NOT The Best of Times

Representative Government:
Prelude to Armageddon

Few blogs address politics from a theological perspective in a nation that ostensibly values the separation of Church and State.

My understanding of Genesis has, of course, been influenced by the formative Catechism classes of my Roman Catholic upbringing. My memory of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel as a graphic novel version of the Bible remains powerful. As a child, I was impressed with Michelangelo’s artistry. As a teenager, I was somewhat shocked by his depiction of Adam as completely naked. As I encountered the theological implications of Renaissance art, I was impressed by his depiction of not just Adam’s penis but by the anatomical correctness in painting his navel. The tangible aspect of an umbilical cord on someone who was fashioned from clay by God forced many artists of the day to obscure the entire midsection of Adam. And, of course, Eve was not born either.

As an adult visiting the Vatican, I looked up—far above me—to see that Voltaire’s cynical comment was dramatically correct: “God created man in His own image, and man returned the compliment.” As an older man of European descent with grey hair and a beard, I could understand this choice of portraying the Ancient of Days. But my theological dislike for an anthropomorphic deity remains steadfast. My metaphysical concept of the unknowable essence of the universe is greatly diminished by any physical representation, even One Who looks somewhat like me. (My beard is neatly trimmed …)

However, after an election where the Christian Nationalist vote appears to have been substantial, a blog post that begins with references to Genesis seems relevant and timely.

In our modern age, the most popular religion in the United States is None of the Above (47%). However, if we include SBNR folks (Spiritual but not Religious), then approximately 80% of people believe in spiritual values — some conception of right and wrong.

If we aggregate denominations and sects into the broad categories of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá’í Faith), we have Christianity as the predominant form of organized worship of God in the United States. And, given their universally shared acknowledgment of Genesis as Scripture, nearly everyone accepts the theological framework that the loss of the Garden of Eden’s innocence is the result of intervention by an external entity: the Serpent, Adversary, or Satan …

Thus, when we use the adjective satanic, we invoke the primal origin of evil corrupting the world.

Satanic:
adjective. of Satan. characteristic of or befitting Satan; extremely wicked; devillike; diabolical. Synonyms: infernal, fiendish, hellish, devilish, evil.

1.	of or relating to Satanism, a highly diverse group of religious, philosophical, or countercultural practices centered around Satan.

Overlap of the Secular and the Ecclesiastical

Although the current Pope, Francis, does not define abortion as satanic, the six Supreme Court Justices whose religious affiliation is with the Roman Catholic Church may have adopted that view in their over-rule of Roe v. Wade. That would certainly match the view of Father Ganley and the nuns of my Catechism classes.

Going back to Ronald Reagan’s halcyon days, as the influence of orthodox Christianity began to fade, replaced by faith in secular sovereigns, the sacraments of the church were displaced by the sacraments of the state. And by the dogma of The Heritage Foundation®.

In a capitalist system, the invisible hand of the market, not the unseen hand of God, guides us to higher levels of prosperity. Selfishness becomes sanctified. Free enterprise competition will automatically create a level playing field for all, the argument goes.

Now, belief in Scripture and secular democratic institutions has been replaced by devotion to authoritarian leaders who sanction faux nostalgia and limitless greed. In Donald Trump’s ascendency, we appear to be witnessing the emergence of a new secular faith: RBNM (Religious but not Moral).

Are institutions, both secular and ecclesiastical, an aid to the development of civilization?
Or are they an impediment to unbridled capitalism?
Does the government that governs least govern best?
Should we revert to anarchy or cling to the benevolent rule of a despot?

Before The Deluge

From the PBS News Hour on November 1, 2024

In discussing norms of political behavior, David Brooks of the New York Times veered into the world of religion:


•	Amna Nawaz:
David, you mentioned it's Donald Trump who's upended a lot of these norms. Does it change if he loses?

•	David Brooks:
I don't know.
I was at a church in Tennessee. I decided it'd be interesting to go to a Christian nationalist church. And so I went to this. And I have to say the congregation was sincere in its faith. Sometimes, you think Christian nationalism is all about politics. These people were clearly moved by their faith.
But the pastor up there in the pulpit is calling Kamala Harris satanic. There's crudity. It's just like I was at that church. I thought, Donald Trump fit into something. And it wasn't only professional wrestling. It was in churches. It was preexisting in the churches and the neighborhoods.
And it was just this culture of the narcissistic cult leader. And I saw it at the church, and I think Trump is a version of that. So I don't know if we go — like, if Trump exits the scene, I'm not sure we go back there. We have got the professional wrestle-ization of American society that's out there.

Brooks and Capehart went on to define Trump as the apotheosis of toxic masculinity and the effective evocation of racism.

Before the election, many people saw the Democrat-Republican divide as different concepts of how the process of governance works — fundamental questions that the Founding Fathers wrestled with.

In a New York Times Opinion piece — just before the election:

EZRA KLEIN

There’s Something Very Different About Harris vs. Trump

Nov. 3, 2024

…

But there’s another axis that politics can polarize along: the basic worth of institutions. To Democrats, the institutions that govern American life, though flawed and sometimes captured by moneyed interests, are fundamentally trustworthy. They are repositories of knowledge and expertise, staffed by people who do the best work they can, and they need to be protected and preserved.
The Trumpist coalition sees something quite different: an archipelago of interconnected strongholds of leftist power that stretch from the government to the universities to the media and, increasingly, big business and even the military. This network is sometimes called the Cathedral and sometimes called the Regime; Trump refers to part of it as the Deep State, Vivek Ramaswamy calls the corporate side “Woke Inc.” and JD Vance has described it as a grave threat to democracy.

After The Deluge

A Sad Watch Party at My Home

On the evening of November 5^th, as I awaited the American people’s decision (and the subsequent machinations of Trump’s lawyers), the choice seemed stark, but the verdict remained unclear.

As the results came in, How, I asked, could the polls have been so wrong?

My suspicion:

I suspect that the polling institutions are often seen as part of the regime of the elites, an extension of the Deep State. Consequently, in response to texts, emails, or calls, candor is viewed as unwise:

Polling dialogue:
	Ring, ring … ring.
Bubba:
“Howdy.  Who’s callin’?”
Louie:
“This is Louis Gzoninplatz from The New Woke Times.”
“I’m calling to ask who youse gonna vote for?”
Bubba:
“Well …	 I’m fixin’ to make up my mind.”
“I might could call you back when I figure it out.”
-click

Louie:
To co-worker: “Huh, another undecided.”

The New York Times
Attempts to Console the Defeated

In the aftermath, the postmortem analysis began quickly.

David Brooks eloquently described class warfare and its education-based foundation.

Ezra Klein suggested that the Democrat’s calamitous loss should be a catalyst for real listening …

But, along with David Brooks, I fear that the effective demonizing of Kamala Harris by Donald Trump resonates with a powerful swath of “We the People.” Both secular and ecclesiastical.

Absence of Norms

In the last decade, we have lost not only the “formal guardrails” (legal and customary behaviors) that regulate society but also aspects of enlightened traditions (e.g., queuing in England…) that enable courteous and dignified civilizations to flourish.

What Joe Biden referred to as a “Battle for the soul of America” appears to have the potential to become a mirror of the havoc in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon.

A Goal with Alternate Paths

In 1985, the Universal House of Justice of the Bahá’í Faith addressed a message to the peoples of the world, inviting them to consider that a new social order can be fostered by all people seeing themselves as members of one universal family. This message was presented to world leaders and countless others during the United Nations International Year of Peace.

The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next stage in the evolution of this planet—in the words of one great thinker, “the planetization of mankind”.

Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity’s stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be unconscionably irresponsible.

It is encouraging that a significant source of ecclesiastical insight proclaims the achievability of our vital aspirations for an age-old vision. However, the institution’s clear warning of “unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity’s stubborn clinging to old patterns of behavior” is — for me — terrifying.

In the wake of World War I, William Butler Yeats perceived a prescient, darker poetic view of our collective apocalyptic trajectory. The lines from the end of the first stanza are often quoted:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

The passionate intensity of fanatics and demagogues, both secular and ecclesiastical, has been a siren song for more than a century.


The Second Coming  (1919)

BY WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.   
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out   
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert   
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,   
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,   
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it   
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.   
The darkness drops again; but now I know   
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,   
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,   
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

May we eventually recognize — in ourselves and in each other — some flicker of the positive, creative energies of the universe. May that vision, that we are all designed in the image of the primal point of creation, hasten the advent of great peace and goodwill toward all citizens of this fragile planet.

Military-Industrial Complex

As context, when I started my senior year of high school in 1960, Dwight Eisenhower was president. He was, and—to a large extent—still is, my ideal of a president. The quintessence of patriotism, a public servant in time of peace and in time of war. A student of world history and military strategy. His diplomatic skills enabled him to coordinate efforts with de Gaulle and Montgomery in a collaborative effort to defeat Nazi Germany.

On January 17, 1961, in this farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the establishment of a “military-industrial complex.”

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address

“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

In 1961, as I bid farewell to the comfort of a suburban home and left to attempt a college degree, I looked back on my religious heritage: Best of God / Worst of God.

My father’s oldest sister, Aunt Madeline, had—somehow—managed to combine the spirit of Christ’s teachings with an unwavering commitment to the Catholic Church. She tutored me in Latin (before the Mass was celebrated in the vernacular…) She exemplified the integration of an ethical perspective and a successful career.

My window, via TV, into spiritual truth (yes, early television included broadcast of religious programs with an overlay of rational thought) was the weekly program of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. (Current version has been colorized – I miss the original black and white.) His enthusiastic effusive energy in non-proselytizing sermons invariably presented ways to integrate Christian values into the 20^th century.

These inspirational people were a reassuring counterbalance to the rigid and formulaic efforts at indoctrination in my catechism classes. Madeline and Bishop Sheen were honest representatives of a devotional life. Not the dull and dishonest nuns and priests of my month-long Catholic summer camp experience. (I returned home still a virgin, mercifully unaware of the clerical abuse of young boys. And deceitful coverups by Bishops.)

The calculated hypocrisy of the Church set me on a life-long journey to find spiritual truth outside traditional institutional boundaries.

As I’ve taken time in retirement to contemplate ways to make sense of eight chaotic decades, I see a warning comparable to Ike’s military-industrial complex concern. I see in the Abrahamic traditions, a military-ecclesiastical complex—the coupling of revealed religion with political and military might.

This intersection is not too bad in Judaism. It appears to be God Himself (or Herself) who wipes out Pharoh’s Army as the Red Sea collapses in on itself, drowning an entire army. But, as the followers of Moses journey through the desert, they gain enough strength to, when they arrive at the Holy Land, following God’s exhortation kill the then-current inhabitants.

In Christianity, all goes well until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. In essence, the Christians pledged that Christ would protect the Roman Emperor Constantine in return for his military efforts to protect the Christian community. (And to resolve aspects of the theology regarding the Trinity…)

I remember singing Onward, Christian Soldiers and wondering about metaphor vs. reality.

With Islam, at the death of Muhammad, the question of succession arose: did we want a spiritual leader (Ali, son-in-law of the Prophet) or a military leader (Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s chief military strategist and the first caliph). Although Muhammad forbade spreading Islam by the sword, the Islamic conquest of southern Europe was a natural consequence of a militarized culture/religion. And a catalyst for the Crusades.

I’ve often wondered about the extent of death in secular wars vs. death in ecclesiastical wars. But given the lack of separation of culture/state/religion until modern times and given weapons of mass destruction in our secular age, the question seems beyond a clear answer. Was the Nazi Holocaust an integral part of a secular war? Religious persecution addendum?

For a religious tradition with “Thou Shalt Not Kill” as a core commandment, the loyalty of Abraham to the demand of God (“Yes, Lord, I will kill my own son for you.”) suggests a Deity with violent tendencies and followers with pathological fealty. Ostensibly, we are created in the image of that Draconian God.

The current global investment in the military-industrial complex suggests that Eisenhower’s warning was appropriate. My anti-war colleagues from the 1960’s labored during the Cold War with its proliferation of nuclear weapons, under the long historic shadow of national identities formed in the wake of the Crusades—Islamic Jihad and Christian re-conquest.

As we watch holy zealots in the Middle East (Netanyahu in Israel, The Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei in Iran, and the leadership of Hamas in Gaza), the ecclesiastical-military complex seems a likely epicenter for WW III. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine appears to be a similar catalyst for a secular obliteration.

The evolving competition for scarce resources, resources inadequate for rapacious populations in an age of climate change and mass migration, pushes the global community toward belated adoption of inadequate responses—with the likely occurrence of the 6^th Extinction.

If we are to avoid that Absolute Worst of Times, perhaps we need the non-violence of Gandi’s personal example combined with a modern instance of religion without an aggressive need for conquest.

In 1985, the World Centre of the Bahá’í Faith published a Statement on The Promise of World Peace which has been an elusive goal for mankind throughout recorded history.

The statement begins:

The Great Peace towards which people of goodwill throughout the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next stage in the evolution of this planet—in the words of one great thinker, “the planetization of mankind.”

In a note of profound realism, the statement continues:

Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity’s stubborn clinging to old patterns of behavior, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be unconscionably irresponsible.

The underlying theme prescribes the development of a collective will to tread a spiritual path with practical steps. Perhaps this is a vital proclamation that the Best of Times is still possible.

Full Statement:
https://www.bahai.org/documents/the-universal-house-of-justice/promise-world-peace

SCOTUS Observations

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness…”

https://EN.WIKIQUOTE.ORG/WIKI/A_TALE_OF_TWO_CITIES

As we approach the 2024 Election Cycle — where we pick a president, members of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate — it still feels like the Best of Times and The Worst of Times.

“Best” for us reasonably affluent retired folks (What mortgage? New stock market highs.).

“Worst” in terms of reasonable choices for elected officials — and for reasoned discussions about issues instead of defamation of personalities and proclivities.

We do not directly vote for the members of the Supreme Court. However, watching the accretion of recent decisions, I feel compelled to comment.

Perspective of a Retired Professional

As someone who was baptized and raised within the domain of the Roman Catholic Church, and as someone who is old enough to remember the Mass in Latin, I see disturbing judicial drift in the most recent and threatened future rulings of the Supreme Court.

The current Supreme Court claims to be influenced by:

Textual analysis of the Constitution and, perhaps, its amendments.
Original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Textual Analysis is—from the perspective of the current Court—simple: the words mean what they say. However, the academic community, both English departments and disciplines of social science, have used textual analysis to uncover deeper meaning and intent, not mere surface simplicity.

The Original Intent of the founding fathers was to create a Republic where voting was restricted to European gentlemen who had a Christian religious affiliation. No women, no three-fifths human African slaves.

The current Court is using both frameworks, Textual Analysis and Original Intent, to craft meanings and interpretations from a frame of reference that precedes any of the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, amendments which include the Bill of Rights.

Explicitly, the Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State. And Thomas Jefferson, writing the Freedom of Religion law of the Constitution of Virginia, included freedom from religion as a needed condition for a more perfect union.

Article I. Bill of Rights

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article1/section16/#:~:text=No%20man%20shall%20be%20compelled,or%20affect%20their%20civil%20capacities

Given the connections between most of the Justices and the Catholic Church, SCOTUS also seems influenced more by a specific theological focus than by a rigorous adherence to a secular document intended “to form a more perfect Union,”

Preamble to the Constitution: {with original spellings}

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/preAboutamble

Earlier Rulings

Establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility are two processes that I have watched unfold during my early life:

Brown v. Board of Education 1954

In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional. It signaled the end of legalized racial segregation in the schools of the United States, overruling the “separate but equal” principle set forth in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education#:~:text=In%20this%20milestone%20decision%2C%20the,in%20the%201896%20Plessy%20v

Griswold v. Connecticut 1965

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state’s ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html

Roe v. Wade 1973

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),^[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protected a right to have an abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Obergefell v. Hodges 2015

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

The last three decisions were in harmony with a liberal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, but not in harmony with pronouncements from the Vatican.

Current Rulings

I now inhabit a different world—one where the blessings of liberty seem under siege.

From 1949 to 1987, the Federal Communications Commission had a rule called the Fairness Doctrine. It provided that for broadcasting license renewals by radio and TV stations, the FCC would consider whether a licensee had covered both sides of controversial public issues.

https://dividedwefall.org/fcc-fairness-doctrine/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwydSzBhBOEiwAj0XN4KHwgR_xfW69d4VkkFEVusuRGFPXlAvl9gcupnFb72Dsp_sD9rYuVRoCdFQQAvD_BwE About

(cf. also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,that%20fairly%20reflected%20differing%20viewpoints.)

The combination of the loss of the Fairness Doctrine and the emergence of monetized social media has bolstered the polarization of America. As my memories of Walter Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley and MacNeil/Lehrer fade, my concern for the plight of the Fourth Estate expands. We may be returning to the meaning of its etymology:

The term Fourth Estate or fourth power refers to the press and news media both in explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues.^[1] The derivation of the term arises from the traditional European concept of the three estates of the realm: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate#:~:text=The%20term%20Fourth%20Estate%20or,the%20nobility%2C%20and%20the%20commoners.

We appear to be hovering on the brink of something quite different from a Republic composed of an Executive branch, a Congress, a Supreme Court, and ethical journalism. We appear headed for a fascist state ruled by a narcissistic sociopath enabled by sycophant evangelical legislators and a compliant clergy/SCOTUS.

Perhaps, given the Textual Analysis and Original Intent approach, SCOTUS could require an original version of the Ten Commandments for the walls of Louisiana classrooms:

Regulations in a Complex Century

Not only has the Court moved in the direction of Vatican-based interpretations of Scripture, but it has also amassed for the Judiciary powers beyond what precedent dictates. In overturning Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), the Supreme Court has decreased the reasoned effectiveness of regulations that ensure ethical guidance for modern life (FDA, FTC, USDA, EPA, …).:

In a momentous decision that will affect vast swaths of American life, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday [June 28, 2024] undid decades of regulatory law, making it far more difficult for federal agencies to issue rules and regulations that carry out broad mandates enacted by Congress. The vote, along ideological lines, was 6-to-3.

Writing for the court’s conservative supermajority, Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly overturned a 40-year-old precedent that had instructed lower court judges to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. Acknowledging that some of the court’s most conservative members had initially proposed or embraced that idea, Roberts said that time and experience had proved the approach “unwise,” “misguided,” and “unworkable.”

The 1984 decision, he said, is contrary to the Framers’ understanding or our form of government. Roberts went on to quote Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison declaring that, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the [judiciary] to say what the law is.” That, said Roberts, means that courts, not agencies, decide what the law is, and if Congress wants to do something different, it should say so explicitly.

Justice Elena Kagan took the rare step of announcing her dissent from the bench on behalf of the court’s three liberals.

“Agencies report to the president, who in turn answers to the public for his policy calls,” she said. “Courts have no such accountability,” nor do they have the kind of expertise that agencies have to carry out broad mandates from Congress. Today, she said, a four decades-old “rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”

“As if [the court] does not have enough on its plate,” she added acerbically, “the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar,” giving itself the power to determine what rules will govern AI, or the nation’s health care or transportation systems, or even the environment. “That is not a role that Congress gave to [the courts],” Kagan asserted, but “it is a role this court has now claimed for itself, as well as for other judges.”

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/10/nx-s1-4998861/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine

As someone who was involved in drafting the Section 508 Standards, and engaged as a consultant in the interpretation and implementation of these standards for two Federal agencies, I remain convinced that regulators within agencies have more expertise in the arenas that they oversee than people with law degrees from prestigious universities. Undoubtedly, judges are intelligent and well educated, but their scope of expertise is not the same as that of bright, well-educated people who have worked and served within a field where specialized knowledge and understanding accrue over decades.

For another glimpse at the challenges of “Marbury v. Madison” declaring that, “\’[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the [judiciary] to say what the law is,’” I suggest an examination of the “Tri-state water wars: Alabama, Georgia, Florida,” and the Supreme Court’s inability to create a coherent rule in the context of regulatory disputes:

Tri-state water wars: Alabama, Georgia, Florida

Advocating for the long-term health of two major river basins

Tri-state water wars: Alabama, Georgia, Florida

Georgia scores new legal victory over Alabama in ‘water wars’ challenge

Judge rules federal plan to manage the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin is lawful:

https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-scores-new-legal-victory-over-alabama-in-water-wars-challenge/BF7F6FXXFFEWTB3JDOXZS47RS4/#:~:text=Georgia%20scores%20new%20legal%20victory%20over%20Alabama%20in%20’water%20wars’%20challenge,-Judge%20rules%20federal&text=A%20federal%20judge%20handed%20the,the%20states’%20shared%20water%20supplies

Georgia wins fresh ruling in water war with Florida, Alabama

https://apnews.com/article/environment-and-nature-alabama-florida-georgia-20b214b3e98747736498fb9bb4394328

[I’m sure that Chief Justice John Roberts bathes frequently, but I suspect that he is out of this depth in trying to rule on complex and contentious arguments about arcane water rights laws with conflicting precedents.]

Executive Power in a Complex Century

To bolster the power and authority of not only the Judicial branch of government, but also the Executive branch, the Supreme Court has now given virtual immunity to Presidents in their official decisions and actions.

Supreme Court Says Trump Has Some Immunity in Election Case

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday [July 1, 2024] that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the last election, a blockbuster decision in the heat of the 2024 campaign that vastly expanded presidential power.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity.html

Highlights of the Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity

OPINION OF THE COURT:

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.”

…

OPINION OF THE COURT

“Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”

As the blessings of liberty begin a steep descent, perhaps what we need on the walls of classrooms is not the Ten Commandments, but a bit of our original secular guidance:

Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

For more on the Pursuit of Happiness, see

The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America Hardcover – February 13, 2024 by Jeffrey Rosen (Author)

Music Update

In 2019, I did an Xmas Carol parody of Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire.

An Update seems in order –

Trump’s Nuts Roasting on An Open Fire

Trump’s nuts roasting on an open fire
Jack Smith nipping at his ass
Yule-tide carols being sung by a choir
Inditements cut like shards of glass

Everybody knows the Donald is a bigot
Hates those rapists from down south

Tiny tots with their eyes all hollowed out
Will have no food to put into their mouth

They know that Trump is on his way
He’s loaded lots of tax cuts for the rich onto his sleigh
And every mother’s child is gonna cry
Because universal health care will never get to fly

And so, I’m offering this simple phrase
To kids from one to ninety-two
Although it’s been said many times, many ways
Donald Trump was really screwing you

And so, I’m offering this simple phrase
To kids from one to ninety-two
Although it’s been said many times, many ways
Convicted felon’s gonna keep on screwing you

Trajectory Toward Prison

Why did Al Capone go to prison? Murder? Planning and coordinating murders? Prostitution? Running organized prostitution rings? Racketeering?

None of the above! Although it was well known that his empire encompassed racketeering, prostitution, and murder.

“On October 17, 1931, gangster Al Capone is sentenced to 11 years in prison for tax evasion and fined $80,000, signaling the downfall of one of the most notorious criminals of the 1920s and 1930s.”
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/capone-goes-to-prison

Why might Donald Trump go to prison? Advocating and supporting white supremacy? Wielding his anti-scientific approach toward evidence-based public health to derail an appropriate response to Covid-19, thereby precipitating the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans? Using his anti-scientific bias against climate change at a time when the horrific consequences of its well understood impact are causing migration and starvation, thereby fueling the finalization of the Sixth Extinction? Collusion with Vladimir Putin? (Despite the best efforts of Robert Mueller, and with the support of William Barr.) Urging his fanatical followers to violently prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his duly elected successor? Appointing three more Roman Catholic justices to the Supreme Court, nullifying the separation of Church and State?

Quite possibly, none of the above! The majority of his knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, MAGA-hatted camp followers may be proud of his amoral pathological selfishness, his encouragement of their ardent desire to return to the pre-Civil War meaning of the Constitution.

The former POTUS may eventually don an orange jumpsuit thanks to his mania for mementoes, including classified documents that should never have left U.S. Government control intermingled with pictures of porn stars (Stormy Daniels and her ilk), and a framed copy of his picture on the cover of Time magazine.

Picture without Stormy Daniels redaction: (Some NSFW images still redacted with WhiteOut.)

Link to sanitized version: New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/us/politics/trump-mar-a-lago-documents.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

What might it mean in these turbulent times to see The End of D.J.T.?

From NYT — Book Review

Francis Fukuyama Predicted the End of History. It’s Back (Again).

May 10, 2022, 12:23 p.m. ET

Jennifer Schuessler

One thing Fukuyama, 69, has not gotten sick of is trying to answer the biggest questions about democracy, human nature, and the long arc of historical progress. In 1989, he shot to unlikely celebrity with his essay “The End of History?,” which argued that the decline of Communism marked the end of grand ideological struggle and the “universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

…

The Fukuyama of 1989 saw the end of grand ideological struggle as potentially a little “boring.” But the Fukuyama of 2022 has mustered a bit more passion, especially since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a country he has been visiting regularly since 2013.

In early March, he predicted that Russia was “headed for an outright defeat,” which will revive “the spirit of 1989” and “get us out of our funk about the declining state of global democracy.” He has been deluged with interview requests ever since.

“There’s been so much cynicism about the idea of democracy, including in many democratic countries,” he said. “This makes it so vivid why it’s better to live in a liberal society.”

…

In his new book, released on Tuesday by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Fukuyama argues that liberalism is threatened not by a rival ideology, but by “absolutized” versions of its own principles. On the right, the promoters of neoliberal economics have turned the ideal of individual autonomy and the free market into a religion, warping the economy and leading to dangerous systemic instability. And on the left, he argues, progressives have abandoned individual autonomy and free speech in favor of claims of group rights that threaten national cohesion.

“The answer to these discontents,” he writes, “isn’t to abandon liberalism, but to moderate it.”

…

The solutions he offers at the end of “Liberalism and Its Discontents” may seem boringly technocratic (“devolve power to the lowest appropriate level of government”) or abstract (“protect freedom of speech, with an appropriate understanding of limits”).

And his final sentence — a plea to recover “a sense of moderation, both individual and communal” — is hardly the kind of thing that sends people pouring into the streets.

He said he’s not sure what will. “One of the problems with ‘The End of History’ is that it did breed complacency,” he said. “But you have to be vigilant. And you have to keep struggling.”

Our Challenge

At the start of the 20^th Century, before the Great War, when colonialism made life captivating for many Europeans and Americans, there were people like Fukuyama in Italy and in Germany. They were bright, educated, optimistic, mostly vigilant. And they kept struggling, until they could not.

First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller — 1946

Their failures which resulted in two World Wars should be a motivator for 21^st Century political dilettantes who piously hope that autocratic governments will be doubtlessly vanquished by the liberal arc of history.

Songs of Irreverence

Xmas Carols for the Pathologically Irreverent

In the Holiday spirit of 2019, I wrote a few songs…
Sadly, they still seem relevant in this Pandemic Yuletide.

Trump’s Nuts Roasting on An Open Fire

Trump’s nuts roasting on an open fire
Nancy nipping at his ass
Yule-tide carols being sung by a choir
Subpoenas cut like shards of glass

Everybody knows the turkey is a bigot
Hates those rapists from down south

Tiny tots with their eyes all hollowed out
Will have no food to put into their mouth

They know that Trump is on his way
He’s loaded lots of tax cuts for the rich onto his sleigh
And every mother’s child is gonna cry
Because universal health care will never get to fly

And so I’m offering this simple phrase
To kids from one to ninety-two
Although it’s been said many times, many ways
Donald Trump is really screwing you

Rudolph the Brown-Nosed Shyster

You know Mueller and Manafort and Hope the Hicksen,
You know Sessions and Cohen and Stormy the Vixen,
But do you recall
The most famous lawyer of all?

Rudolph the Brown-Nosed Shyster
Had a very smelly nose
And if you ever smelled it
You would say he’s one of doze

All of the other shysters
Used to laugh and call him names.
They never let poor Rudy
Join in any porn star games

Then one Stormy news cycle Eve,
Donald came to say,
Rudy with your nose so brown,
Won’t you turn the lawsuits down?

Then all the lawyers envied him,
Jealous of his truthy pizazz,
Rudolph the Brown-Nosed Shyster
You belong in Alcatraz

The Star-Spangled Banana

José can you see by the squad car’s bright lights
That your Green Card’s expired, and you’ve lost all your rights?
Twitter swipes and ICE raids cause a horrible fright.

O’er the new wall we watched, rapists gallantly streaming!
And the Donald’s red glare, his tweets bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night of his hatred laid bare.

Oh, say did that star-spangled banner ever wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Honest-to-goodness Sound

For actual music _ try a Georgia celebration written by Mark Richman:

“Georgia Has Turned Blue”

Front Row Seats

The Shakespeare Tavern Playhouse in Atlanta recreates a snug modern-day version of the Globe Theatre. No – not a full-scale version of the 17^th century building – but an urban entertainment space on Peachtree Street across from a downtown hospital.

“The small building to the left supplied food and ale at the theatre.^[1]^[11]^”

^Wikipedia

The original Globe Theatre could accommodate over 3,000 spectators, most seated, but many “groundlings” stood around the thrust stage that protruded into the audience.

However, in the Atlanta venue there are no groundlings – a main level and a semi-circular balcony provide seating for a mere 200 patrons. Unlike the original, the Atlanta “Globe” is a dinner venue. Not only are the standing spectators gone, the main floor has tables and chairs; the back of the theater is a cafeteria offering Shepherd’s Pie and similar dishes that might be recognizable to a Londoner 400 years ago. Yes, ale and wine are available. So, during the comedies, we can get rowdy.

And, although the spirit of a Shakespearean stage is maintained (no curtain, no microphone, a thrust stage…), the venue is an indoor playhouse (no natural light, no chance of rain…) that enables recorded music and complex lighting and stage effects.

https://www.shakespearetavern.com/index.php?/about_us/show_times_ticket_prices

The Front Row

Since there is no reserved seating in the dinner theater, the best approach is to arrive early, wait in line with your open-seating ticket (yes, wine is available during the wait), and quickly grab a table at the edge of the stage when admission begins.

Given the dynamic nature of players entering and exiting the main stage, a spectator at a front row table is apt to become part of the evening’s action. At a minimum, it creates an intimate involvement with the play.

2020 Dinner Theater

In the Year of the Pandemic, The Shakespeare Tavern Playhouse is closed. No more live theater. Instead, many of us gather in front of the large vertical rectangular stage in our own media room. And, we watch the spectacles: some comedies; mostly tragedies.

We may eat during the performances. We may also drink. We may laugh during the comedies; during the tragedies we may gnash our teeth. Or, cry – for the needless victims of the Pandemic. For the ongoing officially sanctioned racism, bullying, and incessant lying that extrude from the Offal Office.

We may recoil in horror each day at the Evening News, and also fear the long-term implications of Political Theater. Despite climate change having receded from the headlines, the full implications of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords are becoming clear. And, as we begin to understand the dwindling work of the Environmental Protection Agency, the magnitude of the potential ecological tragedy for our grandchildren is heard rumbling offstage. It is the eerie quiet preceding the Sixth Extinction – more real than a Reality T.V. show.

Just as Othello was destroyed by the whispers of Iago, our tragedy may germinate in the soil of disinformation spread by power-hungry sociopaths who materialize within our personal home theaters.

Thanks to the legacy of The Mango Mussolini, we all share front row seats for the ultimate tragedy – the last act where everyone dies.

An Inflection Point in History

Which are the most probable trajectories, as We, the People, embark on a new course in the wake of a profoundly partisan, adversarial election? Are we on the cusp of an historical inflection point as we attempt to engineer a sane approach to the 21^st Century? How will our great-great-grandchildren evaluate our efforts? Or, will our slow and inadequate response to the scientific reality of climate change create the Sixth Extinction – and, render that question moot?

As I begin these ruminations in November of 2020, with the Most Divisive Election slowly fading from view, the possibilities seem simultaneously awe-inspiring and overwhelming.

No, we are not yet experiencing a repeat of the French Revolution, but the words of Charles Dickens still ring true:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness…”
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Tale_of_Two_Cities

An inescapable reality of the darkness is the coronavirus Pandemic: its reality and our reactions.

The eclipse of reason: America’s nonsensical denial of public health measures needed for a civil response…
Our much-vaunted pathological independence – used by the political process to demonize doctors whose commitment to life-saving guidance is essential…

More shadows emerging from the American psyche:

Racism (Make America White Again).
Lack of commitment to a sustainable biosphere (Make Fossil Fuel Great Again) …
Extremes of wealth & poverty (Make Our Grandchildren Poor) …
10 Million more Trump supporters voted in 2020 than 2016.
(More frightening percent of voters: 47.2% in 2020 vs. 46.1% in 2016).

Some flickers of sunlight as the sun sets on the 2020 election:

13 Million more votes for Biden (2020) than Clinton (2016).
(Less frightening percent of voters: 50.9% in 2020 vs. 48.2% in 2016).
Dancing in the streets without too much gloating.
Insightful and humble comments from traditional media.
“Yes, we still do not know how to poll voters…”
Minimal insanity within both traditional and social media.

From my perspective as a retired geek, someone who spent decades designing and developing software, I see great potential for improvements in society based on ethical applications of science and technology. Yeah! Pfizer & Moderna for vaccine research to address the Pandemic. Yeah! John King & CNN’s Magic Wall: graphics in pursuit of insight.

However, technology alone will not save us without collegial dialogue in pursuit of a shared vision for a civilized world. Or, at least, compatible visions of a society with social and economic justice.

Note: I am not using a megaphone made entirely from 1’s and 0’s to incite fanatics. I am not trying to generate a digital howl at a safe distance – safe in that no physical harm will rebound.

I want to add an engaged, mature voice (laden with humor) to help us navigate the shoals of the 21^st century. Like Dickens, I’m not a philosopher, but a storyteller. I want to tell stories that make our U.S. Motto: E Pluribus Unum work a bit better. I want to be a catalyst for a collegial process that will create positive synergy.

Let me begin with a metaphor: the 21^st Century as political theater where We, the People, have Front Row seats. It is a parable to suggest that we should become more than spectators. We should join the players in the drama of real life. This idea is a natural for the city of Atlanta with its Shakespeare Tavern Playhouse in the [now] blue State of Georgia.