LOCAL PROGRESSIVES AVOID CONSTITUENTS’ CONCERNS

      Several months ago, I asked Las Cruces Police Chief Jeremy Story for information about five SWAT vehicles which he had asked City Council to recommend for state funding.  I was interested in their capabilities, purposes, and scenarios for their use.  Story and other LCPD officers did not respond to my requests or, at my urging, Councilor Cassie McClure’s requests.  By contrast, my request to Dona Ana County Sheriff Kim Stewart prompted an informative reply from Captain Alfred Sanchez, who was forthcoming in answering my questions.  For roughly the same population as the city’s but a much greater area, DASO has three SWAT vehicles, two of them military-style, primarily intended for use against barricaded shooters.

On 14 August, I emailed my elected Progressive representatives—Jeff Steinborn, Angelo Rubio, and Cassie McClure—to request that they inquire about the intended purposes of these SWAT vehicles.  (I copied this request to my distribution list then and place it at the end of this blog now.)  The response by these elected officials, all Progressives who tout themselves as champions of liberal democracy, was underwhelming.  None of them was courteous enough to acknowledge my email; presumably, none made an inquiry.  Apparently, none takes public safety and citizen rights seriously enough to respond to a concerned constituent. 

 

Other representatives did respond.  Joanne Ferrary emailed me to express her concern and to indicate that she would inquire; having heard nothing from her, I assume that any inquiry by her went unanswered.  On 26 August, Nathan Small emailed me that he will make efforts to ensure that I get the information about SWAT vehicles which I want.  Still, I expect no LCPD response.

 

I remain concerned.  I wonder why Steinborn, Rubio, and McClure are not concerned about Story’s militarization of the LCPD; indeed, McClure compliantly voted for his request just because Story, as the police chief, asked for SWAT vehicles.  I worry that he is arming the LCPD for the days when it might be co-opted or pressed into the service of immigrant roundups, protest suppression, or voter intimidation.  I am puzzled by the paradox that local Progressives claim to be alarmed by the fact or the prospect of middle-of-the-night or middle-of-the-street abductions of immigrants, legal or illegal, but are not alarmed that the city’s current Republican police chief wants excessive quantities of military-style equipment.

 

My larger concern is that local politicians—on City Council, most being Progressives—are unresponsive to their constituents on matters of public importance.  As an aside, I note that unresponsiveness of government officials to their constituents seems to be infectious.  The difference between House and Senate Republicans, Trump supporters all, some of whom avoid town hall meetings on visits to their districts or states, and Steinborn, Rubio, and McClure, who refuse to answer reasonable questions reasonably asked, is small.  Those federal officials are avoiding answering to their constituents and, in doing so, are undermining the fundamental relationship between them and thus democratic representative government.  Local Progressive officials Steinborn, Rubio, and McClure are acting like them.

 

The difference: whereas political activism is evident in many places throughout the country, in Las Cruces, political quiescence prevails.  Many local citizens are satisfied to be left alone to enjoy time with family, friends, and high-school football; and shrug off expected shabby political treatment.  Thus accustomed to their officials’ sluggish conduct, they do not care whether officials address problems perceived by and alarming to a few.  But political leadership requires that elected officials address problems, not by nose counts of complainers, but by their actual importance to the public interest.

 

This local lethargy enables elected officials to ignore the warnings of a handful of informed and concerned citizens in three areas of importance to city and state: police conduct, public health, and public education.  Police misconduct triggers reflexive responses but leads to no concerted and sustained efforts to reform the LCPD.  City Council seems obtuse regarding the threat of SWAT vehicles in an LCPD which has a record of stonewalling.

 

Knowing almost nothing about public health, I know better than to offer uninformed opinions.  I do know public education.  I know that, as long as Las Cruces high schools field competitive football teams, no one much cares that they do not produce competent—i.e., academically proficient—graduates.  According to its own mission statement, the School Board is more committed to the safety and sense of belonging of every student than to their education.

 

What is true of Las Cruces is largely true of New Mexico.  In my 18 years as a resident, I have witnessed no change, unless it be a deterioration, in students’ academic performance in public education.  The state still ranks at or very near the bottom in national rankings.  Normally, this record would be held against legislators on the house and senate education committees, especially Progressive Bill Soules, who, as chair of the senate’s education committee, has overseen a decline in academic proficiency throughout his dozen years in office.  Just as Trump’s giveaways to Putin get nothing in return, so Soules-advocated increases in teacher salaries get no improvement in student education.  Soules has never addressed the concerns of citizens who want better results, not bigger bills, from their public schools.  So the gap between the national average level of education and the state’s level of education will widen the longer the state does little more than fill educational potholes at ever greater costs.  As long as the state continues its customary approaches to public education, the state will not have an educated population with a workforce capable of attracting wealth-generating companies.  In the strictest sense of the phrase, New Mexico, which currently receives about $4000 more per capita annually than it returns in federal revenues, will become, if it is not already, a welfare state.

 

Only a few ask questions or get answers about the city’s and the state’s poor showing in policing, health, and education.  Poorly governed and unresponsive to those few citizens rightly concerned about major issues—that is, too poorly led to address its problems and mitigate, if not solve, them—the city, as if in receivership, might be better run under state rule and the state might be better governed as a territory run by Washington and a territorial governor, regardless of party, once Trump leaves office.

 

 

 

 

14 August email:

 

Donald Trump’s abuse of his powers now extends to the co-option of local police forces, purportedly for anti-immigration and crime-curtailment purposes.  In view of their co-option in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and in expectation of more of the same in other cities, control of local police forces and limitations on their capabilities should be ensured by preventive measures.

 

Story and other LCPD officers have refused my and Councilor Cassie McClure’s request for information pertaining to Story’s request for five military-style SWAT vehicles.  McClure voted for the request because, as she told me, the Police Chief recommended it—not, to my mind, a very due-diligent reason.  Representative Joanne Ferrary notified me of her concern and indicated that she would inquire, but, despite a request to her, I have heard nothing from her.  I assume that any inquiry by her went unanswered.

 

Accordingly, I request that you ascertain the rationale for and the state of Las Cruces Police Chief Jeremy Story’s request to City Council and its approval of his request for state funding of five SWAT vehicles for the city.  I also request that you make any LCPD responses available to the public and to me.

 

I look forward to your responses as a measure of your commitment to public safety and the protection of citizens and their rights.

DEI: DEMOCRACY-ENABLING IDEAS

      Republicans oppose DEI, and their opposition has tainted public acceptance of DEI programs in government, business, and academic institutions.  They know what they oppose when they oppose DEI; others are less likely to know.  So I shall lead with lightly edited AI definitions of its three terms—diversity, equity, inclusion—, each followed by comments on the political implications of disapproving or opposing what each term means.

Diversity: the representation of individuals with varied identities and backgrounds within a group or organization.  It includes, but is not limited to, differences in race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, and more.  Diversity is about recognizing and valuing the unique perspectives and experiences which each person brings to the table.

 

This definition of diversity does not explicitly recognize religion among many other factors.  The omission might reflect the growing secularization of our times, but I think not.  More likely, it seeks to avoid controversy during the Trump administration about the growing Republican belief that America is a Christian nation, regardless of its actual religious composition.  It thus skirts Republican deprecation and demonization of Islam and Islamic practices, and support of or engagement in antisemitism, both now sharply on the rise.

 

To oppose diversity is to discount or dismiss perspectives and experiences of people with backgrounds different from one’s own, and to seek to homogenize the representation of the American population in its variety.  The question is which population group is to be the norm for homogenization.  The answer is the largest and most powerful group according to its preferred factor or cluster of preferred factors, usually race, religion, or sex.  Thus, opposition to diversity amounts to implied advocacy of white Christians.  The practical effect of this opposition is the diminution or deletion of non-whites or non-Christians in all cultural formats: books, movies, plays, music, museums, monuments, etc.  Indiscriminate deportation of Hispanic immigrants is a step in this direction.  Ultimately, the opposition to diversity goes beyond erasures in cultural formats to erasures of minorities, otherwise known as ethnic cleansing.

 

Equity: fair treatment and access to opportunities for everyone.  It differs from equality, which implies treating everyone the same.  Equity acknowledges that individuals and groups have different circumstances and starting points due to systemic barriers and historical disadvantages.  So achieving equity often involves providing tailored support and resources to address those imbalances and ensure that everyone has what he or she needs to succeed and thrive.

 

To oppose equity in America, long touted and long touting itself as the land of opportunity and long promising opportunity for all, is to deny those with disadvantages the means to overcome them in education, employment, health care, housing, and nutrition.  Republican opposition accepts a division of the population into those having and those not having these benefits.  The haves remain advantaged; the have-nots, disadvantaged.  Indeed, the gap between the one and the other widens because the advantaged acquire and accumulate the power to secure and increase their benefits at the expense of the disadvantaged.  The disparities in the distribution of these benefits create the conditions for disparities in democratic policies and practices, and can lead to the demise of democracy.

 

Underlying the opposition to equity is opposition to the redistribution of wealth.  The haves believe their benefits to be deserved or at least protected by property rights and oppose their reduction by taxation, especially in a progressive fashion, or expropriation.  The halves regard talking about their paying a fair share—that is, in proportion to their wealth—as code talk for wealth transfers from the rich to the poor.  Republicans view social safety net programs—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and others—as wealth transfers and thus oppose them.  They try to reduce or eradicate these programs or, in the case of Social Security, to privatize it so that they can profit from it.  The haves oppose public education because they resist providing benefits to the have-nots and giving them the means to improve their situation.  They view funding for public education as a zero-sum proposition, whereby what the have-nots gain, the haves lose, though, in fact, public education increases the wealth of the society.

 

Inclusion: the active and intentional effort to create an environment in which all individuals feel valued, respected, and supported, and where they can fully participate and contribute their unique perspectives and talents.  It fosters a sense of belonging to ensure that diverse voices are heard and considered in decision-making processes.

 

To oppose inclusion is to refuse to accept the worth of all people, their perspectives and experiences, and their participation in and contribution to society.  Republicans believe that, though they are part of the population and among the governed, minorities and women should play a diminished role in society and not participate in government at the federal, state, county, or local levels.  Accordingly, they promote obstacles to voting which adversely affect minorities and women (as well as students and seniors).  Opposition to inclusion is tantamount to endorsing a two- or multi-class society of all-or-nothing or graduated levels of citizenship.  The precedent is the original constitutional provision under which slaves counted for three-fifths of a person only for census purposes.  The attacks on women’s reproductive rights and on LGBTQ+ lifestyle rights aim to diminish their proper status in society as welcome, full-fledged members, though women and LGBTQ+ people (wish to) serve in the armed forces to defend the country.

 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are three ideas enabling democracy, three dimensions of what it means, three components of what it is.  They are not, as Republicans regard them, some sinister corrupting influences on the body politic.  On the contrary, their opposition to DEI is itself a corrupting influence which distorts the concept of democracy and weakens America.  In their opposition to the associated concept of “woke,” also treated as if politically obscene, Republicans declare that awareness of systematic racism (or sexism or some other bigoted “ism”) is a danger to society instead of a challenge to be overcome to its benefit.  It does help that those who oppose DEI and woke identify themselves as anti-democratic bigots.  Once identified, they cannot hide from those who believe in a pluralistic, multicultural America and from the avenging consequences of their attempted efforts to contaminate or cancel democracy.

TRUSTING INTUITIONS—THIS JEWEL IS A GEM (AND A COYDOG?)

Until I lost four close relations 40 years ago and suffered from acute depression as a result, I had not thought of myself as in any way intuitive.  I thought intuition was an artsy-fartsy sort of mental posturing.  But, suffering the loss of my best dog, an uncle, my best friend, and my father in less than a year, and lacking emotional support from my wife, whom I later divorced, I went into therapy.  It did not take my therapist long to conclude that I was very intuitive—a surprise to me and a conclusion which I doubted for some time.

 

As I recovered and realized my continuing knack with animals of all sorts—parakeets, cats, dogs, and horses—, I came to realize that intuition was playing a part on both sides of those relationships and was important to my success as an animal whisperer.  Most dogs, unless badly damaged by their owners, intuit my empathy for them which attracts them to me.  One canine story illustrates the point: canines have intuitions about me and my empathy for them.

 

At dusk on a wintery New Year’s Eve afternoon, a light snow falling in the darkening day, I visited the wolf yard at the Cleveland Zoo with three out-of-town friends.  To view the yard, we descended into an underground room with a narrow, double-paned window with one-way glass panes.  We watched the pack walking among the large standing and fallen trees and large boulders for several minutes; then my friends left for other exhibits.  I remained to observe the pack, particularly, its leader.  Almost at that moment, he turned, approached the window, and stopped directly in front of me; only about a foot and a half separated us.  Although he could not smell, hear, or see me, he sensed me.  He peered intently at me, and I peered as intently at him.  It was a mesmerizing moment; there are no eyes like a wolf’s eyes.  When I slowly, quietly turned to leave, he lingered for a moment, then rejoined his pack.

 

Acquiring Jewel, nee Mercedes, was a case of two fortunate intuitions.  I have told this story in a previous blog, but it bears repeating.  Anticipating retirements of two old, large dogs, I went to the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley in search of a companion for my small terrier blend.  Walking by the dog pens generated the usual responses: dogs rushing to the front, yelping to be taken or barking to drive me away.  Only this time, I also got a  response by a dog who sat and stared at me from the back of her pen.  The card for her said “shy”—pound-speak for “abused.”  All of my 19 dogs have been rescues, most abused.  Even so, this dog’s behavior was unusual by their standard.  I moved on.

 

I came to the pen of a non-descript dog, slender body, long legs, whippy tail, and yellow coat—the kind of dog who, in stories set in the South, is known as a “yaller dog.”  I liked her looks, filled out the paperwork, paid the fees, and named her “Yaller.”  Yet, on the way home, I had an intuition which raised the question whether this dog was a cat-killer.  The answer came as soon as we arrived, by which time Yaller had bonded to me.  I always bring a new dog into the house on a leash.  When I walked with her out onto the porch, my calico attacked her and scared her so badly that she nearly pulled me over trying to get away.  Message sent and received.  The next day, still leashed, Yaller twice lunged at my mackerel tabby.  Answer confirmed.  The  next day I returned Yaller to the pound (and recommended her as a pet for a family without cats).

 

I then took a second look at the unusual dog.  In the meet-and-greet pen, she paid no attention to me—which surprised me since most dogs recognize me as a friend and come to me.  Again, my intuition kicked in that this dog and I would work out just fine; I gave her a name which proclaimed her a gem.  Home we went and bonded on the way.  The bonding confirmed my intuition.  The working out which I had intuited extended to my other dogs and my cats, with whom she got along well from the start.  Thirty hours after her adoption, Jewel and I were walking together, she on a leash.  She saw a man at some distance approaching; the hair on her back went up, she began growling, and she elevated her concern to barking—all to protect me.  She soon showed herself to be the smartest and most expressively affectionate dog whom I have owned.  Day begins with her jumping up on the bed, lying down beside me, and going belly up for me to rub it while she licks my face.

I intuit one more thing about Jewel.  She did not seem to me to completely fit the bill as a Shepsky, a blend of German Shepherd and Husky.  The DNA test showed her to be  21.0% German Shepherd, 44.9% Husky, and 34.1% anyone’s guess.  Some small fraction of that 34.1% consists of traces from five other breeds, but most of it remains unidentified.  I requested the testing company to check for coyote DNA; it reported no trace of it.

Probably because I have a romantic streak in me, I sense an element of wildness in her.  My perception ignores the features which the DNA analyst says are stray DNA bits and pieces—most canines are genetic stews with genetic seasonings—and urges that their combination is more than chance.  Jewel’s snout is narrow; her eyes are yellow; the base of the backs of her erect, pointed ears are reddish; she has one black spot at the base of her tail, and its tip is black.  She looks and runs like a coyote.  She is very intelligent and wary of strangers.  She collects trash on walks and buries it.  If I am right—I trust my intuition—, the pound sold me a coydog, a hybrid illegal in Las Cruces.  Fortunately for Jewel and me, the DNA evidence would refute any City Attorney’s allegation and save the pound from prosecution; my intuition would count for nothing in court.  Still, I shall trust it and make myself happy by thinking her a coydog.

WHY IS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY FALLING FAST?

The Really Big Lie of the 2024 election was Donald John Trump’s contradictory claim about the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a retrogressive plan for reducing and reorganizing the federal government.  He denied knowing anything about it, but he disagreed with it.  Nice.

 

Project 2025 was the all-encompassing plan with tendentious justifications for presidential action and detailed implementations by administration officials who pledged their loyalty to the President, not the Constitution.  Its strategy was to flood the system from Day One, not with legislative proposals, but with Executive Orders, most of dubious legality or constitutionality.  It intended to neuter and neutralize Congress and overwhelm and undermine the court system, in reliance on a partisan-majority Supreme Court headed by a moral eunuch and legal nitwit.

 

Congressional Republicans, thrilled by the re-election of Trump, were only too eager to please.  In part, they approved of some of his positions; in part, they wanted to keep their seats.  Aware of his strong support within their party and his willingness to use his power to reward friends and punish foes, they were equally eager not to displease him and risk their careers.  So Senators and Representatives, lacking the moral spine to make sacrifices for the sake of right, quickly capitulated as his administration violated  norms, laws, and Constitutional provisions despite increasing evidence that their constituents disapproved of its policies and practices.

 

This Republican behavior is not puzzling.  They have been advocating and, wherever and whenever possible, adopting, anti-democratic laws, regulations, and procedures in elections for many years.  Knowing that their positions are unpopular, they do not want elections decided by “the consent of the governed” by free and fair elections.  They support disenfranchisement by purging voter rolls and erecting barriers to registering to vote and obstacles to voting.  They support gerrymandering by manipulating voter populations according to party affiliation.

 

The aim is simple: Control who votes and where those votes count.  With the SAVE Act, they block the voters they fear.  With redistricting, they pick the voters they want.  It’s all about cementing the Republican Party’s grip on power—no matter the cost to democracy.  (Max Flugrath, “Republicans are brazenly rigging the 2026 midterms,” The Contrarian [21 July 2025])

 

Decisions by Republican flunkies on the Supreme Court have accelerated these anti-democratic trends.  They have approved essentially unlimited funding of campaigns.  They have approved infringements on voting rights.  They have approved partisan gerrymandering.  When, at the outset of Trump’s second term (2021), Amy Coney Barrett declared that the Court “is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she echoed Richard Nixon’s disclaimer “I am not a crook” during Watergate (1973) and self-identified the six Republican justices as vandals of law, precedent, and constitutional provisions.

 

What impresses me is the efficiency of this Republican movement in all three branches of government—Executive, Legislative, and Judicial—working to destroy American democracy.  Thanks to the Heritage Foundation, it had a plan; thanks to Trump, it had a (would-be) dictator (after all, Executive Orders are diktats); and, thanks to rank-and-file Republicans, it had many vocal and active supporters.  It remains to be seen whether the Epstein scandal will unravel the interlocking strands of abuses of norms, laws, and Constitutional provisions which have made American democracy work for nearly two-and-a-half centuries.

 

If not for these past preparations and the passive response of Democrats, Republicans could not have achieved so much in so little time.  Since “give ‘em hell” Truman, Democrats have supported milk toasts labeled moderates or centrists: Adlai Stevenson, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, who kept Kamala Harris from bringing prosecutorial piss-and-vinegar to the fight.  Democrats and the officials whom they have elected have long ignored or discounted past Republican efforts to curtail democracy, and trusted “sweetness and light,” in Matthew Arnold’s phrase, to prevail in the centers of American political power.

 

For the past six months or so, Democrats have excoriated Congressional Republicans for lacking the spine to stand up to Trump—Democrats ignore that he is their leader—, but they themselves have lacked a plan, leaders, supporters, and, with a few exceptions, the spine to stand up to Trump or to challenges the Republican movement.  A few, like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Adam Schiff, have, to no effect.  Hakeem Jeffries and Cory Booker gave record breaking speeches, just lots of talk to no effect.  Street protests are all well and good for those who want to feel well and good.  But, since Republicans do not care about people on either side of the political divide, they do not care about people on sidewalks.  Protests might have value for reinforcing those who object to Trump and Republican policies, but something more material than merely moral or spiritual kumbaya is required.  What about dispatching members of Congress to rallies and on tours to make the case for legislation embracing popular causes and against the Republican antidemocratic tactics which prevent their enactment?  What about social media blasts, and TV and radio ads about Republican attacks on fair and free elections?  What about joining with unions for targeted or general work slow-downs, boycotts, and strikes?

 

Until Democrats figure out how to connect everything involved with the rule of law to the living needs and moral values of Americans, they are going to rely on Trump, his administration,  and Republican officeholders to self-destruct.  Which trust is not only misplaced, but self-indicting.  It implies that Democrats have no coherent, cogent program to promote American interests at home or abroad.  At best, they can offer only a kinder, gentler approach to America’s deterioration as a dynamic nation and its decline as a leader of international liberalism.

 

What is facilitating the fast fall of American democracy is the moral rot, citizen by citizen, of two basic moral values—equality in law and politics, and equity in opportunity.  Equality is undermined by gross disparities of income and wealth; equity is undermined by rejection of compensatory efforts to ensure fair opportunity for all.  From hippiedom’s “do your own thing” to campus speech codes, from “rugged individualism” of western movies to tough-cop TV shows, Left and Right together have fostered a culture undermining social responsibility and civic conduct aligned with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Public education in civics or government classes have given way to social-reformist programs which provide little or nothing in the mechanics of democracy.  So when an administration embarks upon the anti-constitutional campaign outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the Right is unleashed from restraints to advance it, and the Left is bereft of a strategy to oppose it.

 The rot is nowhere more evident that in the legal profession generally and in the graduates of the best-known law schools of elitist universities specifically.  Some of their graduates are prominent figures in the Trump administration and are giving legal support to violations of law and the Constitution.  Law schools have apparently done little to engender a respect for the law and the rule of law.  They have also avoided judging and responding to the professional misconduct of their graduates.  They might have—and they still might—revoke their law degrees for conduct unfitting.  The opprobrium of a revocation might give weight to ethics instruction to their law students and have a deterrent effect on their graduates.  But, for too long and in lieu of such action, law schools have taught their students the technology of the law and legal practice, with little or no regard for professional ethics.  Which is one reason why democracy has been so fast to fall after only six months or so since the onslaught against the law and the rule of law by the second Trump administration. 

ATROCIOUS EDITORIAL, MISGUIDED POLICE RECRUITMENT, AND CLASS WARFARE

      In its discretion, The Bulletin might or might not publish this brief letter to the editor about another botch-up by Ms. Shawna Pfeiffer in a recent issue.  I have no intention of commenting on every or even many of her columns; I have every intention of showing that The Bulletin has yet to find a conservative columnist capable of informed and literate commentary, something more than a dog’s breakfast of undigested views and bilious verbiage.  As I wrote, 

Ms. Shawna Pfeiffer is entitled to her outrageous opinions and loose language, but she is not entitled to her factual distortions or conceptual confusions (“The Good, the bad and the ugly,” 19 July).  All those who criticize the police are not filled with “rabid hatred.”  The people at the 13 June rally did not report hating the police; they reported fearing the police who aimed rifles at them (even Chief Story admitted that they should not have done so).  She writes that “they [officers] often sacrifice their lives for our community.”  She then refers to a deputy who killed himself when he drove his car into a stationary semi—not a sacrifice, probably not a suicide, but likely a preventable accident.  “Often” should mean more than one LCPD officer killed in the line of duty in the entire history of the department.  She also writes about the passage of a law “which removed qualified immunity, making it possible for civil servants like police officers to be held personally liable for doing their jobs.”  The law does no such thing; it holds them liable for not doing their job properly while on the job, like using excessive force which injures or kills people who should not have been injured or killed.  Ms. Pfieffer speaks of “fundamentally moral stance[s]” without herself being able to make the moral distinctions necessary to moral stances.

 

She shows herself unaware of or indifferent to the traditionally skewed legal conditions of law enforcement which enable police officers to assume that they are the law as far as citizens are concerned and above the law as far as they themselves are concerned.

 

Perhaps Ms. Pfeiffer missed the LCPD’s recruitment video posted a few weeks ago.  (Thanks to Heath Haussamen, I did not miss it.). Police Chief Jeremy Story talks about the importance of good police-citizen relationships, but his video with his voice takes an antagonistic line.  He asks its viewers whether they like to run and then shows film clips of officers chasing suspects.  Story appeals to prospective goons, not “good guys.”  (Will they serve in his five SWAT vehicles?)  His video suggests nothing other or better in the way of public service.  It shows us what Story’s professional priorities of the LCPD really are—not the right ones, only hazards to the city.

 

When it comes to antagonist relationships, class warfare is about as good as it gets.  Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill, which embodies the old maxim, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, is its latest instance.  The phrase is often associated with Marxism and, by sloppy association, with the Left.  But Marxism is not the only or even the first analysis of society by class, defined by economics with cultural, political, and social ramifications.  Long before him, there was Robin Hood, and with him, there were two classes, the rich to be robbed, and the poor to be given.

 

So, from the beginning, the largest part of politics was concerns about the distribution or concentration of wealth: policy issues about who gets what.  Like Marx, but not Marx only, Democrats make the wide distribution of wealth their primary concern, and Republicans see this distribution as a kind of societally sanctioned robbery.  The Democrats’ defense of the distribution of wealth is the necessity of providing at least a minimum of economic benefits for all.  To Republicans, such distributional policies deprive them of what they believe themselves entitled to by virtue of their inherent moral superiority.  In America, the idea goes back to the Puritans, who believed that material success signified God’s grace upon the elect; today, the elite believe it is their deserving.  Not surprisingly, this sense of moral superiority translates into or accompanies various forms of bigotry: racism, sexism, elitism—, etc.

 

The result: competition for or differential possession of wealth among classes, or class warfare.  The current disaffection with and within the Democratic Party reflects the disconnect between the party establishment, which is seen as elitist in its affiliation with the uber-rich and celebrities, and its natural constituency, the lower and middle classes.  Talk about the price of eggs or gasoline is superficial because their prices reflect macroeconomic forces over which neither the President nor Congress has much control.  Talk about job security in an age of rapid technological change—the real fear of replacement—and wealth inequality is significant because the President and Congress can influence, if not control, these conditions.  Talk of the latter reflects the possibility of control, as the infuriated responses of America's one-percenters indicate.  But Republicans are not less waging class warfare, though they do not use such terms.  With one exception: some years ago, a notable plutocrat whose name I no longer remember [I have been informed the man is Warren Buffet] admitted that the rich were engaged in class warfare and claimed that they were winning.  Instead, they mostly silently wage it without slogans by cutting welfare and education programs, among many others benefitting millions of ordinary Americans.  The closest thing to a slogan is their appeal to “opportunity,” which costs them nothing and puts nothing on anyone’s plate.

 

The struggle for democracy in America involves powerful economic forces.  As is increasingly obvious to most Americans, the uber-rich have the financial resources to warp elections to their purposes.  Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s absurd, even obscene, decision which equated money and speech—like mobster-speak, money talks—gave plutocrats unparalleled power to influence elections, that is, weaken the ability of the electorate to give the true “consent of the governed.”  The remedy, if this fever of autocratic tendency does not destroy democracy, will have to include a non-regressive redistribution of wealth.  The means will have to include radical tax reform: multiple tax brackets reflecting the value of money, graduated annual wealth taxes, and graduated estate taxes.  As it is, the rich do not contribute their fair and an affordable share to the welfare of the country which has made them rich.  Their reinvestment of tax cuts in the economy is a small percentage of their total investments, most of which are in second, third or more homes; jets; yachts; works of art, jewelry, and yet more stocks and bonds.  Bottom line: billionaires are not worth very much to society, and millionaires are not worth much more.

REVENGE ON TRUMP’S ENABLERS MEANS THEIR ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER THE LAW AND IN SOCIETY

For some, the word for the day is, do unto them as they have done unto us.  But such revenge, while it has visceral appeal, is entirely inappropriate to any hope of restoring American democracy to robustness.  To simply reverse the weaponization of government to punish Trump, the officials of his administration, and the agents carrying out their orders would be to further corrode the principles and values of America’s constitutional democracy.  As they have operated illegally and unconstitutionally, those of us who embrace democracy must operate legally and constitutionally to hold them accountable and appropriately punish convicted malefactors.  The law rigorously applied as accountability for the lawless is the appropriate turn-about for fair play.

 

I am unable—probably no one is able—to provide even a comprehensive, as distinct from a current, complete account of Trump’s illegal or unconstitutional actions and those of his minions in various departments and agencies: DOJ, DHS, FBI, ICE, BP, and ATF, as well as  federalized national guard and selected Marine units.  These departments, agencies, and military units have lied to courts, disregarded court orders, secured perverse emergency [or “shadow”] docket decisions from the Supreme Court, attacked civilians, abused and abducted citizens as well as non-citizens, separated children from parents, deprived them of their rights, detained them in punitive conditions, and deported them to third countries.  The list of their abuses is so long that I have probably omitted as many as I have included.  If a future government ever recovers from their abuses, it should collect evidence of illegal acts, investigate those who committed them, and hold them accountable under the law.

 

The leaders of these government units are variously callous, corrupt, and criminal.  The same and more may be said of Republicans in Congress.  They are virtually unanimous in tolerating Trump’s violations of law and the Constitution out of fear of losing their seats, that is, their career, not chosen for public service, but for power and prestige.  In their subservience to Trump, they give a patina of legitimacy to his authoritarian rule; in return, he lets them enjoy the personal advantages, privileges, and benefits of office.  Their subservience to Trump means surrendering congressional authority and abandoning almost all traditional Republican positions except lower taxes for the rich: balanced budgets, small government, law-and-order, and international leadership of democratic countries.  Ironically, they undermine their professed reasons to be in Congress.  For supporting Trump’s rule, they must be held accountable by the public humiliation of election repudiation and by ostracism by their political associates.

 

Together, the legislative and executive branches of government have conspired to create a police state.  Xenophobia. Islamophobia, and pseudo-antisemitism are the main levers intended to detach Americans from democratic principles and values, and constitutional rights.  Thus, the “Big, Beautiful Bill” contains billions for facilities and personnel to incarcerate legal as well as illegal immigrants, most not illegal, all without due process.  The long-term effects of billions for concentration camps and billions for ICE agents have not received much attention, but they should.  Once built and once hired, then what?  Political necessity or inertia ensures that they are likely to continue to be used and to be employed, respectively, even if all immigrants were deported.  Since Congress will be reluctant to allow camps costing $45 billion dollars to deteriorate, or to spend billions more to dismantle them, future administrations will seek other uses for them.  Trump-like Presidents might find their availability tempting to target and threaten dissenters, protesters, and politicians not to his or her liking.  Trump-like administrations might target minority populations—African Americans, Muslims, Jews, Asian Americans, etc.—until only whites of European descent populate the country.  Non-Trump-like presidents will not want to discharge thousands of ICE agents because they would constitute a virtually unemployable horde of violence-prone, reviled, and embittered individuals whose resentments might make them a continuing threat to the country and its political stability.  So the tyrannical government which the Trump administration has begun to create and Congress has begun to fund will likely inaugurate a federal police force and a standing army, both of which will prove difficult to dismantle.  Inured to police and military callousness toward citizens and non-citizens alike, and tolerant of legal and constitutional abuses, Senators and Representatives will likely maintain this gulag of concentration camps in a disfigured democracy.  The only means of accountability for this national disgrace is their defeat at the polls.

 

The highest members of the third branch of government, the judiciary, are at least equally unworthy.  The six conservative, Catholic, Republican partisans of the Supreme Court are especially deserving of the contempt of their colleagues in the legal profession and their fellow citizens.  With the advantages of an excellent education and employment security in a position to enable public service, they have betrayed everything except wealth, class, and party.  They have squandered their opportunities to serve the county; instead, they preferred to indulge their personal prejudices and grievances, and enjoy the munificence of their friends.  The bankruptcy of their judicial practice is evident in their emergency, or “shadow,” docket decisions made in response to the Trump administration’s “emergency” requests.  None of the requests address emergencies by any definition of the term.  Most of their decisions, with little or no rationale, defy or distort applicable laws, reverse court precedents, or ignore constitutional provisions.  Their cruelest and most despicable decisions do not stay, or suspend, the execution of perverse executive orders even while proceedings by plaintiffs against those orders continue.  What is the messages to judges in District courts?  Example: the Court permits deportations even while the cases brought by those deported continue; cruelty is inflicted, harm is done, and some of it is likely irreversible.  The Court’s policy: shoot first; ask questions later.

 

In addition to these appalling emergency docket decisions is the far worse decision by which these six partisan hacks, robed as justices, opined that the President has absolute immunity for core constitutional acts, presumptive immunity for other official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.  They exempt the President from criminal accountability for his “official” acts.  A question worth asking since he or she swears to uphold the law and the Constitution: exactly what “official” acts might be illegal?  They ignore the President’s unqualified power to pardon anyone, even malefactors in his administration and thus enable their abuses.  The decision has been criticized for many reasons.  The reason easiest for me to understand is its departure from the plain text and clear implications of Article I, Section 3: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” (emphasis added).  The Constitution says nothing about a president’s liability or lack thereof for illegal acts under federal or state law if he or she is neither impeached by the House nor convicted by the Senate.  Presumably, if no one is above the law, federal or state prosecutors can criminally charge the president for illegal acts, and injured third parties can civilly sue for damages.  The Sycophantic Six have made up law without any textual basis for doing so—judicial activism at its worst.  Where impeachment is clearly justified—Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and perhaps Brett Kavanaugh for bribery and discrediting the Court—, it should be pursued.  But all seem liable to impeachment for decisions plainly contrary to law and the constitutional—the highest of crimes—, in violation of their oaths of office.  At the very least, all six should be disbarred, banished by their professional peers from professional associations for their perversions of judicial practice, and ostracized by society.

 

The means of accountability which I have suggested permit punishment to fit the crime: the ordinary legal process through the court system or societal action through the court of public opinion.  Unfortunately, the ordinary legal process can be obstructed by the president’s pardon power, which Trump can grant to officials and agents without hindrance at any stage in the legal process, before, during, or after it.  However, some of those pardoned might be liable to charges under state law; if so, they should be so charged, and those who are lawyers should be disbarred.  The conduct of elected politicians should be viewed from legal, political, and social perspectives. They should be held accountable for any and all violations of state laws; if their conduct is not prosecutable, they should be punished for what I call crimes against the state by defeat at the polls, disbarment, and professional and social ostracism.  Lawyers and justices who aided and abetted Trump’s authoritarian conduct should be disbarred or impeached and disbarred.  Justices in particular should be held to the severest standard and dealt with accordingly, in part to punish them, in part to deter others who might think themselves immune from prosecution and penalty.  After accusing Republicans of cowardice to oppose Trump, Democrats must demonstrate their courage to undo what he has done and improve upon the status quo ante.  Without taking the severest steps against those who have proven unfaithful to American democracy, America cannot return to a reformed democratic regime under the rule of law and the Constitution.

CLEO’S END – A FAVORITE PET HAS A BOTCHED “RETIREMENT”

 [This blog, a testimonial to a favorite pet and a narrative of her shameful termination, comes with public service announcements.]

 

Of sixteen cats in my life, Cleo, an eight-and-a-half-pound calico, and Edgar, her older boyfriend, were the best.  Cleo was a friend.  She was also a take-no-shit cat.  I amused myself by imagining the reaction of a coyote who dared to try to make a meal of her.  Here’s why.

 

Story one.  After Buddy, an aging Yellow Labrador, arrived as a rescue and made a snarky move at her, Cassio, my Akita/Pointer boss dog, put him in his place with nips and growls.  Six months later, Buddy thought to take over and shoved Cassio aside as I was petting him; Cassio growled and shoved back.  Fearing 160 pounds of dogmeat in the backyard, I grabbed, rolled, and scolded Buddy.  While holding him down for a moment, Cleo came over, furious at Buddy for getting ugly with Cassio, and gave him five or six one-two punches on the sides of his head.  And that was that: Buddy, decidedly chastened, accepted his proper place at the back of the pack.

 

Story two.  When Buddy (80 lbs.), Cassio (80 lbs.), Miranda (60 lbs., American Foxhound) were playing too close to her for comfort, she attacked each in turn and drove them away.  Then she resumed her spot and slept soundly.  She got her message across.

 

Story three.  As I brought a new 60 lb. dog of indeterminate breed whom I named Yaller home from the pound, I wondered if she were a cat-killer.  I led her on a leash from the house onto the porch.  Cleo was there and immediately attacked Yaller, who was so scared that she nearly pulled me over as she tried to get away.  In confirmation of Cleo’s instinctive assessment, Yaller twice lunged at my other cat.  I returned Yaller to the pound, with the recommendation that this otherwise fine dog—she had bonded to me at once—be placed in a cat-free home.

 

Cleo lived a long life for an indoor/outdoor calico: 11 years.  She was a most affectionate cat.  She loved all the dogs, even those whom she had had to admonish.  She accepted their nuzzling and licking.  She slept with them when she did not sleep with me.  Frequently, she would meet me on my return from the mailbox and walk home with me.  Sometimes, when the weather and her mood aligned, she would join the pack on a walk around Brown Farm.  Often, when I sat in my reading chair or at my computer, or slept in the bedroom, she was there, on my lap, on my desk, or between my legs—always purring.  We developed a system of signals to communicate our needs.  She trusted me.  Whenever I tended to her wounds, she let me repair any damage and endured my remedies.  At the vet’s, she trusted me while I held her to tolerate his probings and treatments without complaint or struggle.  She adored me, and I adored her.

 

I wanted Cleo to have a quiet and dignified “retirement” when her time came, as it did on Thursday, 3 July.  But it was not to be.  The two technical assistants tasked with preparing Cleo for the on-duty vet could not adjust to circumstances not the usual and did not respect my wishes.  Referring to a previous cat retirement, I explained that I wished to hold Cleo in my lap while they shaved her leg and inserted a needle into it.  They wanted to take her to the back room for those tasks.  Sensing that they would handle her roughly and that she would respond badly, I refused to let them.  They relented and agreed to let me hold Cleo on the consulting table while they prepped her.  When I carried Cleo to the table, one assistant nudged me aside, alarmed Cleo, and made matters worse by struggling to wrap her in a towel to prevent scratching and biting.  I tried to comfort Cleo but could not overcome the assistants’ aggressive efforts at controlling her.  Their tasks completed, they left; I put Cleo in my lap, but, despite my efforts to comfort her, she remained fighting mad.  The vet came in and administered a sedative and a life-ending cocktail.

 

Nothing in Cleo’s last moments was what she wanted for herself or what I wanted for her.  She deserved to “retire” with dignity and respect, not in fury at the insensitive, inconsiderate, and inappropriate conduct of technicians who had no respect for their clients or their clients’ cats.  They left me with the painful memories that Cleo was abused in her final moments and that I, by tolerating and trying to cooperate with these technicians, had enabled them to abuse her.

[A post-publication correction: the assistants, not knowing me or my vet’s practice with me, were following the law.  If Cleo had bit me during the “retirement” process, the clinic would be liable, and they said so.  I did not believe them because my vet had said nothing to me about such liability when she effected other “retirements” of my pets.  She knew that I would not sue for any failure of mine to control Cleo, but the assistants did not.  Ignorance on both sides made for Cleo’s misery.]

 

Nothing can change the facts of this misfortune.  To prevent a recurrence in my case and, I hope, in others’ cases, I later complained to the senior vet, with whom only I schedule all appointments for my many pets.  So she knows me well, knows each of my pets well, knows how I manage them, and knows how much they mean to me.  (PSA #1: work with one vet only, exceptions only in emergencies.  PSA #2: do not hesitate to make complaints.)

 

I began by alerting her that, calm as I may be in giving her a detailed account of this incident, I was still furious.  Then I delivered it.  I then said that I understood that lower-level employees especially are governed by the rulebook of approved procedures, which cover most situations.  I added that what the rulebook often omits is guidance for the unusual situation.  Omitted is the simple suggestion for any such situation: stop to get advice.  In my case, any employee in the reception area would have said either ask an on-duty vet for advice, ask Mr. Hays to return when the senior vet is in, or do as he requests.  I suggested that my vet so instruct her employees.  (PSA #3: do not hesitate to offer advice or state your preferences.  PSA #4: make advance arrangements with your vet—pets should have advance directives, too—about what you want in “retirement” services, and have the vet’s notes in your pet’s file indicate those arrangements so that staff will know what they should do in his/her absence.)

 

Given our established relationship and her respect for me as a pet owner, I had no doubts about the sincerity of my vet’s sadness, her apology, and her resolve to prevent a recurrence.  She promised me the following: one, to talk with the technical assistants who, from the sound of it, were not going to have a good day; two, to put notes in my file that these assistants were to have no contact with my pets and that my pets were to be treated as I wished them to be treated; and, three, to instruct employees that they were to stop to get advice in unusual situations.  (PSA #5: expect a specific, constructive response to your complaint or change vet.)

 

Cleo approves these five public service announcements.  But she is still pissed off.