Another three day weekend has come and gone and while it is pleasant to have the extended time away from our regular routines it is also a somber time to reflect on those men and women that died while in service to our nation.

It is important to remember that this is not simply death on the battlefield, or lives lost in wars, both wise and foolish conflicts, but the passing of people as that served their greater community. Some did lose their lives in the anger, heat, fear, and confusion of battle, some lost their lives in the miscalculation during energetic trainings, some lost their lives due to carelessness and accidents, and some lost their lives in a myriad other ways. It is a dangerous profession serving in the armed forces. During my brief time I the service and on my single deployment to the Western Pacific more than one service person aboard my ship lost their life.

More important than moments of silence, and contemplations on their service, is the duty and obligation laid upon us the civilian authority to ensure that their sacrifices are never wasted, never discounted, never expended for mere political position. We are the ultimate arbiters of our government and the Armed Forces are an expression of that government around the globe. When we vote, we are making a statement about what sort of government and its relationship to its service member. More importantly we make a different statement if we do not vote, abstaining from our duty to those serving under the colors on our behalf, and discounting their dangerous and vital mission. To not vote, to ignore the vital issues and persons of our political processes is to dismiss as unimportant the lives of everyone who stepped forward and risked everything for the chance to serve.

I hope you paid a moment to honor the service and sacrifice that has been made on your account and when an election rolls around I hope you remember that it is there, where you advance a person to use their best judgment on your behalf, that you participate to fulfill that obligation to those who no longer can.

With the surge in draconian abortion laws sweeping the nation as conservative forces see glimmers of victory with the current make-up of the Supreme Court I think it is instructive to look at two disparate statistics.

Mind you, this is not an exhaustive argument, the reason why I consider myself to pro-choice are legion and at the heart of that reasoning is the simple fact that people should be allowed to live as they wish, including getting elective medical procedures that they want.

Maternal Mortality:

NPR and Pro-Publica published a finding on maternal mortality in the United States. The shocking and horrifying figure is 26.4 deaths per 100,000. Out of every 100,000 pregnant women 26.4 die from complications due to that pregnancy. (Other industrialized nations have far lower rates ranging from 3.8 to 9.2 per 100,000.) To carry a pregnancy to term is a decision that risks your very life and certainly the instances where the state can compel you to risk your life should be held to be most stringent of standards and not merely to suit the whim of moralistic politicians.

An argument I have heard is that the state can compel women to not have abortions to ‘save a life.’ First off that presumes an embryo or fetus is the same as a person and that’s something I reject but even accepting that standard yields strange and vast powers for the state. For example could the state compel someone to donate a kidney to ‘save a life?’ However let’s put aside the idea of the state grabbing people and dragging them of to suffer unwanted medical procedures to save a stranger and look at another statistic.

In 2017 the FBI reported the national murder rate to be 5.3 murders 100,000 people. An argument I have often heard against nearly all forms of firearm regulation is that people have a right to self-defense and such regulations put people in danger from denying them the tools they may need to exercise that right of self-defense. Of course we are currently experiencing an epidemic of mass shootings as unbalanced people, nearly always men and far more often then not white men, cowardly murder unarmed people in schools, public places, and houses of worship, sure to ‘save a life’ these rights could be as trampled as cavalierly as a woman’s right to determine her own destiny. After all a pregnant woman faces a death that is five times as likely as random person is to be murdered.

Naturally these statistics are unlikely to cause anyone to change their minds on either abortion or firearm regulation, both issues transcend any sort of reasoned position and are more strongly held as a marker for group and individual identity. The core driving factors are for the most part quite simple, anything that ‘tramples’ a right ‘I’ want to exercise is tyranny and those that ‘trample’ the rights of others or right I do not wish or cannot exercise aren’t being trampled at all but the product of ‘rational’ restrictions. It is much more difficult to recognize the rights of other than it is to vigorously fight for your own.

The long awaited Muller Report is out and there is no doubt that it holds news that is of a concern to everyone. It is a relief that the investigation did not find that Trump or his campaign actively coordinated with a hostile foreign power to win the presidency. Make now mistake Trump in my opinion is by far the worse president in the modern age and perhaps ever in our history but we should be grateful that he not an asset or agent though he is a weakness that our enemies exploit.

Due to the diligent investigation we know a number of things as fact.

Russian efforts to manipulate the election were not confined to just he general campaign but also worked to push forward Trump candidacy during the GOP primary. For the Kremlin Trump was the preferred candidate.

Russia launched a sweeping, expensive, and targeted operation to manipulate the election in Trumps favor. This was no passing fancy aimed at simply sowing confusion or tainting a possible Clinton administration, though it would have had that effect had Trump lost so from a Russian perspective it was nearly a win either way.

Trump, though he lied about and attempted to keep it secret, extensively sought to build a massive tower in Moscow. The Trump Tower Moscow project required positive assent and cooperation from Putin and his circle of criminals, assistance that the Trump organization and family courted and pled for.

Trump personal, familial, and company financial exposure in the Moscow project is, because of hidden tax information, unknown which means Trump vulnerability to manipulation through his finances at the hands of the Russian is also unknown.

It is likely that the Russians wanted Trump in office not because of some grand ‘Manchurian Candidate’ style conspiracy but simply because due to Trump susceptibility to flattery and greed makes him particularly vulnerable to skilled manipulation.

At no time during the primary, though he leap to the lead with the electorate, was Trump the preferred candidate if the Republican establishment. These disturbing facts and shadowy connection to Russian oligarchs and criminals were as evident to them as it were to everyone else who cared to look and when Trump won the Presidency the GOP could have still acted as a patriotic party. I am not suggesting that the GOP should have abandoned their core goals of tax cuts and massive deregulation, though I do not agree with those aims. With President Trump the GOP could have their license to pollute and their deficit exploding tax cuts of more than one and half trillion dollars without surrendering so much of the administration to Trump. They could have held the line against grossly unqualified cabinet secretaries, they could have held the line against ignoring the Russian operation attacking our democracy, they could have kept true to the country while pursuing their ill-conceived and self-serving goals, but they did not. Terrified of the base that they created with decades of hyperbole and divisive campaigning, a base that embraced Trump the moment he arrived upon the scene, they folded, cowered from the monster of their own creation, and surrendered all their honor in exchanged for thirty pieces of silver. I only hope that their destruction and reconstruction takes place before it is too late for my beloved nation.

Perhaps what I read was a terribly April Fool’s jest but given the history that is an outcome I find highly improbable. I generally spend some of my mornings doing political reading, news and opinion pieces from left and right to get a sense what may but on the active discussions and minds of political actors. This morning I read a piece by Rod Dreher titled ‘The Little Steps In Between.’ Quoting from a non-fiction book ‘They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933 – 1945.’ a survey of ten German citizen that lived through the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and published in 1955. The long quote pulled recounts how the decent into a murderous hate filled ideology did not happen suddenly but in gradual steps, bit by bit the people were brought along until it was far too late.

If you are familiar with Dreher’s work you undoubtedly see the twist coming to the foundations of his argument. Dreher is not speaking about the corruption of the conservative movement, a movement that professes a devotion to morality, often an explicit Christiane morality, a movement that professes a commitment to the value of each individual, a movement that professes a commitment to the notion of Truth, and yet this same movement has in steps accepted and embraced bigotry, lies, and torture. This is not the gradual steps towards Nazi’s that concerns Dreher but rather the ‘intolerable’ condition that public institutions are no longer allowed to engage in bigotry under the cover of ‘personal religious convictions,’ a fiction used the justify bigotry in the nation throughout its history. No the United States is not being submerged into hatred ideology by the rise of the alt-right, by openly white supremacist representatives, or a bigoted president that praises a gather of neo-Nazis as containing ‘very fine people,’ but rather by the mild insistence that public institutions are not allowed to discriminate.

To be clear I think that there is a clear difference between individuals and institutions, particularly public institutions that exist and gain tangible benefits from legal structures that derive from our common governments. A company or a corporation exist because we created the legal framework for them and they confer protections to the individuals that band together to create them, such as shielding personal assets from corporate misdeeds. Companies and corporation are not their owners and should not have the same rights and privileges as persons. Oh course the Christian Right has been hypocritical on this point. I recall quite clearly when California’s Prop 8, seeking enshrine in state constitution a legal definition of marriage as one man one woman, was fought in the public sphere and the Christian Right objected to boycotts of businesses whose owners had donated to the campaign to pass the amendment. They argued that private political actions and personal beliefs had no connection to their businesses and such linkages were unjust. Now that they have lost both the political and cultural battle over marriage they argue the exact opposite, that a business such as a hobby shop or bakery are extensions of their owners’ personal beliefs and sacrosanct under their personal religious freedom.

No Dreher is of course terrified if equality, engaging in the perpetual Christian Right fantasy of modern martyrdom. Like Jordan Petersen and his delusion of the ‘Murderous Equity Doctrine’ there is no end to the right playing themselves as the victim which not only makes them look ridiculous, encourages violence from their unbalanced members, but also robs them of genuine sympathy when their rights are under assault.

In a recent interview with Breitbart Trump boasted of the ‘toughness’ of his supporters on the right.

“You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”

This love, admiration, and longing for ‘toughness’ is a clarion call to violence. It is call that is heard and is welcomed. It was heard by Lt Christopher Hasson, USCG and his alleged plotting to murder Trump’s liberal enemies, it was heard by Cesar Sayoc and his alleged mailing explosive devices to Trump’s liberal enemies, it is heard and taken to heart by racists around the globe. A man who admires the slaughter of the peaceful protesters in China now occupies the White House and despite all this is supported by a major political party because victory overrides all sense of morality, justice, and honor and worst troubles are ahead for our Union.

Is needs to be remembered that in the waning days of the 2016 election Trump busily laid the foundation for rejecting the election likely outcome as a product of fraud and illegitimate. As a losing candidate Trump running around, getting money from suckers, as he frothed about stolen election would have been juts one more reality show for the con-man, but he did not lose. The results shocked he and the nation when even though he lost the popular contest by 3 million votes he won the presidency. To save his overinflated and fragile ego and – ah hem – reputation Trump immediately and insanely attacked the popular vote tally as fraudulent. Now we face something I do not think we have ever faced as a nation, the possibility of a sitting president, one that stokes violence, refusing to accept the outcome of an election.

This national nightmare, and our previous on was nothing more than a shiver from a cold draft, is far from over.

The last couple of days have been amusing as various celebrities have been entangled with federal crimes concerning issues over fraud and bribery over college admissions for their precious offspring. At a time with justice and equality are rising as political concerns and coupled with the dazzling nature of celebrity it is no surprise that this news story is finding its legs.

My reactions fall into one of two major lines of thought.

First off; no duh. It is of absolutely no surprise that these sort of things are going on, the only original element is that these lower tier celebs had to resort to criminal means instead of the usual just buy your way in with an overly generous ‘gift’ as the more wealthy does. An elite institution will admit anyone if there is a large enough endowment attached. This is the real affirmative action crisis, mediocre and worse student taking up valuable slots in important institutions solely because of the accident of their birth. This does not stop at the university; it extends through internships and entry into the halls of power, both economic and political. I have read, though not yet confirmed, that the number of legacy students, i.e. sons and daughters of former students, at elite universities outnumber the total number of non-white students. This is the lie at the heart of ‘merit.’ Too often what people think was merit is a perk of class and nothing more.

Second this is also a function of gate-keeping and elitism. Harvard, Yale, and many other ‘elite’ institutions are sitting on vast fortunes. They could open dozens of schools across the country, vastly increasing the number students, graduates, and accelerating human advancement but that would destroy their brand as their only real value is the artificially restricted enrollments.

People following politics are undoubtedly aware that freshman Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota had landed a couple of time in hot water for comments critical of Israel and America’s relationship with Israel that invoked imagery or concepts closely linked to anti-Semitism. The House is considering a resolution condemning all forms of anti-Semitism and conservatives are in full attack.

I do not know what it is Representative’s Omar heart. She does not have a paper trail of lawsuits concerning civil rights violations of a racist nature and her public record if correspondingly short given her recent entry into national public discourse but her comments are unsettlingly in the close nature of classic anti-Semitic tropes.

Before I continue let me make clear an important concept, context matters. During the administration of President George W. Bush a common caricature of the president utilized his unfortunately prominent ears giving him an ape-like appearance. Fair game in the world of rough and tumble politics, but doing the same thing to President Obama is not the same, despite some conservative who insisted it was some sort of double standard. Portraying any black man with an ape-like appearance plays on centuries of vile racist imagery and it out of bounds for any civilized discussion. Context is king.

With Representative Omar’s unfortunate choice of words I see that it would fall into one of three major categories.

First: Representative Omar harbors some level of anti-Semitic thought or feeling.

Second: Representative Omar has spent or spends considerable time associating with people who are comfortable voice anti-Semitic positions. (This is an effect I have watched take place with some conservative friends as they repeat ‘jokes’ or opinions voice by darker corners of the movement. Living examples of the adage ‘lie with dogs; rise with fleas.’)

Third: Representative Omar stumbled into these anti-Semitic tropes accidently, unaware of the history behind these ideas and insults.

Time and future behavior will make it easier to judge which of these categories best fits her actions.

That said it is clear to me that the attacks from conservatives are disingenuous. Their lack of any serious reactions to numerous similar situations put a lie to all their pearl clutching over Omar’s comments. Representative Steve King had to openly question why ‘white supremacy’ was a bad thing before they rose in any meaningful fashion opposing his years of public bigotry, to say nothing of the president’s repeated crossing of numerous lines of racist comments.

As to the potential resolution of condemnation, the House should make it explicit that referring to sovereign nations as ‘shitholes’ or considering neo-Nazis chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’ as ‘fine people’ is equally unacceptable.