Monthly Archives: June 2020

NIMBY

 

Language evolves.  It adapts to changes in culture.  When I first arrived in Charlottesville in the fall of 1967, students at the University of Virginia would sing “The Good Old Song,” following each home team score during a Saturday afternoon of football at Scott Stadium.  The lyrics included, “We come from old Virginia, where all is bright and gay.”  In hindsight, considering the undergraduate college at Mr. Jefferson’s University was at the time an all-male school, maybe the description was more appropriate than we imagined.  After all, we were quite dapper, required to wear coats and ties to class, and the code of student conduct referred to a student as “a Virginia gentleman.”

Among words or phrases that experience this transformation is the acronym “NIMBY” which is the short form of “not in my back yard.”  Its origin goes back to the early 1970’s and the environmental justice movement when undesirable public or private activities ranging from nuclear power plants to prisons were proposed for low and middle income communities.  The rich and powerful who generally used or profited from such facilities were fine with them as long as they were not subject to the economic, safety or aesthetic consequences of their locations.

A view from Fittie of the wind farm President Trump didn't want ...Among the most recent cases of NIMBY mentality was the 2015 case of Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v Scotland in which you know who challenged the government’s authority to approve wind farm applications, especially one that would be visible from his Aberdeen resort.  If it makes you feel any better, the United States is not the only country in which Donald Trump confuses the personal from the public interest.  Prior to initiating legal action, Trump wrote to assumed friend Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and claimed he was “fighting for the benefit of Scotland.”  When the Scottish Supreme Court ruled against the Trump Organization, Salmond described Trump as “three times a loser.”  (Readers are encouraged to make up their own parody of Lionel Richie and the Commodores’ “Three Times a Lady.”)

Which brings me to the emerging new meaning of NIMBY.  In 2020, one can argue the term also refers to things specific demographics ignore or consider irrelevant as long as they do not occur close to home.  Consider the following two examples the coronavirus pandemic and the “Black Lives Matter” movement.  Both started as localized phenomena, but now leave no corner of the nation untouched.

Let’s start with Americans’ attitude to the government’s response to COVID19.  According to the FiveThirtyEight average of polls, on March 28, 2020, Trump’s margin of disapproval dropped to 3.9 percent (49.7 disapproval versus 45.8 approval), its lowest level during his three plus years in the White House.  On March 27, Trump asked the CDC to issue a travel advisory for the tri-state area (NY, NJ, CT) in which an overwhelming majority of the 2,010 COVID-related deaths confirmed to date had occurred.  In other words, Trump benefited from the fact most Americans felt unaffected as long as people were not dying in their back yards and Trump’s executive order was designed to prevent exactly that.

This morning Trump’s margin of diapproval is 14.5 percent (55.3 disapproval versus 40.8 approval).  Why?  Because residents in the Sunbelt and farm states can no longer feel safe under the misconception COVID19 is confined to the Northeast and West Coast.  And all of Trump’s and Mike Pence’s assurances cannot convince them otherwise.  Predictions and promises have little meaning when red state residents watch as family, friends and neighbors become ill or die from a disease that refuses to recognize geographic borders.

The same can be said of the newly energized and broader response to excessive police force.  Prior to the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and other African-Americans at the hands of law enforcement officers, those injustices were something that only happened in the Deep South.  Protesters were only gassed and hosed at the behest of overt white supremacists such as Alabama governor George Wallace and Birmingham sheriff Bull Connor.  Lynchings occurred in Mississippi, not California.  “Black Lives Matter” was a response to isolated instances of police misconduct.  Until it wasn’t.  Even in localities that have so far escaped the trauma of the outrage which brought protesters out into the streets, a majority of Americans now recognize their good fortune is more a matter of luck than culture.

So, if you were to ask me what movie best captures the extraordinary time and conditions in which we now live, I would not gravitate to films like Contagion or Do the Right Thing.  My first choice is Independence Day, except I would rename it Election Day.  And in my remake, Joe Biden would be cast as President Whitmore and his speech on the eve of election day 2020 would sound something like this.

We can’t be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it’s fate that tomorrow is the 3rd of November, the same date in 1979 on which the Klan and neo-Nazis in Greensboro, North Carolina opened fire on protesters, killing five marchers and injuring scores of others.  You will once again be fighting for our freedom not from corruption, dishonesty or division but for soul of America.

November 3rd will no longer be known as an American experience, but will be the day when our allies around the world and every human being who seeks freedom and justice declare in one voice, “We all share the same back yard.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

.

 

Text Messaging

 

There has not been a lot of good news lately; so, the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia was reason for celebration on several levels.  For me personally, it overcame one of my worst cases of writer’s block since I began blogging five years ago.  My first draft on this topic was penned (intentional wording) on May 30, 2020 and was originally titled “Strict v. Selective.”  The central theme being how some current justices, who wear the label “strict constructionists” on the sleeves of their robes, apply the principle selectively when it serves their ideological purposes.  No case could have made this more clear than yesterday’s decision to include protection of the LGBT+ community under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Neil Gorsuch - WikipediaMore importantly, it was not Neil Gorsuch’s opinion on behalf of the 6-3 majority which was responsible for this author’s breakthrough.  It was the two dissenting opinions.  One by Justice Samuel Alito for himself and Justice Clarence Thomas.  The second by rookie Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  My “aha moment” came not from the specific arguments, but the judicial context on which they based their dissent.  I had always thought of Supreme Court justices falling into two camps.  Strict constructionists who claimed the exact language in the Constitution was the controlling factor when interpreting the drafters’ intent.  And modernists, who argue the founding fathers surely understood there would be sea changes in science, technology and culture which required legal precedence take such advances into account.

In response to Gorsuch, Alito and Kavanaugh repeatedly focused on a different frame of reference about which I had never given much thought–textualism.  Gorsuch made the majority’s  case in accordance with the Freudian principle “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” (NOTE:  There is no evidence Sigmund Freud actually said it.)  In other words, when the law says employers cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, it means exactly what it says and must be obeyed.  If the law was meant only to give equal weight to men and women based on the box checked on birth certificates they should have said that.

In a 184 page dissent including appendices, Alito not only accused Gorsuch of a wrongful decision, he lectured him on the definition of textualism.

It is curious to see this argument in an opinion that purports to apply the purest and highest form of textualism because the argument effectively amends the statutory text.

To make matters worse, Alito continues to dig his chasm of hypocrisy, suggesting that Title VII could not possibly apply to something that required Congress to be a body of 20th century fortune tellers.  For example, this is his explanation why Title VII could not have been meant to include transgender employees.

The first widely publicized sex reassignment surgeries in the United States were not performed until 1966, and the great majority of physicians surveyed in 1969 thought that an individual who sought sex reassignment surgery was either “‘severely neurotic’” or “‘psychotic.’”  It defies belief to suggest that the public meaning of discrimination because of sex in 1964 encompassed discrimination on the basis of a concept that was essentially unknown to the public at that time.

Under Alito’s “ignorance is bliss” doctrine, if not for advances in knowledge, it would still be okay to discriminate against any demographic we do not fully understand.  Under this precept, I assume it would be legal for a restaurant to refuse to serve Justice Alito.

Based on this fervent belief he can read the minds of long dead patriots and legislators, should we look forward to Alito applying this same criteria to other topics which come before the bench?  UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler is among several legal experts to suggest Alito may some day want to take back his words.  Last night, he tweeted:

Alito says that ‘sex’ must be defined exactly the way that lawmakers understood that term in 1964. I’m skeptical he’ll apply that same rule to defining what counts as ‘arms’ when reading the Second Amendment.

Kavanaugh opted to join Alito in this pit of intellectual dishonesty when he demanded that judicial review rely on the “ordinary meaning” of words.  In his dissent, Kavanaugh writes:

Citizens and legislators must be able to ascertain the law by reading the words of the statute. Both the rule of law and democratic accountability badly suffer when a court adopts a hidden or obscure interpretation of the law, and not its ordinary meaning.

As in the case of Citizens United v. FEC?   When then sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh contended that the First Amendment reference to “speech” included the “hidden or obscure interpretation” that money equals speech.  Do not hold your breath waiting for Kavanaugh to side with defendants of campaign finance reform consistent with his new fidelity to strict textualism. Or to rise in support of bloggers who criticize him.  After all, the text in the Constitution only protects “freedom of the press” and “freedom of speech” which in 1789 did not include digital communications.

As Freud might have said, “Sometimes an Alito and Kavanaugh are just an Alito and Kavanaugh.”  Nothing more; nothing less.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Cannot “Not Be”

It is amazing what you can hear when there is no background noise.  The on-field chatter during a live German soccer match in an empty stadium provides a different experience when not masked by the constant chant of “Ole, ole!”  Or how we hang on every word when conversations with friends and family are one-on-one events without the distracting din of conversations at adjacent tables or Muzak from an overhead speaker.  I always taught my students about the difference between hearing and listening.  What I never realized, until now, was how much easier it is to listen when your ears are not bombarded with extraneous sounds.

Which brings me to the topic du jour.  You may have noticed, I have avoided commenting on the “Black Lives Matter” protests following the murder of George Floyd.  It was not for lack of empathy for the cause.  I just  felt inadequately prepared to write anything of value to add to the conversation.  Until the debate over renaming military bases which are currently associated with Confederate generals.  Lethal force by police against African-Americans is the ultimate manifestation of systemic racism.  But there are also the thousands upon thousands of daily reminders of something short of full citizenship.  Perhaps it is time we recognize this is about more than situations involving life or death.  Maybe it is time to bring out posters and t-shirts which also remind us, “Black Feelings Matter.”

While the deaths of Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery grab the headlines, we must also listen to the stories which do not involve physical violence.  For example, Kimberly Atkins’ appearance on Deadline White House last Friday.  Atkins is a senior news correspondent for WBUR, Boston’s public radio station.  Before that she served as Washington bureau chief for the Boston Herald.  She recounted her sense of surprise when she first arrived in the nation’s capital and found herself driving to work on the Lee Highway.  She had never previously imagined anyone would name a major thoroughfare after someone who led soldiers in a war AGAINST the United States for the purpose of protecting slave owners’ right to human chattel.

There are all varieties of blatant and latent discrimination.  However, with the exception of race, each of us has the ability to deny our heritage.  I am not immediately identified as Jewish, of eastern European descent, liberal or over-educated.  When I walked into a job interview, bought a home or applied for a mortgage, I could not be immediately profiled.  And if I so chose, I could deny any or all of these distinguishing characteristics.  I could “not be” who I know I am.

Not so for African-Americans.  They do not have that same choice.  They CANNOT “not be” black.  They cannot, as some German Jews tried, attempt to disappear into the crowd by refusing to wear a yellow Star of David on their clothing.  Or survive the Inquisition by surrounding themselves with the trappings of the Catholic Church.

Yet, there are occasions on which I can identify with African-Americans.  When negotiating the price of a new home, I was once asked, “What are you, Jewish?”  In the 1950s, there were deed restricted communities in my home town of Richmond, Virginia which banned Jewish families.  Some of my schoolmates came from those communities.  Though I suspect they never looked at me in class and thought, “He’s one of them.”

Reflecting on those experiences, I now realize I was wrong.  It does not matter whether I have distinguishing physical traits which set me apart.  As I watched neo-Nazis march at my alma mater, I could not “not be” Jewish.  Just as Kimberly Atkins cannot “not be” black, even when she is in the isolation of her own car, when no one is looking at her.  She does not need external validation of her status in American society.  But, neither should I.

When it comes to realizing the genesis of the “Black Lives Matter” movement, I keep hearing that old refrain, “You can’t understand how someone feels until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.”  Easier said than done.  Instead, maybe the answer lies in the ability of each of us to walk a mile in our own shoes.

FBI director quotes 'Avenue Q' song 'Everyone's a Little Bit ...There is a musical number in the Broadway show Avenue Q titled, “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.”  The final chorus contains the following lyrics.

If we all could just admit that we are racist a little bit.
And everyone stopped being so P.C.
Maybe we could live in harmony.

That only comes about when each of us recognizes the inconvenient truth we cannot “not be” biased and takes a moment to understand what that means and how it should make us feel.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Trump in His Element

 

The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything by Ken ...In his book The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything, Sir Ken Robinson writes people are truly in their “element” when they do things which represent an intersection between their passions and their abilities.  Consider the following example where one of the two is absent.  An individual is exceptional at math but is passionate about helping people.  Crunching numbers alone at a workstation may come easy, but is not fulfilling.  Conversely, this same person will not succeed as a social worker or therapist if he/she can only offer analysis when a client needs compassion or empathy.

Sir Ken goes on to explain people, when captive of a situation or environment which does not support their element, often exhibit behaviors which can be misinterpreted.  He illustrates this situation with the story of a young boy who was a problem student.  He would not pay attention to his teachers and would restlessly tap on his desk.  Today, that child might be diagnosed as having ADHD and given Ritalin.  Fortunately, they did not and that boy grew up to be Paul McCartney.  The nervous tapping was a rhythmic response to the music in his head, a passion he pursued outside of school, listening to rock music and learning to play the guitar.

After showing a video of Sir Ken explaining the concept to students in my Imagination class at Miami University, I would give them the following exercise.

  • Step #1: List five things you like to do.
  • Step #2: List five things you are good at.
  • Step #3: Identify three activities where you can match one item in Step #1 with one item in Step #2.
  • Step #4: What do these activities in Step #3 have in common?
  • Step #5: What careers or hobbies give you the best chance to pursue that common descriptor of your own “element?”

Which brings me to Donald J. Trump.  Imagine as a sophomore or junior in college he is sitting in my classroom and doing this exercise.  His worksheet would probably look something like this.

  • STEP #1:  Things I Like to Do
    Make Money; Watch TV, Hang Out with Beautiful/Young Women, Play Golf, Eat Fast Food
  • STEP #2:  Things I’m Good At
    Marketing, Promoting Myself, Coming Up with New Scams, Taking Credit for Other People’s Work, Lying
  • STEP #3:  Activities Which Include Items in #1 and #2
    Public Speaking, Partying, Putting my Name on Things
  • STEP #4: What Do These Have in Common?
    Being the center of attention.
  • STEP #5:  Careers or Hobbies
    Business CEO, Show Business, Playboy, Social Media Personality

I wrap up the session with three rhetorical questions.  Would you say you are currently in your element?  What should you be doing more of to achieve being in your element?  What should you be doing less of which is taking you away from your element?

Why do I share this with you?  Because it is one explanation for behavior which, on its surface, seems irrational.  Trump’s constant tweeting, thumbs pounding on his (unsecured) iPhone keyboard, is akin to McCartney rapping on his classroom desk.  Both were restless.  Both really wanted to be doing something else.  Neither was happy.

So when you hear someone ask, “Is Trump intentionally trying to lose the election by being oblivious to the health, economic and social crises we are experiencing?  By promoting conspiracy theories?  By challenging every political and Constitution norm?”  The answer is probably a resounding, “YES!”  His actions suggest he has taken my rhetorical questions at the end of the “element” exercise to heart.  It is his way of finding the path on which he does less of those things he finds unpleasant or tedious, i.e. governance, national leadership, and more of those enjoyable things he is good at, being a modern day P. T. Barnum.

So, let’s help him find his element.  On November 3rd, a vote for Joe Biden is an empathetic gesture on behalf of a restless, unhappy little boy who will be thrilled when school is over and he can pursue other activities without anyone constantly grading him (except maybe the New York Attorney General and the district attorney of the Southern District of New York).  When his adoring fans are no longer viewed as voters, but customers for his next scam.  After all, there should be a lot of surplus MAGA schlock (above) that will need to be disposed of.  And as Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”  And poor little (and maybe) rich boy Donny has cultivated millions of them.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Vichy 2.0

 

What do June 22, 1940 and November 8, 2016 have in common?

The former is the date on which the French government (État Français), headed by Marshal Philippe Pétain signed an armistice with Nazi Germany, allowing HItler’s troops to occupy northern and south-eastern France.  In return, Pétain continued to head a nominal government located in the town of Vichy on the condition the  Régime de Vichy, as it became known, did not challenge the German occupation.  The arrangement lasted until 1944 when allied forces regained a foothold in Europe following the D-Day invasion.

In the fall of 2016, the former Republican Party experienced a similar takeover by an outside adversary.  Immediately following Donald Trump’s ascension as titular head of the remnants of the GOP, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speak Paul Ryan signed what can only be described as the Armistice of Mar-a-Lago, ceding their authority to the incoming administration.  And consistent with the European model on which it is based, Congressional leadership was allowed to pretend they still had power as long as they did not challenge the MAGA occupation.

If that was not evident over the first three years and five months of the Trump administration, any delusion otherwise was dispelled during the first ten days of June.  Twice the leader of the MAGA occupying forces tested the arrangement.

  • On June 1, Trump authorized disruption of a peaceful protest in Lafayette Park using chemical irritants, gas canisters and rubber bullets.  The park was cleared to allow Trump and his posse to amble over to St. John’s Church for a photo op.
  • On the morning of June 9, Trump accused the 75 year-old victim of excessive force by the Buffalo, New York police of being a provocateur and ANTIFA plant.

McConnell Mocks Uproar Over Cotton Op-EdIf I did not know better, I might think the timing of these two events were designed to demonstrate just how weak the Republican Senate caucus is when it comes to dealing with the current occupant of the oval office.  One occurred the night before and the other the morning of the regularly scheduled Tuesday GOP caucus lunch.  To enter the caucus room, each Senator has to pass a podium flanked with American flags, where McConnell would normally hold public briefings or announce forthcoming policies or actions.  Being a press accessible area, no one should be surprised the corridor is regularly filled with microphone-wielding reporters hoping to get a sound bite on the issues of the day.

Any senator who did not anticipate he/she would be asked about either of the two incidents above is guilty of the most serious of political crimes–demonstrating ignorance and/or stupidity.  The only question is the degree.  If such offenses were codified, one can imagine the following taxonomy.

  • Third degree ignorance/stupidity.  Suspects suffer from dementia and have no idea what is coming and are incapable of a rational response, sometimes referred to as third degree mental-slaughter.
  • Second degree ignorance/stupidy.  Suspects walk into an unexpected situation and intentionally choose ignorance/stupidity as the best course of action.
  • Second degree felony ignorance/stupidy.  The suspect is immoral and intentionally uses ignorance or stupidity to cover his/her more egregious behavior.
  • First degree ignorance/stupidity.  Suspects know what is coming and do not give a damn if they look ignorant or stupid knowing their equally ignorant or stupid constituents will identify with this kind of behavior.

The Olympic Games, Los Angeles and hysteria, courtesy of Sergeant ...And there it was, the neo-Vichy Party had not one, but two chances to stand up to the man who had repeatedly emasculated it for the better part of five years.  And yet they did nothing.  Just like Marshall Pétain, they ceded the territory to Trump and retreated to the safety of the Senate caucus room.  Or in the immortal words of John Banner who portrayed Master Sargeant Hans Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes, “I see nothing. I hear nothing.  I know nothing.  NOTHING!”

Hopefully, five months from now, I can amend this post by adding the question, “What do June 6, 1944 and November 3, 2020 have in common?”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP