Extemporaneous Speaking & Guns (Sean O’Connor’s Public Comment video diary vlog– episode #6)

…YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE PODCAST

The most microscopic aspects of things complicate if you delve into them enough, zooming into the depths like…a microscope. So sometimes when it comes to making choices it can feel quite challenging. For example, I could mull over every word in every sentence I want to say to you and spend months attempting to perfect my verbal expression, and in the meantime, miss out on things I want to tell you now, that will end up cast aside (is this just prioritizing?) or…one can just…and I’ll quote John Mayer here, when he sings “say what you need to say”…

The opportunity to talk directly to you here and now… I view it as its own “art” in contrast to “writing” in the more “literary” sense. Not to say I wish to be arbitrary. I don’t. It’s important to spend time just thinking, researching, processing, analyzing…having something to talk about…kind of like prepper for a jazz performance? Wasn’t THIS what especially the “Beat Poets” were really after? The art of talking? So that is what I am going for here, aesthetically, medium-wise, contextually. I want to talk to you from where I am psychologically and metaphysically.

In today’s video blog this is my first topic. But then I move onto the topic of gun policy. Instead of getting into the depths of the “politics” of gun “policy” though, I’ve decided to delve more specifically into the philosophy behind gun politics. Why do we say one has a “right” to own a gun? Sure, you can cite the U.S. constitution, but the U.S. Constitution is not the “golden words” of some “God” (I believe in a God but I do not say “I know a God exists”; a belief is different than knowledge). What is a “right?” I take a look at some dictionary definitions and propose my own, for your consideration.

And how do we determine then, what a “right” is?  There are epistemological and ethical considerations here. Do you believe in thinking objectively? If so, how do we think logically and objectively about this? Do you believe in ethics/morality? It’s fundamental ethics that lead to fundamental policy views. This means, what rights do you think we should have, and why? And tied to this, how much do you value human life? Do you value human life enough to grant that there is an ethical need to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally unwell  and seek to murder?

One other point: some statistics. There are significantly more homicides per 100,000 people in the U.S. than in the U.K. Moreover, you are more likely to get stabbed to death in California or in Texas than you are in the U.K. In the UK there were 285 knife/stabbing related homicides between March of 2017 and 2018 in a population of roughly 66 million people. In contrast, there were 280 knife/stabbing related murders in 2015 in California in a population of merely a rough 39 million…or Texas where there were 175 knife/stabbing related deaths out of a population of roughly 29 million.

I bring these points up because I hear from conservatives and libertarians this idea that in the UK even if they don’t have a gun problem, they have a stabbing problem, so the real problem is world wide homicide, not homicide by guns in the U.S. They are wrong. Homicide is a bigger problem in the U.S. than it is in much of the world. It’s not about guns versus knives. It’s about homicide, guns and knives and we must take measures to address all of these issues.

“A Dull Aching Pain”- Impeaching Trump; Bernie or Biden for President? (THE FIRST PILOT)

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST

OR WATCH THE VIDEO

…Trump’s threat to congressional oversight, the difference between a Democratic Socialist and a Social Democrat, and biases in the Democratic primary election….

I was feeling exceptionally depressed, still processing my failure to obtain a paid teaching assistantship and paid tuition from a Creative Writing MFA program, unable to find a job in the various job listings I was sorting through, troubled by the political state of things, tangled in my thoughts on aesthetics, neglecting a variety of other personal, philosophical, and practical thoughts, and like an inevitable mansoon I just had to talk…just had to get a few things “off my chest” as some might like to put it.

I was thinking of Howard Stern and my envy for how he was able to just talk straight about whatever was on his mind. I felt a similar envy towards Michel de Montaigne who wrote the most beautifully free flowing essays I ever read, with a fascinating integration of autobiography, scholarly contemplation, and philosophy. Then there was the love I felt for the pundits on MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, who work with such dedication to analyze what’s going on in the news.

I wished I could somehow be like some combination of these wonderful, inspirational people.

I was also feeling a little mad to learn that people on Twitch get paid to play video games in front of a webcam. I thought, there’s got to be something I can do in front of a webcam that is constructive too.

The PUBLIC COMMENT began here with a tremendous deal of uncertainty. Just a little under two years earlier, when I began writing my column for the College VOICE my adviser– Holly Katherine Johnson– asked if I had any ideas for a name, and “Public Comment” came to mind. I thought of it because I could never get out of my mind the intensity of my experiences during the so-called “Public Comment” periods of the East Windsor Town Council Meetings, where I really discovered, for the first time, the full significance of one’s freedom of speech, and just how much those who feel threatened by free speech desire to find ways to curtail it. For example, it was often the case that Mayor Janice Mironov of East Windsor would interrupt me and tell me things like “wrap it up,” or when I asked a question, or asked how she thought I was contradicting myself, she would just say things to the tune of “are you finished Mr. O’Connor? You’re five minutes are almost up.”

Just about a year after I began my column, I experimented with the idea of a vlog series called Public Comment via live-streaming on Facebook to voice my political concerns but I was also preoccupied with completing my BA at William Paterson University and offering my best as a columnist, plus I was trying to figure out what the hell I was supposed to do with myself occupationally after I graduated. So I quickly abandoned the Public Comment idea.

Though compelled to “just talk” I was quite uncertain of what I was going to do with this extemporaneous, sort of “stream of consciousness” style talking. The only radio experience I’d had consisted of a few episodes at the student station at Mercer County Community College back in 2014, which I gave up on quite quickly.

I had no “team” to help me research, figure out how to integrate media mediums into a palatable program, or to suggest how I might want to experiment by ways of style and approaches.

I had just my mind, my voice, my ideas, my experiences, my laptop and its webcam.

Then a friend and co-worker suggested I make a podcast so I began experimenting with a combination of articles, vlogs, and podcasts to see what would stick, or what method of employing all three would stick.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS UNDER ATTACK; AN ATTEMPT TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH

Yesterday twelve former senior intelligence officials issued a joint statement saying that President Trump’s removal of former Director of the CIA John Brennan’s security clearances has “everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech.”

The officials added, “We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case.” They described the president’s actions as “inappropriate and deeply regrettable.”

What did the President say in his defense? 

In a statement released last Wednesday President Trump justified his actions by saying

any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior [which] has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him.

The president added that “Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.” (Coming from a president who, according to the Washington Post, “has made 3,001 false or misleading claims” as of last May, it is quite ironic that he should question any one else’s “objectivity and credibility.”)

One example the president gives of Brennan’s questionable actions is the occasion when Brennan

denied to congress that CIA officials under his supervision had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers [when in fact] The CIA’s Inspector General [IG], however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed staffer’s files.

Trump’s claim however is misleading. A subsequent report by a CIA Accountability Review Board concluded that the CIA actions were not illegal and did not breech any agreement made between the Senate and the CIA. Is President Trump familiar with that report? Or is he true to form and simply lying?

[Read the Huffington Post analysis of the report]

It is also worth noting that Brennan apologized for his contribution to adding confusion over the matter. As McClatchy reported: “[Senator] Feinstein called Brennan’s apology and his decision to submit [to the IG] findings to the accountability board “positive first steps.”

In any event, if President Trump thought Brennan’s supposed shortcomings with respect to the C.I.A.’s access of Senate computer files merited removing Brennan’s security clearance one has to wonder why it is only in the midst of recent criticism from Brennan that Trump has suddenly expressed this judgement.

President Trump also said in his statement statement

Mr. Brennan told congress that the intelligence community did not make use of the so-called Steele Dossier in an assessment regarding the 2016 election, an assertion contradicted by at least two other senior officials in the intelligence community and all of the facts.

This is misleading at best. As the New York Times has said

The New York Times has reported — and Republicans who hold the majority vote on the House Intelligence Committee have concluded — that the [Russia] investigation began in July 2016 and was prompted by the actions of George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

Mr. Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat in May 2016 that Russia had political ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate. Australian officials then alerted their American counterparts of the conversation with Mr. Papadopoulos.

The information provided by Mr. Steele did not reach F.B.I. officials who were investigating Mr. Trump’s campaign until mid-September of 2016, The Times reported in May. 

Next, President Trump claims:

Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations- wild outburst on the internet and television- about this Administration.

He has made no reference to which “highly sensitive information” Mr. Brennan revealed to the public.

President Trump’s statement furthermore describes Brennan’s public statements as  “increasingly frenzied commentary,” attacking Brennan’s state of mind.

What does appear indeed frenzied is the approach president Trump has taken to remove Brennan’s security clearance.

As the New York Times reported:

The standard revocation process includes memos that outline why a clearance is being withdrawn, and would allow the former official to offer a defense or a rebuttal. In Mr. Brennan’s case, the C.I.A. did no such review of his behavior or comments.

Not only is the president contradicting security clearance removal precedent, but he made it even more emphatic in a Wall Street Journal interview that he was essentially punishing Brennan for his involvement in the Russia investigation, implying that anyone having anything to do with the investigation could theoretically be victim of Trump’s vindictive actions. 

President Trump reflected on Brennan and the Russia investigation, saying to the Wall Street Journal, “I call it the rigged witch hunt, [it] is a sham. And these people led it! So I think it’s something that had to be done.”

According to the President then, because he thinks the Russia investigation is a “rigged witch hunt” and “a sham” that Brennan participated in, Brennan should have his security clearances removed. 

Considering only Brennan’s loss of security clearance, this might seem only to be an obstruction of justice and an abuse of power, but in light of there events of this week, it is clear that this is a piece of a broader attack on the first amendment- freedom of speech and of the press, specifically.

Recall the fact that Trump described Brennan’s public statements as “increasingly frenzied commentary”- referring most likely to Brennan’s claim that Trump’s deference to autocratic Russian President Vladimir Putin, and refusal to acknowledge the unanimous findings of the U.S. intelligence community, is treasonous.

Trump cited this as part of his rationale for stripping Brennan of his security clearance but Brennan is permitted by the First Amendment to say whatever he wants about the president (so long as he does not reveal confidential information).

The Chicago Tribune reported today that former Trump aid Omarosa Manigault Newman is being attacked for her criticism of the President. Omarosa has released tapes embarassing to the president, such as a conversation between Omarosa and Lara Trump where Trump tries to silence Omarosa with hush money upon being fired by President Trump’s chief of Staff, John Kelley. She’s also written a tell-all book “Unhinged” making claims that there is a tape of the President saying the N word, among other claims.

It has also just been reported by the Associated Press that

Omarosa Manigault Newman has a stash of video, emails, text messages and other documentation supporting the claims in her tell-all book about her time in the Trump White House, a person with direct knowledge of the records told The Associated Press Friday.

President Trump this week embarrassed himself and incited tremendous outcry when earlier this week he referred to Omarosa as a “dog,” giving the public one more example of how Trump deals not in reason or evidence based criticism of his own critics, but rather, resorts to dehumanizing insults.

The Chicago Tribune adds:

Trump campaign litigation counsel Charles Harder…sent a letter to Simon & Schuster executives threatening that the book’s publication would subject the company to liability for ‘substantial monetary damages and punitive damages.’

In the letter, according to the Chicago Tribune:

Harder said that excerpts of the book ‘contain confidential information and disparaging statements’ and that the Trump campaign’s potential claims against the publisher include tortious interference and inducement of Manigault Newman to breach her NDA [Nondisclosure agreement] with the campaign.

‘Now that you are aware of these contractual provisions, and Ms. Manigault-Newman’s breaches thereof, the Company will have claims against you, and all persons working in concert with you, should you proceed with publishing and selling the Book,’ Harder said, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The [Washington] Post.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Simon & Schuster outside counsel Elizabeth McNamara said Harder [the Trump campaign lawyer]

did not identify any particular excerpts as false, and the Trump campaign ‘does not have a viable legal claim merely because unspecified truthful statements in the Book may embarrass the President or his associates.’

In other words, Omarosa is being harassed- in fact, Trump reportedly wants Omarosa arrested – and he is attempting to prevent her from speaking, because her book makes the President look bad to the public.

While Simon & Schuster has said it will not stop publishing the book, the fact is the President of the United States swears an oath to uphold the constitution and by attempting to prevent Omarosa for exercising her first amendment right he is in direct violation of the constitution. He is not doing what he has sworn to do.

Washington Post Columnist Jennifer Rubin explains what she thinks ought to happen:

In a perfect world with lawmakers on both sides committed to upholding the Constitution, there would be bipartisan agreement on the need to begin impeachment hearings. there are more than enough grounds to commence hearings based on what we know to date and on Trump’s public conduct, including abuse of his authority over security clearances, his other assaults on the First Amendment, his blatant attempts to interfere with the Russia investigation….his drafting of a phony cover story for the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, his false public denial about payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels, etc.

It need not be “a perfect world” however, for Congress to do what it ought to do. It just needs to be a slightly more honest world- a world with a touch more integrity.

Further, perhaps if enough Americans make it blatantly clear to congress that they will not win re-election if they fail to impeach, congress will act. Trump’s base may be hard to crack but it’s not invincible and not immune to a tripping point that sways supporters from his hypnotic grasp.

People are speaking out in increasing numbers.

These recent first amendment attacks are happening the same week that hundreds of newspaper editorial boards condemn the president’s constant attack on the press,- calling the press “the enemy of the people” for example- after the Boston Globe suggested they all do so.

Showing how visceral the President’s attacks on the press are,  Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell reminds us:

When unhappy with Post coverage in particular, Trump has threatened government action against Amazon in an apparent attempt to financially punish its chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, who independently owns the paper.

Rampell adds:

Journalists and media owners are hardly the only ones whose job or financial security Trump has targeted from his bully pulpit. He called for the firing of National Football League players who kneel in protests during the national anthem. NFL owners, in a secretly recorded meeting in October, expressed concern about the president’s impact on their bottom line.

The president has been so reckless in his attacks that his removal of Brennan’s security clearances has awakened the anger of a retired Navy Admiral who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden,  William H. McRaven. McRaven wrote: I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearances as well, so I can add my name to the men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.”

McRaven says of Trump: “Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.”

It is interesting that McRaven notes Trump’s “McCarthy-era tactics” because when McCarthy enraged people in the military during his “witch hunt” for attacking the first amendment it ended his political career and was met with a historical response. McCarthy was told: 

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”

When will congress tell Trump “You have done enough” and impeach him? Or, are there too many among us willing to sacrifice our First Amendment rights? 

Why I Am a Democrat: Response to a Critic Who Calls My Views “Very Unrefined” (a manifesto of sorts)

[My response, my story, my fundamental principles, for the record, part 1 of 2]

[My response, my story, my fundamental principles, for the record, part 2 of 2]

I pay attention to my critics because I value transparency, accountability, and intellectual discussion about challenging issues, especially in the realm of politics because policies directly affect us.

Policies affect whether we are at war or at peace. Policies impact matters of poverty and wealth. Policies determine whether or not our civil rights are protected. They influence the harmony or discord in a diverse, cosmopolitan, pluralistic, democratic society. They can cause great anxiety or great relief. If we are going to talk about policies we should do so with great care.

When one of my critics- Duke Manning, a student of philosophy at Temple University, who is also a bassist- wrote a six paragraph complaint describing his belief that I do not discuss politics with great care, tremendous thought, and synthesis and logical analysis of research, I took issue to it because it could not be further from the truth. You might even note the irony that I spent over three hours articulating my refutation to his comparatively short Facebook comment.

Here is his critique:

Screen Shot 2018-08-16 at 9.01.01 AM

While Mr. Manning’s critique is inaccurate I must thank him for one thing because it is fair to say that if I am going to advocate staunchly for a set of policies it would be beneficial to all who consider my commentaries on the matter if I were to take extra efforts to clarify with greater intensity, why I think what I think.

With respect to my thinking, Manning suggested to me that I “seem to jump in head first with a thought [I] have without really doing enough research and considering how certain” I am. He adds that I “tend to be the kind of person who gets an idea and runs with it without really investigating it deeply or without considering that you are wrong.”

He cites the fact that in 2013, when I was a member of the Libertarian Party (which I am no longer. Now I am a registered Democrat) and running for the New Jersey Assembly, I advocated establishing a voting poll tax.

He notes that he insisted to me that it was a bad idea and that I disagreed with him. (I didn’t disagree for long however. Within months I came to realize the utter absurdity and injustice of such a policy.) This to him, proves that my “views are very unrefined”  and causes him to “worry that [I] will eventually promote an idea that might harm [my] appearance.”

While it is true that Manning’s description of my intellectual shortcomings in 2013 are accurate, he fails to account for the fact that over the last half of a decade I have first of all disavowed a plethora of false assumptions I used to hold.

Secondly he fails to note that my commentaries are in fact heavily sourced and cite experts with a diversity of perspectives. In fact, in his assault on my intellectual integrity he does not cite a single published commentary of mine.

Instead he relies on statements I made half a decade ago which I in fact disavowed within months of having made those statements as proof of my intellectual laziness and “very unrefined views” today. 

I want to provide you with my refutation of Manning’s characterization and while doing so explain to you in the form of an extemporaneous statement, the story of political evolution, and the fundamental concepts that underline my social democratic political philosophy.

It is my hope that first of all, this will serve as proof that I value and contemplate feedback even when it is negative, even when it is wrong. Secondly, I hope that you will find me transparent- that it does not seem as if my point of view came to me hastily out of some vacuum. Finally, I hope that by having done this you have gotten to know me better.

As always, let me know what you think.

The President Does Not Have To Commit a Crime to be Impeached

“You can’t constitutionally impeach a president for these reasons. Please stop,” my Facebook friend said to me while I was video streaming live on Facebook discussing a plethora of grounds for impeaching President Donald Trump.

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 4.56.17 PM

Another Facebook friend chimed in, saying “You MUST have a crime” to impeach the president.

 

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 4.57.22 PM

In fact, they are both wrong says centuries of U.S. impeachment proceedings.

In order to substantiate my case I did some further research. Specifically, I read a Newsweek article written by the Vice President of the Cato Institute (the Libertarian Think Tank), Gene Healy, and I read a report made for congress entitled Impeachment and Removal written by legislative attorneys Jared P. Cole and Todd Garvey. Both of these sources explain how, throughout the course of U.S. history, noncriminal behavior- such as, for example, showing up to work drunk, all the time- have served as grounds for impeachment of U.S. officials. Violating the public trust is a popular standard for impeachment according to the report for congress.

My critic’s response to my proof that he is incorrect was: “Jesus…give it up..”

 

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 5.11.02 PM

That, of course, I will not do as my record on this blog clearly suggests.

My entire analysis can be seen in the video above. It is my first official episode of “Public Comment Live” (the first time I I did a Facebook live-streamed video blog with that official title).

As always, I want your feedback. 

Trump/Putin Trying to Control Our Minds: Resist and Spread the Message- #ImpeachTrumpNow

President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and everyone in their cultish gang are working desperately to control our minds and taking blatantly unconstitutional approaches to achieve those ends. I know! It sounds crazy. I feel like I’m dreaming (and it’s a nightmare) but alas let us review recent attempts on the part of president Trump and his administration to prevent dissent and criticism from reaching the media whereby the public can see at large the president’s treason, incompetence, and severe shortage of ethics.

It is crucial, I believe, for me to submit my evidence with also providing context. First of all, I am far from the only person sounding these alarms. Yesterday Washington Post analyst James Hohmann published an article with a headline reading : “Trump creates an alternative reality, and he wants you to join him there”

Hohmann cites a revealing quote from president Trump: ““what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” I want to repeat those words from the President of the United States one more time so that it can be made perfectly clear that the president wants to encourage people to doubt their most basic perceptions and instead put all their faith in him: the textbook method of establishing totalitarian, dictatorial, Orwellian, authoritarian, despotic, tyrannical power. Textbook, ladies and gentleman. It’s what Putin does. It’s what Kim Jung Un does. It’s what Stalin did. It’s what Hitler did. 

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”- so went the Nazi Germany mantra. It was their fundamental principle of propaganda and mind control. There’s a really valuable and elucidating article published by the BBC, written by Tom Stafford on October 26 2016 with the headline “How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’  citing multiple psychological research findings that find that “Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.”

Let’s make the context a little deeper now. It is important. According to the Toronto Star as of now President Trump has told 2083 lies.

CNN (which Trump calls fake news [pay attention to that]) puts the count at over 3000.

The Washington Post puts it at 3,001.

I think the takeaway should be that it is widely accepted among the media and civil society that Trump is a pathological liar. So when a pathological liar says to the American people (most of whom know he is a pathological liar)  “what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening” it is blatantly clear that Trump is striving desperately, perhaps by banking on the power of shock and audacity, to pressure vulnerable minds to reject what they perceive and take Trump’s word for everything.

That’s the context. Now let us consider president Trump’s attacks on dissent and his approaches. Yesterday, as the Huffington Post reports, CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins “said she was called to White House deputy chief of staff Bill Shine’s office, where Shine and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders disinvited her from the next press event.

CNN said in a statement that Shine and Huckabee Sanders told Collins her questions were ‘inappropriate.’ I didn’t know that the first amendment listed “inappropriate questions” as one of the exceptions of the free press or free speech. Since it’s not written in the constitution Shine and Sanders will have to let us know where they got that one from.

The Huffington Post adds this:

Collins was serving as the network pool reporter, representing all of the major news networks, for an event with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday. At the end of it, she and other reporters asked Trump a few questions ― as is common for journalists who attend such gatherings. (Trump sometimes answers questions in these situations; other times, he chooses not to.)

According to CNN, Collins asked Trump questions about Michael Cohen, his former attorney who is under federal investigation and whose secret recording of Trump was recently released. She also asked about Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom the Trump administration planned to invite to Washington. D.C., this fall before pushing back the meeting.

Other journalists at the event, including HuffPost’s Ryan Reilly, also asked the president about Cohen’s tapes multiple times as staffers ushered them out of the office.

Worth repeating is this: “Other journalists at the event, including HuffPost’s Ryan Reilly, also asked the president about Cohen’s tapes multiple times as staffers ushered them out of the office.”

Thankfully people on the left and the right in the media community are condemning these actions. Even the president of Fox News had this to say, according to the Huffington Post:

“We stand in strong solidarity with CNN for the right to full access for our journalists as part of a free and unfettered press,”

Now let’s talk about Trump’s desire to revoke security clearances for people in the intelligence community who are critical of him. You’ll notice strikingly similar language in the justification out of the mouth of Press Secretary Sara Huckabee Sanders:

“Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate and the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence,” Sanders told reporters Monday. (That’s from The Hill)

Note that word “inappropriate.” Reporters are asking “inappropriate” questions and critics are expressing “inappropriate” concern and criticism. According to the White House “inappropriate” behavior (not illegal behavior, and not verifiably dangerous behavior, just “inappropriate behavior”) is grounds for harassment, intimidation, and silencing dissent.

Inappropriate behavior: I thought president Trump’s reference to “shithole countries” was inappropriate.’  I thought it was inappropriate for the president to boast about how he grabs women by their genitalia  without their consent. I thought it was inappropriate of the president (treasonous even) for the president to publicly humiliate US intelligence officials in front of the entire world and say Putin (who murders his critics) is the one who has it all correct, it is Putin, Trump said who is “strong and powerful” compared to our invalid intelligence community. I am just putting it out there for what ever it is worth.

I’m not the only one in the world outraged by this by the way. Again, from The Hill:

“It’s never happened before and sets a bad precedent,” said Jim Lewis, a former U.S. official and expert in foreign policy and intelligence at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The New York Times adds to Huckabee’s desperate attempt to find a clever sounding ‘justification’ for a lack of better words, The president is exploring the mechanisms to remove security clearances because they politicized, and in some cases monetized, their public service and security clearances.”

Meanwhile President Trump monetizes his public service (though I think of it more as a disservice) at the Trump hotel in DC where members of foreign governments stay and thereby bribe him in attempts to influence his policy decisions which each dollar they pay for services there.

Lies and hypocrisy and attempt to crush dissent.

Some people argue that the people Trump are targeting don’t need their security clearances anyway. But as the New York Times points writes:

“Former high-ranking officials in defense, intelligence, diplomacy and law enforcement usually maintain their clearances to advise those still in government, former officials said. A clearance also serves a more personally profitable function: helping departing officials get jobs at security contractors or similar firms.”

“Revoking their access to classified information could weaken their ability to work as consultants, lobbyists and advisers in Washington.”

More from the NYT:

“It is intended to punish and intimidate his critics and is shameful,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel for the C.I.A. 

Ah, but what is it our president tells us: “what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in utterly rejecting this occultist behavior of a treasonist, criminal, and despotic president and calling congress to demand that they impeach Trump now!

#ImpeachTrumpNow: Demand That Congress Do It Immediately!

This was a Facebook Live Stream I did on 7/18/18 explaining the facts behind my utter conviction that we need to call our members of congress and demand that they impeach Trump. My friend and co-worker said I should put this on YouTube to reach more people.

Treason, obstruction of justice, violation of the emoluments clause, violation of the first amendment, forcing babies at the border from their parents- the list of President Trump’s criminal and unethical behavior goes on and on!

Perhaps the most frightening of his disgusting and unacceptable behavior was when he suggested handing to Vladimir Putin, former U.S. diplomat Michael McFaul.

As McFault put himself in a tweet:Screen Shot 2018-07-20 at 4.08.33 PM

[McFaul’s Tweet]

I was terrified when I learned that Trump was open to this. I felt a fear unlike any I’d ever felt before- a fear so chilling I consider it somewhat traumatic for this thought passed through my mind: Trump is open to arresting his/Putin’s critics, sending  them by force, to the dangerous hands of Putin – a man who kills critics and journalists who make an impact. It’s happening, I thought. It’s the beginning of freedom’s demise in America. Critics will now have to fear for their lives.

As Samantha Schmidt reported in The Washington Post, “Tom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and the Harvard Extension School” said in a Tweet:

Screen Shot 2018-07-20 at 4.11.18 PM

The Senate, thank God, unanimously rejected the prospect of this dangerous idea, however, as Nichols tweeted:

“the entire country should be aware of this”

because Trump cares more about how his criminal and unethical relationship with Putin than his own fellow Americans. Add to the pile of evidence the fact that Trump takes Putin’s word over the word of our own intelligence chief, and that makes treason.

I believe Trump should be impeached, removed from office, and arrested immediately! I hope you call your members of congress and demand impeachment now!

A BRIEF ON THE SUPERIORITY OF NATURAL LAW

-An evaluation of the major theories of jurisprudence, with an explanation as to why the ‘natural law’ theory is the best one

naturallaw
John Locke. Philosopher & Advocate of “Natural Law”. IMAGE VIA SIR GODFREY KNELLER VIA https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Godfrey_Kneller_-_Portrait_of_John_Locke_(Hermitage).jpg

(Note: I originally stated in this post that I wanted to be a philosophy professor. That is no longer the case. I want to concentrate on advancing a Social Democratic agenda via activism and commentary.)

 

All questions pertaining to politics and law, in my view, are a result of one question that is so consequential that its answers can cause genocide, or protect the freedom of individuals so that they may thrive.

The question is: “what should people be allowed to do, and not allowed to do?”

Answers to this fundamental question give us political philosophies and theories of jurisprudence. As someone who aspires to be a philosophy professor, and has run for political office three times, I have had much to say about political philosophy, and yet little about that branch of philosophy called jurisprudence.

Now I shall for the first time say a bit on the topic. In my opinion, the “natural law” theory is the superior theory of jurisprudence, and is so because it is based on reason (a word with many different definitions. For the purposes of this paper, when I refer to reason, I refer to non-contradiction) and morality.

That being said, there are some valid criticisms of other aspects of the theory, in particular, the assertion by some, that natural law is necessarily based on a God, and also, the fact is, some proponents of natural law theory have misapplied it.

Before I elaborate further, I shall be clear about exactly what natural law theory is said to be. In an academic outline on the term “natural law theory,” where it is also referred to as “classical naturalism,” it is defined as “a group of theories that contend, in a variety of ways, that law is to be identified by reference to moral or ethical (as well as formal) criteria of identification.” (Principe, 1)

I think it is worth adding that most proponents of classical naturalism- including Grotius, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and John Finnis (Banks, O’Brien, p. 82) (as well as Locke, even if merely by implication) to name just some- believe that inherent to the discovery of morality and natural law is the application of reason.

The standard of reason that is upheld by so many ‘natural law’ theorists is, in my opinion, its most important and fundamental element, for, as I view it, everything in life should be and absolutely can be approached via reason. (As Aristotle would say, A is A, i.e., a thing is itself, therefore A cannot be B, or C, or D, ad infinitum, i.e., a thing cannot be both itself and not itself.)

In my view, the very proof for this lay in the fact that it is empirically verified when one sees, or hears, or even feels with his or her skin, the letter “A,” and not any other letter, and thus, no other standard of knowledge should be used, as it would be incorrect, irrational, illogical, contradictory.

This is an epistemological idea, however, that every other major theory of jurisprudence introduced by Banks and O’Brien in their textbook on the American Judicial System, refuses to accept, either by a most obvious and fundamental misapplication of reason, or the complete disbelief that reason is the correct standard, or even a possible one.

For example, consider what I believe to be the profound irony and most basic contradiction of legal positivism.

We are told that according to legal positivism, “law is empirically discovered by reason,” yet on the other hand, we are told that law is “free from moral judgements about what the law should be.” (Banks, O’Brien, p. 85)

But a person cannot be both rational and legally amoral.

In fact there is no such thing as legal amorality.

That which one calls “moral” is how one thinks he should fundamentally treat himself and others, or put another way, what is a right action, and what is a wrong action.

For example, in my view of morality, right actions are ones that a person takes in order to thrive, which means he or she must take care of him or herself first, out of self-compassion, and should, further, do for others, out of compassion for them, whatever he or she is best equipped to do, when he or she can.

I call this the “morality” or “ethics” of “compassion.”

This necessitates political action- specifically, the protection of individual liberty, with safety-nets, to protect the integrity of individual liberty, i.e., protection against a laissez faire state where the utterly immoral people exploit the highly virtuous ones.

But all moral views necessitate political/legal action. Quite literally, a legal view that claims morality should be kept out of law merely confesses that one thinks implicitly that it is moral for the law to allow and prohibit particular actions, but, at least as I see it, either they do not recognize the implication or they are being dishonest.

 

At least legal positivism claimed to be rational. American Realism, according to the outline referenced earlier, is fundamentally skeptical, and “play[s] down the role of established rules (or the ‘law in books’) to discover other factors that contributed towards a judicial decision in order to discover the ‘law in action.’” (Principe, 2)

Moreover, American Realism claims to discover “what is empirically and pragmatically ‘realistic’ about judging” based on “sociological and psychological factors.” (Banks, O’Brien, p. 95) The empirical and the pragmatic and sociological and the psychological however, apparently have nothing to do, fundamentally with reason, only skepticism, which simply means chronic uncertainty.

To be fair to American Realism, at least it can be argued that empiricism could suggest probable guesses based on consistently observed things; at least it makes some kind of appeal to a notion of a more likely truth versus a less likely one, and/or maybe there is a truth, however not graspable by people.

At least then there is a sort of reaching for a semblance of logic. The theory of “critical legal studies” however, claims to “destroy the notion that there is one single ‘truth,’ and that by disclosing the all pervasive power structures and hierarchies in the law and legal system, a multitude of other possibilities will be revealed, all equally valid.” (Principle, p. 2)

If analyzed we see that the claim that there is no single truth is a contradiction in terms. Taken at its word, we must somehow accept it as singularly true that there is no single truth (that A is B, that a thing is not itself) when we are told that there is no single truth.

That is like saying I am not a cat but I am a cat.

That being said, I do concede that this theory of “critical legal studies” has at least one logical concern (although I guess adherents would not describe it as logical in my sense of the term)-  “all pervasive power structures and hierarchies in the law and legal system” should always be scrutinized because application to logic is not automatic and guaranteed, even when the application is referred to as logical, and it has resulted at times in racist, classist, elitist actions. Similarly of feminist legal studies: chauvinism and misogyny can be problems within the legal system and elsewhere which is irrational and immoral which is why I would argue that an honest and consistent application to basic natural law theory would treat all fairly.

Although I have touched on the moral element of natural law briefly already, I believe it deserves more attention. It is one thing to say that it logically follows that morality must dictate law, but it would sell natural law theory short not to also mention in a bit more detail the nature of just how, in my interpretation, consistent and logical natural law theory would inject morality into law, and contrast that with how others might interpret the role of morality in natural law.

Nowhere in the texts I considered upon doing my research does it explicitly say that Natural law theory necessarily posits that all moral principles must be codified into law. In contrast, if we consider how natural law is the basis for “individual natural rights” such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Banks, O’Brien, p. 83) it follows that it is a right thing to do, i.e., a  moral action that the law be made to permit and prohibit certain things- specifically to permit freedoms, and to prohibit violations of freedom.

That does not mean however, that an action which might be immoral, say prostitution, should therefore be illegal.

The moral claim is that the law should protect freedom, i.e., self determination, and thus prohibit coercion; only immoral acts which are coercive in nature require legal prohibition.

Adherents to natural law, throughout history, unfortunately, have not always understood this, despite it being the very meaning of their premise.

For example, in my view, it is a totally misguided idea of morality, based on a totally erroneous reasoning, how, “the Court appealed to natural law principles in asserting that blacks were not citizens entitled to constitutional rights in Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) [and] [i]n Bradwell v Illinois (1873), [when] the Court ruled that women could not practice law because it was ‘in the nature of things’ for them to remain relegated to the ‘domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood’ [and further, how] [m]ore recently Justice Clarence Thomas cited natural law and the Deceleration of Independence in criticizing the rationale in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark case ending racial discrimination in public schools.” (Banks, O’Brien, p. 84)

Those are completely irrational moral claims that do not represent a proper application to natural law, but rather, forms of statism, altruism, collectivism, racism, chauvinism, and misogyny.

Although it is my opinion that classical naturalism, in its most general and popular sense – being explicitly based on the application of reason and morality- is the superior theory of jurisprudence, that is not to say the theory is perfect.

For example, many of the proponents of classical naturalism ascribe, with certainty, that its ultimate basis is in a God. As Banks and O’Brien write, “Natural Law is thought of in divine terms as God’s law.” (p. 81) Now, it very well may be, as I personally speculate, that a God does exist and that all truth is God’s creation, however, if so, it’s yet to be proven. Logic only tells us that there is no proof that a God does not exist but that nevertheless, one could. But a “could” does not justify a “does” and thus those classical naturalists who assert with certainty that a God does exist and that natural law is to be thought of as God’s law are, in my view, being hasty.

Briefly, on other theories of jurisprudence I have deemed inferior compared to classical naturalism, they at least have fair points regarding aspects of law they are critiquing- for example, American Realism, although “skeptical” at least leads us to question that which is asserted as moral-legal fact, and at least Critical Legal Studies dares to question the sometimes corrupting roles of power and higher status within the legal system- where economic status or race or sexual orientation, et cetera, is sometimes a factor when they should never be, and at least feminist legal studies dares to call out where the judiciary has unfairly treated women.

If classical naturalism could be revised and stripped of its contradictions, and if the mistaken applications of it could be made clear, I believe we would have a theory of jurisprudence which would be as perfect and logical as Aristotle’s laws of identity, and non-contradiction.

REFERENCES
Banks, C.P, O’Brian. D.M. (2016) The Judicial Process [Adobe Digital Editions] Retrieved from https://play.google.com/books
Principe, M. (2016) The American Judicial System POL226 Outline #2 Classical & Contemporary Theories of Jurisprudence. William Paterson University  

I WANT A DEMOCRATIC AND TRANSPARENT EAST WINDSOR- FROM THE 10/7/14 EAST WINDSOR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

 

I asked East Windsor Mayor Janice Mironov for three things last night: 1)To respond to me, when I speak at meetings; 2)Video records of all town council meetings provided by the town; 3) A Democratically elected mayor. She literally ignored me and moved on to the next agenda item. Is this the kind of mayor we should have? One who doesn’t value transparency and democracy, and who ignores her constituents? I think not. I ask that my fellow East Windsor residents join me in my effort to have the mayor voted off the town council next year, and bring more democracy and transparency to our town

East Windsor Mayor Janice Mironov told me that I may not discuss general concerns during the first opportunity for public comment of the town council meetings. As I tried to express to her that such a claim is contrary to the municipal town code and the U.S. Constitution she interrupted me and implied that I was wasting my time. I then asked her to show me the municipal ordinance dictating what I can and cannot say at the town council meeting. She refused. When I asked a second time for a response to my requests during the first public comment she told me it would take too much time, then moved on to a closed session. I don’t think it would take more than two minutes for the mayor to at the very least identify her principles and how my requests are incompatible with them. But Mayor Mironov does not care to do so. Mayor Mironov is not the only one who refused to acknowledge my concerns. None of the town council members said a word. My fellow East Windsor residents, I suggest to you that our Mayor, and our town council members refuse to hear or communicate with anyone who disagrees with them. We deserve leaders who wish to inspire support for their agenda, not leaders who try to control our speech, and ignore us. Please help me change their attitude, by expressing to them that this arrogance is unacceptable and that you wish they would show courtesy and respect to everyone who speaks at the meetings. You can call Mayor Janice Mironov at 609- 443-4000, ext. 252.