JackTReason

As far back as I have memory regarding the formation of the structure of American government, the phrase “We’re a republic, not a democracy,” has been part of my education. And once I came to understand those two words I recognized how troublesome the distinction has become.

And it was clear to me that when people said this, they didn’t really understand the words.

For all practical purposes in American, a Republic and a democracy are the same thing. Republic means a government of the people with elected leaders, as opposed to a monarch. A democracy is also a government of the people with either elected representatives, or the voting by all the eligible persons. They’re the same thing until you dig into the weeds. It is the second form of democracy that America is not, at least not wholly.

Generally when people push back against democracy from any knowledgeable position, they are thinking of a pure democracy, where everyone votes on every issue, and every decision should reflect the will of the majority on that issue. And no, that’s not so very good. It is unwieldy in anything larger than a small group or straight yes or no questions. Though is done all across the country in ballot initiatives and millage requests. Here the whole population votes up or down on a proposal or request for funding. This may be at the township level or even the whole state. This really is purely democratic. How many want pizza for dinner, and how many want tacos?

A republic uses democratic processes for the people to choose representatives who will advance their interests, and debate with other representatives to arrive at sound decisions for the whole of the people. In our Republic this comes with two caveats: One is that we can’t always get what we want; and the other is that sometimes your representative must decide differently than the majority of their constituents wish, because that is what is best for the whole of the people. We pick representatives to make decisions on our behalf, with the expectation that they will follow the wishes of the people, so far as this is practical and reasonable.
How many want each of these candidates to speak for us in the legislature? That’s democracy in a republic.

So whenever I heard someone present that phrase to me, I first understood that it wasn’t a cogent argument, but a buzzword made to shut down discussion. But I failed to learn that there is another angle to this concept.

There are those who see the republic/democracy line not as a nuanced pedantry of language, but as a difference more profound. They seem to define democracy as mob rule, and republic as rule by a selected group. And with some thought you can make this work. It takes careful selection of definition of each word to get there, but for someone who just doesn’t want to accept democracy as an option it works.

But the meaning is more nuanced to some. Some saw the founding of America as a republic as opposed to a democracy, was because they were declaring that a certain group would do both the electing and the representing. White men.

It is true that when the founders of the United States sat down to form a government that spread the power out away from the central control of a monarch, they limited that spread to the adult white men of the country, and even at first to landowners within that group. But that wasn’t what “republic” meant.

The history of voting has gradually changed over time, and today we have universal suffrage codified in not only law, but in the amended Constitution. Any citizen 18 years of age or older may vote in elections, so long as they are not prohibited by law. Decades before we opened the vote to women, and decades before that to black men.

In a republic, a minority of the people (representatives) make government decisions on behalf of the whole of the people. We use democratic processes (voting) to choose that minority from among the population. But there are those who hold a more, shall I say, traditional view of who that ruling minority should be. In short, they think it should be white men who make up that minority. Or if pressed, at least those who acknowledge the supremacy of that group. There are those who believe there is such a thing as a “real” American citizens, and those who should not have the same influence.

To speak simply and pedantically, a democracy is all of the people voting on all the issues; where a republic is a small group voting on the issues that all must abide by.

The former is impractical beyond a small group, and could lead to mob rule. The latter is simply when the voting group is endorsed by the whole of the people.

This is what the United States is, and the only thing that has changed is the broadening of the population that selects that minority.

Racial supremacists seek to interpret the Constitution in a way that justifies segregation and hierarchy of race. Often they will view new citizens as being less “real” then the established families of the children of earlier immigrants. They are similar to, and often overlap with those who hold deep religious convictions. In America these are almost exclusively evangelical Christians.

Their lack of Constitutional literacy and their uncritical thinking leads many to accept the interpretation of their pastors and other Christian allies. They don’t know what the Constitution says, broadly speaking, and believe the claims they are told. These claims are typically along the lines of declaring that the founders were all Christian and expected subjugation to God as a matter of course. And, when presented with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, they reinterpret meaning into particular words to mean that it is only the establishing of a church of a particular religion that is prohibited, but not following the general religious principles, or making laws reflecting the supremacy of God. Or more importantly regarding the makeup of our current Supreme Court, that the Bible is useful to lawmakers when they are unable to find precedent in law. The Bible is a higher authority, so they claim, which they also claim the founders agreed with.

To say that this interpretation is far from what was intended, is obvious to the plain reading of what those founders said. And it is still not a good idea for exactly the same reason the founders included the Establishment Clause in the first place.

They saw the history of war and persecution throughout Europe, and especially England, over which religion was the right and true representation of God’s will. The Founders were also aware that New England settlements and colonies began with Pilgrims, a devout religious order of Protestants seeking religious freedom. But that freedom was limited to favor them only. They were expressly intolerant of other religions, going way past persecution, and to outright criminal punishment for unorthodox beliefs. Some religions or sects, such as Quakers were banned in places. And only a few generations before, courts in Massachusetts put people to death believing them to be witches.

The founders knew all too well who made up the country. And they knew any interaction between the government and any church could lead to disagreement and even conflict between Americans.

Of all the things that are “America,” it is the supremacy of The People that matters most. This means that we are collectively supreme to any personal belief, regardless of how large or passionate that belief may be. But each still may hold their own beliefs, and practice their religions, so long as this does not interfere with the rights of others.
And that the decision to obey rules (or interpretations of rules) of any religion or any collection of them must be a personal choice. And it must not be one that others are forced to obey. No matter how broadly one casts the religious net, it still must remain an individual choice without persecution or alienation.

The only laws that should be passed, and restrictions that should be placed upon people regarding their behavior, are those laws that can be agreed upon through reason and debate, taking into account the public good, and ensuring the smallest encumbrance upon the liberty of individuals. But encumbrances may happen. Speech that incites violence may be suppressed, and personal beliefs may have to be set aside. If you take a job delivering the Sunday newspaper, you can’t claim religious exemption from working on the sabbath.

On occasion religions and reason will agree. Murder is bad. We are all better off if murder is prohibited against and severely punished. One’s desire to assault someone over a grievance is to be tempered by the wish that one not be also assaulted. There is no need for a commandment from an old book when we can figure that out ourselves. We do not outlaw murder because of some words in an old book. We outlaw murder because it is in the best interests of all, and it protects the individual in their pursuit of happiness.

The problems are when religion proscribes what is not reasonably reached.
Have no other God before me. Hmmm. Is it reasonable to make this requirement of the people? How could it harm individuals? If I accept imposing my religion on others, then I risk allowing others to impose their religion upon me. When I ask if my Bible shall be taught in public school, should I not agree that the religious books of others could be likewise taught to my own kids?
Here we have good reason not to permit such a commandment to become law.

The differences between religions, mostly and especially the Abrahamic religions, is correctness and devoutness of belief.

This is the same thing that led to all that European conflict that figured so prominently in the thoughts of the founders when they formed the government.

So today we have modern puritans, who overlap heavily with those who believe all Americans aren’t “real” Americans, and therefore should not choose the government.

No, the United States of America is not a pure democracy. Though it does have purely democratic elements. And through the democratic process of elections we choose our government agents.

What is common in both words is the supremacy of The People. That means all of the people.

And the government we formed when we drafted the Constitution aspired to a more perfect union of the people. Establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Practice democracy and resist authoritarianism. Vote.

It’s June of 2023 and a warship of the People’s Republic of China’s navy has harassed a US Navy destroyer in the Taiwan Strait, and the video of that encounter (taken from a Canadian warship that was also present) is getting wide attention. From what I have seen online, there is some confusion for many about how this all works.

What is Taiwan and why does the US protect them?

Taiwan is an island in the far western Pacific Ocean that the United States recognizes as part of China. The people of Taiwan also see themselves as part of China.

What’s the trouble and why are we involved?

I recently had an exchange with someone in the Youtube comments after a video of the encounter was played on an international news outlet’s channel. The commenter seemed to be from mainland China, based on the assumptions they made and the viewpoint expressed.

The commenter did not understand how the USA was defending Taiwan while also accepting that they are part of China.

That is a fair question. I made an explanation, without any apparent success of it being accepted, but that didn’t really surprise me, as the person I was communicating with believed that this gives the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) the right to rule over the people of Taiwan without their consent.

I thought it was time for a refresher or sorts.

Taiwan is an island that is politically part of China. The political body of the island is officially known as the Republic of China. (ROC).

We only need go back to 1945 and the end of World War II, when Japan was defeated and the island ceded to the ROC. As the war ended, a civil war resumed on the mainland between the ROC and communist forces under Mao Zedong. By 1949 the communists were defeating the ROC forces, who removed themselves to Taiwan. Mainland China became the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

PRC = Communist China

ROC = Taiwan

In time the United States accepted the legitimacy of the PRC, and developed a One-China policy. We also support the right of the people of Taiwan to mind their affairs and determine their government democratically. The apparent contradiction is understandably confusing.

The One China Policy is an acceptance that there are not two separate Chinas, but one with two forms of government until such a time that the people of both entities willingly agree to share, free from the threat or coercion, a single government. If the people of Taiwan vote to become communist, we’ll accept that choice. I doubt they will.
As a matter of public law (The Taiwan Relations Act), the USA supports the governing authority of Taiwan (not officially called the ROC by the USA), and their right to self determination.

China = One country but unification must be mutually accepted for the US to withdraw our influence.

The USA holds that Taiwan has a democratically elected government and the right to maintain that. Since PRC threatens to subjugate them through force, the United States will assist in their defense. (The wording of this can be interpreted to mean either just supplying arms or defending by force.)

In the view of the United States, the people of any country have the right to self-determination. They should have and form a government of their own choosing. In the case of the people of the mainland of China, they never had this opportunity to choose their own government by any democratic means. It was forced upon them through military victory.

But this does not mean that the people of Taiwan need to abandon their own right to self-determination. Taiwan was never forced to accept communism, and as people they remain free to democratically choose their government. This is supported and protected by the USA and other nations. If we can’t force the PRC to adopt a different form of government, we certainly can’t support forcing Taiwan to do the same.

The People’s Republic of China could abandon its one-party communist authoritarian state and open the country to free and fair elections with a republican or parliamentarian government. Should this happen, and the government becomes one chosen by the People of China, it would become more desirable for Taiwan to reunite. The reunification of Germany is a fine example of this being done. East Germany abandoned communism and that country is no longer divided. There is hope that this can happen with North and South Korea as well.

For all practical purposes Taiwan can continue operating separately forever without causing any problems for the PRC, except the ego of leadership on the mainland, and the threat that any democracy is to communism. People prefer to choose their own representative government, so totalitarian states don’t want nearby examples to inspire their subjects.

If one is looking for hypocrisy, one need only look at the relationship between China and the Koreas, as compared to the US view. Here China supports an unelected totalitarian state that continues in its efforts to gain control over the whole of the peninsula, while complaining that the US won’t mind its own business when it comes to Taiwan.

And should someone fail to grasp the geopolitical significance of Taiwan as an ally (of sorts), look at a map of the area and see how should Taiwan be swallowed up by the CCP, this could interrupt the free navigation of the seas both in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, and would negatively affect the rights of other free and independent countries in the region, such as Vietnam and The Philippines.

Taiwan is a well-armed island of 24 or so million people. China attacking them would be like a bear attacking a wolverine. Yeah, it can ultimately win, but will pay an expensive price in blood and treasure. The dynamic of this changes with the US pledging support. China doesn’t want at fight it can’t win. Let’s hope they don’t start believing they can.

The recent revelation of a trove of top secret and confidential files related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the defense department assessment of the war situation is a concerning matter. Of course. We cannot be comfortable in this world if bad actors know what we are planning, and what we see as weaknesses. I am not a pollyanna. I am naturally resistant to our government keeping secrets from us, but I am certain that some secrecy must be maintained. We do have adversaries in this world, and those people would like to know where and how they can best bring harm to us.

I’ve discussed this before, but I will briefly state that two main worldviews are preparing for conflict. One side is us. On our side is the idea that power should be spread out amongst the people far enough to prevent the concentration that brings tyranny. Leaders are elected and need to be held accountable by the people.

The other side thinks that centralized power in the hands of an effective single leader is the model for successful nations. The chief problem with their side is that centralized power is difficult to change, and therefore more prone to tyranny. We have countless examples of this throughout history, and it was the direct cause of our own efforts to emerge as an independent nation.

The dictators of the world know that our desire to see democratic style government spread throughout the world is a direct threat to their power. Can you even imagine Kim Jong Un relinquishing his power in favor of democratic reforms? The same is true of Xi, Putin, and others. These dictators are acting in their own personal self-interest, rather than the interests of their countries. So yes, they want to know our weaknesses so that they may better direct their efforts to weaken our democracy.

This is one reason these dictators all liked Trump. He was (and remains) on a quest for personal power. Trump is the would be dictator that they can deal with. Because he puts his own interests ahead of the country’s, he will not step in to aid other democracies that are being attacked or threatened by the authoritarians. That’s why they tried to help him, and why they flattered and bribed him, and why they (most likely) got dirt on him to use when his courage flagged. They also liked him because he is a buffoon.

So they try to spy on us. And since their worldview is a threat to world democracy and therefore a threat to our nation, we spy on them too.

In fact, the whole of the intelligence world is an elaborate game of deceit. Truth is so important that, as Winston Churchill said, “In wartime, truth is so precious she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

Hiding truths that could advantage our adversaries is done in many ways. Yes, having top secret clearances and restricting access is part of this. But letting lies emerge that masquerade as the truth is also a part of this. Disinformation and misinformation are as important as genuine information.

I remember my time as senior third officer on the SS Cape Florida, tied to the wharf at Al Jubail, Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield and the beginning of Operation Desert Storm. We would listen to the radio and hear these pundits discussing the leaks about our plans of attack. Some said amphibious, some said by ground from the west, and others said up the middle. Still others said these were all misinformation. As myself and other officers listened to these radio talking heads, our conversation revolved around whether we would launch a ground attack and where it would go. One of the engineering officers was apoplectic that these radio broadcasters were so openly discussing possible plans. “Why don’t you just tell Saddam what we’re going to do!”

This sort of conversation went on for days, with each day bringing some new leak of information, or suggestions of the best approach.

Finally one day as we listened to yet another “informed opinion” that engineering office said, “I don’t know anymore which of these things are true.” To which I responded, “What do you think is going through Saddam Hussein’s mind right now?”

There had been so much information and disinformation told and speculated about, with so many obvious lies, and others not so obvious, that it became fairly impossible to make an intelligent guess as to what we would do and when. The intelligence plan had worked.

And later, when we were narrowly missed by a SCUD missile, armed forces radio reported it had missed our area by ten miles. “They got that wrong,” blurted out the Able Seaman that was on my watch. I said, “well, if we assume that Iraq has people listening to this radio station, then it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to tell them how close they were.” The young sailor grasped my meaning. All listening to the other side would tell you is what they want you to hear. And then you don’t know which of the messages is the truth. Was that the truth, or a member of the bodyguard of lies.

Today I am listening and reading about these leaks with much interest. I am aghast as anyone that a person with such clearances would seek to release them and jeopardize the intelligence sources we have around the world, and risk bringing harm to Ukraine or aid to Russia. But I am also aware of the distinct possibility that nonesuch thing has happened, and that this is part of that whole misinformation game. Let them have enough truth that they trust the source, then confuse them with falsehoods and alternate facts.

And while we have greater access to information because of our free press, it isn’t beyond our intelligence agencies to use that path to confuse the adversary.

Is Ukraine weakened and facing shortages? Or is this a ploy to lure Russia into making a mistake?

And how would I know if these “leaks” were real or fabricated? How about real but loaded with phony stuff too? How about partly real and partly fake?

In truth I have no idea. And that is the point.

Don’t let the assumption that American openness has led to an intelligence dump. And don’t let the canniness of our spymasters fool us into thinking that we don’t have bad actors within that community. We put a lot of effort into discovering moles. But once we have found them, the next step is to decide if we arrest them or use them as tools.

I’ll keep listening and reading with much interest. But I’m not going to forget the larger lessons I’ve learned.

We don’t know what we don’t know about what we thought we knew and thought we didn’t know.

I was born to parents who had converted to Catholicism. They had done so for practical purposes, as the small mining town they moved to, which had just been built to mine the taconite of the Mesabi Iron Range, only had a catholic church. I was christened by Father Crispin, who was a friend and golfing buddy of my father, and later in Chicago at a different parish I was confirmed.

I left church – broadly speaking – in my early twenties, as doubts about the claims of the church filled my mind. And though I held onto a belief in deity and the power of prayer for several years, these too failed to stand up to reason. Religion, it seems, was created to give power over the many by the few.

At its most sincere, the church has fed some of the poor and consoled the suffering of many. But it has done so at the expense of reason. And it has done so at the expense of the innocence of countless children.

At this point I should make it clear that I was never molested by a priest or any other church official or member of the congregation. It should be a shock that such a declaration is necessary, but here we are. Here we are reading of another horror of widespread abuse of children by clergy in the Catholic Church. This time in Maryland.

More than six-hundred children.

And this is after decades of complaints, investigations, and criminal charges. Still, after all the public awareness and attention the Church has received. With regular news coverage, films, and television stories it continued – and continues.

This is more than a few bad apples here and there. The church had (and seems to still have) a program of systematically protecting the child abusers in their midst. If parents became suspicious or complained, the priests were simply transferred to another parish, where an unsuspecting population awaited them, and new, fresh children were lured into sexual abuse. And all too often where they would find sympathetic fellows who help them identify vulnerable children.

The conspiracy to hide guilt of these crimes, and to facilitate the furtherance of these despicable crimes was and remains widespread in the church. At each major finding of evidence we hear about how serious they are in their quest to end the abuse. But later it is found to continue. Those who abuse are not deterred by the illegality of the acts, nor the harm done to these children, and not even by the teaching of the Christ who is supposed to be their guide and God.

At this point in time we should stop looking at the Catholic Church as a beneficial body, or as helpful to the masses. The Church is a child sex trafficking organization masquerading  as a conduit to a god, and no one should continue as a member. No one.

The church itself (at least in America where my familiarity lies) should recognize itself for what it is and close their doors permanently. And they should do so in response to empty parishes.

I know this won’t happen, as people are all too inclined to pretend like this is isolated and that it won’t happen in their parish. The true believers can’t (or won’t) see the church for what it is, and will continue to support it with their money and time. All the while gambling that their children won’t be ruined by the abuses of the clergy. A clergy that is protected by secrecy of an organization crafted to foster such abuses, and to a degree protected from the application of law by their entitlement to secrecy.

I don’t have any use for any religion myself. But I fully understand the need for community that churches bring. But people need to find a way of creating these beneficial organizations without allowing pedophiles access to their children. The church cannot be trusted, and has utterly failed in stopping sexual abuse of children. And they have failed because it is the nature of such an organization to foster these monsters.

It is a wonder to me that people don’t better scrutinize the adults who have access to their children. And it is mind boggling that people fail to understand that people who want to sexually abuse children seek out opportunities to do so. Pedophiles become priests so they can have unfettered access to children. Some may believe that a vow of celibacy and life in a cloister will keep them from such actions, but when they get there they find a body organized to aid them in their darkest leanings.

This isn’t a problem that can be solved by the church, as it is made up of a significant number of people intent on continuing this abuse.

People should be quitting the church enmasse. To remain in the Catholic Church today is to support this abuse. You are, with your donations and presence, aiding monsters in their quest to find children to sexually assault.

Those who are in the church and are not abusing children (most people probably don’t abuse children) should recognize that they are still supporting an organization which fosters this abuse. They are helping the pedophiles do their evil. They are like the administrators of the Nazi regime, hiding behind plausible deniability. But though not guilty themselves, they are supporting the horrors that occur all too often.

Quit now.

What Messaging Says About The USA And Russia

There is little doubt about the reality of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The attack, called a Special Military Operation by the Russians, is a war of conquest intended to advance the geopolitical ambitions of the Russian dictator Vladamir Putin. (I say dictator because it is more accurate than any other title we have for anyone in his position. His power in Russia is absolute, and he has effectively suppressed all political opposition. He may well have been elected by a majority of the people, but those people do not have complete information, nor do they have any candidates to effectively challenge Putin.)

The USA during the Donald Trump Presidency warmed up to Putin and denigrated the leadership of Ukraine, as well as the whole of NATO. It is likely that had Trump been reelected, he would have pulled the US out of NATO entirely. This isn’t my hyperbole, but the opinion of former advisors to him, along with numerous international political experts who have watched these things carefully.

There is little doubt that Putin knew he would have a free hand in Ukraine, and that opposition from NATO would be stymied by Trump’s withdrawal from NATO, and the US’s unwillingness to support the democracies in Europe. It is probably true that a combination of things led to his invasion this year, instead of biding his time for a better opportunity. (Which is something that Xi in China is doing vis a vis Taiwan.)

As a dictator, Putin has put his primary energy into keeping power. This has led him to put personal loyalty to him above every other factor in choosing his administration and his military leadership. These people sucked up to him, as we’d expect, and told him whatever he wanted to hear. They told him he had massive numbers of Russophiles in Ukraine waiting to assist in an overthrow of the western leaning government, and that he’d be welcomed into Ukraine as a liberator. They also told him stories about the west that weren’t true. Such as the claim that Biden was a weak and addled-brain fool who would only respond with sanctions and protests upon his invasion, and that Trump was nearing a return to office – even before the next Presidential election in 2024. The wildcard was Putin’s ill health. Though it is clearly a state secret, it is safe to say that Putin faced his mortality when he developed a cancer somewhere in his body. A cancer that had metastasized and threatened his life. His physical appearance and infrequency of public displays of manliness made clear that he has been receiving treatment.

This illness may have been the catalyst that sparked him to act when he did.

To borrow a line from a movie, he chose poorly.

Biden was not only sharp as a tack and wary of Putin’s intent, he was attune to the moment democracy faces globally. He not only committed to supporting Ukraine, but he rallied and strengthened NATO, which has since grown in size following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

To settle a point: Russia has no valid claims to any territory in Ukraine, including Crimea. Russia has no inherent right to territory outside its own borders simply because they once controlled those territories in the olden days, or because some of the people there speak Russian. The idea that world borders can be decided by military annexation is something we rejected last century, and should such a practice return, it would mean the eventual destruction of civilization.

Putin’s defenders in America (of which there are many, including many elected leaders) are quick to accuse the Biden administration of warmongering, and trying to start a war against Russia (and probably China too.) This gets a lot of oxygen, mostly because of those elected leaders, as well as sycophants like the obsequious Tucker Carlson on the Fox propaganda network.

To be sure, Russia is threatening more than just Ukraine. The clear agenda of Putin is to recreate the borders of the former Soviet Union or the earlier Russian Empire. He’s made no secret about it, and has made statements to that effect in the past. He has claimed that Ukraine has no right to exist except as a vassal state to Russia. He has said or implied that other nations are subject to the same claim. The Baltic states, Georgia, Poland, to name a few.

And the USA under the Biden administration has certainly made it clear that we are supporting Ukraine, and more importantly, that we will defend with arms any attack on any NATO member. (A membership which as of today includes Finland, doubling the NATO presence along the borders of Russia.) And this support of Ukraine has included substantial amounts of highly effective weaponry, which has been mirrored by other NATO countries. All along Biden and his Cabinet department heads, such as State and Defense, have been very clear that the USA does not wish to get into a direct conflict with Russia.

But is this true? Are we secretly angling towards conflict with Russia? What about China?

The territorial ambitions of these two countries are antithetical to global democracy, and as such a threat to the peace and stability of the world. Are we looking to fight them now, perhaps to avoid having to face them in the future when they are stronger?

The answer is no, and the way I can tell that is from messaging.

Here I will need to talk about propaganda.

Propaganda is the use of information (or more often misinformation) designed to push a political agenda. It has been used by all countries at one time or another. My own family history was altered by propaganda during the First World War. Though we had been citizens of this Republic since the founding of the country, and had taken up arms in defense of this Republic in every war including the Revolution and Civil Wars, my family faced severe anti-German sentiment because of the national origins of our name. It resulted in claiming that our ancestry was Dutch rather than German. A pointless distinction to actual Americans, but necessary for local harmony.

German-Americans, whether they identified as such or not, faced discrimination, boycotts, and even violent attacks. These were brought on by the anger towards Germans that our national propaganda amplified. The Germans were depicted as apes, and were called Huns in a reference to the historical group that attacked and waged war against European countries in earlier history.

We did this because we were at war. And in the Second World War we repeated these characterizations, and included those of Japanese descent, where this time we locked Japanese-Americans in concentration camps out of fear of the possibility of enemy combatants in our own population. You can go to YouTube and find numerous videos from those war years depicting the Japanese as menacing and evil.

And especially when it comes to that last global war, both Japan and Germany did horrible things in the name of conquest. The Chinese were enslaved and slaughtered by the Japanese, and the Germans attempted to exterminate the Jewish people of Europe. There were plenty of other crimes against humanity committed by those countries, and even some by those defending against them. But the fact remains that they wouldn’t have happened had the wars of expansion and aggression hadn’t been started.

But we can look back on this history and see that it was in the leadership of those countries where the evil lived, and while abominable in their actions, the people were manipulated into those acts by their national leaders. All Germans weren’t antisemitic, and all Japanese weren’t raping and murdering their way through Asia.

But we promoted them as such because we were at war with them, and before that because we were expecting that we may need to fight them. It is far easier to kill other soldiers if we are convinced they are bloodthirsty villains. Today Ukrainian soldiers may well need to apply some of the same propaganda in order to quell any sympathy for the invading army. Sympathy that may be present because the Ukrainian people know that this is Putin’s war, and that were Russia a true democracy, this attack would not have happened.

During those past wars, as well as numerous other wars we engaged in, we promoted the idea that we were fighting against evil people. Now let’s look at today.

The messaging from President Biden, as well as all of his spokespeople, is clear that the fault of this war lies strictly with the leadership of Russia. It is commonplace for us to hear sympathetic words regarding the soldiers of Russia. Not that their cause is just, far from it, but that they are poorly trained and equipped, and that they are being thrust into this war by Putin, and that they are going like lambs to the slaughter. The invasion is a crime, but only some of the soldiers are brutally killing civilians, while the whole of the war is caused by Putin.

And when it comes to China it is similar. It is the Communist party and leadership that has enslaved people in that country, that has arrested and quelled protests, and has harvested organs from political prisoners. It isn’t from the Chinese people, but from the leadership of those people where evil was born.

This distinction is important. If the President was trying to stoke up the people to warfare, the efforts would be to vilify the people of those countries, or at least their soldiers. But what he is doing is separating the people of those countries from the leadership. He is pointing fingers at Xi and Putin, and refraining from blaming their people. If anything, he is encouraging those people to see the benefits of true democracy, with the hope that they will seek to change their regimes.

There is a case to be made for war, but only for one of defense. Defense of ourselves, or defense of other peoples and other countries, which have been attacked and are being threatened.

The global conflict that is threatening us is not one of who controls which borders, but of what kind of governments do people have. Broadly speaking, a collection of democracies where the people decide their future – and have the opportunity to change that decision in time; or one of authoritarianism where power is concentrated in the hands of the few.

All my life I’ve heard people talk about George Orwell and his novel 1984. I have heard numerous persons express fear that we are headed toward such a future, and they seek salvation in the election of a hero who will vanquish the bad guys. This partly explains the rise of Trump. But it is Trump and those like him that are the path to the dystopian future Orwell predicted. Even Trump’s campaign included large images of Trump’s eyes staring out of  a screen. An image eerily reminiscent of the book.

Imagine a world with dictators in China, Russia, and America? With this combined power, who could fight against it? What could the smaller democracies do but bend to the whims of the dictators? What power could the democracies of Europe have to match such global supremacy? Especially with the authoritarian governments that are emerging, and the democracies that are fledgling or failing.

It was Lord Acton of the United Kingdom who coined the phrase, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And it was the Constitution of the United States that put the whole of the people above the leadership of those people. The formation of this country was and is an effort to spread power out away from the center in order to keep it from concentration. For it is the concentration of power that causes the abuses we see emerging from dictatorships today.

Let’s be clear: The efforts being undertaken by Biden are not to get us into a war, but to demonstrate that our dispersal of power does not make us weak, and that democracy is worth defending wherever it exists. He’s made it clear and unambiguous that we will defend ourselves and NATO, and that we will support democratic governments.

The messaging out of the White House isn’t propaganda, but even if it was, it is directed at the leadership of those countries where democracy has been stifled, and not at the people of those countries.

Should the effort be to stir up the people to war, the messaging would be disparaging to the whole of those countries, and not merely the leadership. As to that leadership, they have earned our scorn.

It is March 31, which marks the one day anniversary of the news that a Manhattan, New York Grand Jury has voted to indict former President Donald John Trump for upwards of thirty felony charges relating to fraud committed in the furtherance of his political career. The crimes took place when he arranged for payment of money to silence a porn star named Stormy Daniels who had sex with Trump while his wife was wither pregnant or recovering from having Trump’s son Barron. Daniels had planned to go public with the information when Trump was running for President in 2016, which Trump felt could damage his political ambitions.

In this case, Trump recorded the payoff as a legal retainer for his then lawyer Michael Cohen, who has already been convicted for that crime. In that case, Trump was identified as co-conspirator number one, though not named directly. Cohen, for his part, saw the error of his ways and made a full confession accepting his wrongdoing, and has since fully cooperated with law enforcement.

Yesterday’s indictment is under seal, and we expect Trump to be arraigned in Manhattan in the coming days, and we’ll get to know the details of the charges, as well as some idea of the steps going forward.

This is a sober moment for our country, as no President, former or current, has ever been indicted on criminal charges. (Former Vice-President Spiro Agnew was charged and convicted of income tax evasion, and his boss, Richard Nixon, would likely have been charged after his resignation had his successor Gerald Ford not issued him a full pardon “for the good of the nation.”)

But this is also a day of celebration, as we can finally put muscle behind the claim that in America, no one is above the law.

Of course not everyone is happy about this. I spent a couple of hours this morning (while waiting for bread to rise) watching the right-wing media pundits and Trump acolytes go into conniptions over this news. Their responses were predictable, though pathetic. They have taken up the torch of desperation and moved from pearl-clutching to accusations of politically motivated bias. To them, the Manhattan District Attorney, as well as the grand jury are all corrupt leftists, funding by George Soros. (This last is a dog whistle to antisemitism, as Soros is an internationally known Jew of European birth.)

All of this whining both angered and amused me. It angered me because each of their screeds were nothing but gaslighting and lies, but likely to inflame the base they inform. And it is likely that we will see violence perpetrated against Americans by these fascist supporting dupes. While it amused me to see them sweat and squirm.

Their words claimed that this will drive support for Trump, and guarantee his election to President next year, though their eyes told a different story. A story of fear, for some of these people can see themselves facing similar legal jeopardy in the future, and others the demise of their careers.

This is especially outlandish coming from the talking heads on Fox network, who have already been outed for knowingly lying about Trump and his culpability between themselves in private emails – which have come to light as part of lawsuits by Dominion Voting Systems, who is suing Fox for 1.6 Billion dollars over that networks false and malicious claims of fraud by Dominion during the 2020 Presidential election. Yes, Fox knew Trump lost and that Dominion did nothing wrong, but they claimed it anyway.

And I sit here with my spirits lifted by this news, and not a small amount concerned about what might befall our country for this action. Hopefully the MAGA base will confine themselves to kvetching and weeping, and refrain from violent acts. Though here I may be the one who is naive.

And no, I don’t think this will catapult Trump to the Presidential victory in 2024, but I do believe it will inspire and encourage his faithful. What will happen in the next election is unknowable. Trump lost by over seven million votes in the last election (though five million of these were in California alone), and it is unlikely he has gained popularity since then. But the political left isn’t a unified mass. The Democratic party is somewhat fractured, and a substantial portion prone to apathy in elections. On top of that, we have the current President already the oldest man to be elected to the office, and this in the face of a call for more a more youthful Presidential candidate. It remains to be seen if Biden will run for reelection (though he said he would, he hasn’t declared his candidacy yet). And which Democrat might step into that role should he decide not to, or should age and health catch up with him and end his career in Politics, is not apparent.

We may face troubles here at home, and we may yet face troubles internationally, but today we can take a breath and smile. Finally.

Finally, after all these years of watching the bloviating mobster of an ex-President (from before, during, and after his term) get away with crimes, we are seeing justice come home. This has just begun, and conviction isn’t guaranteed. But it has begun just the same, and this gives hope that the State of Georgia and the US Department Of Justice will follow up with their own charges. Charges for more serious crimes. Crimes which weren’t conducted to get elected, but done to stop the transfer of power after he lost an election.

Breathe. Smile. Take comfort that we have laws and independent prosecutors and juries of the people.

Juries made up of We The People.

The fire in the wood stove and a small oil lamp are enough light to run a brush over the boots I wore today.

This is a pair of casual dress boots. They extend just above the ankle, and have a split reverse welt joining the upper to the insole, midsole,  and sole, which makes them wider than sleeker dress boots. They are dark brown, leather lace up boots, with five sets of eyelets and three sets of speed hooks. They are of derby style, meaning the quarters wrap to the front and over the vamp of the shoe to form the sides holding the eyelets. The toe is plain, with no cap or broguing, and the laces are dark brown cotton. In fact the design is quite simple. A plain vamp with two quarters and a single strip protecting the back. A timeless look that is often called a service boot, but would look very familiar to men a hundred years ago.

But what stands out is the leather. These boots are made of Chromexcel (commonly referred to as CXL, both within the tannery and throughout the wider world wherever it is known.) CXL is a proprietary tannage of Horween Leather Company, Chicago, Illinois. It follows a recipe dating back over a century.

CXL is a combination leather, partly vegetable and partly chrome tanned. (Lots of steps and people.) It is “cooked” as they say, and stuffed with a secret blend of oils and waxes, giving it a slightly (faintly) greasy look. They are a “pull up leather” meaning when the leather is stretched it lightens, then returns to normal when released. It is easily scuffed and marred when bumped around, but they are restored pretty easily. Yes, all I need is a good brush for most of the care for these boots.

Which brings me to the moment of sitting in a comfortable chair near a blazing fire in the wood stove as it is driving away the effects of winter. With a horsehair brush pushing the fats and waxes around and bringing a deep glow to the shoes.

Care starts when I take them off my feet. A quick wipe to remove surface dirt and water that I may have encountered, and inserting a pair of cedar shoe trees. The cedar shoe trees do two important things: they absorb the moisture the leather has taken from your feet – a pint a day, I’ve been informed; and they keep the leather shoe from losing its shape. Every pair of leather shoes should have its own pair of cedar shoe trees.

 This is just an evening brushing, and I’m not adding any lotions or polishes. I tie the laces in a bow and stuff them into the shoe alongside the tongue to get them out of the way. I then take a horsehair brush and briskly brush the whole of the boot, returning from area to area, toe to heel, and watching the low glow appear in the slightly scuffed and formally dull leather. It couldn’t be called a shine, as that implies a reflective surface like a wax. And it would never polish up to that kind of shine anyway. The nature of this leather is that it won’t accept colored polish and wax. It couldn’t mirror shine if you wanted to. You would never pass muster in uniform on a parade ground. No, it isn’t a shine. It’s a gleam. A glow. It looks like the color is deep, almost like a liquid. And on this deep, dark brown leather it is like looking into a vat of dark chocolate.

Each time I bring a brush to these boots I am surprised anew by the rapid return of their good looks. Even in the low lighting of the fire and lamp, the appearance is unmistakable. The boots look good. Solid, sturdy, and comfortable. And as they serve me year after year, I care for them with the respect they deserve. I even remove the heavy scuffs along the inside of the right heel, where it seems I routinely kick myself with the other foot as I transfer myself in and out of the car, and through doors and halls and aisles and sidewalks and pathways of my environs.

Good boots are more than footwear. They are more than fashion and more than protection from the elements. They are more than a tool used in the functioning of life. Good boots are an ally and a formidable part of mission success. Like a jet returning to the aircraft carrier after a sortie, while the pilot is being fed and rested, the plane is cleaned and examined. Checked out and made ready for the next flight. So too should boots be addressed. The minimum is to wipe them down. Removing the dirt and dust of the world, however light it is, prolongs the life of the boots. Brushing raises the temperature of the leather, and brings that gleam we so enjoy. And on boots made of CXL, the brushing moves those oils and waxes around the leather, and scuffs slowly disappear, as if by magic.

As a rule, I don’t wear any shoes more than two days consecutively. A day of rest is a must. And sitting on the rack, polished and smart looking, they are ready to be deployed the next time they are called into service.

Tomorrow I will wear different shoes. Boots probably, as it is January in Michigan. And those boots will have their own properties and characteristics. But like the boots I am brushing, those too will need some small amount of regular care. Brushing and occasional addition of some leather lotion to rehydrate the skin. It is a skin, we know. A skin that has been tanned for longevity. But like rubbing some lotion into your hands to add moisture, tanned leather needs lotion introduced occasionally too. And some boots are typical dyed leather and need additional cream and sometimes wax polishes to restore color and protect them from the elements.

It is some extra care over what a common man might have. He might come home and kick off his outdoor shoes, shoving them in a closet or onto a tray by the door. The next day he stuffs his feet into them, without even the aid of a shoe horn, and off to the day he goes again. He might repeat this process for a year or less before starting the search for another pair, discouraged by how quickly the last pair wore out. He might have confined his search to the cheapest products he can find, or he might spend a sizable amount to meet the standards needed for his work.

I have worked in hard work environments. Places where safety-toes were required, and where boots would get kicked and soiled, stained and scuffed. Whether it was working at a steel company or walking the steel decks of a freighter or tanker on the high seas, I usually received an allowance every other year for a new pair of boots. Two years is how long we expected them to last. Little did I know in the early days how long a pair could last with some regular attention.

The boots I have now will likely be with me and in my wear rotation for the rest of my life. I have several pairs, roughly divided between summer and winter with some crossover to both. The care of the boots is up to me. And when I eventually wear through the life of the sole, all the boots I own can have their soles replaced for a fraction of the cost of a new pair, and an entire new cycle awaits.

This matters more to me than it did back in my youth. I might have had boots I liked and wanted to keep, and boots I wish I could find the equal to, but boots all went the way of the landfill too soon, and often for lack of good care.

And shoes were all too often cheap, and made of inferior materials. Cemented together in some Chinese factory, designed to cover the feet in a presentable manner for under a hundred bucks. Those shoes wouldn’t last regardless of what care regimen I followed. They would lose their shape, or the lining would wear through, or they would get wet and the cement would fail, leaving an unsightly mess.

But I am getting older. (Like we all are – hopefully.) And now I want shoes that reflect me better. Quality shoes and boots for a quality person. A good man needs good shoes, and life is too short for cheap shoes. And I want shoes that I can keep for a long time. Like how I want to last a long time myself. For this I need care too. So attention to diet, and engaging in exercise are a must, as well as cleaning and resting. There will come a point where I end up in a landfill of sorts. How far away that is depends a great deal on me, saving room in that process for the will of the Fates.

On an evening that a younger me would have spent carousing, I now find joy in caring for the boots that care for me.

It is now 2023, and I started thinking about the changes in a century. These are my notes.

In the year 1923

Less than 40% of homes had electricity.

1% had a radio.

About one-third had a phone.

Letters by postal delivery was the primary form of communication over any distance, even within the same city.

Telegrams were for emergencies, business, and the wealthy.

Electric refrigeration was virtually non-existent. People used blocks of ice to chill insulated boxes. They put a sign in the window with how big a block they wanted the iceman to deliver.

People still went to see vaudeville, but “moving pictures” at the cinema were becoming more popular.

At the cinema, those moving pictures, or “movies” were silent only. And it was still several years before theaters were air-conditioned.

People got most of their news from the newspaper, which often had multiple editions a day printed.

It was still common to see horse-drawn wagons in the cities, and the last horse-drawn fire engine was retired in New York City just the year before.

Most people had just a couple outfits of clothing (other than workwear), consisting of “Sunday best), along with typical daily attire.

Two pairs of shoes wasn’t uncommon (dress and rough wear), and there was a good chance the boys around the neighborhood wore sneakers.

There were commercial air flights available (for those who could afford it), but most people traveled by train or bus when on land, and the only way for a passenger to cross an ocean was by ship.

For suburban residents who worked in the cities, the commute was about the same as today, but it meant a train ride and some walking.

If your house was more than 20 years old, it probably was built without a bathroom. And if you lived in the country, you still had an outhouse. The “tub, sink, toilet” bathroom of today was really an invention of the 1920s.

Toilet paper – mostly for city and suburban homes (the country folk still had their Sears and Roebuck catalogs), was advertised as “splinter-free,” as a mark of quality.

There were some prepared foods available, but most cooking was done from scratch. And people ate a lot less meat and dairy than today.

I could go on for pages with some of these interesting (I think) differences between then and now, but the decade of the 1920s was rapidly innovating and advancing. By the end of the decade phones, electricity, plumbing, and gas cooking would be commonplace in the home. Talking pictures “Talkies” would be universal, and private automobile ownership widespread.

Naturally it makes one wonder what life will be like in a hundred years hence. But if you are thinking about making predictions, first go to your computer search engine (A phrase that people would not comprehend a century ago) and look up what people in the 1920s thought the future would look like. It will bring some laughs and teach some humility.

The Presidency of Donald Trump was terrible for our country. We came within an eyelash of losing the Republic to an authoritarian cult leader, who went out the door trying to overthrow the country – an effort that he continues today.

Frequently Trump failed to execute the duties of his job and the oath to the Constitution. Twice he was Impeached by the House of Representatives, an unprecedented record that will follow him through history. Today, he is under investigation in several criminal and civil cases in several places in the country. His company is currently in court defending against charges of fraud.

Since regaining control of the House of Representatives in 2018, and the Presidency and Senate in 2020, the Democratic Caucus in Washington has worked tirelessly to pass laws to help the people. In spite of a narrow majority in the House and a split Senate needing tie-breaking votes, they have managed to pass numerous important bills to help move the country forward. They include:

The Inflation Reduction Act – Health care and climate, including lowering prescription drug prices and addressing climate change. It also will reduce the deficit by $300B through a minimum tax on billion dollar corporations and a 1% tax on stock buybacks.

The American Rescue Plan Act – Direct aid to Americans suffering from the effects of the pandemic, along with numerous government sponsored programs to help, including help finding health care, food subsidies, rental assistance, small business assistance, and others. It also increased earned income and child tax credits, and made millions more people eligible for ACA coverage. This probably moved more people out of poverty than anything in recent memory.

The CHIPs Act – Investing in America by making silicon chips here in America to reduce our dependency in China.

The Pact Act – Expands VA coverage to service personnel exposed to burn pits in combat.

*The Safer Communities Act – The first legislation to address firearm deaths in decades, which includes mental health action, school safety, gun safety, and red flag laws.

Infrastructure Investment And Jobs Act – A once in a generation investment in American infrastructure and competitiveness. This goes way beyond roads and bridges, and will move the country forward like nothing before.

And so much of these actions will create good, high-paying careers and union jobs. It is clear that it is the Democratic party who supports American labor.

There are more accomplishments, but this is enough. These are all things we’ve needed to do but couldn’t get done because of D.C. gridlock.

The Democrats have more plans to help the people going forward.

What about the Republicans?
Apart from largely opposing all (Except *) of the legislation above, including the PACT Act!, they have promised nothing but political retribution for attempts to stop a criminal President. And, for the most part, continued support for the insurrection that tried to overturn the will of the people and end our Republic.
And they promise to continue the culture war they started by pandering to the lowest common denominator of hate for immigrants, women, LBGTQ and anyone different.

And they promise to continue their assault against those they call “woke.”

For all practical purposes, the GOP is now the MAGA party. They shouldn’t even be called Republicans. They are (with some few exceptions) in awe of fascistic leaders and global strongmen. While some are decent people who were merely too cowardly to stand up to the fascists, most are actively for it. Winning power to keep it.

Please folks. Please. This isn’t hard. One party is working to make things better for all Americans, while the other has selected a group of “real” Americans who get privileged treatment.

Should Republicans regain power they have promised to spend their time and legislative energy seeking revenge on political enemies. They have promised to Impeach Joe Biden (apparently for the crime of being elected by the majority), and stripping the federal government of power. This means eliminating departments like the Department of Education, Department of Energy, and the Social Security Administration. Yes, the Republican platform of 2022 calls for requiring renewel votes on Social Security and Medicare every five years. This has been a conservative ambition for decades. They want to privatize Social Security and Medicare, and force people to seek this services in the private sector. This means insurance companies can gate keep funding medical needs, and turning the lifeline that Social Security is to tens of millions of Americans over to Wall Street, so they can steal it.

After 50 years of yelling that abortion is a right that should be left up to the states, Republicans have offered a bill that would ban abortions throughout the country after fifteen weeks.

They’re coming for control over our bodies, control over our gender, control over whom we can marry, and the end of majority rule in America.

One party wants to earn your votes again, while the other wants to make your vote superfluous.

This is serious stuff folks, and not the time for chasing ideals, or voting because gas prices are too high.

Vote for Democrats in every race.

Recently Florida Governor Rod DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott conspired to trick migrants from Venezuela and fly them unannounced to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. No one in Martha’s Vineyard was informed of this, and there are no available facilities to receive unhoused migrants there.

The people of that small community rose to the moment and welcomed the migrants, housing and feeding them until the Governor of Massachusetts arranged for transportation and housing at a base on Cape Cod.

It turns out that prior to being flown to Martha’s Vineyard, the migrants were assigned locations to check in on the following Monday morning that were scattered across the country everywhere but Massachusetts, thereby ensuring that they would miss their asylum appointments and be in violation of the terms of immigration under that provision. This seems to have been done intentionally to ensure that all of these asylum seekers would be returned to Venezuela – the place they were fleeing out of fear for their lives and safety.

It is plain to the eye that Governor DeSantis was foisting these asylum seekers on states he perceives as Democratic (though the Governor of Massachusetts is Republican) in an attempt to create a crisis for political purposes. He even sent along an official photographer to capture the chaos and outrage he expected.

The position from the Republican party is that migrants seeking asylum and refugees are an annoyance and burden on their states and communities, and that Democratic politicians have failed to address the problem, seemingly to allow unfettered access to the United States by any number of people from Latin America, regardless of national laws.

I’ll note right here that Democrats have comprehensive immigration reform on the table and ready for votes, but these solutions have been blocked in Congress by Republicans. This suggests that Republicans are not interested in solutions to immigration issues, but only chaos and crises to use as political tools in upcoming elections.

I’m going to talk about humanity in a moment. But first I’ll say some words about race and ethnicity.

Over the last twenty years it has become clear that demographic shifts in the US population has Caucasian people (white people) will lose their majority status in the United States around the middle of this century. That is +/- thirty years. This appears to be a real problem for some in this country. I should be more clear, it is a problem to those in the country who believe that skin color is a marker of nationality. That is to say that these people believe that America is and ought to be a white majority country.

While most Republican politicians refrain from saying this outloud, it is clear from their response to immigrants from Latin America and from Africa and Asia are negative, while little if anything is mentioned of immigrants from northern European countries. Black and brown immigrants are identified as invaders, while white immigrants are positive infusion of new people to our melting pot.

The punditry of the right is less guarded. When they speak of brown and black immigrants they use words like dirty and criminal. They speak about how “real” Americans didn’t get to vote on the changing demographics, and that these changes are ruining the greatness of the country.

Awash in all of this is what is referred to as The Great Replacement Theory. A conspiracy theory that claims Democratic politicians are encouraging the immigration of brown and blacks to replace the white majority with a population more compliant to Democratic agendas.

Yes, Great Replacement Theory is entirely racist. There isn’t a single reasonable argument supporting it, either in fact or intention.

Simply put, the world over we see non-white skinned people are increasing in numbers, and white people have decreasing birth rates. Because the US has a majority white population, and because white birth rates are slowing, the population of the country has slowed its growth. In fact, were it not for immigration, the US population would be shrinking.

While the white population will not be the majority in the future, it will remain the largest category of race. We will become a majority minority country. Which is to say there will be more non-whites than whites. (This includes black, brown, Asian, etc.)

The answer from the right is predictably racist. Slow the immigration of non-whites, and try to increase the birth rates of whites. Of the latter, one can see the right-wing attack on abortion rights as one piece of evidence. Though black and brown people have abortions too, the vast majority of advertising against abortion show pictures of white babies and white parents.

There are several avenues to immigration into America. One is applying for immigrant status. Another is coming on a temporary work permit. Another is as a refugee from conflict. Another is seeking asylum from threats of persecution based on politics, race, gender, sexual orientation, or economic condition. All of these are legal, and make up the bulk of those who enter the United States.

Of those who come on work visas, some number of them remain in country after their visa expire, making them undocumented persons. We may add to that the numbers who cross into the country without permission at all.

The political right treats all brown and black immigrants as if they are in this last category, and they refer to them as illegals. I have never heard them mention a single white person as such, even though there are numbers of them too.

But in all of these cases we are talking about people. Actual people making tough choices about how they are going to survive in this world, and how they will provide opportunity for their children. No one is bringing their children and what belongings they can carry across hundreds or thousands of miles for any other reason than they believe it is necessary. Whether people are allowed in is a matter of law.

The laws of the United States permit both refugees and asylum seekers. The former must be declared refugees before coming, while the latter must first enter the country before asking for asylum. This is legal.

Those who came from Venezuela recently, and were tricked into agreeing to be transported by DeSantis’ agents were here in this country lawfully. And the federal government has systems in place to process and register these people, who will then have their claims of asylum investigated and reviewed. Some certain numbers are turned away if found that their claims do not merit our protection.

But at the very start of this we have people who are desperate enough to pack up their belongings and traipse across the continent to our border and ask for protection and help. It seems the obvious humane thing to hold out our hands for others in need. We certainly have the room, and we certainly have the need for more people, and we certainly can afford to help them.

So this action by DeSantis seems plainly cruel and indecent. It shows a disregard for the suffering of the people and the willingness to use them as pawns for political gain. The claim that these asylum seekers would find welcome services in Massachusetts and therefore are being helped rings untrue in light of the surreptitious way in which they were transported, and the attempts to sabotage their asylum claims.

What we have today in the Republican party is not simply people who have a different idea of how government should work, or how immigration should be managed. What we see is intentional cruelty. And it is cruelty based on race and ethnicity. The Republican party has picked a favored race, a favored gender, and a favored religion. They are cruelly using the tools of state to harm and punish those who seek our help, and discourage the shift in demographics that the world is experiencing.

It appears that Governor DeSantis has violated federal law in this action. Whether he faces legal consequences or not, we can hope he at least faces political consequences.

And we can also hope that Americans broadly recognize that it isn’t skin color that makes one American. And it isn’t religion or ethnicity either. Hopefully the people will agree that our diversity is a good and great feature of this country.

And hopefully we can keep this fascist Republican party from regaining power and implementing their racist and theocratic agenda.