Food for Thought

COVID-19:  How Serious is this Virus?

By Robert Fischer

While I have been busy working on my next major Thoughts from the Middle article, I have also been thinking about COVID-19.  On one hand, we have President Trump and many of his followers who seem to have little care for the consequences of the virus.  On the other side, we have Vice President Biden and the majority of the medical community Who are very concerned.  President Trump is very concerned with the impact of the virus on our economy.  He does not want to “shut down” business or social interactions.  At the present, it is apparent that the shutdowns have had an adverse impact on many businesses.  Vice President Biden promotes wearing a mask, social distancing, and proper hygiene as a means of handling the COVID crisis.  He promotes the belief that if the virus is controlled, the economy will no longer suffer.

Where does the truth lie?  It is my opinion that the Biden approach makes perfect sense.  If the virus is controlled, businesses can remain open.  People can have social contact.  Schools can be opened.  Follow the CDC guidelines as a nation and the virus will be contained, a vaccine will be distributed, and while businesses, social interactions, etc., may be reduced until the virus is controlled, the United States does not need to “shut down!”

Why should we, the people, care?  I did some basic math to find the answer to that question. As of 2019, the population of the United States is 330,000,000+. The extreme prediction for deaths from COVID in 2020 is 410,000. Thus, we are dealing with less than 1% of the population.  Should such a small percentage be a major problem? Should we shut down for so few deaths? While this is one way to view the statistics, another is to consider the following comparison to the number of deaths due to wars in the United States (I have excluded the Civil War):

War                                         Deaths           

Revolutionary War                      4,435

War of 1812                                2,260

Mexican War                            13,283

Spanish/American War               2,446

WW I                                      116,516

WW II                                      405,399

Korean War                               36,574

Viet Nam                                   58,220

Gulf War                                         383

Iraq/Afghanistan                          6,773

If you leave out WW II and the Civil War, the loss to the United States in all the other wars combined is 304,990.  That is tragic, but less than the total estimated civilian loss from COVID in 2020.  If considered from a humanitarian perspective, I believe that consists of far too many deaths.

Many of these are deaths could have been avoided if only all Americans had adhered to the CDC guidelines!  In addition to deaths, the medical community is only now finding that for many there are long term health issues.  So called “long haulers,” suffer from chronic fatigue.  Others have heart and lung damage.  There are also cost considerations and the unnecessary risk to health care workers who are exposed to the virus. 

 I hate wearing a mask! I hate not being able to hug my children and grandchildren!  I don’t like not being able to have friends over except under CDC guidelines.  Still, if we had all adhered to the guidelines, businesses that are now closed might still be open and we would have had far fewer deaths.

Leadership:  The Good and the Bad

By Robert James Fischer

What is Leadership?

When we think of great leaders, people like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King often come to mind.  The term “leader” is difficult to define since it is often used along with power, management, control, and other terms familiar to the study of government and business.  However, there are some common denominators.  Leadership is a group phenomenon that involves the process of influence of an individual over a group.  Thus it goes without saying that there is NO leader without followers.

Is someone who uses their power (authority) and control, using rewards and punishment to gain compliance with their wishes, a leader?  Ask the subordinates!  The the perception of followers is important.  Is it possible for some people to view a person in authority as a good  leader, and yet others to view him/her as a bad leader?  Certainly!  Consider some American leaders of the past few decades.  Was Richard Nixon a good leader?  It depends on who you ask!  The same might be said of Jimmy Carter, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. 

Is there a measurement that accurately measures the various view of a specific leader?

Yes. Public opinion, supported by the weight of historical perspective (long and short term), is the best way to determine if an authority figure is “good” or “bad” for the majority of those impacted.    

As a retired college professor who taught leadership courses in an academic setting, and leadership programs for sheriffs and police chiefs, I have come to the conclusion that good leadership is partially measured by the integrity and ethics of the individual during a given event or time.  But what does this belief mean in today’s environment in the United States?  I believe that the current environment, (which includes COVID 19 and its related problems, political polarization, increasing economic disparity, and racial unrest), requires a strong and ethical leader. 

The question is, do we currently have strong, ethical leaders running our nation?  There are certainly some who fit this mold.  Still others fail miserably.  Ethical and strong leadership was, in my opinion, exhibited by some former Presidents such as Barrack Obama and George Bush.  (although, some would disagree with this assessment).  On the other hand, given his handling of the previously listed issues, I believe that while President Donald Trump views himself as a strong leader, he is unethical and lacks integrity.  Likewise, Mitch McConnell, while able to maintain control over the Republican Caucus, fails both the and integrity criteria.  The blatant use of his position to control what the Senate hears (i.e., bills) constitutes misuse of his power, since it is far too often used for only political gain and not for the best interest of the nation.

The American people need to do a better job of assessing the personal qualities of those we elect to represent us in shaping national policies.  But, this is not easy considering all the “mudslinging” and misinformation presented by some media. As a nation of many different views, we will likely never agree on what is best, but we should be allowed to freely discuss our views and options.  Citizens need to learn how to evaluate candidates and possess the skills to identify accurate information versus “fake news”.  It is only through clear, open, and honest discussions and the ability to identify creditable versus non-creditable news sources, that a democracy can survive.

Thoughts from the Middle

Politics, American Values, and the 2020 Presidential Race

By Robert James Fischer

Background

Our founding fathers believed that all Americans should have a vote in determining who sets the direction of this country.  The definition of “all Americans” has shifted over the years, adding freed slaves in the 19^th Century and women in the 20^th Century.  The idea of “one person one vote” may have changed, but the underlying belief that all voters would cast informed ballots has not.  Thomas Jefferson voiced the belief that education was important for making informed decisions.  As Americans enter their choice for President in November 2020, I ask these questions:  (1) Will all, or at least most Americans, cast ballots? (2) Are American voters casting votes based on reasoned thinking and accurate information?

Reality Today

These two questions are important.  While a majority of eligible voters cast ballots in presidential races, almost 40% do not.  In addition, while our education system may be better today than it was in the 1700s, I question whether the average voter is truly informed.  The media (meaning all types of media) presents some powerful messages, but many of the messages are biased or even totally false.  An informed voter should learn how to best determine the real truth.  It is crucial that an informed voter should be able to critically sort unbiased from that which is biased or untrue. Our current President’s staff, and the President himself, have often talked about alternative facts or “fake news.”  I am not sure what they mean by alternative facts.  Facts are facts!  Facts are based on supporting data and/or additional reliable corroborating information. There may be alternative views and interpretations, perhaps even “fake news,” but a fact remains a fact.   The information that Americans consume is so important that our intelligence community has warned that Russia, China, and Iran are attempting to influence the election through various media outlets.  Social media posts by various groups from these countries make statements in support of either President Trump or Joe Biden.

What Should a Concerned Citizen Do?

Voting

It is not easy to get people to vote.  Volunteer who canvas to “get out the vote” can make a difference.  During this time of social distancing, the best option might be working a phone bank in support of your candidate.  Regardless of voters’ preference (Trump or Biden), we need to hear from as many voters as possible if our presidential choice is truly a democratic one.

Facts 

On the other hand, trying to determine what is true about each candidate takes time.  Voters should not accept posts on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) as carte blanche!.  In order to determine the verity of a media post, consider a quick check for facts at websites such as  Verify.org, Factcheck.org, Politifact.com, Snopes.com., and others.  These sites provide a brief overview of the statement and then determine the degree to which the statement presents the truth. 

Reality versus Fantasy

Let’s look at what we know to be factual.  Simply stated, we have two very different men running for President of the United States.  Joe Biden is a career politician.  Donald Trump is a real estate developer, television media entertainer and President of the United States.  On the surface, many would opt for a successful business person over a career politician.  The word “politician” usually brings to mind someone who tells you what you want to hear when they are running for office, but soon forgets those promises after they are elected. However, these stereotypes are not necessarily accurate.

Joe Biden

Joe Biden has served as a Senator from Delaware from 1973 to 2009.  He has run for President in 1998 and 2008, and served as the 47^th Vice President from 2009 – 2017.  During his career, he has supported or sponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  He supports

• overturning Citizens United,  
• tax credits for students,
• carbon emissions cap and trade,
• increased infrastructure spending,
• mass transit,  
• renewable energy subsidies,
•  student loan forgiveness,
• reversals of Republican tax cuts for the wealthy,
•  building upon the Affordable Care Act through a public health insurance option, as opposed to a single-payer system,
• decriminalizing cannabis on a federal level and a state’s right to legalize it on a state level, 
• Same sex marriage,
• Roe v. Wade decision,
• repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump became president of his father’s real estate business, expanding the business to include building or renovating skyscrapers, casinos, hotels, and golf courses.  He owned the Miss Universe pageant and produced the television program “The Apprentice”.  While building the Trump business, he has filed for bankruptcy six times and has been involved in over 4,000 legal actions. (some personal, such as the Jean Carroll sexual assault allegations, and some related to his business).

Since 2016, President Trump:

• signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that may bring financial relief and increased business to American farmers. 
• supported and received 12 weeks of paid family leave for federal employees
• managed to reach trade deals with China that lifted what was viewed as an unfair tariff on American tax payers . 
• established a new branch of the military – Space Force. 
• made animal cruelty a federal felony,
• demanded transparency with full disclosure of costs charged and paid by insurance companies,
• forced delinquent foreign counties to make contributions to NATO ($530 Billion),
• expanded civil rights protections against anti-Semitism.

President Trump also claims the following achievements (some true, some partially true, and some false):

• Rolling back “costly and burdensome” regulations on the development of energy sources
• Expanding access to health care choices and attempting to lower drug prices
• Economic growth and increased employment opportunities
• Reducing “red tape” in federal regulations
• Negotiating better and balanced trade agreements
• Attacking the opioid crisis
• Defending the right to life and religious freedom
• Expanding national security
• Upholding the rule of law
• Rebuilding our military
• Restoring American leadership across the world
• Increasing support for veterans
• Transforming the federal government and improving accountability and accessibility                                                   

Truth or Lies?

A simple check of our fact checking sources creates a clearer picture both President Trump and Vice President Biden. 

President Donald Trump

According to the Washington Post (July 2020), the President has made more than 20,000 false or misleading statements.  Fact Checker claims that the President made an average of 12 false or misleading claims a day during his first 827 days in office.  By the time he reached 1,200 days in office, he was making an average of 23 false or misleading claims each day.  His most repeated claim (360 times) is that the economy is the best in our nation’s history.  While the economy was doing well pre-COVID 19, historically the economy was stronger under Eisenhower, Johnson, Clinton, and even Grant.  His second most repeated claim is that the border wall is being built.  As of this writing, while much existing fence has been upgraded, only 3 miles of new fence has been added.  He also claims to have passed the largest tax cut in American history.  This, again, is historically not true. Ronald Reagan and Barrack O’bama’s tax cuts were larger.

Vice President Joe Biden

Joe Biden has a long political history, While being portrayed as a man of integrity and honesty, It is easy to find inconsistencies in his statements as his political positions shifted over the years.  A look at his decades of political service reveals that he has exaggerated, misstated, and lied on many occasions.  Joe Biden has a history of bending the truth.  Biden has claimed that as soon as the Iraq war started he came out against it.  He also claims that he has been “labeled one of the most liberal members of Congress.”   According to Politico, these statements are not true.  In 1987, while running for President, Biden claimed to have 3 undergraduate degrees, and had a full ride scholarship to law school.  Again, not true.  He does have a duel degree in history and political science with a minor in English. He also claims a working class background that includes ancestors who worked in the coal mines in Pennsylvania.  Again, not true.  More recently, Biden claimed that following his service as Vice President, he was hired as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.  While he was hired to make speeches, he never taught students.

What to Make of This?

I think it is important to remember that all humans occasionally exaggerate, and sometimes get information wrong.  Joe Biden seems to fall into this category. He admits to his mistakes.  However, it is another thing to be the type of person who consistently tells great untruths and when confronted, still maintains that the statements are true. This is President Donald Trump.  A recent example was the exposure of blatant lies in Bob Woodward’s taped interview with him. 

While I generally do not take a side in these articles, I simply cannot stand on the sidelines and accept that President Donald Trump is the kind of person that I want as our nation’s leader.  How can you trust a leader who lies about “facts” and blatantly lies to the American people about an extremely important topic such as COVID-19?  (One example of this was his suggestion that the injection of Clorox could treat a COVID infection.)

While Vice President Joe Biden may not be a saint, he has proven over his almost 50 years of public service to be a stable, caring person.  I do not believe that his constituents would have continually re-elected him, had he been the type of liar who now inhabits the White House.

In conclusion, I defer to Bob Woodward from his book Rage:

            “For nearly 50 years, I have written about nine presidents from Nixon to Trump—20 percent of the 45 U.S. presidents.  A president must be willing to share the worst with the people, the bad news with the good.  All presidents have a large obligation to inform, warn, protect, to define goals and the true national interest.  It should be a truth-telling response to the world, especially in crisis.  Trump has, instead, enshrined personal impulse asa governing principle of his presidency.

            When his performance as president is taken in its entirety, I can only reach one conclusion:  Trump is the wrong man for the job.”  (emphasis added).

Politics, American Values, and the 2020 Presidential Race

By Robert James Fischer

Background

Our founding fathers believed that all Americans should have a vote in determining who sets the direction of this country.  The definition of “all Americans” has shifted over the years, adding freed slaves in the 19^th Century and women in the 20^th Century.  The idea of “one person one vote” may have changed, but the underlying belief that all voters would cast informed ballots has not.  Thomas Jefferson voiced the belief that education was important for making informed decisions.  As Americans enter their choice for President in November 2020, I ask these questions:  (1) Will all, or at least most Americans, cast ballots? (2) Are American voters casting votes based on reasoned thinking and accurate information?

Reality Today

These two questions are important.  While a majority of eligible voters cast ballots in presidential races, almost 40% do not.  In addition, while our education system may be better today than it was in the 1700s,  I question whether the average voter is truly informed.  The media (meaning all types of media) presents some powerful messages, but many of the messges  are biased or even totally false.  An informed voter should learn how to best determine the real truth.  Our current President’s staff, and the President himself, have often talked about alternative facts or “fake news.”  I’m not sure what they mean by alternative facts.  Facts are facts!  There may be alternative views and interpretations, perhaps even “fake news,” but a fact remains a fact.   The information that Americans consume is so important that our intelligence community has warned that Russia, China, and Iran are attempting to influence the election through various media.  Social media posts by various groups from these countries make statements in support of either President Trump or Joe Biden.

What Should a Concerned Citizen Do?

It is not easy to get people to vote.  Volunteer who canvas to “get out the vote” can make a difference.  During this time of social distancing, the best option might be working a phone bank in support of your candidate.  Regardless of voters’ preference (Trump or Biden), we need to hear from as many voters as possible if our presidential choice is truly a democratic one. 

On the other hand, trying to determine what is true about each candidate takes time.  Voters should not accept  posts on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) as carte blanche!.  In order to determine the verity of a media post, consider a quick check for facts at websites such as  Verify.org, Factcheck.org, Politifact.com, Snopes.com., and others.  These sites provide a brief overview of the statement and then determine the degree to which the statement presents the truth. 

Reality versus Fantasy

Let’s look at what we know to be factual.  Simply stated, we have two very different men running for President of the United States.  Joe Biden is a career politician.  Donald Trump is a real estate developer, television media entertainer and President of the United States.  On the surface, many would opt for a successful business person over a career politician.  The word “politician” usually brings to mind someone who tells you what you want to hear when they are running for office, but soon forgets those promises after they are elected. However, these stereotypes are not necessarily accurate.

Joe Biden

Joe Biden has served as a Senator from Delaware from 1973 to 2009.  He has run for President in 1998 and 2008, and served as the 47^th Vice President from 2009 – 2017.  During his career, he has supported or sponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  He supports

• overturning Citizens United,  
• tax credits for students,
• carbon emissions cap and trade,
• increased infrastructure spending,
• mass transit,  
• renewable energy subsidies,
•  student loan forgiveness,
• reversals of Republican tax cuts for the wealthy,
•  building upon the Affordable Care Act through a public health insurance option, as opposed to a single-payer system,
• decriminalizing cannabis on a federal level and a state’s right to legalize it on a state level, 
• Same sex marriage,
• Roe v. Wade decision,
• repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump became president of his father’s real estate business, expanding the business to include building or renovating skyscrapers, casinos, hotels, and golf courses.  He owned the Miss Universe pageant and produced the television program “The Apprentice”.  While building the Trump business, he has filed for bankruptcy six times and has been involved in over 4,000 legal actions. (some personal, such as the Jean Carroll sexual assault allegations, and some related to his business).

In 2020, President Trump signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that may bring financial relief and increased business to American farmers.  He supported and received 12 weeks of paid family leave for federal employees.  While current relations with China are strained, President Trump managed to reach trade deals with China that lifted what was viewed as an unfair tariff on American tax payers.  He also established a new branch of the military – Space Force.  He also made animal cruelty a federal felony, demanded transparency with full disclosure of costs charged and paid by insurance companies, forced delinquent foreign counties to make contributions to NATO ($530 Billion), and expanded civil rights protections against anti-Semitism.

President Trump also claims the following achievements (some true, some partially true, and some false):

• Rolling back “costly and burdensome” regulations on the development of energy sources
• Expanding access to health care choices and attempting to lower drug prices
• Economic growth and increased employment opportunities
• Reducing “red tape” in federal regulations
• Negotiating better and balanced trade agreements
• Attacking the opioid crisis
• Defending the right to life and religious freedom
• Expanding national security
• Upholding the rule of law
• Rebuilding our military
• Restoring American leadership across the world
• Increasing support for veterans
• Transforming the federal government and improving accountability and accessibility                                                   

Truth or Lies?

A simple check of our fact checking sources creates a clearer picture both President Trump and Vice President Biden. 

President Donald Trump

According to the Washington Post (July 2020), the President has made more than 20,000 false or misleading statements.  Fact Checker claims that the President made an average of 12 false or misleading claims a day during his first 827 days in office.  By the time he reached 1,200 days in office, he was making an average of 23 false or misleading claims each day.  His most repeated claim (360 times) is that the economy is the best in our nation’s history.  While the economy was doing well pre-COVID 19, historically the economy was stronger under Eisenhower, Johnson, Clinton, and even Grant.  His second most repeated claim is that the border wall is being built.  As of this writing, while much existing fence has been upgraded, only 3 miles of new fence has been added.  He also claims to have passed the largest tax cut in American history.  This, again, is historically not true.

Vice President Joe Biden

Joe Biden has a long political history,.while being portrayed as a man of integrity and honesty,.  It is easy to find inconsistencies in his statements as his political positions shifted over the years.  A look at his decades of political service reveals that he has exaggerated, misstated, and lied on many occasions.  Joe Biden has a history of bending the truth.  Biden has claimed that as soon as the Iraq war started he came out against it.  He also claims that he has been “labeled one of the most liberal members of Congress.”   According to Politico, these statements are not true.  In 1987, while running for President, Biden claimed to have 3 undergraduate degrees, and had a full ride scholarship to law school.  Again, not true.  He also claims a working class background that includes ancestors who worked in the coal mines in Pennsylvania.  Again, not true.  More recently, Biden claimed that following his service as Vice President, he was hired as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.  While he was hired to make speeches, he never taught students.

What to Make of This?

I think it is important to remember that all humans occasionally exaggerate, and sometimes get information wrong.  Joe Biden seems to fall into this category.  However, it is another thing to be the type of person who consistently tells great untruths and when confronted, still maintains that the statements are true. This is President Donald Trump.  A recent example was the exposure of blatant lies in Bob Woodward’s taped interview with him. 

While I generally do not take a side in these articles, I simply cannot stand on the sidelines and accept that President Donald Trump is the kind of person that I want as our nation’s leader.  How can you trust a leader who lies about “facts” and blatantly lies to the American people about an extremely important topic such as COVID-19.  (One example of this was his suggestion that the injection of Clorox could treat a COVID infection.)

While Vice President Joe Biden may not be a saint, he has proven over his almost 50 years of public service to be a stable, caring person.  I do not believe that his constituents would have continually re-elected him, had he been the type of liar who now inhabits the White House.

Thoughts from the Middle

Deadly Unrest – Guns and Violent Protests

By Robert James Fischer

Introduction

David Dorn, David McAtee, Chris Beaty, Drian Murrell, Italia Kelly, Marquis Tousant, Patrick Underwood, Calvin Horton Junior, James Scurlock,  Javar Harrell, Barry Perkins III, Jorge Gomez– names that most of us do not recognize.  Who were these people, and does it matter?  These are persons who were shot during protests following the death of George Floyd.

Who would be armed at protests?  Peaceful protests do not require the need for guns!  Who then carries a firearm to a peaceful protest?  The answer is obvious: Armed agitators or self-appointed “militia” who claim they are protecting the community. 

While the “militia” will quickly point to the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution, in today’s world, being armed with and AR-15 or similar semi- or fully-automatic weapon is not what our founding fathers visualized when they passed the 2^nd Amendment. 

The United States has more weapons per capita than any other nation on this planet.  Why?  Why do we allow for every citizen to not only own a firearm, but to own weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing another human being?

Gun Ownership, Violence, and the American Way

            Of all the countries on this globe, no nation has more gun violence than the United States.  Why? The answer that is commonly given is that it is our heritage.  The gun “won the West!”  While it is certainly true that American frontiersmen would not be without a gun and most farmers had at least one gun for protection against varmints, the gun was viewed as tool rather than something purchased merely because a person wanted to have one.  Guns were not prolific until the 1980s when gun manufactures discovered a sporting and enthusiastic audience among the American public.

            As a police officer in the early 1970s, I carried a Smith and Wesson .357.  The persons that I encountered in my work in Oklahoma, where open carry was allowed, might have a rifle or shotgun in a truck-mounted rack or a .38 in a holster on their hip.  However, today’s officers often face persons carrying semi- and fully-automatic rifles and pistols with munition clips of 30 rounds.  The availability of weapons is a problem created by marketing on the part the gun manufacturers.  This includes the NRA and other groups which focus on a “fear factor”—the fear that somehow our government wants to confiscate our weapons, and also that there are many “bad people with guns” who can only be stopped by “good people with guns.”

            While the NRA has stated, “Guns don’t kill, people do!”, the truth is that people find it much easier to kill using a gun than using their fist, knife or a club. Furthermore, they are not as likely to kill a person if they don’t have a gun at the ready. 

21^st Century Americans and Gun Laws

A Quinnipiac Poll conducted in 2019 found that 66% of Americans support stricter gun laws.  Among gun owners, 50% also supported stricter laws.  Ninety seven percent of all Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. An ABC/Washington Post poll, following the February 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shootings, found that 77% of those surveyed believed that Congress failed in its duty to enact legislation regulating firearms.  Furthermore, 62% directly blamed President Trump. Unfortunately, the debate about regulating guns tends to run along party lines.  Polls generally show that while 71% of Democrats support stricter gun control, only 29% of Republican do.

The Consequences

While many Americans find it hard to say that there is a direct cause and effect link between gun ownership with few restrictions and gun violence, the data seem to support the idea that the number of guns owned along with fewer restrictions indeed creates more gun violence.  The number of mass shooting over the past two decades, the number of firearm related deaths in some of our largest cities, as well as the shootings at peaceful demonstrations over the past several months, all support the need for greater regulation of firearms. .

Is There a Solution?

Obviously, there is a solution. It just takes the will of our elected representatives to make it happen.  First, the Second Amendment should be clarified to reflect 21^st Century life.  The focus should be on “well regulated,” the first part of this amendment, as a stipulation of the right to bear arms. In other words “regulation” is the key word. Historically, the 2^nd Amendment was written when local militia existed.  Today the militia has been replaced by a federal standing army and the National Guard units. 

The question then becomes, “What regulations are reasonable?”  I believe that shotguns and certain rifles are useful for hunting and in the case of pistols, protection of property.  However, I personally see no reason for owning fully automatic weapons, or other weapons beyond those needed for hunting and basic protection of self and property.  Even the Old West had examples of peace officers, such as Bat Matterson and Wyatt Earp, imposed a “no firearms” ordinance for those who entered the city limits.  And even today, restrictions exist on what type of firearm can be used for hunting certain game animals.  Restrictions for hunting also include the number of shells that a magazine can contain.  If this is true for hunting, certainly it should also pertain to violent human injuries and deaths!

If we regulate firearm sales and ownership Americans would most certainly see a reduction in gun related deaths.

Thoughts from the Middle

Impeachment

by

Robert J. Fischer

It has been some time since I have written.  I apologize to my readers; however, I have been having some major health problems. But, I am now compelled, due to a general lack of understanding, to weigh in on the current Impeachment investigation.

The Impeachment Steps

There are four different parts to the impeachment process:

1. Accusation of misdeeds or crimes
2. Impeachment inquiries (investigation)
3. Articles of Impeachment (indictment)
4. Senate Hearing (prosecution)

The first part is a complaint or accusation of misdeed(s).  This is like a 911 call or a report of something that needs to be investigated.  Often the accusers are not identified.

The second part is the investigation (impeachment inquiries) of the accusations by the House.  This is much like a police investigation of a possible crime scene.  It does not require that anyone outside the investigative body be informed of the process or findings.  The formal investigation will determine whether Articles of Impeachment should be drafted.  This is much like the process involved with the States Attorney and/or the Grand Jury.  The various House Committee investigations (similar to the police investigators in a criminal inquiry) and other information are considered. At this point there may be some disclosure of the information that is being evaluated while a continuing investigation is conducted.  This process allows the accused to see some, if not all, of the information that the process has gathered. In criminal cases it is called disclosure.

Third, after the investigation has been completed, formal Articles of Impeachment (comparable to an indictment in a criminal case) may be filed if the evidence supports the accusation of a  crime.  If the evidence is not substantial, Articles of Impeachment should not be filed.

Finally, the Articles of Impeachment are sent to the Senate where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over a Senate Hearing (a trial-like proceeding).  As in a criminal prosecution, testimony is heard from the House as well as the accused.  The Senators evaluate this testimony and vote on the Articles. The standard of proof required for impeachment and conviction is left to the discretion of the Senate, Some argue that there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Others argue for a preponderance of the evidence.  A two-thirds majority is required to support an Article of Impeachment.

 

Impeachment as Envisioned by the Founding Fathers

What is Impeachment as our founding fathers saw it?  The Constitution limits the basis for impeachment to “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” They did not define the meaning of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The idea that criminal conduct was the only grounds for impeachment was not the way many of the signers viewed this clause, and as we will note later in this piece, impeachments were often brought for reasons other than criminal behavior.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, stated that the misconduct of public men (in other words, the abuse or violation of some public trust) could be an impeachable offense. Therefore, impeachable behavior could include behavior that violates an official’s duty to the country.  Such conduct may not necessarily be a crime.

The purpose of impeachment, as viewed by our founding fathers, was not punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment served to effectively maintain a constitutional government by removing individuals unfit for office. To repeat, grounds for impeachment include abuse of the powers of government office, or a violation of the public trust.

Impeachment – Used over the Decades

Impeachment is such a serious process that the House of Representative has only impeached a total of 17 individuals.  Officials have been impeached and removed from office for a number of reasons, including drunkenness, biased decision-making, inducing parties to enter financial transactions, behavior that reflects badly on the office, and other criminal and non-criminal behaviors. Three of the articles against President Andrew Johnson were based on: 1) rude speech that reflected badly on the office, criticizing Congress and questioning its legislative authority; 2) refusing to follow laws (especially the Tenure Act); and (3) diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act.  Each of these action brought the presidency into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace.

Over the years, Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment:

(1) Improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;

(2) Behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and

(3) Misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

As for criminal conduct, in 1974, the House Judiciary Committee rejected an article of impeachment against President Nixon alleging that he committed tax fraud. primarily because The fraud related to the President’s private conduct, not to an abuse of his authority as President. However, the Watergate burglary was rightly a matter of criminal behavior.  However, President Nixon resigned prior to the filing of Articles of Impeachment.

Impeachment– Donald Trump

As I write this piece, I can’t help but note the parallels between the accusations against Presidents Andrew Johnson and Donald Trump.  Both have harangued members of Congress.  Both interpreted laws as they felt fit, thus ignoring lawful requests.  Both have used monies allocated for specific military purposes for their own projects, and recently testimony seems to indicate that President Trump used his office in a number of inappropriate ways.

It seems clear to me that Articles of Impeachment are inevitable.  It will certainly be interesting to see how the Senate Hearings (trial) play out.  It is my opinion that the evidence is clear!  However, party politics often overrides the facts. Andrew Johnson was found not guilty.

Thoughts from the Middle

The United States of America

Republic, Capitalist or Socialist Nation?

By

Robert J. Fischer

This article was prompted by recent comments made about our government and various political candidates.  Based on these comments, it is apparent to me that many, if not most, Americans do not understand the nature of this country’s political/social makeup.  We are in fact a capitalist, socialist, republic.  Unfortunately, terms such as socialist and capitalist are often used in a negative way.  It might be helpful at this point to define some terms.  It is also important to realize that these concepts are on a continuum and may co-exist with each other.

Definitions

Anarchy — a state of disorder due to absence or no recognition of authority.

Capitalism — an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Communism —a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Also called Marxism.

Democracy — a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Fascism — an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Republic — a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Socialism — a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Historical Context

Our founding fathers struggled with the problem of how to govern.  Some advocated a continuation of the monarchy.  This advocacy continued through the revolution, with some promoting George Washington as a potential king.  Some wanted a loose confederation of states. Others wanted a republic based on the Roman model. The Republic model was eventually adopted.  The new country would have a democratically elected representative government headed by a president.  The issues of capitalism and socialism as political systems were not considered.

The nature of the social system in place at the time of the revolution was based on the colonies as economic enterprises funded by the English wealthy merchant and aristocratic classes.  Thus, the social structure in each state was generally based on commercial interests—agriculture in the south and industry/crafts in the north.  Whether or not we admit it today, the revolution was fought over commerce.  Capitalism was the apparent system.  The concepts of communism and socialism did not exist.

Still, the social structure of the time required that the government provide certain tax paid services.  These included fire watches and security patrol/night watch personnel.  Almost all other services were provided by local merchants and property owners.  When transportation needed improvements, the government eventually established “post roads.”  Before the concept of socialism/communism was even introduced, the good of the people was supported by the government in limited areas—early forms of what would later be called socialism.

What this means is that our capitalistic republic has been (as have most republics) providing government services in what we would call a minimal form of socialism.  As the country grew and became more prosperous, some of the “people” wanted the government to provide additional services.  The hungry should be fed, the homeless should be provided with some form of housing, and the sick should be guaranteed basic medical attention.  From these demands, which were promoted by the people voting for representatives who shared their values, the United States gradually moved in the direction of socialism.

There are also those who see the movement toward socialism as outside the realm of our government.  Instead, they are focused on the role of the business sector in providing support for the needy.  They believe in self-sufficiency. In the last several decades this idea has become known as “trickle down” economics.  If the capitalist is doing well, so too will those who work in the system.

On the liberal side, those who want more from the government find capitalism as indifferent toward the needy.  They often attack conservatives who support the capitalistic system as greedy.  Trickle-down economics does not work, and the rich are the only group to gain from it.

The Situation Today

Today, the U.S. is best described as a capitalist, socialist republic.  In spite of all the criticism from both sides, the system still works.  It takes capital to invest and pay taxes in order to offer certain government services.  Most of us can agree that we need schools, military, police, fire, safety, and public roads.  Some would also continue to support regulation of the transportation industry, food and drugs.  But, there are still others who see regulation of firearms; agriculture practices, and individual choice as outside the realm of government responsibilities.

The most important thing to remember is that the Constitution’s preamble states that the purpose of the government is to:

• establish justice,
• insure domestic tranquility,
• provide for defense,
• promote general welfare, and
• provide security for the blessings of liberty.

These words imply a broad role for government.  Since it is “we the people” who control the representatives who make the rules, we get to decide what an appropriate government role is.  The whole population will likely never agree, but we are a democracy.  That implies that the majority sets the rules.  The rules have shifted over the decades as different groups have formed alliances and furthered their concepts of what is acceptable.

Socialism in its extreme will likely never be the political driving force in this nation. But, neither will pure uncontrolled capitalism.  We are a Capitalist, Socialist Republic!

 

Thoughts from the Middle:

The Way – Living with Multiple Deities

By

 Robert James Fischer

 

Most Christians, and for that matter many people of other faiths, follow a “way” of life.  From a Christian perspective, the “way” is through Jesus Christ.  A problem is created when the only way accepted is through Christ, Mohammed, Buddha or Vishnu.  Does any one religion have a monopoly on the “way”?  The answer is simple if approached from the perspective of common beliefs.  C.S. Lewis, the noted Christian author, did a fine job looking at commonalities in his work The Abolition of Man.  However, the belief differences often cloud the commonalities shared among almost all religions, and thus make the answer more difficult for many people.

Let’s face it, regardless of our beliefs, we all share this planet.  We all have a mother and father.  We develop friendships and enemies.  We love, and often marry and have our own children.  We experience joy and pain.  We die.  Is that it?  Most of us want to believe that there is more to existence than our 76 average years of human life.  Of the 6 billion people on earth, 5 billion believe that there is in fact some existence that transcends this life.  Another 1 billion are either agnostic or atheistic.

Of the 5 billion humans who believe in some form of afterlife, approximately 1/3 are Christian, 1/3 Muslims, and 1/3 Hindu.  All three of these major religions believe in the following which I have paraphrased from C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man, “Illustration of Tao.”

• The Law of General Beneficence  — Love all that surrounds you, do no harm
• The Law of Special Beneficence – Respect all beings
• Duties to Parents, Elderly, and Ancestors – Care for your elders
• Duties to Children and Posterity – Love your children, make the world safe
• The Law of Justice – Sexual justice, honesty, court justice
• The Law of Good Faith and Veracity – Tell the truth
• The Law of Mercy – Help those in need
• The Law of Magnanimity – Give of yourself, don’t be afraid when fighting for Good Way

All adhere to a basic concept of right and wrong and duty to fellow human beings.

Character Counts sums these same characteristics as follows:

• Trustworthy
• Respectful
• Responsible
• Fair
• Caring
• A good citizen

Does it make sense that the only “way” is through just one religion?  Religion is a product of its culture.  All major religions have undergone change since their founders left this temporal existence.  In fact, most would probably not recognize the religions that they established.

Let’s reflect on the religion that I know best- Christianity.  I truly believe that Jesus would not recognize and would probably not accept all that is presented today as Christian doctrine.  Shortly following his death, Jesus’ followers began the process of interpretation of the “apostles.”  James, the Brother of Jesus, became the head of the Church in Jerusalem.  Peter eventually traveled to Rome.  Thomas was extent in Egypt.  Mary Magdalene may have traveled to what we now know as France.  Paul, a latecomer, traveled extensively among the Gentiles and clashed with James and Peter on basic theology.

Other first century “Christians” also debated Jesus’ theology.  For example, Eusebus, Marcion, Augustine, Philo discussed the meaning of Jesus’ ministry and death.

In truth, the codification and unification of Christian theology did not come to be until 412CE at the Council of Nicea, called by Constantine, the Holy Roman Emperor.  Constantine wanted to control the diverse populations that lived under his control.  The advantage of bringing Christians and other religions together was obvious.  After 40 years of debate, political intrigue and assassinations, a creed was established.  Much of what we call Christianity was born.

Later, Popes Gregory and Innocent added the concepts of original sin, to the Nicene concepts of Christ divinity and the trinity.  These actions finalized the early Christian blueprint.

Those who held other, at one time widely accepted beliefs, were labeled as heretics.  Thus, their views were quashed.

The point is, Christianity as we know it today is a result of who “won out” in those early battles after Jesus died.  For example, the beliefs of James were mostly quashed by the sects of the more powerful Peter and Paul.

In conclusion, the founders of our major religions would likely not recognize the faiths that bear their names.  As followers of any given faith, we need to realize that those in control often make rules that benefit the organization.  These rules may not have any foundation in the actual teachings of Mohamed, Jesus, or Confucius.

Religions are an important component of society.  The values that they teach are important in making sound decisions.  But we should not let dogma get in the way of the true messages as outlined by C.S. Lewis and paraphrased early in this writing!

Thoughts from the Middle

Why Should Something Be Done to Eliminate Gerrymandering?

By

Robert James Fischer

What is Gerrymandering?

In simple terms Gerrymandering is the process of drawing political boundaries that give a particular party an advantage over the opposing party.  Gerrymandering is NOT what our founding fathers foresaw.  They envisioned a representative government that is proportional to the various views of its people.  For example if 60% of the population is from the Elephant Party and 40% are from the Donkey Party, then elected representatives should be in the same proportion.

The practice is named after Governor Elbridge Gerry, Massachusetts.  In 1812 the Governor, concerned over the growing strength of the Federalist Party, managed to pass a law that allowed for redistricting.  The sole purpose of this legislation was to create voting districts that gave advantage to the Governor’s Democratic-Republicans.  One of the districts was so distorted that Boston Gazette journalist Elkanah Tisdale labeled the salamander shaped district “The Gerry-mander.”  This term has continued through the present day.

Even though in 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that districts should reflect substantial equality of population, many jurisdictions continue to create politically advantageous districts.  While the Supreme Court has heard a number of cases regarding partisan gerrymandering, it has not established a clear standard.  In 2018 the Court looked at cases in Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Maryland.  According to Steve Vladeck, University of Texas Law School professor, “The common thread in the court’s gerrymandering decisions this term (2018) has been to generally make it harder for plaintiffs to bring these claims, and to generally allow states more flexibility and deference in drawing congressional and state district lines.”  The issue that clouds what is blatantly political is the Constitutional issue of “one person, one vote.”  The key seems to be taken from North Carolina case, Gill v. Whitford, where on a 9-0 vote, the Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove that “concrete and particularized” injury denied anyone the right to vote. (de Vogue, Ariane and Watkins, Eli, CNN, June 25, 2018).

A Simple Example

Here is a simple example of how Gerrymandering works, based on materials presented by Christopher Ingraham (Ingraham, How to Steal an Election: a Visual Guide, www.washingtonpost.com, downloaded 3/30/2018)

Using Ingram’s model, imagine a state with 50,000 people.  Thirty thousand belong to the Donkey Party while the rest belong to the Elephant Party.  Also imagine that they all live in an even grid with Donkeys on one side of the state and Elephants on the other.  For voting purposes we need to divide the state into five districts.  Each district will send a representative to the state capitol. Based on the founding fathers’ conception, representation should be proportional.  That means there would be 3 Donkey Party representatives and 2 Elephant party representatives.

Given the geographic distribution of voters in the state, it is possible to create 5 districts that will result in the desired representation.  (See Figure 1).

Figure 1

Fair Representation

District        District                      District                            District                    District

1                   2                                    3                                        4                             5

Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant

Donkeys win 3 districts; Elephants win 2 districts

 

However, once the Donkey Party controls the state legislature, through the process of Gerrymandering they are allowed to redraw the districts.  If they draw the new districts as shown in Figure 2, the representation is no longer proportional and is unfair to the Elephant Party.  The new district system gives all 5 representatives to the Donkey Party and none to the Elephant Party.

Figure 2

Unfair but Compact Representation

District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
1			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
2			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
3			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
4			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
5			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant

 

Donkeys win all 5 districts; Elephants have none

A third scenario would have the Elephant Party win a majority in the legislature.  Once they have control of the government, through Gerrymandering they could redraw the districts as shown in Figure 3.  In this scenario the Elephant Party would likely gain control of 3 districts.  The Donkey Party, with 60% of the voters, would likely win only 2 districts.

 

Figure 3

Neither Fair nor Compact Representation

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

1

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

4

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

2

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

3

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

5

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

Donkeys win 2 districts; Elephants win 3

 

In many areas, the gerrymandered districts are extremely convoluted appearing as thin wavy lines or other distorted figures.

What should be done?

Given the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision, jurisdictions need to be held accountable for their redistricting.  This simple step would ensure that the vision of our founding fathers is restored.  Today’s technology allows for computer programs that can create districts representative of population diversity. Some state legislatures have tried one of the following:

• Advisory commissions – composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This is an advisory body.  The legislators retain redistricting powers.
• Backup commissions—composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This group provides input when an impasse on redistricting is apparent.
• Politician commissions—composed of non-elected, but political officials.
• Independent commissions—composed of non-legislators and non-public officials, generally prohibited from running for public office for a specified period after the completion of their term on the commission. This type of commission is viewed as being the most independent of political considerations.

Thoughts from the Middle

A Hard Look at American Democracy:

The Need for Reform

By

Robert Fischer

Over the past several decades, an increasing number of Americans have lost faith in our government.  I have written that our representative democracy was conceived as a government “by the People.”  However, our founding fathers, in order to assure enlightened decision making, created a representative system.  While the system and their ideas have been modified through amendments over 200 plus years, it is apparent that the time has come to review our system and make some much needed adjustments.  Individuals who enter the political arena today are far removed from those who were elected to represent Americans during its first 100 years of existence.  The gentleman farmer politician, who was reluctant to run for political office but pressured to represent their neighbor’s interest, is no more.  The majority of the current political players are what most would call career politicians.

Our government today is dysfunctional.  Tax payer dollars are spent without adequate accountability, sometimes on projects that seem to have no purpose. Consider the Alaska Bridge to nowhere!  Troop commitments in Afghanistan, Iran and Syria drain billions from our domestic economy.  After years of military conflict in these regions, we have little to show for our investment.  We not only have lost dollars, but numerous military and civilian lives.  Party politics tend to carry more power than the good of the nation.  Bipartisanship is often lacking.  As I write this piece, the federal government is shut down over a political battle over a southern border wall.  Gridlock!!  Something is very wrong.

Whatever is a wrong needs to be fixed.  Who needs to fix the problem?  We the People!!  The Constitution put us in charge; we can fix the system. The rules governing elections and the bureaucracy surrounding our legislative process need to be reviewed and changed when necessary.

Let’s begin at the beginning.  Our founding fathers believed that citizens would select the persons who would be their representatives.  While this was mostly true in the early decades, it wasn’t long before party politics became an equal partner in the selection process.  Today, parties select candidates that they believe will help the party.  The party not only selects the candidates, but by using professional writers they also shape the candidates words for a political platform.  The days of speeches given “off the cuff” or written by the candidate are long gone.  To make matters worse, the parties are controlled by big money interests.  These same political parties also control the electoral process through what is called gerrymandering.  I’ll have more to say on this in a future “Thoughts.”

What does this mean? The idea that anyone can become president is a pipe dream. It takes so much money to run for major political offices that the average person cannot afford the expense. He/she must rely on financial contributions; and contributions come from those who believe that the candidate will support their agenda. Thus, the candidate makes campaign promises that benefit those who have contributed to his/her cause.

Furthermore, our candidates are generally supported by the major political parties. These parties select candidates with one primary criterion in mind: the person’s ability to ensure the party’s success! Through polling, the parties determine what message “sells” with the public. And from that point on, the professional writers shape the message for the candidate. Thus in most cases, the public never really knows the candidate’s authentic beliefs and values.

After years of listening to campaign rhetoric, many voters have turned cynical. In many elections, the votes end up casting their ballot for the least offensive candidate, or they simply don’t vote. Voters yearn for a true message – one delivered from the heart, not a rehearsed speech written by political writers.

What can we do about our suspicion that as voters, we are being sold a message? How can we get people with integrity, and devotion to ethical principles, to run for office?

First of all, we need to broaden the field of candidates – not limit the field to just candidates from the two major parties. This would ensure that we have candidates representing more than just far-left views and far-right views.

Second, we need to get “big money” out of the game. Unfortunately, money and politics seem to go “hand in glove.” When each party raises over $500 million in an election cycle, there is likely something being bought – i.e., policy decisions. It can be assumed that many senators and representatives who have been financed by big money often do not vote based on personal convictions or the will of their constituents.  Of course, the money problem is an entire discussion in and of itself. The bottom line, however, is that there is far too much money involved in politics, and because of moneyed interests, our democratic ideal is undermined. In other words, all votes are not equal!

It appears that the American people have failed to realize that “we are the government.”  Instead of governing, we have allowed the political parties, moneyed interests and various institutions to take the power of government away from the people and place it within their own hands.

For the optimists out there; we can make a change.  Margaret Mead optimistically said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”