halfway through the swing he knew that this was it, the perfect golf swing.

Oh, and yes, the ball landed in one of the nastiest bunkers on the course.

That’s golf. That’s life.

A SIMPLE PRAYER

It is not what you say, but what you do.

It is not what you pray, it’s what you do.

I pray I might do what I pray.

LOOK AT ME

I looked in the mirror and saw myself.

You looked at me and saw someone else.

You saw what you wanted to see but what you saw wasn’t me.

02

VOTE EARLY & OFTEN

William Hale Thompson, who served as Chicago’s mayor from 1915 to 1923 and again from 1931 to 1935, famously said, “Vote early and vote often.”

The phrase was repeated by gangster Al Capone and later by Richard Daley, Chicago’s mayor from 1955 to 1976. Some say that Mayor Daley was responsible for Jack Kennedy’s victory over Richard Nixon in the 1960 run for the White House.

Will there be voter fraud in November’s presidential election? Safeguards are in place, but questions remain. Both the Biden and Trump organizations have, allegedly, hired teams of lawyers to challenge the results. This done before the election was even contested!

There can be no doubt, this year’s election is considered to be one of the most important in American history. Both sides are predicting national disaster if their opponent prevails.

A Biden presidency would, according to one Trump spokesman, usher in an era of socialist policies which would cripple the country. Bloated government, higher taxes, burdensome regulation, skyrocketing unemployment . . . disaster!

Victory by Donald Trump would, according to the progressive left, be the death of democracy in America. They cite . . . well, the list is endless and covers every imaginable transgression. You have heard it all. There is no need to repeat it here.

Yet, voters in the United States have a dismal record. There were 126 million voting age citizens in 2016, but only 55% of them went to the polls. That was the lowest turnout since the 1996 election when just over 53% voted.

In 2016, there were

126 million voting-age U.S. citizens. Only 55% went went to the polls— the lowest turnout since 1996 when just over 53% voted.

Excuses abound: “It was too cold (hot) to go outside. My candidate was way ahead in the polls; so why bother to vote? My candidate was hopelessly behind in the polls; so why bother to vote? The dog ate my ballot.”

We ought to do better this time. No, we need to do better this time. If you don’t vote, you forfeit your right to complain for the next four years.

The signs are encouraging. Early balloting is running dramatically ahead of what we saw in 2016.

One political expert, noting the passion and energy emanating from both campaigns, predicted that turnout would exceed 65%. That would be impressive, but a liberal friend of mine said that he was shooting for 120%.

Vote early and vote often.

DEPENDS ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT

Two friends meet for a regular morning walk. One is an Arch Conservative, the other a Progressive Liberal. Though often heated, their discussions are always civil and respectful. Their friendship guarantees that.

On one particular morning, the Conservative launches into a tirade against one of his favorite targets: the Internal Revenue Service. Apparently, the IRS had sent out some $1.4 billion dollars in stimulus checks to 1.1 million dead people.

The Conservative is livid. Barely able to contain himself, he sputters, “Typical government waste! It is absolutely inexcusable! Payments to 1.1 million dead people! What good could come from that?”

Never one to miss an opportunity, his Liberal friend smiles and says, “They could all vote.”

Touché.

$1.4B

What happens when the IRS sends out $1.4 billion in stimulus checks to 1.1 million dead people?

See “Failing Democracy” on page 38 .

DEMOCRACY IN PERIL

DEMOCRACY IN PERIL!

DEMOCRACY IN PERIL!

DEMOCRACY IN PERIL!

You have heard the cry. Political commentators, both left and right, picked up this dire warning during the run up to the 2022 midterm elections.

All of which begs the question: How will you know if your democracy is, indeed, in peril?

Simple. If your side loses, then democracy is in peril.

DISASTER LOOMS (AGAIN)

Have you heard? Democracy is in peril. The very future of our country is at risk. Our children and grandchildren are facing a desperate future. How could this be?

It all comes down to November’s midterm elections. Radical Trump supporters, the same ones that mounted the January insurrection to overthrow our government, are poised to regain control of both houses of Congress. Once they have succeeded, they will dismantle the measures recently put in place to protect women, Black and Brown people, LGBTQ citizens and undocumented immigrants.

They won’t stop there. Their self-serving policies will further cement economic injustice by denying climate change, crippling the IRS and weaponizing the Justice Department. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

Our only salvation lies in defeating the authoritarian Trump supporters in November. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. We must forestall this looming disaster.

How do I know this? These and other perils were highlighted on MSNBC’s Tiffany Cross Show this morning. So, it must be true.

Or not.

Vote early and vote often.

The Founding Fathers took 12 years to hammer out what we call the U.S. Constitution. Without it, the 13 States would not have been united. Democracy is alive and well.

FAILING DEMOCRACY

How many times have you heard phrase that so-and-so is “a threat to democracy as we know it? “Probably too many times to count.

But have you taken time to understand what that phrase actually means? Does it mean that the policies or actions of an individual would, if successful, undermine the constitutional foundation upon which our country is governed?

Let’s say, for example, that a leading politician proposed that all sales of ammunition be recorded in a central database for future reference in the event of another mass shooting. Does that pose a threat to democracy? Many 2nd Amendment supporters would say so.

What if a defeated candidate were to take extreme measures to block the certification of the election results? Sound familiar? The candidate in question still refuses to accept the outcome. Most of those who voted against him would assert that his actions were a threat to democracy. Does either case represent “a threat to democracy as we know it?" In both instances, the answer has to be, “No, democracy has not been threatened.”

Doubt that? Read the Constitution. It is the document that defines how our democracy is to function. It establishes three branches of government: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. These three were designed to balance power so that no single branch would be able to dominate and impinge on the freedom of the people.

Democracy is a system. It is not a specific policy. You might not agree with a particular policy, and you might find the actions of some politicians unacceptable. But the system is designed to manage policy and personal disputes.

That is the theory, but often reality deviates from the ideal. Democracy is flawed. It is a messy process. That does not, however, allow us to proclaim the death of democracy every time events do not go our way. Democracy is, without question, better than any other system of government out there.

It is significant that our Founding Fathers took 12 long years and one false start (the Articles of Confederation, adopted by the Continental Congress on Nov. 15, 1777) to hammer out the document that we now call the Constitution.

In the process, the Founders avoided many of the more controversial topics of the day. Slavery was one such issue. Had they not avoided such contentious matters, ratification would not have been possible. Without ratification, the 13 colonies would never have been united as a single country. Instead, the Founders wisely included Article V in the Constitution, providing for later amendments to address such matters.

Despite its flaws, democracy will only be truly threatened when those in positions of leadership attempt to circumvent the procedures of the Constitution to secure political advantage. In other words, when they are successful in gaming the system.

Such manipulation has been attempted in the past. In 1937 President Franklin D. Roosevelt, infuriated by opposition to his “New Deal” initiatives, proposed altering the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court (the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill). He failed.

In 1952 the Supreme Court prevented President Harry Truman from seizing the country’s steel mills (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer). One branch prevented overreach by another.

And, yes, Donald Trump was rebuffed in his attempt to decertify the 2020 election results.

In all three cases, the system (democracy) thwarted unlawful actions by individuals.

Next time someone accuses an opponent of being “a threat to democracy as we know it,” smile and remind him that democracy is a system, not a policy position.

Okay, now the fun starts. It is time to check yourself on this. Go back and re-read the title of this essay. What was your immediate thought?

Many of you would have gleefully proclaimed, “Oh yeah. Trump’s actions at the end of his presidency clearly represented an attempt by a defeated megalomaniac to circumvent the will of the people. Democracy will morph into autocratic rule if he were allowed to succeed.”

He tried. He did not succeed.

Others of you would have bemoaned, “With a bumbling Biden in the White House, the progressive left has assumed the role of puppet master and is pushing their socialist agenda. Democracy cannot survive such a blatant power grab.”

They tried. They did not succeed (at least not to the extent they had intended).

No matter how passionately you wish for an outcome, opposition to your position does not represent “a threat to democracy as we know it." Democracy is alive and well.

ELECTION 2020

The 2020 elections are fast approaching. Well, not fast enough for me. The lunacy increases with each passing day.

Will your vote be decided by policy or personality?

Today’s political landscape has become so antagonistic, so divisive, that it is all too easy to ignore policy and default to personality as you make your decision.

Take that easy route and you will pay a price. I do not care which candidate you choose. What is important for this conversation is how you get there. How will you decide?

If you choose the easy route and let personality dictate your decision, you will become less engaged in the issues that will shape our nation’s future. Sure, it is easy to say, “He is so odious” or “She is an idiot.” Okay, either statement might be true, depending on the candidate you have targeted for your scorn.

But is that enough? By letting matters of personality determine your vote you have, effectively, shut yourself out from any energized debate on important policy issues.

Engaging in such debate, especially if you are respectful and listen to opposing points of view, is the hallmark of a dynamic and inclusive society. It is democracy at its best.

Would you accept less? Would you accept that we are a divisive and polarized society? The way you conduct yourself as we approach the next election might answer that question.

Let there be no doubt, an engaged and inclusive society will be better able to handle the complex issues that we will be facing in the future. How you choose to conduct yourself will make a difference. It is your choice.

Choose wisely.

An engaged and inclusive society will be better able to handle the complex issues that we will be facing in the future . . . It’s your choice.

For more, visit shoutlistendiscuss.com

“. . . only an educated and informed people will be a free people, that the ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”

– PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

DNC DEBATES

The Democratic National Committee recently held a series of debates as part of their nomination process. I asked a friend if he had tuned in. He said, “Watch the DNC debates? Naahh, why waste my time? I’ll check MSNBC and The New York Times the next day. They will tell me all I need to know.”

Really? Are you really going to surrender your intellectual sovereignty to someone else, someone whose reporting might be less than objective, someone who might be seeking to promote an agenda?

Whoa, take a deep breath. I am not saying that the Times or MSNBC has any intention of influencing opinions and attitudes. But they might. And if they did, would you really want to be manipulated by those who have their own preferred outcome?

Don’t risk it. Don’t be lazy. Go ahead, watch the debates. It is not as painful as you might think. You don’t have to watch it live. You can always record it and then fast forward when questions are directed to the pretenders who have no chance of winning the nomination.

John F. Kennedy, in his remarks at Vanderbilt University on May 18, 1963, spoke of the “educated citizen,” saying, “He (the educated citizen) knows that only an educated and informed people will be a free people, that the ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”

Winston Churchill took a more cynical viewpoint. He once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Don’t be an “average voter.” Be an “engaged voter.” Make the effort to be informed, not by the opinions of others, but by your own observation and intellect. We will all benefit from that.

CANCELED : WASHINGTON REDSKINS

The Washington Redskins hold a special place in the long and glorious history of the National Football League.

The team was founded in 1932 as the Boston Braves, renamed the following year as the Redskins, then relocated to Washington, D.C., in 1937. The team is one of the most iconic franchises in NFL history. Winner of three Super Bowls, they boast 32 inductees into NFL’s Hall of Fame.

Today, 88 years after its founding, the team has been castigated as a symbol of systemic racism and social injustice, amid loud cries of indignation, cultural insensitivity and white privilege.

Woe is me! My great-great grandfather was 1/40th Cherokee, and I am devastated every time I hear the words “Washington Redskins.” My self-esteem has been utterly crushed and I should be compensated for my suffering.

And so, bowing to “Cancel Culture” pressure, the team’s management has taken action. They have reluctantly changed the team’s name to the “Washington Football Team.”

Problem solved? Maybe, but maybe a new problem will emerge to take its place. Maybe this forced Cultural Cancellation will have an unintended consequence in November. Huh? How could that happen?

Millions, no, 10s of millions, of Americans are fed up with being told what they can and cannot say. They are tired of some pointy-headed social activist telling them that they are ignorant and culturally insensitive. That they are bad people. They are, for the most part, not bad.

They will go to the polls in November and vote for the candidate who seems to best understand their frustration. The candidate who feels their anger.

They just might vote for Donald Trump.

For a related topic, see “Sticks & Stones” on page 59.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER

Let logic dictate the outcome.

LOGIC THREAD #1

° On Nov. 6, 2016, it was a given fact that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would become the 45TH president of the United States. That was a fact. Absolutely nothing could change that fact.

° On November 7, Hillary Clinton did not become the 45TH president of the United States.

° Therefore, it must be a fact that her opponent had cheated and stolen the election. The election had failed to yield the only possible result and therefore it was not a valid election. Any subsequent effort to nullify that outcome (the 2016 election) would be absolutely justified.

LOGIC THREAD #2

° On May 17, 2017, former FBI director Robert Mueller was tasked with investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. It was a certain fact that the investigation would prove that Trump and Putin ;had colluded to fraudulently deny Hillary her rightful place in history.

° On April 18, 2019, the Mueller report was released. It found that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against Trump.

° Therefore, the election would not be overturned. Because the Mueller investigation had failed to yield the only legitimate conclusion (that charges must be brought against Trump to secure his removal from office), it was clearly a fact that Trump had obstructed the investigation and had hidden the true facts.

LOGIC THREAD #3

° On Dec. 18, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

° On Feb. 5, 2020, the U.S. Senate acquitted Donald Trump of both charges, thus the effort to remove Donald Trump via House impeachment and Senate conviction did not succeed.

° Therefore, Donald Trump would not be removed from office. Without a doubt, the Senate had to have been co-opted by payments from a Trump slush fund.

LOGIC THREAD #4

° On April 8, 2020, Bernie Sanders withdrew from the Democratic party’s primary contest, thus giving the nomination to Joe Biden.

° On Nov. 3, Joe Biden won the presidential election, thus removing Donald Trump form office.

° Therefore, the Democrats achieved their goal by ignoring the bomb throwers in their party and nominating a centrist candidate who appealed to a broad demographic across the country.

° Took’em long enough.

° Better late than never.

Let logic dictate the outcome, not wishful thinking.

On Nov. 6, 2016, it was a given fact Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would become the 45th U.S. president. . . . On Nov. 7, Hilary Clinton did not become the 45th president.

03 choices

FINDERS KEEPERS

Choices . . . we make dozens every day. Most are made without much thought and most do not have significant consequences. Some do. Some are real game changers, but most are not.

Let me tell you about a choice that I made today. It happened at my local health club. I had finished my workout and was stretching against a bench press rig when I noticed two quarters lying under the bench.

Whoa! My lucky day. If you knew me, you would understand that this was huge. Not only do I stop to pick up coins when I find them on the side of the road or in parking lots, but I go so far as to enter the amount in a spreadsheet that I maintain to record total income for each month. Anal? Well, maybe. Probably. But that’s me.

But wait; not so fast. I remembered that there was an older guy doing presses at that same bench press rig just before I started my stretching routine. Groan! What should I do? I looked across the gym at the old guy. He was now working out on another apparatus. He would probably finish soon and head for the locker room, none the wiser. Easy.

Keeping the two quarters would probably give me one of my better months for picking up what I call “road change.” That would have been cool.

But it would also have been wrong. If I had found the quarters without seeing the old guy there just before stretching, fine, that would be legit. But I had seen him. I was pretty sure that he had dumped them there while doing his presses.

There really was no choice. I went up to him, waited for him to finish his routine, and asked if he might have lost some change while doing his presses. He felt his pockets and said, “Yeah, I

For more on this topic, see “Anal? Maybe Not” on page 25.

think I had a couple of quarters before starting today.” Done deal. I gave him his quarters. He said, “Thanks.” I left the club.

In the universe of choices, this was not a “game changer.” Fifty cents. Not a big deal. But it was important. Why? Every choice we make has the potential to say something about us, who we are, what we value. The choices we make reflect our character. Ask yourself, “Is the choice I am about to make the right choice or the wrong choice?”

Oh, and by the way, before you conclude that I am a selfserving jerk, trying to make myself look good, hit the pause button. Take a deep breath.

My concern for choices stems from the fact that I have made way too many bad choices in my life. Encouraging others to make smart, good choices might, I hope, make up for some of that.

RESPONSIBLE CHOICES

What is your definition of Personal Responsibility? Being responsible can mean many different things, depending on your circumstances and your world perspective. Do you live on a desperate street where more is spent on drugs than on food? Or, maybe, your world revolves around high finance, boardroom politics and country club society.

Where you come from does not matter. What matters is how you see your world and what you want to achieve in that world. That will define your sense of Personal Responsibility

Born in poverty with no family structure to guide you through your early years? Struggling to survive where gangs rule and violence is the norm? What you choose to do can mean the difference between escaping to a better place or drowning in the desperation that surrounds you. Your choices can send you in one direction or the other. Own your choices and you might, just might, make it to a better place. Taking Personal Responsibility for your choices will give you a decent shot at success.

Wealthy parents, elite education, surrounded by comfort and privilege? Sounds good on paper, but what are you going to do with it? Make smart choices and a productive and fulfilling life can be yours. More important, you will have an opportunity to be of positive benefit to others, either by supporting programs that help the less fortunate or by being a role model for someone who has not yet developed positive habits. Did I say, “opportunity?” No, this is not an opportunity, it is an obligation.

Make bad choices, however, and all that you have been given will melt away to nothing. The traps are out there. A heavy party scene and an indulgent lifestyle can lead to physical deterioration and decline. Even worse, it is easy to become complacent and let each day slide by without goals and

Explore this topic in the I Am Responsible Workbook Series at responsibilitytoday.com.

direction. This lack of motivation all but guarantees failure and mediocrity. Who wants that?

The details will differ but there is one common theme: Your choices have consequences. If you live in a wealthy community and have all the security and comfort that comes with that life, your choices are no less consequential than those of someone living in back alleys, scratching for food every day.

Choices have consequences. Choose wisely.

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS

11 NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS JAN. 1, 2024

° Leap out of bed each morning before 0600.

° Then, before breakfast:

1. Run five miles.

2. Do 400 sit-ups.

3. Read The New York Times & Wall Street Journal from cover to cover.

4. Solve global warming.

5. Negotiate peace for at least one war or two regional conflicts.

6a. Raise $600K for Kamala’s 2024 election campaign. (Yes, she believed that 2016 was not valid; so she is running again.)

(Or . . . take your pick)

6b. Raise $600K for Donald Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign. (Yes, he felt that 2020 was not valid; so he is running again.)

7. Lose 10 pounds.

8. Compose a symphony.

9. Write another chapter in the Great American Novel.

10. Leap a tall building in a single bound.

° And a final resolution:

11. Never feel guilty if you fail to fulfill your New Year’s Resolutions.

Life is short. Don’t be afraid to embrace honest debate with friends . . . When you do, try to be open-minded.

THREE POWERFUL WORDS

Have you ever found yourself in a heated discussion with a friend over some topical issue . . . global warming, gun control, entitlements? There are plenty of controversial subjects to choose from today and most make for exciting debate.

By the way, I hope you answered Yes. I hope that you do engage in energetic discussion with friends. Life is short. Don’t be afraid to embrace honest debate with friends. (When you do, though, try to be open-minded. Avoid making it personal.)

What three powerful words? The three powerful words are: “I don’t know.”

Most of my friends are intelligent and well meaning, even the conservatives among them. But sometimes, despite the best of intentions, our words start to be used as weapons designed to degrade and hurt, rather than to enlighten and inform. If you sense the drift in that direction, step back and say, “I don’t know. You could be right but explain how that . . . ”

Doing this will achieve two things.

First, the tension of the moment will have been defused. You will have pulled back from the growing hostility and will have turned the conversation back to a more civil and constructive tone.

Second, you will have established a solid platform of intellectual objectivity from which you will be able to continue the discussion. Anything you say from here on will be all the more credible having just calmly invited the other party to clarify his position.

Of course, none of this will do you any good if your underlying argument is based on pure rubbish. If that is the case, good luck!

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

You find yourself in a hostile negotiation. The guy across the table has an agenda that is clearly not compatible with your objectives. What should you do?

Of course, you could loudly and aggressively dismantle your opponent’s position. You might start by attacking the moral underpinnings of his platform. From there you might cite historical precedent to demonstrate his weaknesses. You might even attack his own character.

Okay, that might make you feel good, but what would you have achieved? Where would that have gotten you? Not far.

In all likelihood, your opponent would leap up, screaming invectives at you, questioning your sanity and maybe even your parentage. An outside observer would conclude that neither party achieved anything in the exchange and that the chances of constructive resolution were slim and none.

Try this instead. Shrug your shoulders, smile and open by saying, “What do you want?”

Starting your negotiation with a positive tone will help maintain a nonconfrontational atmosphere. That phrase (“What do you want?”) would put the focus on compromise, not conflict. The chances of achieving an outcome acceptable to both parties would be dramatically increased.

If compromise is not possible, you will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that you engaged in a professional and constructive manner.

IRRITATION

Something piss you off today? Did you get hit with a series of annoying things that got you really angry? Hey, you are not the Lone Ranger, it happens to all of us, many times throughout the day.

Yes, irritating things happen. You are late for an appointment and traffic lights all seem to flick to yellow just as you near. You hit the perfect putt, but it lips around the cup instead of dropping. Your internet service goes down just as you were getting to some juicy Facebook postings. Bummer.

Okay, irritating things happen, but then what do you do? Do you pound your steering wheel in frustration? Do you fling your putter into the lake? Do you kick your computer off the desk and watch it spin across the floor?

All valid reactions. None really surprising. But what have you achieved? Did you get to your meeting on time? Probably not. Did you sink your next put? Not likely. After all, you got rid of the only putter in your bag. Did you find out what your best friends ordered at Starbucks? No, but you might realize that you really didn’t care.

Next time you find yourself frustrated by the daily irritants that life inevitably throws at you, try this. Say to yourself, “That sucks but it is in the past. Nothing I can do to change it. Time to move on.”

Do that and you will accomplish two things.

First, you will have decoupled yourself from whatever frustration just happened. It is gone. You accept that fact.

Second, you will have shifted your focus to the future. Don’t dwell on the past. Learn from it but put it where it belongs. Put it behind you. What you do going forward is what counts.

How would that work with the irritants noted above?

Next time you have scheduled a meeting across town, leave 10 minutes early. If the traffic lights go in your favor, you can always go over your meeting notes when you arrive.

Your putting? Maybe no help here. That is one of the reasons I don’t play golf. That silly game must have been created to punish those who have learned to deal with life’s other irritants.

Catching up with friends on Facebook (and other social media)? No argument, Facebook has clearly revolutionized the way people connect. But there is a downside. Because it is so easy, we tend to throw out truly meaningless trivia. Do we really want our daily focus to be on what new latte is being offered by Starbucks? Instead, call up a friend and arrange to meet and talk about some of the meaningful occurrences of the day. Face-to-face connections are important.

What about more distant friends? Email might be the only way to reach out. Try sharing your thoughts about an important event from today’s news. Attach a clipping from a regular news source. Not as good as a face-to-face exchange but better than five words on a Facebook posting.

Next time you are hit with life’s irritating dramas, put the event into perspective and move on.

More irritations will certainly follow, but you know how to deal with them.

Next time you’re hit with life’s irritating dramas, put the event into perspective and move on . . . Shift your focus to the future.

CANCEL CULTURE #1

Cancel Culture strikes again. Benjamin Franklin, Womanizer. Thomas Jefferson, Slave Owner. Both canceled.

Topple their statues? Is that enough? No.

Must cancel completely. I can help. Send me your Benjamins and Jeffersons. I will dispose of them. Thank you very much.

STICKS & STONES

In my early years I was taught a memorable rhyme. It went like this: “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me!”

What a joyful refrain! From these words we gained the confidence to deal with whatever petty verbal aggression might confront us on the playground or in our school’s hallways.

Many from my generation will fondly remember the “Sticks and Stones” rhyme. Many benefited from the attitude implicit in those words, not just as children, but as adults later in life. Hurtful words? Ignore them. They are too trivial to warrant response.

So where are we today? Unfortunately, the notion that words cannot hurt us has been pushed aside in favor of a kind of self-victimization. We no longer rely on a natural confidence in our own identity to shield us from harsh or hurtful words. No, just the opposite. Today, we are being told that we are victims, that we should be offended by hurtful words. Being a victim is preferable to being a secure and confident individual. Poor baby!

More troubling, individual victimhood has morphed to include collective victimhood. This is rapidly becoming a problem of national proportions.

Look at me, for example. The hypothetical pain that I might have suffered could easily be adopted by a whole class of individuals. How so? I am an Average White Man. As such, it is conceivable that I ought to be offended by the rock band called Average White Band. Oh, woe is me! Will there be a class action lawsuit to compensation me and other average white men for the devastating hurt that we have collectively suffered?

We were once impervious to trivial slights. We did not feel compelled to tweet every time someone had a bad word to say about us. Are those days gone forever?

What about sports teams? Many have names that are said to have caused irreparable damage to certain groups of people.

Statues commemorating long-departed American figures are said to offend. Streets named for historic icons somehow cause emotional harm.

How did this happen? How did we move from a jovial sense of self-reliance and pride to a culture of victimhood? How did we get to this place where mere words cause so much pain?

For answers, look closely at instances where victimhood has flourished. Two trends emerge.

First, in today’s world, victimhood is easy. We are encouraged to seek offense from a long list of supposedly hurtful words or phrases. The message is clear. It is cool to be a victim. Furthermore, social media allows us to broadcast our pain to friends and to the world beyond.

Second, being a victim can be profitable. In a lawsuit filed against the Central Lee Community School District, the parents of a student alleged that “The threats of C.M. (the alleged bully) to H.S. (their child, the alleged victim) have become so severe and ongoing that H.S. is [in] fear of [their] safety every day. This includes riding the bus as well as while at school. The threats and harm perpetrated upon H.S. have begun to affect ability to concentrate at school and properly complete [their] school work. The threats and harm perpetrated upon H.S. now affect H.S’s ability to obtain an education.” The parents are asking the court “to permanently prohibit the two students from having any contact with each other as well as any other relief the court might deem just and equitable” (emphasis added).

Go ahead, tally the dollars skimmed by trial lawyers. That total would probably exceed the national debt.

The profit motive could easily be applied to non-monetary interests, as well.

Want to discredit a politician or a political appointee? All you need to do is dig into his past, select a few words or phrases out of context and broadcast them to the world. Doesn’t even have to be factual. Once it is out there, it’s out there.

We were once impervious to trivial slights. We did not feel compelled to tweet every time someone had a bad word to say about us. We could ignore meaningless jabs and not get sucked into retaliatory name calling. Are those days gone forever?

Do we just totter off into the sunset and accept these damaging trends, asking other generations to deal with them? Or do we re-assert ourselves and reject the notion that mere words can hurt us? Which would you choose? It is within your power to set a positive example for others who might be inclined to choose victimhood. Next time you hear that so-andso’s words are offensive, laugh and say, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me!”

(I would like to claim credit, but I am not the one who originated this rhyme. It first appeared in The Christian Recorder, a publication of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, in March 1862. Yeah, I am old but not that old.)

For another way to extricate yourself from a potentially hostile encounter, see “Three Powerful Words” page 54.

IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU

Confrontation . . . Hostility . . . Anger! We live in a world where contentious encounters seem to be part and parcel of everyday life. It is true. Emotions like these have a way of slamming you when you least expect it. Consider these examples.

How do you react when some guy forces his way into your lane of traffic, giving you the finger as he cuts you off? Your first instinct is to lay on the horn and return the gesture.

What do you do when a conversation about some political issue turns ugly? For example, you innocently mention a certain Supreme Court nominee appears highly qualified. Immediately you are accused of being in the tank for the conservative crazies who are ruining the character of our country. Or for the bleeding-heart liberals who are ruining the character of . . . take your pick.

In either case, you are called an idiot unable to understand the real issues. You bristle and are about to launch a counterattack.

Or how do you react when called a White Supremacist just because you are, well, white? Do you bristle with indignation and call out your accuser for being a self-inflicted victim?

None of your responses is likely to yield a positive result. On the contrary, escalation is guaranteed. Not good.

How can you turn things in a more positive direction? Easy. I take a breath and say to myself, “It’s not about you, Brett.” This simple phrase has saved me from anger, hostility, anxiety and a host of other negative emotions.

Try it next time you stumble into a hostile confrontation. Substitute your own name for my name and lessen the likelihood of a bad outcome. It works for me and it can work for you.

SOGGY CEREAL

Nobody likes soggy cereal, right? Of course not. But wait. There is one instance where soggy cereal might not be all that bad.

Consider this. It is breakfast time. You are hungry and eager to start your day. You sit down and pour milk on your cereal. Then, just as you finished pouring, you realize that you had forgotten to say a prayer of thanks. What do you do?

You have two choices. You can gobble your cereal before it gets soggy. Or you can pause, express your gratitude, then eat your cereal. Think about which choice you would make.

You might say, “Gratitude can wait. Once my cereal gets soggy, it tastes awful.” Or you might push your bowl aside and thank God (or whatever you call your higher power) for this bounty.

Choose the first way and your personal satisfaction has directed your choice. The world revolves around you. You make your choices solely for your own gratification.

Choose the other way and you acknowledge, and are thankful for, your blessings. It is not all about you. Which would you choose? And how does your attitude reflect itself in all the other choices you make throughout your day?

So, maybe soggy cereal might not be so bad after all.

2choices: Gobble your cereal before it gets soggy. Or pause, express your gratitude, then eat.

DREAM JOB

You have a great job. No, make that a really, really great job. Some would call it your “dream job.”

You are well aware that not everyone enjoys a work environment as spectacular as yours. Consider the perks that come with the job.

Want a state-of-the art gymnasium, complete with a personal trainer to keep you motivated? Sure, that is included.

What about an employee cafeteria? Absolutely. The food is prepared by a chef, not a cook. Everything is healthy and actually tastes good. No need to go out and jostle amongst the common folk for a table.

Staff and admin expenses? Not a problem. Your employer provides a generous budget to cover both.

And it doesn’t stop there. You also have a premium healthcare plan, paid vacations, subsidized travel to visit family and friends and a more-than-generous pension. Who could ask for more?

Then, one day, all that is at risk. With time on the job, you have come to realize that there is a serious flaw in your company’s business model. Cash flow projections confirm that the product promised by your employer cannot be delivered without drastic cost cutting and significant increase in revenues. In short, the current business model is not sustainable.

What do you do? Do you call attention to the problem, knowing that any effective solution would require senior management to make some hard, unpopular choices? Would they act? It appears they have repeatedly chosen, instead, to ignore the problem, putting off the day of reckoning.

Worse, you realize that, if you were to speak out, you would stand a good chance of being marginalized and punished for not being a “team player.” If you were to, somehow, hang on to your job, your future prospects would clearly be limited.

Do you have the courage to stand up and do the right thing? Would you take action that would you put your dream job at risk? What would you choose to do?

Oh, and while you are at it, you might ask your Congressperson what they would do if in such a situation?

We have a problem. Okay, you probably saw this coming. But the problem is real and needs to be addressed. Is there a solution? Maybe, but it will not come easily.

The obvious answer would be to impose term limits on our elected officials.

In May 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators. Thus, term limits would require a constitutional amendment.

Article V of the Constitution provides two methods by which amendments are to be considered. Specifically, either two thirds of both houses of Congress or two thirds of state legislatures are empowered to propose amendments for ratification. That step, ratification, would then be carried out by either Congress of by state legislatures.

It is highly unlikely that Congress would act to put themselves out of work.

Thus, enactment by the state legislatures would be the most likely solution. Not an easy task because advocates would need a total of 34 states to act. At least eight states have called for a term limits amendment, but getting more would be difficult. Today, many state legislators oppose term limits for themselves

need to act to allow term limits on politicians. Only 8 so far have.

U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states can’t impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators.

and probably wouldn’t want to impose such a measure on federal legislators.

If the people want term limits but the state legislators don’t, is there a way to get around recalcitrant legislators? Maybe.

The Supreme Court recently ruled (Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission) that the people of Arizona could use a ballot initiative to overrule the state legislature in setting up an independent redistricting commission. Thus, it is possible that this ruling would allow states to adopt a term limits amendment by ballot initiative.

Could it be done? The math is not encouraging. Currently only 24 states allow ballot initiatives, not the 34 required to force a Constitutional amendment.

Hopeless? Maybe not. It is time to get organized. We need community activists to mobilize in each of the 26 states that do not allow ballot initiatives. Members of Congress have failed to fix their broken business model. They should not be allowed to keep their dream job.

Don’t underestimate the power of social media. Ten years ago, public outrage was muted. Today, however, every person has a voice, and that voice can be loud and persistent.

To successfully impose term limits on Congress will take time, organization and money.

We have the ability to organize. We can raise the money.

Do we care enough to spend the time?

CHOOSE WISELY

In today’s hyper-partisan world, few issues are as contentious as the immigration crisis plaguing our national borders.

When asked for her take on the issue, a conservative friend of mine snarled, “Those liberals, all they want to do is open the borders, give free benefits to illegal aliens and disband the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). All that to guarantee victory in the next election!”

Not to be outdone, a liberal friend responded to the same question by indignantly proclaiming, “Those Trumpistas are only happy when they are ripping babies from their mother’s arms and throwing them in cages! All they want is to protect their white privilege!”

These two friends are normally intelligent and engaged citizens. Mention immigration, though, and it is as if a switch had been flipped. Objective consideration of the facts? Not a chance. Rational thought? No way.

Is it possible that these two individuals could ever engage in a civil discussion of the issue?

Call me an eternal optimist, but I believe the answer is “Yes, it is possible!” Really? Yes, it really could happen. Here is how. It is a two-step process.

First, we have to recognize that the problem is not our broken immigration system. To be sure, that system is broken. Serious reform, and the will to enforce a reformed system, are critical. Does Congress have the political courage to undertake such reform? That is a fair, and important, question. It will have to be addressed in a separate essay.

Do you wish to support your position with logic and reason? Or do you simply seek to attack the other person?

The second step is to understand that the hostility exhibited in the comments by both liberals and conservatives reflects their intention to attack rather than engage in civil discussion. That was a choice made by both parties.

Clearly, the problem is not our immigration system. The problem is how we choose to discuss immigration. Before even the first words leave your mouth, ask yourself “What do I want?” What is your intention? What do you want? How do your words reflect what you want?

Words matter. Your choice of words establishes your intention. Do you wish to support your position with logic and reason? Or do you simply seek to attack the other person?

Too often, we take the easy route. Objectively research the facts behind our immigration crisis? Why bother? That takes time and effort. It is much easier to lash out by parroting some simplistic one-liner you heard on your favorite cable channel. Attack!

Tempers flare when we are too intellectually lazy to look into the complexity of immigration. Do we choose our words to present facts supporting our position or do we choose our words to discredit those who advocate an alternative position?

One other point: There is no need to avoid discussing potentially controversial topics. Just give careful thought to the words you choose.

Words matter. Choose wisely.

FOOLS, KNAVES & POLITICIANS

Fools, knaves and politicians . . . the world is full of them. Look around and you will see that it is all too true.

Fools are everywhere. Stumbling around, not sure why they are here. Gullible. No, make that delusional. Believing in whatever the hot topic of the day might be. Not aware of where they are relative to the rest of the world. Only able to react in a most superficial way to what is happening around them. Worst of all, they don’t even know that they are fools.

Not to be left out, knaves are plentiful and ready to take advantage of the world’s fools. Not willing to put in the hard work themselves, the work needed to succeed. Creating fear and distrust to achieve their ends. Hiding from accountability for the choices they make. The rules that govern the rest of us are ignored by them.

Politicians? Whoops. Cut and paste the previous two paragraphs. That covers it.

Fools, knaves and politicians . . . the world is full of them.

U.S. National Debt:

$31T.

Raising the debt ceiling has been done a whopping 74 times since 1962.

CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING

Congressional Democrats have proposed sweeping new legislation designed to address all manner of American woes. Cost is not a factor. And, yes, before you get too excited, this is not a problem for Dems alone. Republicans are just as guilty.

This propensity to throw unlimited taxpayer dollars at each problem, real or manufactured, does raise one troubling question: How is Washington going to pay for all of this?

At some point, the piper will have to be paid. Borrow more money? Sure, just keep raising the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling avoids default on our national debt, so everybody should be happy, right? Maybe not.

Between 1962 and 2023, the debt ceiling was raised a whopping 74 times. Unfortunately, doing this fuels inflation and simply kicks the can down the road. Let some other generation fix the problem. Party on!

Our national debt now stands at more than $31 trillion. Write that on a piece of paper, including all the zeros. You will see that we are not talking chump change. Bet you wish you could pay your household bills this way.

Congress has another way to address this pesky problem: Raise taxes. They have to tread lightly on this tactic, though. Taxpayers vote.

This, you guessed it, leads to the tried-and-true rally cry: “Make the rich pay their fair share!”

Surely, that is safe and won’t cost too many votes. “The Rich” are some nebulous demographic. We know they are out there somewhere but separate from you and me. Most of us would shrug and say, “I am not rich; so, go ahead and whack those bad guys.”

But hold on. This solution, like so many others coming out of Washington, is flawed. There are simply too few super wealthy individuals in this country to support such a fantasy.

Okay, forget taxation. Instead, try confiscating the entire wealth of the 10 richest Americans. Would that solve the problem? Nope. Not even close. Doing that would raise only $1.2 trillion, less than 4% of the national debt.

So, what can a creative member of Congress do? The answer is simple. Create more billionaires. Yes, pay attention, Bernie and Elizabeth. The numbers don’t lie. The only way to continue your profligate spending is to increase the pool of fools whose money can be confiscated to support the fanciful spending programs currently on the table.

We are so lucky to have Washington there to solve our problems. Tax more and print more money. Saves us from actually having to do something ourselves.

WHAT ARE YOUR PRIORITIES?

COVID-19 has changed this country, perhaps forever. Faced with this new reality, what would your priorities be?

Americans were feeling pretty good at the end of 2019. We had ushered in the New Year with a resurgent economy and record low unemployment.

Sure, we heard the predictable complaints about Donald Trump. We were fed a daily laundry list of all the bad things that had befallen the county since he astounded the Liberal Establishment and snuck into the White House. We were told that his shortcomings would destroy the country . . . unless he could be forced from office. Or, at the very least, be denied a second term.

Those shortcomings attributed to President Trump would soon pale in comparison to the pandemic that was about to hit the country.

On January 9, the World Health Organization announced that a strange form of pneumonia had been discovered in Wuhan, China. At the time, little was known about this illness but on Jan. 21, the first case of the coronavirus was confirmed in the United States. On that same date, a Chinese scientist confirmed that human-to-human infection was occurring.

Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated this country in ways we could not have imagined.

Death by COVID-19 was the stuff that horror movies were made of: sepsis-related organ failure, abnormal blood clotting and respiratory failure. More troubling was the insidious nature of the disease. An infected individual could be asymptomatic for two to five days after contracting the virus. Some never showed symptoms at all, thus making it almost impossible to prevent the disease’s spread. Furthermore, infection was not limited to human-to-human contact. It also could occur by touching an infected surface.

The health consequences were bad enough; but the ripple effect on our daily lives was devastating, creating disruptions unseen in our nation’s history.

Hospitals were overwhelmed. Doctors and ER personnel worked to exhaustion. Protective gear was in short supply. Patients needing non-coronavirus care were turned away.

Office workers were told to work from home. Business travel virtually stopped. Conferences and conventions were canceled.

And office workers were not the only ones hit. The hospitality industry ground to a halt. Movie theaters closed, as did theme parks. Sporting events were canceled. Restaurants and night clubs were ordered shut. For those businesses, working from home was not an option. Many businesses were closed permanently. For others, the only path to survival would be massive layoffs.

Many well-known corporations did not survive. Hertz Global Holdings, the car rental company, tried. They laid off 12,000 employees and furloughed an additional 4,000 in March. It was not enough. They filed bankruptcy on May 22, ending more than 100 years as an icon in their industry.

Unemployment claims skyrocketed. In February 2020, the national unemployment rate was 3.5%, statistically representing “full employment.” Two months later, the rate skyrocketed to 14.7%. Even with generous additional benefit payments, many families no longer had income to pay for even the basic necessities. Rents went unpaid, causing a ripple effect hitting landlords. They, in turn, were not able to make mortgage payments

What if you had the power to sweep our ineffective Congress aside and enact legislation to address our country’s needs? What would you do?

Bad news all around. But what if you had the power to sweep our ineffective Congress aside and enact legislation that would address our country’s needs? (And, yes, we know someone in Washington who thinks that he actually does have that power; but that will have to be the subject of a separate essay.)

What would you do? The challenges we face are staggering. Pandemic illness, loss of life, isolation, civil unrest, economic collapse, the list is seemingly endless.

Consider the following list of options. Given your imaginary power, what would your priorities be? Put the most urgent goals at the top of your list, such as these:

1. Personal Protective Measures (mandatory masks and social distancing)

2. Public Awareness Messages

3. Expanded unemployment (cash grants) benefits to those who had been laid off

4. Loans to businesses that agreed to forego layoffs

5. A national testing program to help isolate those infected

6. Restricted attendance at all gatherings. Strict limitations on the number of people allowed to frequent restaurants and night clubs at any given time

7. Same requirements to all sporting events

8. Ditto protest rallies, conventions and worship services

9. Support for food distribution centers

10. Suspended tax filings until employment data show recovery

11. Underwriting for biopharma research to develop an effective vaccine

Feel free to add any additional priorities you feel important. Now shuffle your list, putting the most important ones first.

Now flip the switch. You no longer have to power to mandate the measures listed above. You have just returned that power to Congress. What would their priorities be? Would they select from your list and enact measures to get us through this awful time? Or would they put another priority on top of their list? Would their priority be:

1. Forget “Good of the Country.” Instead use the pandemic, and all the suffering that goes with it, to destroy your political opponents and gain unassailable power stretching into the future.

2. No need to list other priorities. They have been rendered irrelevant by the above.

If Congress fails to act, what could you do? Vote.

Truth hurts.

For more to consider, see “How Much Pain,” page 107, and “Magic Wand,” page 95.

The hearings were convened by the House Intelligence Committee’s Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence andCounterproliferation sub-committee . . . Didn’t even know it existed.

UFO HEARINGS

Did you hear the news? On May 17, Congress held hearings to discuss what they called “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,” what we call UFOs.

Traditionally, congressional hearings have been held to: 1) Gather information relating to pending legislation; 2) Prepare for legislation that may occur in the future; and 3) Oversee existing federal programs.

The UFO hearings did none of the three. Instead, one lawmaker stood before the cameras and solemnly warned that UFOs “must be investigated and taken seriously as a potential threat to national security.”

That is what they used to say about Donald Trump. No more Trump transgressions to investigate? No problem. Pivot to UFOs. Save our children and grandchildren.

What was the cost of that hearing? Not chump change, that’s for sure. Congressional staff had to prepare briefing books for their bosses. Expert witnesses had to be transported and housed to appear before the cameras. Reports had to be published and mailed to constituents.

Oh, and by the way, the hearings were convened by the House Intelligence Committee’s Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation subcommittee. Didn’t even know that such a subcommittee existed. Too much time and not enough focus on the people’s immediate needs.

Our tax dollars at work.

POOR POLITICIANS

Pity the poor politicians in Washington. Every day they are forced to walk a fine line between competing positions. Every day they are forced to “dance the dance.” Consider the following example.

You are the Honorable Senator from the hypothetical state called Boomwana. Your state is home to one of the nation's most important defense contractors. Because of your success in securing lucrative contracts, thousands of factory workers enthusiastically support your ongoing reelection efforts. Senior corporate management and wealthy shareholders give generously to your campaign. All is good. Maybe not.

Boomwana is also a hotbed of social-justice agitators, human rights advocates, and peace activists. These folks are not only vocal but highly energized in the pursuit of their ideals.

For them, waging war is an anathema that is to be resisted at every turn, and they regularly protest outside the headquarters of your district’s defense plant.

All of this is, of course, manageable. Or is it?

What would happen if Vladimir Putin were to mass troops off Norway's coast and threaten to invade? He has never hidden his ambition to expand Russian territory to include the rich North Sea oil fields. Putin is no dummy. He knows that Norway’s Ekofisk field supplies natural gas to Germany. Annexing that resource would insure Germany’s total dependence on Moscow. How would Washington react? How would you, the Honorable Senator from Boomwana, react?

Of course, there would be Washington’s usual loud and meaningless howls of indignation. Photo ops of politicians standing in front of the Norwegian flag, glaring into the

camera, and demanding that Putin be “held accountable.” Even worse, the social-justice citizens of Boomwana would mobilize. They would hold noisy demonstrations outside your house every night. They would disrupt a golf fundraiser planned for your benefit over the weekend.

What would you do? Hold fast to your beliefs? That certainly wouldn’t aid your re-election. Duck and weave, hoping that Putin’s aggression will move off the front pages? Not likely.

Poor politicians. Damned if they do. Damned if they don’t.

M C CONNELL’S BLUNDER

Republicans may well rue the day they refused to consider President Obama’s March 16, 2016 appointment of Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.

You will recall the 2016 decision by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to block Garland’s appointment. That move sparked outrage among Democrats and liberals across the country.

Clever political maneuvering by McConnell? Maybe not. In fact, that decision was flawed on two counts.

First, by all measures, Merrick Garland was acknowledged to be a centrist. By rejecting the Garland appointment, McConnell opened the door to the probability that a far more liberal judge would fill Scalia’s seat. Remember, Hillary Clinton was thought to be an easy winner in the 2016 presidential election. If she were to be appointed and confirmed, she would not squander the opportunity to tilt the Court to the left.

Okay, McConnell dodged that bullet. Hillary did not make it to the Supreme Court.

But wait. Fast forward to today. Not so lucky this time.

Merrick Garland now heads the Department of Justice. He has steadfastly refused to bow to political pressure regarding the potential indictment of former President Donald Trump.

In an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Merrick Garland refused to consider delaying any prosecution of Donald Trump in the event that Trump were to announce a run for the 2024 election. Twice in that interview, Lester Holt tried to push the Trump line, and twice Garland pushed that narrative aside.

Clearly, Merrick Garland values the rule of law over party politics. If Trump were ever to be indited, Garland’s Justice Department would prosecute.

Had Mitch McConnell allowed the Garland Supreme Court appointment to go forward in 2016, there would now be a different Attorney General heading the Justice Department, someone who might be more inclined to protect Donald Trump from any future prosecution.

Hey, Mitch, don’t expect a Christmas card from Donald Trump.

GARLAND CONFIRMATION HEARINGS

President Biden’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General, Judge Merrick Garland, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee today as part of the confirmation process. He broke from tradition and decided to forgo the usual opening remarks, “Thank you, Mister Chairman, Mister Ranking Member and Members of the Judiciary Committee. I am honored to appear before you today . . .”

Instead, he rose, smiled, and said, “See, even Mitch McConnell could not keep me out of here forever . . .”

It pays to have a sense of humor, especially in Washington.

A “super majority” of votes in the Senate Is required to break a filibuster . . . passionate supporters and detractors abound.

FILIBUSTER

Waaaa, waaaa! I can’t get what I want, so I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue.

Or I could just change the rules of the Senate and get rid of the filibuster.

Filibuster . . . Kill it or keep it? That is the debate roiling Washington today.

The filibuster is a legislative maneuver employed to prevent a bill from being voted on in the United States Senate. Senate rules specify that a filibuster can be broken by a procedure known as “cloture.” Cloture was originally incorporated by the Senate in 1917 and required that two-thirds of the Senate vote to end filibuster. That number was reduced to 60% (60 Senators, called a “super majority”) in 1975. If 60 Senators do not vote to end a filibuster, the bill itself will not be voted on.

Not surprisingly, passionate supporters and detractors abound. But can we sift through all the noise and learn something? Read on.

Who opposes the filibuster and why?

Today frustration is running rampant among Democrats. Repeatedly thwarted by Senate Republican use of the filibuster, the Democrats have been unable to bring their favored legislative initiatives to the floor for a vote. Particularly galling has been the Republicans' successful blocking of the Democrats’ attempts to convict Donald Trump for his role in the January 6th assault on the Capitol.

How could Senate Democrats overcome what they saw as Republican obstructionism?

As noted above, Senate rules specify that a “super majority” of 60 votes would be required to break the filibuster, allowing a vote on the legislation being blocked. With 51 seats in today’s Senate, the Democrats are not likely to prevail.

That fact has not pleased President Biden. In his first press conference as president, Biden spoke out against Republican use of the filibuster. “It is being abused in a gigantic way.” He went on to urge that Senate rules be changed to make it more difficult to use the tactic.

But hold on a minute. As a Senator in 2015, Biden strongly supported the filibuster, saying that to weaken it “is not only a bad idea, it upsets the constitutional design and it disservices the country.”

President Biden is not the only one to have a change of heart. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is equally conflicted.

In 2017 he asserted that “The legislative filibuster . . . is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House. Without the 60-vote threshold, the Senate becomes a majoritarian institution like the House, much more subject to the winds of short-term electoral change. No Senator would like to see that happen.”

You have to feel sorry for Sen. Schumer. With an increasing number of Democrats calling for the filibuster’s elimination, he has come under intense pressure to abandon his support for the tactic.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), citing a number of progressive initiatives, reportedly said, “If we want to deliver on our promises, we have got to be willing to get out there and fight for it, and that starts with getting rid of the filibuster.”

Schumer’s response? “If they (the Republicans) don’t work with us, our caucus will come together and we will discuss the best way to produce that big bold action and, as I’ve said before, everything, everything is on the table.” Nice dance but

the message is clear: It’s the Republicans' fault that we have to kick the table over and change the rules.

Those nasty Republicans! But are they alone in using the filibuster to stall legislation? Not hardly.

The tactic has also been aggressively employed by Democrats in the past. During 2020, Trump’s last year in office, the Republicans employed the filibuster once. During that same period, the Democrats used the tactic 327 times.

So, what is the takeaway? Put aside your interest in any of today’s policy issues. Suspend for the moment how you feel about the filibuster. What have we learned?

One lesson stands out: Politicians will screech loudly to abandon the filibuster one day, only to argue strenuously for its retention the next. Clearly, the sole interest of politicians today is to advance their current agenda. They have no interest in intellectual integrity.

POLITICAL POKER

The Democrats and Republicans were playing high stakes political poker.

The Democrat opened the betting with one Bernie Sanders. The Republican looked at his cards and said, “I’ll see you and raise a Resurgent Trump.”

With a sly grin, the Democrat responded, “I’ll see you with an Elizabeth Warren plus an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”

The Republican realized that he could not match that even if he threw in a Ted Cruz. He folded.

Hey, it could have been worse. They could have been playing strip poker.

WEATHER BALLOON

You probably have seen the news that a Chinese weather balloon was shot down off the coast of South Carolina. A spokesperson for the White House has announced that any recovered debris would be sent to an FBI lab for analysis.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has assured the American public that the FBI will undertake this task with its usual diligence and professionalism. “I am confident that evidence will be uncovered indicating that Donald Trump colluded with the Chinese in this tawdry affair.”

He also reserved the right to shift the blame to former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, VP Mike Pence, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) or Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, depending on how events unfold in the next 12 months.

Our tax dollars at work. Stay tuned.

BALLOON WARS

You might have seen the F-22 Raptor that buzzed your neighbor’s house last night. At the time, few in the neighborhood realized how close they were to total annihilation.

It was only this morning that the White House held a press conference to explain the incident.

The spokesperson announced that the recently enhanced sensitivity of our nation’s radar systems had identified a suspicious balloon floating above your neighborhood. Fighter jets were scrambled to deal with this threat to national sovereignty.

Luckily the pilot noticed that the balloon had an Philadelphia Eagle’s logo. Being originally from Philadelphia, the pilot aborted his missile run and flew back to base.

Whew, that was close. At least we can take comfort knowing that our country’s leadership is ever vigilant and dedicated to keeping us safe.

Our tax dollars at work.

COST-EFFECTIVE HEARINGS?

Most successful businesses employ what is known as a “costbenefit analysis” before spending time and money on any major undertaking.

What would have happened if the U.S. House of Representatives had followed that practice before authorizing (on July 1, 2021) what is now popularly known as the January 6 Hearings?

Hold on, Hannity (and other right-wing pundits). Not so fast. Breathe in. Breathe out. Good.

If you were to take time to read the original authorization document, and if you were being completely objective (a stretch for some, I know), you might forego your knee-jerk reaction and acknowledge that the stated intention of the hearings was, indeed, important.

Go ahead. Take a peek at the House Select Committee’s document authorizing the hearings. A careful reading of the Committee’s statement of purpose stipulates five findings of fact and three specific purposes.

The five finding of facts are as follows:

1. There was “an assault on the United States Capitol Complex” on Jan. 6, 2022.

2. On Jan. 27, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin warning that certain groups “could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence.” (Note that this bulletin was issued almost 12 months prior to the Capitol Attack being investigated by the current hearings.)

3. On Sept. 26, 2020, the FBI testified before the House of Representatives that the causes of “domestic violence extremism remain constant” and that “white supremacist” ideology is the prime motivator. (Note that this testimony took place nearly 16 months before the hearings.)

4. On April 15, 2021, the Inspector General for the U.S. Capitol Police testified that the USCP’s procedures for operations, communication and analysis were deficient. (Note that this testimony took place nearly nine months before the hearings.)

5. On June 15, 2021, the Inspector General for the U.S. Capitol Police testified that the USCP “did not have adequate policies and procedures for the FRU (First Responder Unit) and that the FRU “lacked resources and training to properly complete its mission.” (Note that this testimony took place nearly seven months before the hearings.)

Based on the five facts stipulated above, the House Select Committee’s authorization document then lays out the details of how the hearings will be conducted and specifies the three purposes to be addressed by the hearing, as follows:

1. “To investigate and report upon the circumstances and causes relating to the attack on the Capitol.”

2. “To examine and evaluate evidence developed by other agencies.”

3. “To build upon” such evidence in order to avoid “unnecessary duplication of efforts.”

Fair enough. The stipulation of facts and the three objectives cited above are important and worthy of congressional action. Even Hannity would have a hard time disagreeing with that.

With that in mind, now take a look at how the House Select Committee has conducted the hearings to date.

Has the Committee stayed true to the undeniably worthy objectives specified in the authorization document?

If the answer is yes, your “cost-benefit analysis” would be positive and the time and money being spent would be acceptable.

If, however, the conduct of the House Select Committee has not stayed true to the purposes of its own authorizing document, the expenditure of time and money would not be acceptable.

What do you think?

MAGIC WAND

You have just been given a Magic Wand. Your mission is to heal the divisions that are plaguing this country.

Choose wisely. This Magic Wand is a single shot wand. You have only one chance to achieve your mission. What do you do?

Do you wave your Magic Wand and make President Trump disappear, or maybe Sen. Schumer? Don’t waste your shot on Hillary Clinton. She has pretty much disappeared already.

Making either one of these two polarizing figures disappear might have a temporary effect, but all too soon a clone would emerge, and we would be back to where we are now: a divided nation, incapable of acting for the common good.

Try this instead. Wave your Magic Wand and make the words “Democrat” and “Republican” disappear. Gone forever. Neither word would ever be spoken again. Neither word would appear in print or on screen. Gone.

Do that and suddenly the conversation would be about policy, not personality. Decisions would be made, not to embarrass or damage the opposition, but to improve the lives of all Americans. Political parties would no longer be compelled to attack or degrade. Political parties would not exist. This would be the end of “Gotcha Politics.” 1

By the way, this is not a new idea. Our Founding Fathers warned of the perils of party politics.

In October 1780, John Adams put it this way, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” 2

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties . . . This . . . is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil.”

–

JOHN ADAMS, 1780

No more Democrats, no more Republicans. Just Americans. Mission accomplished.

1 Lanny Davis, Scandal: How Gotcha Politics is Destroying America, St Martin’s Griffin, Aug. 7, 2007

2 Charles Francis Adams (ed.), The Works of John Adams, Vol. 9. Boston, 1854, pp. 510-511; also George Washington’s Farewell Address, Sept. 19, 1796 and James Madison, The Federalist #10, Nov. 27, 1787.

house

WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT COMING

On Nov. 8, 2016, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. Should we have seen it coming? Most of us certainly did not.

Democrats were stunned. That goes without saying. Newscasters, fundraisers, politicians and ardent supporters had all assumed that Hillary Clinton would soundly beat the severely flawed Republican candidate, that she would waltz into the White House.

Those “Hillary Believers” saw an opponent dogged by scandal, eminently unqualified and grossly inarticulate. From the moment Donald Trump won the Republican nomination, the left-wing media regaled in his shortcomings. Hillary supporters were treated to an unending flow of Trump disasters. Rubbing their hands in eager anticipation, they just knew this would be a slam dunk.

Surely, the nation would welcome the first female president and a continuation of the Obama legacy. Put the champagne on ice. Celebrate the culmination of a long and passionate quest.

To be fair, many Republicans were equally shocked. During the weeks leading up to the election, most had resigned themselves to hunkering down and mitigating any damage suffered during the ensuing four years. Those Republicans who did toe the party line and support Trump’s candidacy did so with lukewarm endorsements, at best. Others simply walked away. Few thought “The Donald” had a chance.

How could so many have gotten it so wrong? Well, the fact is, we should have seen it coming. Huh? Really? Yes, really. Consider the following.

The spirit of Archie Bunker was alive and well going into the election. We should have seen it coming.

Domestic political discontent had been visible for quite some time. Ted Kaczynski serves as a good example. Between 1978 and 1995 Kaczynski, aka “The Unabomber,” undertook a nationwide bombing campaign intended to foment revolution.

Timothy McVeigh sought a similar outcome. In April 1995, he detonated a massive truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 innocent people.

We did not recognize the magnitude of this national discontent. We should have. The signs were there. We just failed to recognize them for what they were.

This discontent had been simmering for decades before 2016. Look no further than the content and tone of television programming during that period.

The cultural elite on both coasts had constantly denigrated those regular folks living in the heartland. Hillary had the temerity to label them “deplorables.” Whether you tuned in to evening news or nightly entertainment, the message was clear: “You average Americans are too stupid to think for yourselves.”

It was not enough to simply report the day’s events on the evening news. No, it became increasingly common for newscasters to pat themselves on the back, their condescending tone telling us that they, and they alone, had the ability to sort out the issues being reported. We were too stupid to analyze events for ourselves. It was their mission to explain the significance of it all, so we would not have to tax our limited intellectual capability. Additionally, before 2016, few citizens had the courage to call out “Fake News” when broadcasters drifted from reporting the news to selling an agenda. We should have seen it coming.

Coverage of sporting events was not much better. Rather than letting the action speak for itself, the producers felt the need

to “juice the sound” to show us what was exciting. Clearly, we were too stupid to recognize dramatic moments that might, potentially, decide outcomes.

Sitcoms were no different, inserting laugh tracks to tell us what was funny (even if it was not). We were too obtuse to recognize contemporary humor. Hollywood knew better.

But there was more than the artificial laugh track. Some shows gave voice to controversial topics considered off limits at the time.

Take a look at CBS’s All In The Family. Dominating the ratings during the 1970s, this show had the temerity to touch on such topics as immigration, equal pay for women, racial inequality and homosexuality. What was significant was the fact that the central character, Archie Bunker, consistently expressed rejection and disdain for the inroads being made in those areas. The spirit of Archie Bunker was alive and well going into the 2016 election. We should have seen it coming.

And so, there was a whole segment of society that had been systematically marginalized and belittled by those who knew better. What Richard Nixon identified as the “Silent Majority” had become the “Silent, Angry Majority.” And they voted.

We should have seen it coming.

How is it possible that pronouncements from the President one day can be followed by totally contradictory statements the next? Certainly, both cannot be true.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT LIE

President Trump does not lie. No, he really does not lie.

But, you ask, how is it possible that pronouncements from the President one day can be followed by totally contradictory statements the next? Certainly, both cannot be true. One must be a lie, right?

Not exactly. To lie, one must have formulated a conscious narrative to achieve a desired outcome. President Trump does not do this.

In many respects, the President is like an amoeba. An amoeba reacts to external stimuli, altering its shape by extending and retracting its pseudopods. Poke the President and he changes shape. Poke him again and he, yet again, changes shape.

When President Trump opens his mouth, or when his thumbs flash out a hasty tweet, the syllables, vowels and consonants emerge to form random words. Rational thought and careful reasoning are not part of the process. The words emerge because they represent what the President happens to be reacting to at that moment. Just like an amoeba. The next day, the President might be reacting to some totally new personal injustice or perceived belittlement. Different day, different message.

Of course, problems do emerge when White House staffers or cabinet members are forced to scramble and clarify what the President intended to say. Not easy because it is often extremely difficult to determine which of the random pronouncements needs to be defended and which needs to be walked back.

Unfair to staffers? Not at all. That is why they are being paid the big bucks. Okay, not such big bucks; but even if the pay is not commensurate with the job, a lucrative book deal lurks in the future.

Oh, and one more thought. Were you to ask the President which statement were true, he would not be able to answer because he is not capable of differentiating between truth and falsehood. Hey, who cares? These things are just random events.

So now you see that President Trump does not lie. No lie.

CRAZY PRESIDENT

birth of a strategy

How did the Liberal press come up with their latest anti-Trump strategy, the strategy of using Section 4 of the Constitution’s 25th Amendment? The Constitutional Amendment in question provides the mechanism by which the vice president shall assume the duties of president in the event that the president is deemed unable to fulfill his or her duties.

You would be surprised to learn that the idea came from a Conservative. Here is how.

A Liberal and a Conservative were debating the question of the Trump team’s collusion with Russia. Their exchange was predictably heated, and the dialog went something like this.

Liberal: “The evidence is clear, Trump’s minions sought what they thought would be information damaging to the Clinton campaign. To obtain that material, a promise was made to ease sanctions and to pull back the anti-Putin rhetoric.

Conservative: “That’s rubbish. There is no credible evidence to suggest that anyone on the Trump team had interest in the supposed damaging material, or that they offered a quid pro quo. Come on, collusion with Russia? President Trump would have to be crazy to do that.”

Liberal: “Humm, did you say ‘crazy’? Hey, we could use that …… that might just work.”

And so, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment became the “Silver Bullet” sought by so many Trump haters. Surely, his insanity rendered him “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Goodbye, Donald.

HOW MUCH PAIN?

Have you ever wanted something? I mean really, really wanted it. No, I don’t mean wanting the Red Socks to beat the Yankees. I mean wanting something really, really important.

Okay, for those of you who are Red Socks fans, beating the Yankees is really important. I get that. But, if you are not one of those fans, consider today’s national politics.

Ah hah, did you really think this essay would be about baseball? No way. There are just too many stupid things happening in Washington to ignore.

A disturbing trend has emerged in national politics over the past 12 years. Call it the VAAP Syndrome. That would be “Victory At Any Price.” It is a disease for which neither Republicans nor Democrats have been immunized.

Look back to the early days of Barack Obama’s presidency. Some of my right-wing friends would have been delighted to see some sort of tragedy emerge from his policies. Indeed, many gleefully pointed to rising unemployment figures in 2010 (9.6% with 15 states exceeding 10.0%). Never mind that behind these numbers were many families struggling to get by. All that mattered was the narrative that President Obama had failed to manage the nation’s economy. VAAP

The trend continued unabated through President Obama’s second term. This time those opposed to Obama often cited his foreign policy failures. His “red-line” ultimatum to Syrian President Bashar Assad against the use of chemical weapons. Decisive action? No, nothing but tepid pronouncements and indecision. Oh, and then Russia annexes the Crimean Peninsula and covertly supports a successionist movement in Ukraine.

“We told you so,” the Obama haters gleefully crowed. Never mind that thousands were either killed or displaced. “The

Two dozen states— all controlled by Democrats—at one point opposed relaxing restrictions for the pandemic’s national lockdown.

For a fantasy-based solution, see “Magic Wand,” page 95.

record is clear,” they said. All they needed to seal the deal was a terrorist attack in the United States. Nothing big. Just images of a dozen, or so, dead and injured. Never mind that the victims of such an attack would have been fellow Americans. VAAP

But wait. My friends on the left have displayed the same callous disregard for the very real suffering attendant to examples of President Trump’s stumbling.

The coronavirus pandemic has provided a triple whammy for my left-leaning friends, allowing them to bask in President Trump’s perceived missteps.

First, the Trump haters focused on the obvious suffering that the virus had caused. Daily newscasts replete with images of weeping loved ones, stories of children unable to visit their grandparents in retirement homes and exhausted doctors struggling to cope. Never mind that these are real people struggling to deal with unspeakable suffering. VAAP

Next, at a recent White House press conference, one reporter asked, “If an American president loses more Americans over the course of six weeks than died in the entirety of the Vietnam war, does he deserve to be re-elected.” Never mind that those were Americans who died, whose loved ones grieved then and are grieving now. VAAP.

Third, my liberal friends are advocating for an extended period of national lockdown. Indeed, the 24 states that oppose relaxing the current restrictions are controlled by Democrats. Is this a manifestation of humane concern for the health and well-being of those who reside in those states? Maybe. But there might also be the recognition that economic hardship and high unemployment would undercut President Trump’s strongest re-election argument, a booming economy and record low unemployment. Never mind that the

unemployed are real people, struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table. VAAP.

How much pain are you willing to accept to achieve your desired outcome? Sadly, both Democrats and Republicans seem to be saying, “As much as it takes.”

MAGA HATS 2020

Have a MAGA hat, or two, in your closet? Don’t know what to do with them?

Consider what Trump staffers recently did with theirs.

They boxed them up and sent them to the Biden Transition Team. Inside each hat they left a note saying, “Make America Grovel Again.”

Before you think too harshly of those Trumpsters, note that such pranks are not without precedent. The 2001 transition from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush stands out.

As documented in a 220-page Government Accounting Office report (GAO-02-360), the departing Clinton staffers removed the letter “W” from as many as 64 computer keyboards.

Nothing wrong with a good sense of humor.

STATE OF THE UNION 2022

Let’s run a cost-benefit analysis of the recent State of The Union address on March 2, 2022. Start by calculating the total cost of the event.

How much staff time was spent by the White House preparing President Biden’s remarks? Research, writing and reviewing various drafts, coaching and rehearsal for the president . . . all had considerable cost.

And the rebuttal? What was the cost to craft and deliver Representative Kennedy’s remarks? Again, not cheap.

Add to those costs, the expense of assembling all who attended . . . members of Congress, staff, supporting actors. What about security for the event? We are talking serious dollars.

Did the press coverage of the event cost anything? Of course, it did.

At the end of the day, what was achieved? There can be no denying that Democrats and Republicans were energized. Much huffing and puffing. The press, both supporters and detractors, had a field day.

Now calculate the benefit. Yes, there was “theater.” But what was achieved? Anything of substance?

If this event had been the product of a privately held company, would the CEO of that company be satisfied that the undertaking had achieved a decent ROI (return on investment)? Or would he fire those responsible?

Now there is an idea. Fire the entire Congress? Too bad we can’t do that.

For more on this critical topic, see “Words Matter” on page 175.

GIULIANI’S PARDON

Does President Trump fully understand the legal requirements governing presidential pardons? Has he even bothered to read Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution?

It would appear not. Consider his recent pardon of his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

The pardon was issued just after a working lunch with Giuliani at the White House. The President and his attorney had just settled in the adjacent room for coffee when Rudy let out a not-so-subtle belch.

“Pardon me,” said Giuliani. “Okay,” said the President.

PUTIN’S GAMBIT 2022

You saw the news in February: Vladimir Putin was recently spotted at the 2022 Beijing Olympics. He made the journey because Xi Jinping had comped him for a couple of choice seats at the opening ceremonies.

Or not.

Most would agree that Putin is no dummy. He clearly has an agenda. His passion is to restore Russia to its former glory.

But how to do that? Not easy. Yes, Putin could posture on the borders of the Ukraine. Doing that, he would realize two immediate benefits. First, he would be exercising his troops in complex staging maneuvers, increasing unit proficiency in the process. Good move.

Second, he just might succeed in bullying the United States into agreeing to a concession regarding the presence of the NATO alliance in Central Europe. Again, a good move.

But wait. Do those two achievements move Putin any closer to re-establishing Russia as a dominant player on the world stage? No, they do not.

Back to the question of Putin’s presence in Beijing. Maybe he was there for something other than spectating. Maybe, just maybe, his presence in Beijing was intended to achieve other objectives. Consider the following.

Two days after the closing ceremonies, Russia launches an all-out invasion of Ukraine. That, by itself, would not be a good move. Yes, Russian troops would overrun Ukrainian forces, but the Russians would not have adequate troop strength to pacify and absorb Ukraine back into Russian control.

But what would happen if the Chinese were to simultaneously launch an attack on Taiwan? Ah, now we are getting somewhere.

The United States does not currently have the capacity to engage in two wars, on two distant fronts, at the same time.

Therefore, the United States would be paralyzed and unable to respond to such a coordinated attack, giving Russia time to deploy additional troops to pacify the Ukraine.

More important, in the confusion that would follow, there would be no unified outcry from the rest of the world.

Confusion, indecision, finger pointing. Many countries would see the weakness of the United States and would jump to do side deals with both Russia and China.

Putin succeeds in realizing his long-held desire to elevate Russia as a dominant world power, and China satisfies its dream of returning Taiwan to Chinese control.

So maybe Putin was not wasting his time in Beijing.

We do, indeed, live in interesting times.

Scary thought.

U.S. SNIPERS IN UKRAINE 2022

Covert operations by the United States in support of the Ukrainian resistance? You bet. The U.S. has found a way around existing restrictions and is active in country.

This is not for publication, but American operatives from Seal Team Six were recently spotted in the back alleys of Kyiv. Two sniper teams have been deployed to take out high-value targets. To date, six Russian generals have been eliminated.

How could we tell that this was the work of Seal Team Six? They were tough looking dudes, sporting the Devgru tattoo. And, oh yeah, they were all wearing flip flops. That’s right, flip flops. No boots on the ground.

Thanks, Joe.

BRILLIANT MOVE

On August 24, 2022, President Biden issued an Executive Order forgiving more than $300 billion in student loan debt.

Predictably, this initiative sparked gleeful support from one camp and howling outrage from another.

Put aside, for a moment, whether you approve or disapprove. Not easy for some of you, I know. But you have to admit it’s a brilliant move. Consider the following questions:

° Is it legal?

° Is it good for the country?

° Will it unify Americans?

Objective analysis would indicate the answers to those questions would be, “No, No and No.”

Issuing an Executive Order of that magnitude clearly usurps Congressional authority on fiscal matters. Pumping more than $300 billion dollars into an economy already struggling with runaway inflation would have devastating consequences. Millions of households will be impacted.

Forgiving the financial obligations of some, while others have sacrificed to meet theirs, would further divide a polarized population. Those who accepted their obligations would, effectively, be punished.

Not a good score by any measure. But if Biden fails on all three counts, how can this possibly be thought of as a “brilliant move?”

Easy. Timing is everything. First, President Biden’s advisors certainly warned his initiative would not survive the inevitable legal challenges. No problem. By floating the plan less than three months before November’s midterm elections he will capture vast numbers of young, social-justice voters.

Second, given the anticipated challenges and delays, the inflationary impact will not be felt for some time, if at all.

Finally, the question of national unity is not part of the current calculus. Indeed, that posture was taken off the table within hours of Biden’s inauguration speech in January 2021.

And there is a bonus. If court challenges end up nullifying his Executive Order, Biden can always blame the evil, Republican-dominated Supreme Court for thwarting his good work.

Brilliant move. Yes, it is.

$300B

President Biden’s Executive Order forgiving student loan debt sparked gleeful support from one camp and howling outrage from another.

BBB

You have heard of the recent legislative initiative called “BBB,” haven’t you? What do those three initials mean to you?

President Biden would answer, “Build Back Better.” No surprise here. The Democrats in Washington are obligated to put a positive spin on their proposed spending package. Oh, and by the way, it is not just Democrats. Both parties do it.

If those supporting the legislation were honest (laughter), they would admit that their initiative should be called, “Build Borrow Billions.” Indeed, the number is actually trillions, not billions. But Washington has never been concerned by how many zeros are attached to their spending proposals. What’s a few hundred billion among friends?

All of which allows Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) to say, “Build Back Bankrupt.” Is the Senator from West Virginia right? What do you think?

06 trump

Many of the essays in this book were inspired by Donald Trump’s first term as president.

AMERICAN GHOSTS

Twenty-five years ago, Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. His goal was to attract a law enforcement response he hoped would spark an antigovernment revolution.

At the time McVeigh earned almost universal condemnation for his horrific act. He was arrested, tried and put to death for his crime.

Today there is a titanic battle brewing in Washington. Trump vs The Resistance (#resistance). Who wins?

These are two intractable forces. For one, petulant ego dominates. For the other, “gotcha politics” and media manipulation rule. One reacts viscously to any slight, real or imagined. The other will accept nothing short of Trump’s removal from office. “Good of the country?” Definitely not considered by either. Not even for a fleeting moment.

Could one side prevail? Would there be consequences?

If Trump were to gain a second term, The Resistance would not go away. Nothing would be off the table. They would double down and tie the President’s hands with unending litigation, investigation and condemnation. “Good of the country?” They think so but definitely not.

But what would happen if The Resistance were to succeed? If the forces aligned against Trump were able to remove him as president or to deny him a second term?

Yes, for those never able to accept Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016, there would be joy unbounded . . . vindication at last!

But what about the Trump supporters, the deplorables who unexpectedly put him in the White House? What if they

6.11.01

Convicted bomber and mass murderer Timothy McVeigh was executed in Terre Haute, IN.

believed that Congressional obstruction and media bias were to make a second term impossible? For them, he was the man they had so desperately sought, the man who had given meaning to their lives.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. The ghost of McVeigh dances amongst us. There are some, perhaps many, so disillusioned by Washington that they would see the McVeigh solution as the only way to achieve justice. Blood in the streets. Their rally cry, “Enough is enough. We deserve better. Take back our country or die.”

Who wins? Nobody. Who loses? We, the people. Enough is enough. We deserve better.

IMPEACHMENT 2019

In December 2019, Congress initiated impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, seeking his removal from office.

What was your reaction? Would you have been happy if Donald Trump were no longer president?

Many of my friends on the left would be delighted. They would say, “Yes, I want him out and gone!” No surprises there. Since the morning of Nov. 9, 2016, many felt that he should not have become president at all and dedicated their energies to his removal.

Okay, fine. But let’s dig deeper. Let’s look more closely at the actual impeachment procedure. For many, this will seem to be a waste of time. Their desire for a particular outcome might be so strong that further examination of the issue might not be of interest.

Why bother, they might ask. Simple. If they were able to objectively consider all aspects of the matter, their opinion would have more credibility and would carry more weight. That would be a good thing.

So, go ahead. If you are in the “Never Trump” camp, put your own reaction aside and ask yourself one additional question.

Does the evidence presented in the Articles of Impeachment, as reported by the House of Judiciary Committee on December 18 and approved by the full House the next day, provide sufficient grounds for the Senate to convict and remove Donald Trump from office?

Before you answer, take a close look at how the impeachment process works.

Article

II

Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution sets a high bar for conviction— “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The Founders knew what they were doing.

Removal from office is a two-step process that follows carefully reasoned procedures set by our Founding Fathers.

Step one is straightforward. By simple majority, the House of Representatives must approve the Articles of Impeachment. This is a statement of wrongdoing and equates to a criminal indictment in a civil court.

Evidence supporting the call for impeachment can come from an outside investigation or, as in the current (Trump) case, from an investigation conducted by the House Intelligence Committee. That evidence is then presented to the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee can call additional witnesses before determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant the issuance of the Articles of Impeachment.

Now step two begins. Upon receipt of the evidence, as specified in the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate conducts a formal trial to determine the president’s political fate. Unlike the House where a simple majority is required, a super majority of two-thirds of the Senate is required to convict and remove the president from office.

It is important to note the procedural difference between the House and the Senate. Action by the House’s decision (by simple majority) is not unduly onerous. Action by the Senate (by super majority) is considerably more difficult. The Founders clearly intended to make it easy to call attention to perceived wrongdoing (House Impeachment), even if this indictment follows party lines. In contrast, the procedure leading to conviction and removal from office (Senate Trial) was structured to be more difficult, requiring bipartisan support. Thus, one political party, by itself, would not be able to remove a sitting president.

Were that not the case, the impeachment process could be used whenever a majority party lost a presidential election and decided to overturn that election through congressional action.

The Founding Fathers were clear on this point. Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution sets a high bar for conviction (“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”), Unless a sitting president acted in an illegal way, the Founders firmly believed that he ought to be removed by ballot in the next election and not by political maneuvering.

Very clever. These guys (the Founders) knew what they were doing.

Now, with an understanding of procedural intent, revisit the original question. Does the evidence presented in the Articles of Impeachment, as reported by the House of Judiciary Committee on December 18 and approved by the full House the next day, provide sufficient grounds for the Senate to convict and remove Donald Trump from office?

Step one approved the charges. In his 298-page report, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, charged the President with “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress.” The next day, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, agreed. Action by the House was clear. Needing only a simple majority, the charges were approved and sent to the Senate for adjudication.

But what about step two, trial in the Senate? Did the evidence presented by Nadler and approved by Schiff constitute “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?” That was the question put to the Senate.

See “Open-Minded” on page 147 and “DNC Debates” on page 42.

On February 5 the Senate failed to muster the required 67 votes to convict Donald Trump of the charges brought by Nadler and Schiff—abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Needless to say, many of my more liberal friends were incensed. They felt that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had the authority to modify Senate rules, allowing Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to call new witnesses and to present evidence. Even if that did not sway enough Republican support to secure the super majority, the continuing process would be an ongoing reminder to the America public that Donald Trump was not fit for office.

Now, one final question. As you considered the issues surrounding the impeachment of Trump, did you take the time to read the supporting documents, the Articles of Impeachment and Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution?

Did you commit to objectively consider all aspects of the issue before reaching your conclusion?

All too often, the answer comes back, “No, I did not.” Too many of my friends, on both sides of the issue, became so invested in a particular outcome that they were not willing to apply objective analysis in reaching their conclusions.

CELEBRATING THE ACQUITTAL

Donald Trump has been acquitted! Champagne corks are popping! There is dancing in the streets! Democrats are celebrating with joy unbounded!

Huh? The Democrats celebrating? How could this be? Isn’t it true that they hold Trump as enemy #1?

Well, yes, they do. And that is exactly why they are celebrating. Had the Senate trial ended in a conviction, Trump would have been banned from running for federal office ever again. His voice would, over time, become less of a factor in the national discourse. His base would move to support other, less volatile, candidates.

Now that Trump has been “exonerated,” he is free to remain the central spokesperson for the Republican Party. That, in turn, will enhance the odds of election success for Democrats going forward.

More important, all those Trump Haters, those pundits who have elevated political vitriol to an art form, will still be in business. No need to pivot to new villains.

But wait. There is yet another benefit for the Democrats. They now can label those Republican Senators who voted to acquit as spineless political hacks who place their own re-election above the good of the country.

Somewhere along the line, the Democrats have learned to play chess. They have shrewdly sacrificed one small battle (Trump’s impeachment) in order to win the larger war (the 2022 midterms and the 2024 national election). Smart.

Now that, my friend, calls for celebration! Pass the champagne!

Have the Democrats sacrificed one small battle (impeachment) to win a larger war—the midterms and the national election?

TRUMP 2024

There are three compelling reasons why Donald Trump must run for president in 2024.

First, consider those journalists who for years have flourished by bashing Trump. There are more than a few out there. Without Trump they would be forced to actually report the important events and issues of the day. That challenge would severely tax the skills of many of today’s journalists. Many would rise to that challenge; but sadly, many would not. If Trump does not run, those journalists would be unemployed.

Second, what about the politicians who have made it their mission to destroy Donald Trump? Could they pivot and attack another target? Would they shift their attention to, say, Representative Don Young (R-AK)? Probably not enough upside in that. For them, Donald Trump was the gift that kept on giving. Without Trump, they would have to stand by the policies they advocated. Really? Good luck with that.

Finally, and most compelling, is the political gain to be realized by Democrats. If their mission is to relegate the Republican Party to absolute irrelevance, having Donald Trump run in 2024 is a necessity. Trump’s presence would render an already dysfunctional Republican Party to the dust bin of history. Without the “Trump Disruption” factor, the Democrats would struggle.

So, for many on the left, the battle cry is: “Run, Donald, run!”

THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES 2019

There he was, strutting about, wearing nothing but his MAGA cap. Not a pretty sight. At first no one had the courage to tell him, “Hey dude, do you know how ridiculous you look? Time for a wardrobe check!” It was obvious, but no one called him on it.

Then, finally, one person stood up and spoke out. Months went by, then another found the courage to speak, followed by another. Those first few voices were saying what colleagues had known but were too timid to say. They chose to remain silent, fearful of the damage that might befall their future prospects.

That first courageous voice spoke the truth, and the truth could not be denied. Eventually other voices followed, knowing that the truth “shall make you free.”1 What had started as a lone voice grew and grew until it became on overwhelming chorus. It didn’t stop there. Criticism and ridicule morphed into disgust and rejection. Donald Trump became a one-term president.

This is, of course, a modern-day adaptation of Hans Christian Anderson’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” It gives hope to those who yearn for a return to civil discourse in American politics.

This country’s left-wing media has not been shy about calling attention to the President’s shortcomings. From just after midnight, when Hillary Clinton conceded defeat, they jumped on every flaw, real or imagined, to skewer the President. Their outcry has been so incessant and vicious that it has faded to irrelevance. Who listens anymore?

But is it possible that there might be a ground swell of opposition from less radical elements of today’s political elite? Yes, I believe it is possible. I believe that it has begun.

1 person

Finally, someone stood up and spoke out.

Months went by, then another found the courage to speak, followed by another . . . saying what colleagues had known but were too timid to say.

Then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was one of the first. He ridiculed the President’s intellect after a Pentagon briefing in July 2017. The fact that he called the President a “f---ing moron” unquestioningly cost him his job.

Others noted Tillerson’s firing and remained silent. Even the most ill-conceived and outrageous tweets went unchallenged. Fear of retribution. Silence. But not forever.

It took a while, but eventually others followed Tillerson.

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker was one. He criticized the President’s confrontational stand on boarder security which led to the government shut down in late 2018. He called it nothing more than political posturing. Of note is the fact that Corker had announced his retirement from the Senate. He had little to lose.

Mitt Romney was different. As a newly seated Senator, he had to know that any criticism of White House policy would surely spark the wrath of the President. Yet shortly after the Mueller Report’s release, in April 2019, Romney issued a temperate but highly critical statement. He expressed gratitude that the report fell short of criminal charges, thus saving the country the trauma of a potential presidential indictment. However, in the same statement, he pointed directly at the President for his conduct, saying “I am sickened by the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office in the land, including the President.” Harsh words, indeed.

Momentum was building. Other’s followed. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was one. He has had a love-hate relationship with the President. Or, more accurately, a “hate-love-hate” relationship.

You will remember that Cruz was at Trump’s throat during the 2016 nomination process. Then, when he needed the

President’s support to defeat upstart Beto O’Rourke in the 2018 Senatorial race, it was back to buddy-buddy.

And now, perhaps emboldened by Romney’s example, Cruz is back on the attack. In recent Senate hearings, he lashed out at the administration for exploiting a loophole in the Arms Export Control Act in order to expedite $8 billion in arms sales, mostly to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, saying, “The process that the State Department followed for these weapons sales, not to put too fine a point on it, was crap.”

On July 15, shortly after Cruz’s newfound courage, Marco Rubio spoke out against the President’s Twitter attack that targeted four progressive Congresswomen. In a carefully worded statement, Rubio said, “I think identity politics is a poison. It is toxic. I think it is true when members of Congress practice it. But the presidency and the words of a president carry even greater weight in terms of the impact on society. The President shouldn’t have written that (his tweets). I think it damages him, but it damages the country and none of us should be participating in identity politics.”

Could it be that Corker, Romney, Cruz and Rubio are testing the waters to see if a challenge for the Republican Presidential nomination might gain traction? And there are others in the wings.

Larry Hogan has been mentioned as a possible candidate. An outspoken critic of the President, he positioned himself as a centrist and won a convincing re-election as Governor of Maryland in 2018. Maryland is a heavily Democratic state. Interesting.

Former Governor of Ohio, John Kasich, is also frequently mentioned. Like Hogan, he is a well-regarded, moderate

Republican. At a recent appearance at the University of Florida, he was asked if he was considering a run. His answer: “All options are on the table.”

Could be quite a party. Meanwhile, will someone please tell Donald to at least put on a bathrobe?

1 “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” (John VIII-XXXII; also inscribed in the original lobby of CIA headquarters, Langley, VA)

TRUMP’S THIRD TERM

Huh? Say what? You had just managed to convince yourself that Donald Trump would not have a second term, and now you hear the rumor that he will remain in the White House until 2028. How could that happen?

Before reading any further, please understand that this is just a rumor. Let me assure you that there is no truth to this rumor. Absolutely no truth.

It all started when President Trump overheard Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin mutter to financial advisor, Larry Kudlow, that the U.S. economy was no longer growing and had, in fact, begun to contract.

The President went ballistic. Luckily, he managed to resist his first impulse, which would have been to fire both advisors. Instead, he called Steve Bannon for advice. Bannon, loosely quoting Rahm Emanuel, political operative, told the President to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

“But we don’t have a crisis,” cried Trump!

“No problem,” replied Bannon. “We will simply manufacture one.”

And thus, the coronavirus epidemic was born.

How could this happen, you ask? How did a phone call to Steve Bannon lead to this devastating virus? Not a problem. President Trump, falling back on his (supposedly) proven skills as a master negotiator (six bankruptcies between 1991 and 2009), did a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Trump agreed to remove all economic sanctions imposed on China, to allow the Chinese unfettered access to U.S.

intellectual property, to withdraw the U.S. Sixth Fleet from the Western Pacific, to allow the Chinese to annex Taiwan and, finally, to give Xi Jinping preferred tee times at Mar-a-Lago.

In exchange Xi Jinping agreed to release the COVID-19 virus, which his secret bioresearch lab had been developing in Wuhan. The rest was easy.

President Trump had one of his medical advisors state that credible scientific evidence indicated that the COVID-19 epidemic in the U.S. would continue unabated well into 2027.

Immediately following that pronouncement, Trump declared martial law and postponed all national elections until 2028.

He also considered changing his title from “President” to “Supreme Leader,” a move intended to enhance his ability to negotiate with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. He decided against that move because it would have meant that he would no longer be able to claim that he was the longest-serving American president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Remember, there is no truth to this rumor (no matter what Rachel Maddow might say).

TRUMP HATERS’ BEST MOVE

Are you a Trump supporter or a Trump hater? Not surprisingly there are still plenty of both out there.

If you are a Trump hater, what is the worst thing that you could do to truly hurt him? Investigation of his tax filings? His handling of the pandemic? Family connections? Russian collusion (yeah, that was tried but it could always be brought back for another run)? Unending and costly lawsuits?

Not a bad list. But if the goal were to inflict maximum pain, what should a Trump hater do? How about, none of the above? Yes, the most devastating thing you could do would be to ignore him.

Huh? Why should we do that? The answer is simple.

Donald Trump’s history has shown a passion for verbal combat. His persona has been defined by standing up to attacks, both real and imagined. The same could be said of his so-called “base.”

Ignoring Trump would deny him that which he needs most: enemies. What would happen if he no longer had “fake news” to moan about? Would his base have anything to rally against? Probably not.

Ignore Trump? Unfortunately, there are too many Trump haters who could not do that. No matter how important the outcome, their knee-jerk hatred would be so ingrained that they simply could not let go. Conditioned by four plus years of hatred, they are unable to look beyond the moment. They have been blinded to the real opportunity of making him totally irrelevant. Momentary gratification of their hatred leads them to ignore the long-term goal of putting him out of the conversation forever.

If you are one of the many Trump haters, which would you choose? Continue to lash out at every given opportunity, or ignore him?

Ignoring Trump would deny him that which he needs most: enemies. What would happen if he no longer had “fake news” to moan about?

Take away his “enemies” and the battle would be over. He would fade away, just another failed politician. He would become that which he most fears. He would become irrelevant.

What worse punishment could you inflict on him?

TRUMP’S UKRAINE SOLUTION

If Donald Trump had won the 2020 election, there would have been no invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin.

How so? Simple.

Trump would have ceded the Ukraine to Russia in exchange for the hotel and property rights in Kyiv.

Art of the Deal. No war. No problem. Simple.

Dennis Rodman, flamboyant ex-NBA star, gained even more fame for meeting with North Korean ruler Kim Jong Un, then calling the dictator. “a great guy.”

PUTIN’S REMOVAL

Putin’s fate? Rumors abound. The CIA, National Security Council and State Department refuse to comment. All of Washington is trying to keep a lid on it. Despite denials all around, it seems that a resolution is at hand.

The terms and conditions under which Putin will agree to step down are complicated, but it is clear that no deal would have been possible without the mercurial efforts of Dennis Rodman.

It all started just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Rodman had been exploring the possibility of securing a reliable source of grain for his soon-to-be launched breakfast cereal, “Champ’s Morning Chomp.” As Russian troops poured across the border, Rodman sulked but his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, recognized a broader opportunity and pounced.

Putin’s gamble clearly had turned sour. Expecting a weak and ineffectual response from President Biden and anticipating that energy-dependent Europe would look the other way, Russian military planners were simply not prepared to manage a protracted conflict.

The resulting stalemate sparked domestic unrest across Russia. Despite widespread repression and arrests by Russian authorities, the protests seemed to be gaining traction.

To capitalize on the deteriorating situation, Giuliani dispatched Rodman on a whirlwind series of meetings in Moscow, Washington and New York.

The resulting agreement, to be announced tomorrow, is complicated. The United Nations, Putin’s inner circle, President Biden, Gov. DeSantis of Florida and Donald Trump all had to sign off on the final agreement. The key components are as follows:

° Using the 1929 Lateran Treaty that established the Vatican as a sovereign and independent state, the United Nations agrees to grant the same status to Mar-a-Lago. This new entity will be known as “La La Land.”

° DeSantis agrees to immediately allow Mar-a-Lago, and the surrounding 100 acres, to be carved out from Palm Beach County.

° Putin agrees to step down as President of Russia and to take up residence in La La Land.

° Russia’s successor government agrees to immediately end all military operations in Ukraine and to withdraw all troops from Ukrainian territory.

° Trump agrees to cede Mar-a-Lago to the newly formed state for the price of $1. In return, he is to be installed as Supreme Leader of La La Land. (Trump had initially been offered the title of “President,” but he deemed that inadequate and not worth his time.)

Architect of the deal, Rudy Giuliani, and his shuttle diplomat, Dennis Rodman, were well compensated and applauded for their efforts to bring peace to Ukraine.

Giuliani will benefit in other ways as well. La La Land has no extradition treaty with the United States or any other country. Supreme Leader Trump has confirmed that Rudy will be granted immediate asylum, in the event that the January 6 Hearings lead to a Department of Justice indictment.

Knowing that similar offerings await other insurrection co-conspirators has not pleased Chuck Schumer (D-NY), then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and other Never Trumpers. Such is life. Another cruel twist in American politics.

GOT HIM NOW

In the never-ending quest to finally dispose of Donald Trump, a new tactic has recently emerged.

According to a story in the Nov. 30, 2022 New York Times, the city’s mayor, Eric Adams, asserted that he had the authority to involuntarily commit the mentally ill.

The headline said it all: “On City Streets, Fear and Hope as Mayor Pushes to Remove Mentally Ill.” The legions of Never Trumpers were ecstatic: “We got him now!”

Watch out, Donald. Do not set foot in New York City.

FUNERAL PROCESSION

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, passed away peacefully at Balmoral Castle on Sept., 8, 2022.

The ceremonial pageantry that followed was matched only by the national outpouring of love for her and her service to her country.

In the days that followed, Donald Trump was glued to his television, mesmerized by the exhaustive network coverage.

Seeing the massive crowds lining the streets of central London for a glimpse of the Queen’s funeral procession, Trump leapt to his feet, waved at his TV and proclaimed, “Wow, that is terrific. Look at all those people. I bet onlookers at my funeral would easily surpass those!”

Prove it, Donald.

1952–

2022

As Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, Elizabeth II served the longest reign of any British monarch.

OPEN-MINDED

Are you open-minded? Hold on, don’t answer without first pausing. You might think that this is a simple question with a simple answer. It is not.

Sure, we all like to think that we are open-minded; but before you declare that you are, consider the definition found in the Cambridge English Dictionary: “Willing to listen to other people and consider new ideas, suggestions and opinions.” Be honest. Can you sign on to that?

For me, it is a struggle. Every day I question my attitudes and opinions. Regrettably, they might not be as “pure” as I would like. Too often, I find myself dismissing opposing points of view without giving them fair consideration. Admitting this flaw is particularly troubling because in my writings about personal responsibility I have urged others to be open-minded. I fear that I might not be living up to my own standard.

But that is my problem, not yours. I will work on my shortcomings on my own time. Instead, let’s look at the issue of open-mindedness in a broader context.

Are we, as a society, being open-minded? Probably not. If not, we do have a problem. A serious problem.

Today, it is increasingly apparent that knee-jerk rejection, and not objectivity, is the norm, not the exception. Worse, this response frequently entails attacking the messenger, not addressing the issue.

How have we come to this sorry state? How have we turned away from civil discussion and adopted confrontational opposition? How have we become so polarized?

Perhaps the answer lies in how we gather and absorb information. What news resources do we access to learn about

If you say, “I’m not interested in being openminded,” that’s okay. You are being honest. But our conversation stops here.

events unfolding around us? What information guides our understanding of current events?

There are plenty of news sources to choose from: network and cable news, talk radio, social media. The problem is not lack of information. No, the problem is recognizing the difference between factual reporting and agenda-driven opinion. The line between the two is no longer clear. All too often, newscasters will present the news in such a way as to reinforce their own preconceived positions. Their mission is no longer to inform but, rather, to bolster an opinion which supports their agenda.

The challenge of differentiating opinion from straight reporting is made more difficult because, all too often, we only listen to those news sources that reinforce our preferred positions.

The current debate swirling around our national leadership illustrates how vexing this problem has become. Should we support Donald Trump because he is our president? Or should we seek his removal from office because we question his qualifications and the legitimacy of his election? News sources on both sides offer persuasive arguments for either position.

A friend of mine is a rabid, right-wing conservative. He is so invested in a particular outcome that he is totally unable to listen to, let alone consider, any liberal commentary.

Another friend of mine is a radical, left-wing progressive. He is so invested in a particular outcome that he is totally unable to listen to, let alone consider, any conservative commentary.

Take your pick. You get the picture. We have a problem. Is there a practical solution? Yes, I believe there is.

This problem, as daunting as it may seem, can best be addressed if we learn to ask ourselves three very basic questions.

The first question is, “Do we want to be open-minded?”

Asking this question is important. If you say, “No, I am not interested in being open-minded,” that’s okay. You are being honest. Thank you. But, if that is the case, our conversation stops here. You no longer have credibility and your position, whatever it might have been, has little importance in our effort to engage in open-minded discussion. On the other hand, if you say “Yes, being open-minded is important to me,” you are committing to honest debate and civil discussion. Move on to the next two questions.

The second question is, “Are we being influenced by newscasters whose commentary is presenting opinion rather than reporting facts?”

This problem is not easily dealt with. Today’s newscasters are skilled at reporting newsworthy events in such a way as to serve a partisan agenda.

Consider this hypothetical example: A spectacular apartment fire takes the lives of a mother and her four children. The newscaster reports the fire and its tragic consequences but also notes that the incumbent mayor (of whichever political party happens to be in the network’s crosshairs) had blocked funding for union-sponsored emergency responder training. Of course, our hearts go out to the victims. But we also take on a decidedly negative attitude toward the mayor and his political party, exactly the outcome sought by the newscaster.

We need to make a concerted effort to recognize the difference between agenda-driven commentary and straight news reporting. When faced with outcome-driven content, pick up your remote and change the channel. It might drive your spouse crazy but keep hitting the remote until you find objective reporting. You might end up on the Weather Channel

but that is certainly more productive than listening to some pointy-headed pundit pushing his agenda. Don’t accept anything less than intellectually objective content.

The third question is, “Do we have sufficient information to reach a well-informed conclusion?”

It is all too easy to adopt a position without taking time to dig into background and context. Even professional newscasters occasionally stray into areas where they have only superficial knowledge.

This problem becomes intractable if one party to the conversation amps up the volume in an attempt to mask an ill-informed position.

Don’t let that happen. If you do find yourself in a discussion where you are getting into unfamiliar territory, don’t be afraid to step back and say, “I really don’t know much about that. Let me take some time to look into it and we can pick up the conversation later.”

Warning. Warning. There is a potential danger in this approach. What if we do the honest research and discover, horror-ofhorrors, that our cherished position might, in fact, be wrong? We could never let that happen, could we? Yes, if we are truly open-minded, we could.

Given the power of today’s internet, there is little excuse for taking a position without knowing the basic information underlying the issue.

At the end of the day, most of us do want to be open-minded. Just understand that it will not be easy. As much as we aspire to this ideal, it takes more than words.

Yes, it can be done. It can be done if we make a personal commitment to be open-minded, if we are able to recognize opinion disguised as fact, if we go beyond news sources which might support an outcome which we desire, if we make the effort to be well-informed . . . then, yes, we can reverse the trend toward polarized hostility and return to civil discussion of the issues.

I will try. I hope you will, too.

CHALLENGING YOU

We have been told the United States is a nation divided. Divided like never before. Is that true? Do your political convictions put you firmly in one camp to the extent that you vehemently deny the legitimacy of the other side? If so, I have a challenge for you.

Pretend it is two days before the next election. You have been asked to appear before a group of undecided voters. Your task is to present three reasons why they should support your candidate. Your goal is to persuade them to vote for your guy.

Sound easy? Sure, especially if you are personally convinced that the opposing candidate is so inept, so totally corrupt, that no voter with half a brain would vote for anyone so flawed.

But wait. Not so easy. There is one condition that you must adhere to in this hypothetical exercise. As you make your case, you are not allowed any reference to the opposing candidate. Can’t say his name. Can’t mention his political party. You are only allowed to say what your candidate would do and why that would be good for the country.

As an aside, this exercise can have humorous consequences. Seek out a friend who is totally opposed to your political perspective. (And I hope that you do have friends who disagree with your point of view.) Present him, or her, with this challenge. Then, as he reads that final condition, watch him start to twitch, his head spin, his eyes roll back in his head as he froths at the mouth. Can’t even say the name of the moron running against his guy. Ha!

Amusing? Yes, but at the same time, sad. We have, indeed, become a nation divided. We have been taught to vilify those whose opinions differ from our own. Debate actual policy positions? No, that would be too much work. You would have to actually research the issues. It is much easier to adopt

the one-liners being promoted by your favorite cable news channel. Simply attack and walk away. Sad.

Unfortunately, that shortcoming is all too common and is not limited to one side or the other. It is an affliction troubling both the left and the right.

How did we get to this place? Intellectual laziness? Maybe. Passionate conviction? That is possible. Doesn’t matter. Regardless of the cause, it is something that must be resisted.

Okay, enough preaching. Let’s make this exercise really interesting.

Fasten your seat belt and flip the switch. You are now facing the same audience as above. But instead of presenting the case for your favored candidate, you must now present three compelling reasons why the audience must vote for the candidate you oppose. Good luck.

Why not just change the channel? Doing so ignores the underlying fact that we have become a society where thoughtful discussion is no longer valued. For more, visit shoutlistendiscuss.com

CIVIL DISCOURSE

Have you noticed? There is an emerging trend in television newscasting.

It started six or eight years ago. The program host would ask a question. The guest would start to answer. Abruptly, with less than half the answer out, the host would jump In, interrupting with a follow-on question or comment. It is as if he were saying, “Your answer is too stupid. It just doesn’t go where I want to go. If you had half a brain, you would follow my lead and say . . . yadda . . . yadda.”

Oh, and by the way, this is not a left-wing or a right-wing phenomenon. Both sides do it. Chris Matthews pioneered the practice on MSNBC’s Hardball. Fox’s Neil Cavuto constantly emulates Matthews by stepping all over his guests when their response doesn’t serve his agenda.

Unfortunately for today’s viewers, this trend has evolved into an even more disconcerting practice. You need only look at CNBC’s Fast Money. It is no longer a lone commentator acting offensively. Now, we see a panel of “experts” acting like illdisciplined children. It goes like this. A simple question is posed by one member of the panel. Immediately all the others start jabbering away, talking over their colleagues. No one can be understood. Meaningful content has given way to circus. Waste of time.

Okay, you might ask so what? Why not just change the channel? True, that would solve the immediate problem. But doing so ignores the underlying fact that we have become a society where thoughtful discussion is no longer valued. Civil discourse, objective consideration of all sides, have become a thing of the past. When facing opinions that differ from our own, we shout down the opposition and bully our way to “victory.”

Can we do something to reverse this trend? Can we get back to a world where contentious issues can be discussed calmly and respectfully? Yes, I believe we can.

It starts with you. Next time you encounter an aggressive conversational bully, wait until he pauses for breath, then smile and say, “That is interesting, but may I ask you a question?” Huh? He was expecting some sort of in-kind blast or accusation of his stupidity. Confused, he will nod his head. You then say, “Do you really believe what you have just said?” Of course he does. He nods again. You say, “If you really do, you will have the courage to listen to other points of view. So, will you please let me speak without interruption?”

If enough people take this approach (smile, be calm and ask a question), we can gradually nudge our way back to a world of civility and polite discourse.

Can we improve the character of broadcast journalism (and I use that word lightly)? Probably not. But we can always change the channel.

OBJECTIVITY

Do you have a friend who is totally committed to supporting extreme right-wing causes? I hope so. It is important that we have friends committed to both left and right narratives.

Great. You now have an opportunity to gently challenge that person to examine how he might be forming his opinions. This is an important challenge for all of us. How do we sift through the plethora of news sources to form our opinions?

Can your friend put aside his desired outcome and give objective consideration to what a more left-leaning news source might be airing? The likelihood of that happening might seem limited but go ahead, give it a try.

Select an issue that is particularly contentious today. This topic should be the focus of current left-leaning news outlets. Either CNN or MSNBC would do.

Now gently challenge your friend to give favorable comment to how that left-wing news source has treated this story. This might be very difficult for your friend to do. For that reason, It is incumbent upon you to be calm and civil as you pose this request. Fail to do that and you will lose the chance to continue with this exercise. Not easy.

Okay, say that you have been successful in phrasing your approach. If your friend is able to put his preconceived agenda aside and articulate a reasonable commentary. Good. You have succeeded in your quest to encourage objective and civil discourse.

If, however, your friend fails to shed his agenda, if he spits in your face with some inane accusation of your character, you know that you have a problem.

Sadly, your friend has not been able to suspend the spin of Fox News and other right-wing outlets. This has increasingly become a problem of national significance. Too many of us cling to the news sources that parrot outcomes that what we passionately want.

We all need to commit to objectivity. Not easy but we must try.

The next time you find yourself moaning about how divided the country has become, look in the mirror.

PPPSD

The Doctor is in the house. The diagnosis is clear. You are suffering from acute “PPPSD.” That would be Presumptive Partisan Politics Syndrome Disorder.

The New England Journal of Quackery defines PPPSD as “the propensity to automatically assign partisan malfeasance to any position taken by the other party. This condition makes any rational or objective analysis totally impossible, thus rendering compromise for the greater good an unattainable outcome.”

This disorder first emerged shortly after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Many on the left were outraged that Trump had the gall to deny Hillary her rightful place as America’s first female president.

Within hours of this stunning upset, newscasters and political pundits scrambled to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s victory. No transgression, misstep or tweet was ignored. The reaction to anything “Trump” was to automatically highlight it as proof that he was not fit for office. This automatic, knee-jerk reaction became known as PPPSD.

But wait, Democrats are not the only ones susceptible to this disorder. Republicans are equally at risk and have demonstrated that they, too, have been afflicted with PPPSD.

Within hours of President Biden’s inaugural address, it became clear that PPPSD was running rampant on the right. Consider the words of one prominent Republican. When asked what he thought of Biden’s promise to reach across the aisle for the sake of compromise and national unity, the Republican sneered and said, “Sure, he will reach across the aisle. He’ll reach across and slap me upside the head.” A clear example of Presumptive Partisan Politics Syndrome Disorder. He presumed the worst. PPPSD.

According to many Republicans, anything that President Biden says or proposes automatically confirms the allegation that

his diminished mental capacity makes him unfit for office. No objective analysis of the facts needed, just PPPSD.

With both parties so afflicted, the situation is not good. It is difficult to maintain any hope for the future of this nation with PPPSD so pervasive.

Really? If we really are concerned for America’s future, is there anything we can do to reverse this disturbing trend?

Being the eternal optimist, I believe that there is something we can do. Not easy but something we must force ourselves to do.

Look to the origin of the disease. It did not just spring up and infect the political establishment. No, it started with us. At some point we allowed ourselves to believe that the opposition was so irredeemably evil that their every step deserved nothing but utter condemnation.

But if it did start with our own blind cynicism, we also have the power to reverse that trend. When faced with a proposition or proposal from the other side, we can resist our ingrained PPPSD. We can pause, reflect on the facts at hand, and then comment. The bias on both sides of today’s news media will make this task extremely difficult, but it can be done. PPPSD started with us and it can end with us.

Doing this would end the unproductive invective that dominates today’s national discourse. Politicians, regardless of party, would realize that they could no longer retain the support of the people by fanning the flames of tribal hatred. Instead, they would have to create policies beneficial to the whole country. That, in turn, might require discussion and compromise. What a novel idea!

So, the next time you find yourself moaning about how divided the country has become, look in the mirror. Could it be that the problem starts here? Is it possible that you are suffering from PPPSD? Take heart. You have the power to change that.

GUN VIOLENCE

Oppose or propose? Which do you choose? The two words sound alike but could not be more different.

Finding solutions to complex problems is not easy. Which path is more likely to be productive? Would it be to “oppose” individuals and organizations associated with the problem, or would it be to “propose” specific measures to minimize the problem?

Recent rallies protesting gun violence have provided an opportunity to examine this question.

Make no mistake about it, reducing gun violence should be a national priority. In response to mass shootings, a number of “March For Our Lives” demonstrations sprang up around the country. It was clear that the public outrage would not go away. Seeing so many people marching to call attention to the problem was, without question, encouraging. People need to be engaged.

At the Tucson march, there were some voices proposing positive steps to address the problem. Some marchers, for example, held signs urging more stringent background checks.

Far more visible, however, was the outrage directed towards certain individuals and organizations. Those targets included Donald Trump (of course), Marco Rubio, Republicans in general and the National Rifle Association.

To “oppose” or to “propose,” which would be more likely to address the problem and reduce gun violence? The answer is “both.”

The passionate voices of opposition will certainly gain the attention of elected officials. Those politicians have one,

and only one, priority. That is to win their next election. Given the public outcry, they might finally listen and enact constructive measures instead of kicking the can down the road, as they had done after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.

Will they act this time? I have my doubts.

My skepticism is fueled by remarks such as those of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2018. He said, “Today is the day we unite to say that the NRA is not going to win. The people of the United States are going to win the day and common sense is going to win the day.”

Unfortunately, it will take more than slogans to reduce gun violence. (And, of course, my apologies to Governor Cuomo if he has undertaken specific measures. Citing his statement illustrates how politicians tend to fall back on easy slogans. It is not a definitive account of the Governor’s record on the matter.)

Bottom line? We need voices to both “oppose” and “propose.” We need the passion and the energy of the protesters, but we need to direct that energy toward practical and specific measures designed to address all aspects of this complex problem. Combine the two and we might succeed in reducing gun violence.

Also, it is important to note that we cannot rely on politicians to do this work for us. Sure, calling on our elected officials would make us feel good that we have “done something.” But, without further engagement, would that be enough? I don’t think so.

We need to follow the example of Mark Barden. He lost his son in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. Despite that unspeakable

For more, see the essay “Florida Mass Shooting” at shoutlistendiscuss.com .

tragedy, he was able to overcome his grief and launch Sandy Hook Promise. Take a look at www.sandyhookpromise.org That initiative mobilizes communities to take responsibility for their own safety and does not rely on Washington. We need more of that.

Back to Saturday’s Tucson march There was one protest that was clearly focused on a single, central, objective. It was led by three heavily partied-out individuals sitting on the curb halfway down the march route. Their chant left no doubt as to what they sought. It went like this, “What do we want? Beer! When do we want it? Now!” Unfortunately, the three sponsors of this heartfelt chant were too wasted to stand, let alone march. At least they knew what they wanted.

DEFUND THE POLICE

Defund the police? That makes sense. No police. No police brutality. Problem solved.

But wait. We are not done. While we are at it, let’s also solve “income inequality.” How, you might ask? Consider the following.

Tucson’s annual budget for police services is $165 million (the largest single item in the city’s general fund). Take that money and give it to the poor. Not only would you end “income inequality,” but at the same time you would eliminate the need for those folks to go out shooting and robbing. After all, it is not their fault that they have had to resort to crime to put food on the table. “Income inequality” made them do it.

Defund the police. No more police brutality. Give the unspent dollars to those who were committing crimes, ending crime and “income inequality” at the same time. Problem solved X 2.

One flaw, though. All those former police officers would have to go out and shooting and robbing to put food on the table.

Some days you just can’t catch a break.

Offered for amusement purposes only. The problems contained herein are real. They require real solutions. Not protest banners and bumper stickers.

IMMIGRATION CRISIS

Laws? Obey the ones you like. Ignore those that make you feel bad. Would there be consequences if everyone chose to do that?

Today’s heated battle over immigration places this conundrum center stage. It begs two questions that are polarizing us as never before. Are we a nation of compassionate people, insisting that children should not be forcefully separated from their parents? Or are we a sovereign nation, with secure borders, governed by the rule of law? Proponents of both points of view offer compelling arguments.

Those calling for non-enforcement of existing immigration law have optics and emotion working for them. Okay, some images have misrepresented reality and some of the rhetoric has verged on the hysterical. But no one can deny the human tragedy of parent-child separation.

Beyond emotion, there exists strong historical precedent for civil disobedience. After all, our nation was founded by citizens rejecting unjust laws dictated by a distant monarch.

Seven decades after our revolution, Henry David Thoreau penned his famous essay "Civil Disobedience." In it he questioned how an individual must act in the face of unjust laws: “Unjust laws exist: Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” His stated position left no doubt. “If it (an unjust law) is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.”

This country’s modern civil rights movement relied on civil disobedience. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King wrote, “There are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

More recently we have seen additional acts of civil disobedience, such as Occupy Wall Street and the NFL National Anthem protests. While noteworthy, these nascent movements could use a more focused clarity of purpose.

The argument for defending the rule of law is also compelling. Duhaime’s Law Dictionary defines the rule of law this way: “That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals.”

Our founding fathers clearly understood that there would be a natural friction between civil disobedience and the rule of law. James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the greatest difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself”

(Federalist Paper No. 51. 1788)

Articles I, II and III of the Constitution addressed this challenge by establishing three separate branches of government, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Each branch exists as a check against the undue concentration of power by the others.

Supreme Court Justices have spoken out on the question. Felix Frankfurter argued that “There can be no free society without law administered through an independent judiciary. If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny” (United States v. United Mine Workers, 1947). And Sandra Day O’Connor said, “Commitment to the rule of law provides a basic assurance that people can know what to expect whether what they do is popular or unpopular at the time.”

Salman Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses, bluntly stated, “Two things form the bedrock of any open society—freedom of expression and the rule of law. If you don’t have those things, you don’t have a country.”

Civil disobedience or rule of law. Which do you choose? But wait. Is it not possible to balance these two seemingly opposing points of view? Clearly, our Founding Fathers anticipated this dilemma when they created the three counterbalancing, branches of government noted above.

Regrettably, some of you will find it impossible to move away from your passionately held positions. Rather than give objective consideration to an opposing point of view, you attack and denigrate those who disagree with you. To seek dialog might give aid to a hated enemy.

Even worse, there are many who don’t even bother to consider the matter on merit. Instead, they use the tragedy of the moment to further their broader agenda. Rahm Emanuel said it best: “You never want a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Take note: I have the highest regard for Rahm Emanuel. Citing him is not to personally criticize but merely to point out a modus operandi prevalent in today’s political arena. Unfortunately, both sides do it.

How you deal with this situation is important. Taking an intractable stance on either side might give you comfort. You might feel good that you hold uncompromisingly to your beliefs. But, what have you achieved? Have you amped the volume of bitter antagonism or nudged us toward a viable solution?

Rule of law? Your choice. Choose wisely.

INTEREST RATES 2023

Will the Federal Reserve continue to battle virulent inflation by aggressively raising interest rates in September? Markets around the world scrutinized Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome H. Powell’s recent remarks to shed light on that critical question.

To gain more conclusive insight, consider the following quotes taken directly from his speech:

“Yes, yes, yes.”

“No, no, no.”

“Yes, yes.”

“No, no.”

“Maybe, maybe not.”

Careful analysis of these remarks yields one inescapable conclusion: Powell does not know.

march

2020

With COVID-19 out of control, HHS decided to enact and enforce Title 42. Now border agents could turn back immigrants.

TITLE 42

Ask someone whether or not Title 42 should be repealed, and you will get one of two answers. Both flawed. One would be: “Hell, yes. It is a stupid Trump law designed to deny immigrants entry into the United States. It only bolsters his White Supremacist constituency. Repeal it.”

The other answer would be: “Hell, no. Biden wants to repeal it so he can flood the country with illegal aliens, increase dependency on government handouts and enroll more Democrat voters. Do not repeal it.”

Both answers miss the point entirely. Take a deep breath and look at the facts. The law, established in 1944, gave the U.S. Surgeon General authority to deny non-citizens entry into the United States. The law was intended to prevent the spread of infectious disease.

In March of 2020, with COVID-19 out of control, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to implement and enforce Title 42, thus giving Customs and Boarder Protection agents authority to turn back immigrants seeking asylum.

Today the pandemic is less of a national emergency. Though not completely under control, it is clearly less threatening. Restrictions have begun to be relaxed. President Biden has indicated it would now be appropriate to repeal Title 42.

Repeal it or keep it? Is it possible that these divergent points of view have both been tainted by politically motivated exploitation? Of course it is. Not just possible but likely.

True, but we need to do better. If our comments and observations are to be meaningful, we must push aside the

tendency to seek political advantage at every turn. Consider the following two alternative answers to those cited above.

“Hell no. The pandemic might be less of a national threat than a year ago, but other countries have not been as effective in managing the crisis. We need to be vigilant when letting other people enter the United States. Do not repeal it.”

Or, “Hell yes. Customs and Border Protection lacks the staff and equipment to effectively manage enforcement. Even if the necessary resources were available, the law could not be administered in an even-handed manner. Repeal it.”

Either answer could be deemed correct. Both have merit. More to the point, neither answer uses the words, “Trump” or “Biden.”

Are you able to objectively consider verifiable facts and resist the temptation to fall back on simple name calling? Not easy in today’s world but worth a try. Whatever the issue, your credibility will be magnified if you are able to resist the tendency to politicize every discussion.

Now that would be refreshing.

STOP HATE

Did you watch Saturday’s (15-Jan-22) NFL playoff game between the Buffalo Bills and the New England Patriots? The Bills trounced New England, 47-17. Never close.

You probably noticed that the Buffalo players had a tag line on the back of their helmets. It read, “Stop Hate.”

A friend of mine is an avid New England fan. When asked what he thought of the game, he said, “I hate Buffalo.”

Oh well, nice try.

WORDS MATTER

My morning routine is simple. I set my alarm for 0600, go to the kitchen and begin getting breakfast ready. Most mornings I will turn the TV on but keep the sound muted so as to not disturb those still asleep.

This morning when I powered up, the TV was tuned to CNN. The announcer was intently engaged in reporting something that must have happened overnight. Then, with the sound still muted, I noticed the following banner headline at the bottom of the screen:

“Ex-cop accused of killing mom, grandparents of teen he met online.”

Okay, maybe that was a significant story, but let’s take a closer look. Let’s break down each component of the headline. It is composed of three elements.

First, two grandparents and a mother were killed. Second, the alleged perpetrator had met the daughter/granddaughter online.

Okay, so far so good. But the third element of the headline was troubling. The alleged perpetrator was an “ex-cop.” No doubt that had to have been factual. CNN would not fabricate such a statement. But why put that phrase in the headline?

The producers, or whoever decides what headline to apply to a given news story, made a choice. They chose to highlight the fact that the alleged perpetrator was a former police officer. Not a serving police officer but a former police officer. An “ex-cop.”

To be fair, with the TV muted, I did not hear the newscaster’s commentary. It is possible that the former police officer had undergone training as a recruit that had taught him how to kill moms and grandparents of a teen that he had met online. Maybe not.

If not, why did CNN choose to construct such a clearly inflammatory headline? Did they choose to put sensationalism ahead of objective reporting. Maybe.

CNN has often heralded the notion that America is a nation divided. Does CNN’s management not understand that the words they choose when presenting the news might contribute to the pulse of the country?

Words matter. Choose wisely. Choices have consequences. For another point-of-view, see “Immigration Crisis” on page 164.

SUPREME COURT LEAK 2022

It is the hot news story of the day. Questions abound. Someone in the Supreme Court leaked information indicating that Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision affirming a women’s right to choose to have an abortion, might be overturned. Who leaked this information?

(As an aside, my doctor noted that at my age, 78, I should expect to start leaking. But I am not on the Supreme Court. Getting old sucks. Just remember, if you could not laugh, you would cry.)

Who leaked? Chief Justice Roberts has instructed the court’s marshal to investigate but finding an answer to that question will take some time.

The issue of abortion rights has simmered just below the surface for decades. Positions, both pro-life and pro-choice, are passionately held. Of the two camps, which would be more likely to benefit by leaking the draft opinion? An interesting question and one worthy of discussion, for sure.

More troubling, however, is the significance of the leak itself. What does it say about our regard for the rule of law? About news outlets whose agendas are advanced by leaks? More and more often today, people are ignoring laws if those laws do not support their preferred positions.

Rule of law? Sure, everyone supports the rule of law. Really? Well, maybe not. See my thoughts on our immigration crisis. What do you think?

Want to explore more?

See “Fear, Anxiety & Blame” on page 180.

MEDIA FEARMONGERING

Prepare for it. The coordinated assault has begun. They have selected their target and have marshalled the troops.

“They” are the anti-Trump media (aka, #theresistance). Their mission, as it has been since the 2016 election, is to deny Donald Trump a second term. (To be precise, thwarting his reelection is a fallback objective. The primary mission had been to remove him from office. They tried but were not successful.)

Their method had been to roll out a never-ending series of Trump transgressions. But what if the topic du jour fails to move the needle? No problem. Pivot to the next and the next and the next.

So, what is next? Terry Gross, host of PBS’s Fresh Air, gave us a hint. On Tuesday (Oct. 27, 2020) her show featured Evan Osnos, a staff writer for the New Yorker magazine. They covered a wide range of election-related questions. Forty-one minutes into the show, Terry Gross steered the conversation to the topic of violent extremism in American politics.

Noting that political extremism was increasing, her guest asserted that “the overwhelming majority of acts of political violence in this country have come from right wing or far right actors.” He went on to speculate that “if Trump loses, he will become a rallying cry to groups who will say that Trump’s loss is invalid and they feel an almost apocalyptic need to take up arms and defend themselves.” Scary stuff.

The show ended with a somber Terry Gross saying, “Tomorrow we will talk about a pro-Trump militia group that’s recruited thousands of police, soldiers and veterans and what they might do on election day.” Even scarier.

And, lo and behold, others picked up the banner. The very next morning, Stephanie Ruhle’s segment on MSNBC Live opened

with the banner headline, “Armed ‘Militia’ Groups Rising Across the U.S. This Year.” The message was clear. Be afraid if Trump loses. His supporters are predisposed to violent political action.

And so, the coordinated media assault has been launched. Fasten your seat belts, more to follow.

Don’t be surprised if CNN jumps on board. And, of course, Sunday’s New York Times will likely push the same narrative. All designed to strike fear in the minds of sensible American voters and get them to the polls to deny President Trump a second term.

Your task: Craft a media strategy to stimulate opposition to Trump . . . How would you approach that challenge?

FEAR, ANXIETY & BLAME 2020

Would it be fair to say that some members of the media might doubt President Trump’s understanding of today’s issues? Is it possible that their skepticism might have pushed them into the camp of the so-called “Never Trumpers?” Might they be dedicated to preventing Donald Trump from winning another four-year term?

It would seem so. If you fell into that camp, what would you do to achieve that outcome?

Pretend for a moment that you are one of those Never-Trump journalists. Your task is to craft a media strategy to stimulate opposition to Donald Trump and to prevent his second term. If you were a journalist, how would you approach that challenge?

Not an easy assignment. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the President had enjoyed a series of notable successes. Yes, it would be more accurate to say “the Trump Administration” and not “the President.” Nevertheless, the successes are there and must be acknowledged.

On the heels of tax cuts and a roll back of burdensome regulations, companies began expanding and hiring new workers. The economy picked up and we saw record low unemployment. Inflation remained in check and Americans generally felt good about their prospects.

To be sure, President Trump often stumbled and did not seem “presidential.” But those flaws might just have stimulated more support for him. He certainly was not your typical politician. No, not even close. He came to Washington and kicked over the table. It was no longer “business as usual.” Many Americans applauded because they were fed up with the Washington establishment. The relentless pursuit of party politics at the

expense of national interests had turned off many voters. Many shouted, “Trump to the rescue!”

Back to my question. Given Trump’s successes (whether deserved or not), what would you do to deny him a second term? Fear might be your best weapon and the COVID-19 pandemic might just have given you a golden opportunity to use that weapon. Mix in a healthy (pun intended) dose of Anxiety & Blame, and you might just turn the tide.

It goes like this: Fear (everybody is going to get infected and die), Anxiety (there is no way to avoid the virus) and Blame (Trump mismanaged the crisis).

Lo and behold! That is exactly the narrative that has been adopted.

Fear #1: Early coronavirus projections were devastating. On March 16, the Imperial College in London predicted that 81% of Americans would become infected and as many as 2.2 million would die. CNN, MSNBC and PBS all ran with it.

Fear #2: Nancy Pelosi was more direct. During CNN’s Sunday talk show, State of the Union (March 29), she asserted that Donald Trump’s mismanagement had cost American lives. “The President’s denial at the beginning was deadly. His delay in getting equipment to where it’s needed is deadly . . . As the President fiddles, people are dying.”

Anxiety: In the month of May, national anxiety became the dominant focus. CNN ran nine separate segments highlighting how “anxiety” was gripping the country. Repeat the narrative often enough and even normal citizens would begin to feel that they ought to be anxious.

To read another perspective, see “Trump’s Third Term” on page 135.

And then there was the Blame. On March 7, Politico ran a piece under the banner, “Trump’s Mismanagement Helped Fuel Coronavirus Crisis.” Not to be outdone, The New York Times (April 11) headlined, “He Could Have Seen What Was Coming: Behind Trump’s Failure on the Virus.” And, of course, the other news outlets dutifully repeated that storyline. The echo chamber at its finest.

Mission accomplished. You, as the quintessential Never Trump Journalist, are to be congratulated. Your strategy of Fear, Anxiety & Blame has worked to perfection. Joe Biden becomes the 46th president of the United States. Donald Trump is denied his cherished second term.

MENTAL HEALTH: CRISIS 2022

News Flash!

News Flash!

You heard it here first.

A looming national health crisis has pushed the United States into an irreversible downward decline. The facts speak for themselves.

A national health survey, conducted Monday morning, confirmed that reported cases of anxiety and depression among elite, college educated liberals tripled from Friday to Monday.

How could this have happened? Simple. Those surveyed were all subscribers to The New York Times

On October 16, the Sunday edition went beyond the usual focus on income inequality and social injustice. Instead, The Times posited the theory that all citizens of the United States were struggling with mental health issues to an extent not seen at any time in our nation’s flawed history.

Their Opinion section ran under the headline, “It’s Not Just You. America’s mental health crisis isn’t just about feelings. It’s about money, power and politics, too.” That section, all 18 pages, was devoted to only one topic: the nation’s mental health crisis.

To be sure, some of those surveyed on Monday morning were struggling with genuine mental health issues. The vast majority were not. If that is the case, how could you explain the survey results tripling the number of mentally troubled Times readers?

Those subscribers who responded to the survey admitting symptoms of depression and anxiety were, by and large, fairly

happy individuals . . . successful professionals, living in upscale neighborhoods, untroubled by crime and poverty. Typical NYT readers.

And therein lies the problem. Those responding to the survey could not allow themselves to be seen as being “happy.” Being happy, in what The New York Times repeatedly describes as a nation of total disfunction, would invite condemnation for being insensitive and callous to the dire condition of others. Whoa. Unforgivable sin.

Keep in mind, the overriding mission of The New York Times is to engineer social change by emphasizing the negative aspects of society. To be “happy” would be a betrayal of that mission. Makes me feel kind of depressed and anxious.

NYT SPORTS, A-CHANGIN’

The Times, they are a-changin’.

In years gone by, the Sunday edition of The New York Times was the standard bearer for excellence in journalism. It was what the others aspired to be. The sports section was particularly compelling. It was an eagerly anticipated part of every Sunday’s morning ritual.

There would be in-depth stories of team rivalries. Which team was in decline and which one might benefit in the next contest? Which player had elevated his craft to rise above others and lead his team to unexpected success?

All major sporting events were covered. Readers were given insight into the subtleties that ultimately determined outcomes of events not only in the United States, but from around the world. More important, the reporting was being done by writers who actually attended the events, not by staffers reading off a newswire.

That was then. This is now. Be it by budget cuts or changing priorities, that excellence is a thing of the past.

Look at today’s Sunday Times. The sports section has been relegated to three obscure pages, tucked behind the paper’s obituary section. The entire first page features a story on competitive fishing. Fishing? Really?

How could that be? Oh, okay. The story featured the Ebony Anglers, a team made up entirely of women of color, fishing in waters previously the domain of white male fishermen. A worthy topic, for sure. But in the sports section?

The Times, they are a-changin’. For the worse. Sad but true.

CRISIS MANAGEMENT 2020

Should Donald Trump be criticized for insisting that he does, indeed, have the authority to tell state governors to open their economies, or should he be criticized for deferring that decision to those same governors?

Turns out the answer is, “Yes, to both.”

In response to a reporter’s question during the April 13 coronavirus briefing. President Trump asserted that his authority to reopen the economy was “absolute.”

The press took exception to that remark. One solemn reporter gravely intoned that this was ”the biggest meltdown I have ever seen.” Another said that the President was “triggering a constitutional crisis.” One even grimly asserted that Trump was grasping for “the dictatorial powers that he always wanted.”

Twenty-four hours later, all that was forgotten. In announcing his recommended guidelines for reopening the economy, President Trump noted that the coronavirus impact varied widely from state to state and that local governors and officials were best positioned to make decisions.

Certain members of the press went ballistic. “Dereliction of duty,” some cried. “A woeful absence of leadership,” others moaned, asserting that the lack of a clear national policy to marshal resources and coordinate initiatives would cost American lives. Still others accused the President of taking the political “safe route” and passing the buck to the state governors.

All of which begs the question: if neither course of action is acceptable, what should President Trump do? Is there anything he could do that would be viewed favorably?

A liberal friend of mine gave a succinct, one-word answer. She smiled and said, “Resign.”

JANUARY

6 TH HEARINGS

The Senate Select Committee’s hearings into the January 6th attack on our nation’s Capitol have certainly provided dramatic theater for national newscasters. Carefully choreographed and artfully presented, the live coverage has shown the chaos and terror that exploded on that fateful day.

Much drama, for sure. But have you taken the time to ask yourself what had been the purpose of those hearings?

More to the point, what did the leadership of the Democratic Party hope to achieve by holding the hearings? Their wish list would resemble the following:

° Indict, convict and imprison Donald Trump for having engaged in insurrection.

° In the absence of imprisonment, prevent Trump from holding the office of president in the future (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 3).

° If Trump cannot be legally disqualified, demonstrate that his indiscretions confirm he is not fit to hold office.

° Bankrupt Trump via unending legal action (Whoops, replace “bankrupt” with “damage.” Bankruptcy has not affected him in the past.)

° Damage the Republican Party by association with the attack on the Capitol.

° Examine security failures up to and during attack.

° Propose procedural steps that would forestall or deal with similar events in future.

These DNC objectives are presented in order of preference, most to least important. No surprises here. Again, we cite Rahm Emanuel, one of the shrewdest political operatives ever

6.9.

22

What did the Democratic Party leadership hope to achieve by holding the Jan. 6th hearings?

to walk the halls of Congress: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Now, take off your partisan hat and list those outcomes from most likely to happen to least likely. Ignore, if you can, what outcome you would prefer. Your list might look like this:

° Examine security failures up to and during attack.

° Propose procedural steps to deal with similar attacks in the future.

° Bankrupt Trump via unending legal action (even though bankruptcy has not affected him in the past).

° If Trump cannot be legally disqualified, demonstrate that his indiscretions confirm he is not fit to hold office.

° In the absence of imprisonment, prevent Trump from holding the office of president in the future (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 3).

° Indictment, conviction, and imprisonment of Donald Trump for having engaged in insurrection.

Remember, the outcomes listed are in order of likelihood, most to least. What you might prefer is not to be considered.

If you are able to objectively assess the potential outcomes, your list would resemble the second one.

If, however, you are an inveterate Never Trumper, if you are not able to shed your pathological hatred for the man, your list would be very much like the first one.

Objective reasoning or reaction blinded by hate. Which would you choose?

JANUARY 6 TH HEARINGS (again)

Riveting!

Pulse-pounding drama!

Must-see TV!

Will one man succeed in thwarting the will of the American People? Or will the Courageous Committee Chairman, with his band of Passionate Patriots, block his evil machinations?

Watch as this drama unfolds. Hold your breath as each malevolent move is revealed. Will Democracy survive or will we sink into autocratic rule? The future of the United States of America is at stake!

Buy the DVD now and show it to your children. Take it to your local School Board and demand that all 1st and 2nd graders view it in lockstep with their Critical Race Theory and Social Justice classes.

Buy it now and enjoy our Founders Discount. But wait. Call within the next 10 minutes and we will double your order. Just pay separate shipping and handling.

Watch Sen. Hawley’s dash from the Capitol Building.

HAWLEY’S FUNDRAISER

Elections are expensive. Politicians are forever challenged to come up with new ways to raise money.

The latest fundraiser for Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) will be a 10K race called the “Josh Hawley Run From The Insurrectionists Race.”

Run, Josh, run.

YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE

What is your worst nightmare? Donald Trump running for president again in 2024? That’s your worst nightmare? Close, but not quite.

Try this scenario. How would you feel if Donald Trump ran as a Democrat and won that party’s nomination in 2024? Aaaagh! That would be your worst nightmare.

Okay, if you have stopped foaming at the mouth, if your pulse has settled back to near normal, read on. Two questions need to be considered.

First, would Donald Trump decide to run as a Democrat?

Of course he would. He was a Democrat long before he was a Republican. Furthermore, Trump still holds a grudge against those Republicans who chose not to support him as the primaries ran their course (20%, according to some statistics). And woe unto those who did not buy into his “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was fraudulent. Running as a Democrat would be sweet revenge. As we used to say in the Marine Corps, “Payback is a motherfucker!”

Second, could he actually win the nomination and run for president as a Democrat?

Before you assert that such a thing could never happen, stop and think back to June of 2015. It was then that Donald Trump announced he would seek the Republican nomination in 2016.

Hearing the news, many scoffed at the idea, giving him little chance. He was viewed as an inarticulate buffoon, an amusing distraction, at best. As the nomination process got under way, Senator Marco Rubio, or Governors Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, were touted as front runners. Surely common sense would prevail. Wouldn’t it?

Trump announced he would seek the Republican nomination.

Many scoffed at the idea, giving him little chance.

We now know that common sense took a holiday in 2016. Donald Trump’s unconventional antics caught the Republican establishment totally off guard.

So, to you who say, “No way,” I say, “Be careful, be very careful.”

All of this leads to one other question. How would the leftleaning media deal with Trump running as a Democrat? That would be entertaining, to say the least.

09 life lessons

BIRTHDAYS

When we are teenagers, we eagerly anticipate birthdays. They are rites of passage: a driver’s license to gain new freedom, permission to buy booze legally, the right to vote. Birthdays are good.

In our 20s and 30s, birthdays come and go, sometimes an excuse for a party but often not of any significance. They just happen.

With the passage of time, birthdays begin to gradually introduce a new concept: old age. Never our own, of course. In our 40s and 50s, birthdays are treated with ridicule or denial. Yet, behind the rude birthday cards, there is the faint whisper that old age will bring diminished function and capacity. But not for us, not now. Maybe eventually, but not now.

As we continue to age, physical challenges become hard to deny. Old age is less of a vague concept and more of a persistent reality. Our 60s bring caution when playing sports. We learn to understand what we can do and what we cannot do. Also, doctor visits are more frequent and more focused. Birthdays are no longer as celebrated.

But then in our 70s, we flip the switch. Birthdays are once again joyous occasions. No longer denied, no longer dreaded. They are marked as true achievements. Aha! We managed to eke out one more.

So, when you wish me a Happy Birthday each November, know that I will be celebrating with a smile on my face. And, with heartfelt gusto, I will raise my middle finger to salute Father Time! Our bring caution . . . We learn what we can do and what we cannot . . . then in our 70s, we flip the switch.

Your training will not make the hill less steep . . . or shorter. The edge you gain will live not only in your mind, but in the minds of those around you.

DEFINITION OF HILL TRAINING

Hill training? What is that? If you thought that it meant obedience training for your hills, you would be wrong. Hills cannot be trained to sit, to woof or to roll over. If you thought so, please skip this and go to another essay.

Hill training is a training regimen that uses an uphill grade to achieve a targeted training objective. It is a vital component of any decent training program. It is a tremendous strength builder and it works for cyclists as well as for runners.

As with anything, it is important to understand your objective before beginning. For both runners and cyclists, it is pretty simple. Your objective is to gain strength and confidence.

Don’t skip over that “confidence” thing. It can make the difference between 1st and 2nd place.

Have you ever run with a group on a hilly course? Did you notice how it got quiet just before hitting the hills? Why? Hills suck; that’s why. No two ways about it and everybody knows that.

By doing effective hill training, you will gain strength and confidence. Having done effective hill training, you will start any uphill section knowing that you are strong, that you have done this many times before.

Of course, your training will not make the hill less steep. It will not be shorter. But if you approach each hill with an attitude of strength and confidence, you will soon gain a reputation for being dominant on what most people fear. The edge you will have gained through your hill training will live not only in your own mind, but in the minds of those around you. You know it and they know it! How sweet is that?

TOP OF THE HILL

Where is the top of the hill? No, it’s not where the hill stops going up and starts going down. It is 20 meters beyond that point. Understand this concept and you will grasp the essence of hill training.

Why 20 meters beyond the crest? What is gained by continuing beyond the topographic peak? You guessed it. By pushing 20 meters beyond the topographic peak, you gain what might prove to be a critical psychological advantage.

How will this happen? Simple. If you do decide to incorporate hill training into your routine, you will quickly learn that hill training does, indeed, suck. And, by the way, racing on hills also sucks.

That is why every time you do hill repeats you must push to that painful point beyond the topographic peak. Do that in training and it will become second nature when you race. I guarantee that any opponent who has not trained that way will cave. You win. Of course, if your opponent has read this essay, you might have a problem.

But there is more. This entire, sadistic, concept has real life value beyond athletic performance. It is relevant to anything you choose to do in life.

Ask yourself, do you want to win? Fine, we all should strive to win. But that alone is not enough. Winning is, well, just winning. But do you want to dominate? Ah, now we are getting somewhere.

If you accept this concept, the concept that the top of the hill is 20 meters beyond the crest, no matter what it is you have chosen to do, you stand a pretty good chance of being dominant.

Try it. Learn to push beyond the top. Make the effort. You will be glad that you did.

PLAN B

The dog days of summer are here but you are still a runner. You have just set out for a relaxing recovery run. It is late in the day and still hot; so you turn off the main road for the shade of a quiet side street.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, they attack. Dozens of tiny black bugs swarm around your head. You swat at them to no avail. Then, ugh, you inhale one. Swat again but another flies into your left eye. Not good.

Then, miraculously, a breeze picks up. The bugs disappear. But your respite is only temporary. The breeze fades and they are back with a vengeance, more annoying than ever.

Being the person that you are, you don’t accept defeat. You are a problem solver. You analyze the situation and come up with a plan: Create your own breeze!

You crank it up, leaving your leisurely 8:00 minute per mile jog. In a matter of six strides you hit a blazing 5:00 minute per mile sprint. It works! The bugs fall in your wake!

Only one problem: In the next four strides, your body totally rebels. You fall on your face, unable to keep up that ridiculous pace. The bugs swarm around you, sensing road kill.

Time for Plan B. Mine would be to limp back to my car, slam the door on any trailing bugs and crank up the AC. You do have your own Plan B, don’t you?

AIN’T NATURE GRAND

A guy walks out the back gate of his house. He is young. He is wearing a ball cap pulled low on his brow against the morning sun.

He smacks his head, hard, on a low hanging branch. He considers cutting the branch off to prevent a repeat head butting, However, he is busy, as the young so often are. He never gets around to removing the branch.

Time passes. The young guy ages. Eventually he is no longer young. He is decidedly old.

He shrinks, as old guys do. The tree grows taller, as trees usually do.

The guy now goes out his back gate and never comes close to hitting his head on the tree branch.

Ain’t nature grand!

MIRROR

Okay. You step up to the mirror. Your smile gives you that amused but sagacious look. You sweep your hand across your brow, adjusting your hair just so. You take your shirt off, leaving only your tee shirt. You flex your chest and throw your shoulders back.

Stepping back from the mirror, you nod. You acknowledge that you are an asshole. Truly, an asshole.

Huh? How could you reach such a devastating conclusion? You made all the right moves. How could you be an “asshole?”

Sure, you made all the right moves. Only one problem. That little pose before the mirror was the height of delusion. You forgot one thing: You are old.

Really old. Right moves no longer work. In fact, nothing works. You cannot reverse the inevitable changes wrought by Father Time. Do not let yourself fall into the trap of believing such an obviously flawed self-image.

But what is the best way to deal with the harsh reality of your advanced years? It is okay to indulge in the occasional fantasy. Just don’t take that ridiculous charade too seriously. Find a way to laugh at yourself as you walk away from the mirror.

OLD & UGLY

Whoa, just looked in the mirror. Shock! Who is that “old fart” staring back at me? That really ugly, old guy? Groan! It is me. Can’t be true. But it is. Old and ugly, that’s me.

Being old and ugly is not the best way to start your day. Thankfully, something happened today that gave me a reprieve. What miracle was it that allowed me to deal with being old and ugly?

Truth be known, it was not a miracle. It was not a single earthshaking event, just a series of amusing things that made me laugh. The smile that followed pushed old and ugly well into the background. It is amazing what a smile can do, even a small smile.

No, "old and ugly" have not been banished forever. Handsome? No, not even close. The chicks are not going to line up for my inspection and selection. That stopped a long time ago. (Probably never happened, but I can dream.) Hate to admit it, but clinging to some outdated self-image is a fool’s choice.

So, smile. Go ahead, try it. Holy moly . . . not so ugly. Still old but less ugly. I’ll take it.

Oh, and by the way, there is another benefit to be had. That occasional smile will project positive vibes to those around you. Who knows? Your smile might just lift someone who is struggling with sorrow or self-doubt. That would be a good thing.

Your smile may just lift someone who’s struggling. See “Birthdays,” page 197 for more.

OLD DOG, YOUNG DOG

Two dogs trot down the road, one an old dog, the other young.

A butterfly flits across the road in front of them.

The old dog glances at the butterfly and keeps on trotting, wisely knowing he could never catch it. The young dog sprints forward, absolutely convinced that this time he can, indeed, catch the butterfly.

May both dogs live in you.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

Then and now. Some things never change.

Twenty years ago, the wife would yell at her hearing-impaired husband to change the channel. He would simply smile and pretend not to hear.

Today, the wife yells at Alexa to change the channel. Alexa pretends not to hear. The husband smiles.

Nothing has changed. It is déjà vu all over again. Can you hear me now?

The reality of a deadline forces you to shed those irrelevant and trivial things. You focus on what matters.

DEADLINE

You get plenty of emails, right? To manage the daily onslaught, you have identified many email originators as time wasting and frivolous. Those are sent directly to your spam folder and are never seen by you.

You have just received a new email with “Deadline” in the subject box. You open this email and the text reads, “You will die next Wednesday at 11:30.” This one did not go to spam because the originator was God. What do you do?

Before you can answer that question, you go through a series of emotions.

Disbelief. “This must be a mistake. I am too young. I go to church on Christmas and, usually, on Easter Sunday. It must have been meant for someone else. We can do a deal. I will be good. I am not ready.”

But you check the addressee. Yup, that is your name. It was, indeed, meant for you.

Next, sorrow and grief. “Oh noooo. I like it here. What will my dog think? Who will take him for walks and feed him? He will miss me and I will not have been able to explain my absence.”

You cry. Your grief is overwhelming. But your tears change nothing. Then the final emotion: anger. “This is not fair. I don’t deserve this. This should be happening to someone else.” You kick the door, you pound the wall. But your anger changes nothing.

Exhausted, you are forced to accept the veracity of God’s email. You will die next Wednesday at 11:30.

Back to the original question. You have been given a deadline. What do you do?

First, recognize that your time is limited. There are dozens of things that you would like to do; but you are forced to identify

the two or three most important, the things that absolutely must be done before Wednesday. You prioritize.

As you do that, you realize how many meaningless things are on your list. The reality of your deadline forces you to shed those irrelevant and trivial things. You focus on what matters.

There is a lesson here. Just because we have not received God’s email, it doesn’t mean that our time is endless. Our time is, in fact, limited. We need to set goals and continually monitor our progress if we are to achieve our true potential.

Use your time wisely. You never know when you will get God’s email.

“’Tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.”

– ALFRED, LORD TENNYSON

WHO GOES FIRST?

Look . . . over there by the door. See the elderly couple standing there, undecided how they ought to proceed?

He is saying to her, “You don’t know what lies ahead. Let me go first. I will check it out and make sure that everything is okay.”

She pauses, shakes her head. “No, that’s okay. I will go ahead. Don’t worry, I will be fine.”

Or maybe the conversation does not go that way. Maybe he is saying, “After you, My Dear.” She replies, “No, please. You go first.” He responds a bit more forcefully, “No, no. I insist.”

It seems we are looking at two old folks, clearly fond of each other and comfortable in how they relate. Their conversation, either version, seems nothing more than a courteous, but innocuous, exchange. Maybe not.

They may be older than you first thought. The door in front of them is the door that leads from this world to the next. It is the door each of us will pass through when we die.

Some of us will stand there alone. No partner at our side. No discussion of who should go first. For others with an enduring partnership, “Who goes first?” is fraught with implication.

You might cast yourself as the brave one, the one who would take the leap first. Insisting you go first shows you are not afraid to die. Brave, of course, but to what end? What will you have achieved? Probably nothing.

You would, however, be avoiding survivor’s grief. The immeasurable anguish of being alone in places just recently shared with your partner.

Death brings sorrow for those left behind. The cost of loving is pain. Go first? Last? Which would you choose?

LOVE

We lived as if this day would never come . . . . . . but now the end is near.

Know that I love you with all my heart . . . . . . That I love you forever and a day.

And when that final moment begins . . . . . . the one that lasts, almost, forever.

Take my love to strengthen you . . . . . . until that moment, finally, ends.

GONE TOMORROW

Here today . . . . . . gone tomorrow.

That’s okay . . . . . . ditch the sorrow.

RESOURCES

To order additional copies of Choice, Change & Interesting Times or learn more about the book, use the QR code at right or visit choicechangeinterestingtimes.com

To learn more about Brett Lunger’s I Am Responsible Workbook Series to or order any of the workbooks, use the QR code at right or visit responsibilitytoday.com.

CONTACT

To reach out to Brett Lunger with questions or comments, visit shoutlistendiscuss.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Brett Lunger is an adventurer and inveterate risk-taker. After serving as a U.S. Marine Corps officer in Vietnam, he taught at The Basic School for new officers in Quantico, VA. He then fulfilled a lifelong dream to become a professional race car driver.

He followed his successful first season of racing in the U.S. by competing his second year against top drivers on the European Formula 2 circuit. In his final three seasons, he took part in Formula 1 Grand Prix races around the globe.

Since retiring from racing, Brett has worked in sports promotion, marketing and investment management. Along the way he developed a passion for aviation. He holds an ATP rating and has flown in support of various charities, providing free air transport for patients in need.

Brett is founder and CEO of Responsibility Today, where he serves as creator and writer of the I Am Responsible Workbook Series. Many of the concepts behind that work have inspired the essays in this book.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This collection of essays would never have seen the light of day without the Herculean efforts of Linda Warren (Studio Deluxe) and Candace Pearson (Writers’ Project). Linda provided invaluable project management and artistic flair. Candace endured countless hours reading, and rereading, all the essays. Her eagle eye caught innumerable errors of grammar and continuity.

Without their input these essays would forever be random musings in some obscure computer file. If my work has offended you, blame them.

“I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt you, I just said your legs are short.”

Words matter. Choose wisely.

JUMBO & MURPHY

CHANGE HAPPENS

You either manage change or it will manage you, says Brett Lunger in this provocative collection where very little’s offlimits: politics, sports, aging—“the whole messy potpourri of life.” The former Formula 1 Grand Prix driver, Marine Corps vet and humanitarian pilot pulls no punches. His irreverent take on the choices we face as citizens and individuals may just help you get where you want to go.

PRAISE FOR CHOICE, CHANGE & INTERESTING TIMES

“Even you can be a change agent in a chaotic, divisive world. Brett Lunger’s insightful essays provide practical how-tos based on astute observations and critical thinking. I’ve already put a few to work . . . you can, too.”

–ROB MATTEUCCI businessman

“Brett’s life guidance is absolutely spot-on . . . Any coaching we can give youth in how to make solid life choices is invaluable. A pocket primer would be a good thing for most adults to carry these days. . . I love that he encourages healthy discourse.”

–ROB WEATHERS medical device executive

“Thought-provoking .... Didn’t always agree but (this book) provokes conversation ... Some made me laugh."

–CHET FELDBERG financial consultant

ISBN 979-8-9985467-1-6