Lies matter, as Fox News, three of its anchors, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, and Janine Pirro, and Trump’s former attorneys, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, found out.  Smartmatic, a company that manufactures voting machines, filed a $2.7 billion dollar lawsuit against Fox and these folks accusing them of defamation and knowingly propagating false information in an attempt to boost ratings and increase revenue.

“In its 276-page complaint, Smartmatic, which has requested a jury trial, argues that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell “created a story about Smartmatic” and that “Fox joined the conspiracy to defame and disparage Smartmatic and its election technology and software.”¹ The suit alleges that the lies that were propagated seriously undermined the reputation of their business and has caused significant financial harm.  In addition, employees of Smartmatic actually received death threats due to the flood of misinformation put out by Fox, their anchors and their guests.

The Fox News crew failed to accurately disclose that the Smartmatic machines were used in only one single county during the 2020 election – Los Angeles County!  The Smartmatic machines were used nowhere else, so the machines could have been rigged eight ways from Sunday and it would have had no impact on the final results of the election.  However, that was not the impression left by the ongoing wave of lies coming out of Fox, its anchors and Trump’s lawyers when they were guests on Fox.  Potentially, “a trial could reveal how Mr. Trump’s media backers sought to cast doubt on an election that delivered a victory to Joseph R. Biden Jr. and a loss to an incumbent who refused to accept reality”.¹ 

Dominion, another voting machine company, previously sued Trump attorneys, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, for $1.3 billion each for their part in propagating false and defamatory information about Dominion and its voting machines.  All of these allegations about both Smartmatic and Dominion voting machines have been debunked multiple times by multiple experts and yet, the diehard Trump supporters continued to give this falsehood oxygen.  These lies were propagated at the expense of Smartmatic, Dominion, their employees, not to mention at the expense of the American people.  Lies matter.

In addition to the potential financial consequences for continuing to push these lies, Giuliani is also possibly facing disbarment in the state of New York.  The complaint states the Giuliani engaged in “rampant and egregious violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”² Lies matter.

And speaking of lies and the consequences, yesterday the House voted to strip Marjorie Taylor Green, the QAnon supporting representative from Georgia, of her committee assignments on the Education and Banking committees.  She did go on the floor of the House at the 11^th hour and tried to disavow some of the things she said but its hard to imagine that she would have done so had she not been under the gun.   The Republican leadership failed to act to strip her of her committee assignments even though they had stripped Representative Steve King (R- Kansas) of his committee assignments for his far less egregious racist remarks.  So, the Democrats took matters into their own hands and brought the issue to the floor.  The vote was pretty much along party lines as one might expect although a few Republican broke ranks and voted with the Democrats.  The conspiracy theories and racist remarks were bad enough, but I think the support for statements proposing the execution of Democrats, in particular, the one about shooting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the head was just a bridge too far.  In any case, MTG will have a lot more time on her hands now.  Lies matter.

Many of the Trump supporters who got swept up in this swamp of lies and attacked the Capital on January 6^th are now facing serious legal problems, not to mention the people who actually lost their lives or were injured.  I wonder if Trump or his campaign will pay for their legal, medical or funeral bills.  Of course not.  I wonder if Fox or their well-paid anchors will foot the legal bills for all of these people.  Or maybe Giuliani or Sidney Powell.  Of course not.  All of those people will be hung out to dry for believing ‘the big lie.’  Although, I don’t feel too badly for them (except for the Capitol policeman who was killed or the other law enforcement personnel who were injured), because as I have often said to my daughter, “Life is just a series of choices.”  And all of those people who attacked the Capitol chose to believe the lie and now there will be consequences.  Lies matter.

Finally, the House impeachment managers invited Trump to testify at or before his impeachment hearing next week.  He declined.  They have not yet said whether they will issue a subpoena.  I doubt it.  I’m very sure that Trump’s legal counsel does not want Trump to testify under any circumstances.  We all know that Trump has a loose association with the truth and having him testify under oath would be a disaster.  Because, after all, lies matter. 

1. Smartmatic Files $2.7 Billion Lawsuit Against Fox News – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
2. Giuliani hit with disbarment complaint, faces possible expulsion from New York lawyers association (msn.com) 

The irony and hypocrisy in a couple of news stories last night caught my eye.  As you may recall, Liz Cheney, the Republican Representative from Wyoming, and the third most powerful Republican House member crossed party lines and voted in favor of impeaching Trump following the insurrection at the Capitol.  That was her ‘sin’.   For that, she became the target of an effort by some Trump loyalists to oust her from her position.  Some members of the House far-right Freedom Caucus even accused Cheney of ‘aiding the enemy’.  Really?

Matt Gaetz, a representative from Florida, travelled all the way to Cheney’s home state of Wyoming to hold a MAGA rally aimed solely at Cheney.  This has been building ever since she had the audacity to vote to impeach Trump and it finally came to a head last night when the House GOP conducted a vote which resulted in Cheney being able to keep her powerful position.  However, that was not until after a few fireworks, some of which were the result of Montana’s own sole representative. “Rep. Matt Rosendale of Montana engaged in a fiery exchange with her, a person in the room said, speaking loudly and angrily at Cheney.”¹ (We who live here in Montana should be so proud that our elected representative is working so diligently to address all of the problems facing Montana.)

Trump’s impeachment trial will begin on Monday.  His first legal team consisting of five attorneys abruptly walked out after they refused to mount a defense based upon the voter fraud ‘big lie’ which has been repeatedly debunked in court rooms around the country.  The two lawyers that now constitute his defense team apparently will construct their defense of the former president based upon two basic arguments: 1) when he addressed the crowd on Jan 6^th and implored them to march to the Capitol, he was exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech and 2) that the whole effort to have an impeachment trial after he has left office is unconstitutional.

What I find ironic is that part of Trump’s defense will revolve around a First Amendment argument but that apparently doesn’t apply to Liz Cheney.  She has stated that her vote to impeach Trump was a vote of conscious.  She should, under the constitution, have the right to cast her vote however she chooses.   How is it that Trump’s defense team is arguing that he was just exercising his constitutional rights (which resulted in an insurrection!) but Cheney gets chastised for doing the exact same thing?  It’s even more interesting (and depressing) that the GOP seems to think that Liz Cheney is a bigger problem than Marjorie Taylor Greene, the QAnon supporting representative from Georgia, who has spouted some remarkable things.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has supported posts calling for the execution of Democrats.  She has stated that a number of school mass shootings were staged.  She accused one of the student survivors of the Parkland shooting of being a paid actor.  And that is not to mention all of the anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic and racists things she has said.  So, after attacking Liz Cheney, a number of Republicans are kind of circling the wagons around MTG. 

Some Republicans are trying to draw an equivalency between MTG and the Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota to ‘justify’ MTG’s behavior.  It is true that Representative Omar did make some anti-Semitic remarks.  However, Speaker Pelosi and the other Democratic leadership immediately condemned those remarks and forced her to issue an apology, which she did.  And, by the way, Representative Omar, never made any remarks even close to supporting the execution of people.  Nor were her comments based upon conspiracy theories that are provably false, e.g., the school shootings were staged.

House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, finally issued a statement condemning MTG’s statements.  However, he refused to remove her from her committee assignments.  Representative Steve King, a Republican from Kansas, was removed from his committee assignments for a series of racist comments but McCarthy has refused the same sanction against MTG whose remarks are even more egregious.  Since the GOP leadership has failed to act, the issue will go to the floor of the House where a vote will be taken to strip MTG of her committee assignments. 

If the Republican Party believes that Liz Cheney’s decision to vote to impeach Trump is a bigger problem than all of the crap spouted by Marjorie Taylor Greene, then the party is truly lost in the swamp of Trumpism, QAnon and whatever the latest ‘conspiracy du jour’ is.   I certainly don’t agree with Liz Cheney on a lot of things but she has certainly shown that she has the courage to stand up to the Trumpist extremism that has become a pandemic within the Republican party – and for that, she commands my respect.

1. Liz Cheney: House Republicans vote to keep her in leadership after impeachment vote – CNNPolitics

Welcome to Westworld!  The lead headline in the Bozeman Chronicle this morning is, “Bill Expanding Concealed Carry Endorsed.”  The bill has yet to be signed by our new Republican Governor, Greg Gianforte, but in all probability, he will sign it.  This bill would expand places where people can carry concealed weapons to include state and local offices, restaurants and other places that serve alcohol, and on college campuses!  In addition, the bill would limit the ability of the Montana Board of Regents, which has responsibility for the state’s college campuses, to override the bill in anyway and restrict firearms on campus. 

This bill passed through the Montana legislature along party lines, with the exception of one Republican. Republican State Senator, John Esp, from Big Timber (about 60 miles east of Bozeman) stated, “We have the right to keep and bear arms, [but] this bill goes to far. It doesn’t resonate with my common sense.”  No shit!  Mind you, we are not even talked permitted concealed carry where a permit is granted after at least a cursory background check.  Once Governor Gianforte signs this bill, every Tom, Dick and Harry can walk into any sporting goods store in Montana, purchase a handgun, and proceed to pretty much carry it anywhere in the state. 

And to add insult to injury, another one of our gun-loving legislators has offered up a bill to prohibit Montana law enforcement officials from enforcing any Federal firearm regulations!  The genesis of this bill is a concern by some that the Biden administration could enact stricter gun control laws so they are putting forth this bill to try to circumvent that should it happen.  The sponsor, a Republican member of the Montana House, Jedediah Hinkle, from Belgrade (about 10 miles west of Bozeman) states that his reason for putting forth this bill is, “the time has come now to fortify Montana’s gun owners against a likely attack on our constitutionally protected freedoms.” 

“The bill would ban state employees from enforcing and implementing federal bans on firearms, magazines and ammunition, except in certain cases including those related to fully automatic firearms, violent felons and domestic violence.”¹  The proponents of this bill are concerned the Biden administration could enact laws to regulate things such as AR-15 style rifles and high capacity magazines, implement universal background checks, and potential enact a federal ‘red flag’ law to designed to prevent people at risk from harming themselves or others.   Referring back to Mr. Esp’s statement above, this just does not resonate with my common sense.

I’m not sure Mr. Hinkle and the other proponents of this bill have really thought this through to the end game.  Perhaps they need a history lesson.  Years ago, during the oil crisis in the 70’s, the Federal government implemented a nationwide speed limit of 55 mph.   At the time, Montana’s speed limit was ‘reasonable and prudent’ which meant, in essence, you could drive as fast as you wanted – and people did.  Montana refused to enact this speed limit mandated by the Federal government.  The Federal government then simply threatened to pull Federal funds out of Montana.  Voila! Montana decided to implement at least some version of a speed limit.  I suspect the Federal government will react the same way if Montana decides to go through with this.  Yet another waste of tax payer dollars while some elected official decides to push a personal ‘want’ as opposed to working on the state’s many ‘needs.’

The real irony is that the same state legislature who seems to want to push this law to ban state officials from enforcing any federal firearm regulations, is also pushing a bill to require state law enforcement officials to support all federal law enforcement efforts involving immigration efforts. 

There are real problems facing Montana.  Parts of the economy are heavily dependent upon the fossil fuel business, particularly coal, and that industry and the jobs that go with it, is dying.   There is a severe housing shortage in several areas of the state.   This state, like most others, has suffered economically as a result of the pandemic.   Many areas of the state are facing problems due to a huge influx of people which is putting a strain on existing infrastructure.   The large influx of people is creating more and more conflicts between developers and conservation efforts.  These are all real problems and pushing laws to allow more people to carry concealed weapons virtually anywhere in the state does nothing to address these ‘big picture’ issues.

If you’re planning a vacation in Montana once things look a little less ‘COVID’ or thinking of sending your child to college at one of our universities, just keep in mind that wherever you go, which ever restaurant or bar you are sitting in, which ever farmers market you are attending, or what ever little shop you’re browsing in, when you look around you can pretty much be assured that some number of the people around you are carrying a concealed gun.  Does that make you feel safer?  I thought not.  ‘The Last Best Place’ is becoming less so.

1. Page A3 | E-Edition | bozemandailychronicle.com

I like to think that there is hope but sometimes that is a hard hill to climb in the face of watching some of the lunacy that is going on in this country in which the death toll from the COVID pandemic has surpassed 440,000 people and is still rising to the tune of about 3,000 people a day.   And now, there are more contagious and perhaps more deadly variants of this virus propagating around the world.  It is absolutely beyond me why this is so difficult to understand for some segments of the population.

So much of this is just about following the data and having some basic understanding of how things work.  Unfortunately, wishful thinking does not work very well when combatting a virus.  Biden’s task force has stated that this is really a race against time and the facts should be enough to get anyone’s attention.   However, for some, that just seems like a bridge too far.

Viruses mutate.  That is a fact.  That is what they do.  And the more they replicate, the higher the probability that a new variant will emerge that is 1) more contagious, 2) more resistant to our current vaccines, 3) has a higher mortality rate than previous versions of the virus or 4) affects a different segment of the population more aggressively than before, e.g., children and young adults.  That is one of the main reasons to slow or stop the spread of the virus.  Certainly, we need to be focused on saving lives at risk due to the current virus.  However, in some respects, limiting its ability to replicate and evolve into variants that cause us even more problems is of even more urgency. 

If the virus were static, then timing would not be nearly so critical.  However, viruses are not anywhere close to being static.   Right now, there are over 103 MILLION reported cases worldwide and over 26 MILLION cases in the United States.  Every single one of those cases represent an opportunity for the virus to replicate into a mutant variant that has attributes that can cause us more problems.   That is why there is such urgency to slow down the spread of this virus.  And that is why it is so damned frustrating to see people (and politicians) fighting mask rules, fighting social distancing rules and trying to limit the authority of public health officials based upon wishful thinking and arm waving that has no basis in scientific fact.  It just reflects the lack of a basic understanding of the enemy we are up against.  That lack of understanding translates into real lives lost.

The previous administration’s lack of bold, decisive action at the Federal level got us into this mess and it will take bold, decisive action to get us out of this mess.  The Biden administration is doing the right things by putting medical and scientific experts in charge again and by trying to bring the full force of the US government to bear on this crisis.   Biden is trying to get bipartisan buy-in on his COVID relief plan of $1.9 trillion but is running into a roadblock from Congressional Republicans.  Ten Republican senators have offered a package of $600 million and talk of the need for compromise and unity.  It is hard to understand how they have all of a sudden gotten religion on fiscal responsibility when they let the national debt sky rocket under Trump – even before the pandemic!  This is not the time for half-assed actions.  This is a crisis and the cost to the country of not getting this virus under control soon will be far greater than $1.9 trillion being proposed in the Biden package.

The previous administration tried a half-assed approach to managing the virus a year ago and the entire country has suffered way more than it should have.  We have 4 percent of the world’s population and over 20 percent of the world’s confirmed cases.  We have over twice as many cases and three times as many deaths as our next closest ‘competitor’, India, which, by the way, has a population that is three times the size of that of the United States.  It is long past time to hit this pandemic with everything this country can bring to bear and the Republicans need to understand that trying to slow down this COVID relief package or underfund it is just going to prolong the agony and cost American lives.

If one were cynical, one might think that the reluctance of some Republicans to get behind aggressive measures to stop this pandemic and rev up the economy, is simply because they don’t want Biden to be successful in getting this pandemic under control and reviving the economy because that would hurt the Republican election chances in 2022 and 2024.   One would hate to think that people could put politics ahead of the health and well being of ‘we the people,’ but I guess we’ve all learned that isn’t always the case.  This is a crisis and needs to be treated as a crisis which will require bold, decisive action.  Anything less will likely be disastrous. 

This is really a problem in basic math and basic science.  If you look at the numbers and you believe the science then the decisions on what to do, are pretty straightforward.  If you ignore the data and you don’t believe in the science, that’s where hope gets lost.   At that point its just a roll of the dice as to who lives and who dies.  Let’s hope that the nation can collectively muster the will power to turn what is now sounding like a funeral dirge into a symphony of hope as we move forward.  We have put men on the moon – we should sure as hell be able to figure this out!

There is an old legal adage, “When the law is against you, argue the facts.  When the facts are against you, argue the law.”   That was apparently at the center of why all five of the attorneys who were supposed to represent Trump for his upcoming impeachment trial quit abruptly.  Trump was apparently insistent that the lawyers argue the case based upon the many time debunked lie that there was wide spread voter fraud and Trump, in fact, won the election.  The attorneys knew that they did not have the facts to be able to mount a reasonable case based upon that.  They insisted that they had to argue the law, i.e., it is unconstitutional to impeach a president after he has left the office because, simply stated, the facts were against them.   Attorneys making knowingly false statements in a trial could also put themselves in jeopardy.

Apparently, Trump has hired two new attorneys and it will be interesting to see which side of the above-mentioned adage they land on.  I’m betting that they will ultimately argue the case that it is unconstitutional to impeach a president after he is out of office.   There just are not any facts that will stand up in a court of law to support the allegations of a rigged election and voter fraud.  If those facts existed, they probably would have surfaced in the 60 plus court actions filed by the Trump campaign and they came up empty handed.  It will be an interesting session to watch.  

If Trump and his attorneys were to go down the path of ‘the big lie’ which gave rise to the insurrection on January 6^th, it will put the Republican senators in a very awkward position and might well lead to his ultimate conviction.  If the Republicans were to vote to acquit him based upon a case built around ‘the big lie,’ they would be giving credence to that lie.  On the other hand, if Trump’s attorneys argue that the impeachment of a president after he is out of office is unconstitutional, it gives the Republican senators an ‘out.’  They can simply agree that the trial is unconstitutional and vote to acquit on those grounds.  That will keep Trump’s rabid base somewhat happy and the senators can walk away relatively unscathed without having to make a really tough ethical decision.  Everyone wins – except the Rule of Law and American democracy.

And speaking of democracy, the above-mentioned adage in the legal world could well be rewritten to reflect the reality of politics today.  “When the demographics are with you, argue increased voter access.  When the demographics are against you, argue for greater “election integrity (which is a code word for voter suppression)”.  In virtually all of the Republican ‘swing’ states where Trump lost, the state legislatures are working like busy little beavers to enact laws to restrict voter access in preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.  Given that there was no evidence of voter fraud in the past election as attested to by Trump’s own Attorney General, both Republican and Democratic election officials in all fifty states, and in more than 60 lawsuits across the country, these laws have only one purpose – to restrict voter access to help Republicans.  Democracy at work?  The Republicans are the loudest voices making accusations about voter fraud and election rigging and, ironically, that is exactly what they are trying to do in the upcoming elections.  Referring to a saying that I used in a previous post, “those who accuse others of ‘doin’, are the ones who are actually doin the doin!”

It also turns out that there are striking similarities between the US and Myanmar (formerly Burma).  There was a coup over the weekend in which the military reassumed control of the country and arrested the democratically elected leadership, including the country’s leader, Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.  Myanmar was under brutal military rule for 50 years until 2011.  Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest for 15 years during this time due to her anti-government activism.  She was released in 2010 and in 2015 the country had their first democratic elections.  Aung San Suu Kyi has been the de facto civilian leader since then in a power sharing arrangement with the military.

The military, itself, wrote a constitution in 2008 in which they guaranteed themselves a strong hand in the government regardless of elections in the future.  For example, they guaranteed themselves one quarter of the seat in parliament in any future government. However, the fledgling democracy came crashing down when the military reassumed control in a coup this week amid allegations of ‘wide spread’ voter fraud.  Sound familiar??

“Monday’s crackdown is centered around November’s parliamentary election.

The military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) performed dismally in the poll, prompting the party to demand a new vote, claiming bias and “unfair campaigning.”

The military also repeatedly disputed the election results. It claims, without providing evidence, that there are more than 10.5 million cases of “potential fraud, such as non-existent voters” and called on the election commission to publicly release the final polling data.”¹

Sound familiar?  The coup has been universally condemned by the UN and the international community, including the United States (although our words don’t carry quite the same force that they did in years past). 

In Myanmar, the military worked against the elected leader.  However, think what might have happened in this country if Trump had had the backing of the military on January 6^th?  I never, in a million years, thought I would ever write anything comparing the United States to Myanmar – but here we are.  Democracy is fragile.  We should never take it for granted.

1. The coup in Myanmar and the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi explained – CNN

I included the text of the letter below that I submitted to the Bozeman Chronicle several days ago in a previous post.  It was published in yesterday’s paper so I am including it again today because it’s part of a bigger issue that I see happening and was triggered by something I read in the paper this morning.  My letter is:

“Our new Republican governor, senator, representative and legislature have barely been in office three weeks now and already seem hell bent on doing things and passing legislation that smacks of hypocrisy.  Senator Daines and Representative Rosendale decided to join in an effort to propagate a lie about the election and overturn the certified Electoral vote counts in other states.  The legislature decided that allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to carry a concealed weapon almost everywhere, including on college campuses is a good thing for Montana.  Hikers are advised to carry bear spray since it is more effective than handguns against predators but the legislature has decided that arming college girls is the safest form of self-defense. Governor Gianforte, in the midst of a pandemic, repealed restrictions meant to slow the spread of the virus and has stated that he will repeal the state-wide mask mandate.  He argues that he prefers personal responsibility to government-imposed restrictions.  If Montanans were really responsible, we wouldn’t have one of the highest drunk driving rates in the country.  And now, after all of this talk about ‘Montana values’, ‘states rights’, ‘government overreach’, and ‘personal responsibility’, the legislature is reviewing legislation to restrict access to abortions.  So, my question is this, “If you are so damned concerned with ‘government overreach’ and want to promote ‘personal responsibility’, why do you think you have the right to stick your government noses into a personal decision that should be the solely between a woman, her partner and the doctor?”   A woman is responsible enough to decide to carry a gun, to go to a crowded bar in the midst of a pandemic but she is not responsible enough to make decisions about her own reproductive health?  Your words are hollow and ring loudly with hypocrisy. “

This morning I read that a member of the Idaho state legislature is proposing an amendment to the Idaho state constitution to ensure that marijuana cannot be legalized in Idaho – even medical marijuana.  The states surrounding Idaho – Washington, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah (medical marijuana only) – have all legalized marijuana possession and use within the limits imposed by the various state laws.   The simple fact is, in the future if anyone in Idaho wants marijuana, they could simply take a day trip to any of those states and purchase whatever they want.  It reminds me of when I was I college and people would make trips to Idaho and Colorado to pick up cases of Coors beer because it was not available in Montana! 

Let me make it clear right here that I am not advocating the use of marijuana.  I don’t use it but, once again, I refuse to make that decision for someone else.  The evidence is overwhelming that it can be beneficial for some medicinal treatments and the fact is, about two thirds of American support the legalization of marijuana.   So, we are once again seeing a situation where someone has been elected to an office and is now going to use the powers of that office to push a personal agenda that is in opposition to the wishes of the majority of Americans.  That, in my mind, is one of the major problems with how governments are functioning (or not functioning) these days.

In Montana, despite all of the campaign ads leading up to the election, in which the Republicans promised ‘lower taxes’ and ‘more and better jobs’, nothing that they have done to date has addressed any of those issues.  Instead, they got right to work passing a law allowing almost unlimited concealed carry of firearms in the state – lowers taxes? Jobs?   They got right to work on anti-abortion legislation – lower taxes? Jobs?   And now in Idaho, someone is pushing a constitutional amendment to prevent the legalization of marijuana at some point in the future, even if it gets put on a ballot and is approved by a majority of Idahoans – lower taxes? Jobs?

In an ideal world it seems that the country would be better served if, before submitting legislation, elected officials were required to provide 1) an economic impact of the legislation (that is required in some states); 2) an analysis based upon facts and data (peer reviewed sources) as to what specific problem this piece of legislation is attempting to solve and 3) data from 3 to 5 reputable polling firms as to the level of support for a particular piece of legislation amongst the population that will be affected.  If those three requirements were required PRIOR to someone just writing up a new bill, perhaps it wouldn’t be quite so easy for people to use their elected office to push personal agendas as opposed to using their offices to work on legislative efforts that address ‘big picture’ issues for the entire population of the state or the country.

Of course, we don’t live in an ideal world, so for the foreseeable future we will be stuck with elected officials who seem to think their job is to push personal beliefs regardless of the costs, long term consequences, or popular support.   And the rest of us will have to live (or die) with the consequences.   

It seems to me that the Republican Party has lost its way and much of its identity.  Just for fun, I went back and did a quick review of the Republican Party platforms for the last four presidential elections.  As a reminder, John McCain was the Republican candidate in 2008, Mitt Romney was the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 and, of course, Donald Trump was the Republican presidential candidate in 2016 and 2020.  I have included links to the entire documents below.

There are some common themes throughout the platforms from 2008, 2012 and 2016 as you might expect – the need to lower taxes, the need to engage in free and fair international trade, the need to rein in fiscal spending and balance the budget, advocating against same-sex marriage and abortion and, last but not least, support for the Second Amendment and the ‘right to bear arms.’  All of the platforms were multi-page, somewhat detailed documents, that at least let everyone know what the driving principles behind the party were.  Even if you didn’t agree with the policies, you could at least read and understand them.

That was true up until 2020 when the Republican Party issued no platform after their convention.   The ‘platform’ was actually a Resolution adopted by the Republican Party.  It is about a page long and contains some interesting words.

 “WHEREAS, The RNC, had the Platform Committee been able to convene in 2020, would have undoubtedly unanimously agreed to reassert the Party’s strong support for President Donald Trump and his Administration; ⁴  

WHEREAS, The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject “the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda; “⁴

There was also some verbiage in there about how unfair the media coverage was and it concluded by incorporating the platform developed in 2016.

The gist of the resolution was that the Republican Party whole-heartedly supported Donald Trump and whatever policies he put in place and whole-heartedly rejected anything coming out of the Obama administration.   So, over the period of a dozen years the Republican Party went from being to clearly articulate what they stood for to a party that looked a lot like a personality cult.  Many of Trump’s policies were in complete contravention to many of the platform planks that had been articulated in years past, but the Republican Party abandoned those principles in favor of ‘whatever Trump wants to do.’

Now that Trump is gone, the party has become a haven for all kinds of ‘interesting’ characters.  Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a newly minted Representative from Georgia has been linked to QAnon, has been captured on video harassing a survivor of the Parkland mass shooting, has falsely stated that the Sandy Hook massacre was ‘staged’, and ‘liked’ posts on her social media accounts calling for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be stopped via a bullet to her head.  As her first act in Congress, she filed impeachment charges against Joe Biden alleging crimes that have already been debunked.  The Republican leadership not only have not yet spoken out against her egregious remarks, they awarded a seat on the Committee for Education and Labor.  Think about that.  A woman who has publicly stated that the Sandy Hook school shooting was ‘staged’ is now on the Committee for Education and Labor. 

And then there is Representative Lauren Boebert from Colorado who is insistent that she will carry her firearm into the House of Representatives Chamber.   She owns a bar, Shooters Grill, in Colorado where staff and patrons are actively encouraged to openly carry firearms.  She also has a nice record of arrests to add to her resume of qualifications for being an elected representative.⁵

Liz Cheney, the senior Congresswoman from Wyoming, who is the third most powerful Republican in the House, is now under attack by some of the young firebrands like Matt Gaetz because she dared speak out against Trump after the attacks on the Capitol.  He held a rally of MAGA supporters in Cheney’s home state of Wyoming to rail against her for speaking out against Trump.  In Arizona, the state Republican Party, led by Trump loyalist, Kelli Ward, censured Former Senator Jeff Flake, John McCain’s wife, Cindy McCain, and the Republican Governor Doug Ducey for speaking against Trump.  If those are not the signs of a personality cult, I don’t know what is.

This is the new face of the Republican Party.  The evolution, or more appropriately devolution, of the party is quite dramatic.  I suspect Ronald Reagan, both the Bushes, John McCain, and Mitt Romney would all agree that the Party seems to have lost its way.  Rather than being able to clearly articulate a vision for America based upon conservative principles and how to deal with all of the crises we face, they have waded further into the swamp of personalities, conspiracy theories, voter suppression legislation and rationalizing hypocrisy.  One can only wonder if they will ever find their way back or will push further into the swamp for the 2022 and 2024 elections. Just because Trump is no longer a resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, this roller coaster ride is far from over.

1. 2008 Republican Party Platform | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)
2. 2012 Republican Party Platform | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)
3. 2016 Republican Party Platform | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)
4. PDF File (gop.com)
5. GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert and husband have racked up arrests (nypost.com)

The Montana legislature is working on bills that will restrict abortion access here in Montana and I fully expect our newly minted Republican Governor will sign them into law.  There is, of course, the possibility that these laws will be challenged in the courts along with those in other states hoping to restrict abortion.  The ultimate goal of all of these state laws is to have them percolate their way up to the Supreme Court in the hopes that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.  This got me to thinking more about this whole issue. 

Many polls show that something on the order of 70 percent of Americans are in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade intact.  So, we are in situation where 30 percent of the population is trying to dictate policy for the majority.  This is essentially how the 18^th Amendment to the Constitution came into existence.  A very vocal minority of anti-alcohol voters convinced enough politicians to vote for the 18^th Amendment and it became the law of the land.   Of course, that gave rise to bootlegging, criminal enterprises, speakeasies and, in short, it was a disaster which led to the adoption of the 21^st amendment which repealed prohibition.  We are headed down that same path with all of these anti-abortion laws.  Not to mention the huge expenditure of tax dollars to continuously litigate this issue in spite of overwhelming support of Roe v. Wade by a majority of Americans.

Frankly, I don’t think we are asking the correct question about this issue.  The entire focus seems to revolve around the simple question, “Do you support a woman’s right to have access to abortion?”  That is pretty much a yes or no question.  It’s easy to state you are ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’.  However, I think the more relevant question and one that is much more difficult to answer, particularly for those who are against abortion is, “What does the world look like if Roe v. Wade is overturned?”   The problem as I see it is that, just like the anti-alcohol crowd, the anti-abortion advocates do not have a workable end game in mind.   And without a realistic, workable end game in mind, the results will likely suffer from the ‘law of unintended consequences’ and be a veritable disaster.

So, just as a thought exercise, let’s assume that next year, Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court.  Abortion becomes illegal and doctors who perform abortions will be subject to criminal prosecution.  That will become our new reality.  That means that every woman who becomes pregnant will be forced to carry that baby to term. 

It is unreasonable to believe that people will stop having sex.  That assumption has proven incorrect for thousands of years.  Hormones will win. It is equally as unreasonable to assume that everyone will have protected sex or use appropriate birth control, which means there will continue to be accidental pregnancies.  Women will be forced to carry these babies to term regardless of their situation – married or single, rich or poor, Christian or not, insured or not.   Estimates put the number of abortions in the US at around 500,000 plus or minus.  About 140,000 children are adopted in the US every year.¹ That is a pretty big disparity.   So, the question is, “What happens to all of these babies that must be carried to term?” 

It is unrealistic to think that adoptions will increase by 300,000/per year.  That’s just not reality.  So, what happens to these babies?  Where do they go?  Who takes care of them?  For rich and upper middle-class families, taking care of one more baby is generally not a huge problem.  For poor women who are already struggling, it’s a huge problem.  Generally, a lot of the same people who want to restrict access to abortion are the same people who want to cut programs like food stamps and welfare.  I’m just not sure what the end game looks like here.

Likewise, a lot of wealthy and upper middle-class families will have sufficient health care insurance so a stay in a hospital for another child birth won’t be that big a deal.  A lot of poor women and even many lower middle-class families in America do not have sufficient insurance coverage to cover a hospital stay for child birth.  So, who pays the bills for all of these hospital stays for all of these child births?  Again, I’m just not sure what the end game looks like here.

I actually looked at the National Right to Life website and a couple of other ‘pro-life’ websites and I saw a lot of information pleading for supporters to ‘save babies,’ but I couldn’t’ find anything to discuss the issue of ‘what happens after Roe v. Wade is overturned’.  There is a reason for that.  That is because it is the far more difficult question to answer and the fact is, there is no end game that will stand up to a critical analysis of the data.

People will not stop having sex.  There will continue to be unplanned and accidental pregnancies.   It is not realistic to assume there will be a quantum increase in annual adoptions over the current rate.  Since we live in a country without universal health coverage, someone will have to pay for the medical care associated with having all of these pregnancies carried to term.  And just as a point of fact, an abortion is far less expensive than a hospital stay and associated care for the birth of a child.  Those are just plain simple truths. Ignoring them will not make them go away.  To paraphrase something I heard from Neal DeGrasse Tyson, “Just because you don’t believe facts doesn’t make them any less true.”

No one wants abortions.  However, unless and until the pro-life proponents can articulate a reasonable, workable, post Roe v. Wade end game that is based upon facts and data that are sufficient enough to convince the 70 percent of Americans that do not want to restrict access to abortion that there is an alternative, the current movement is nothing more than propaganda based upon emotion.  And as such, it will follow the same disastrous path as prohibition. 

As with so many of the complex issues facing our country and our world today, it is important to ask the right questions in order to develop workable solutions.  The question, “Are you for or against abortion?” is the wrong question.  The more appropriate question is, “What are all of the societal ramifications if abortions are outlawed and how will we deal with them?”  The first question can be answered simply based upon an emotional gut response.  A defendable, rational answer to the second question is a lot harder and probably a lot less satisfying to the pro-life movement.  Perhaps some day we will get to a place where we can use facts and data grounded in reality to make informed policy decisions – we obviously are not there yet.

1. US Adoption Statistics | Adoption Network | Adoption Network

I was going to write an article today about how the trade policies implemented by the previous administration have resulted in long term damage to the American economy and world standing while providing a huge opportunity for China to take the lead on the world economic stage.  However, since the articles of impeachment have been delivered by the House of Representatives to the Senate and we are on the eve of yet another impeachment trial for Trump, I decided to switch gears a little based upon a letter to the editor that was published in the Bozeman Chronicle today.

This letter tries to make the argument that the protests arising from the Black Lives Matter protests after the George Floyd murder are equivalent to the insurrection that took place at the Capitol on January 6^th.  This individual makes the statement,” In the past four years, a majority of Americans has been called Nazis, racists, and more. Their evils, its argued, have established systemic biases and resulted in privilege that obstructs everyone else.  They say these proclivities are not resident in a few people, but intrinsic to all.  The only fix is to reeducate this aristocracy using intimidation, censorship, punishment and laws, and remake America to achieve social justice.”

First of all, it is certainly not true that a ‘majority’ of Americans have been called Nazis, racists, etc.  There are certainly some subsets of the population that fit those descriptions but certainly not a majority.  Secondly, there is no shortage of evidence that systemic racism is a reality in this country.  That’s why laws against ‘red lining’ were passed in the mortgage banking industry. There are numerous studies showing inequalities in the health care industries based upon race.  The fact is, systemic racism does exist, and putting one’s head in the sand and pretending that everything is all hunky dory will not solve the problem.

The letter goes on to say, “In recent months, social justice warriors have attacked, looted, and burned government buildings, monuments, private businesses and homes. They’ve done it, they say, because their complaints aren’t being heard.  Most of their crimes haven’t been stopped, apparently because their virtue signaling supporters believe their political ends justify their violent and illegal means.”

It is certainly true that there was some violence that arose out of the BLM protests and that can never be condoned or justified.  However, given the widespread protests across the nation (even some here in Bozeman), the amount of violence was pretty small.  Even in volatile places like Portland, the violent protests were contained to a small area within the city but one would never know that by the way it was covered in the conservative media.  That coverage made it appear like the entire city of Portland was ablaze.  That was simply not true. 

In the concluding paragraph, the letter states, “Now, the hypocritical left is outraged by the actions of Republican supporters, who feel their concerns about the election are not being heard. Perhaps they should remember their actions in Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, and Washington D.C., and remember Confucius’s aphorism: wherever you go, there you are.”

First of all, the statement that ‘who feel their concerns about the election are not being heard’ is patently false.  There were over 60 lawsuits filed in multiple state and Federal courts across the country where the Trump campaign had opportunities to have their concerns heard.  The fact is that all but one of those cases were thrown out of court or withdrawn for lack of evidence.  If that is not an opportunity to ‘have their concerns heard,’ I don’t know what the hell is.  And, just as a reminder, several of the judges who threw those lawsuits out of court or ruled against the Trump campaign were Republican judges appointed by Trump.

In addition, Trump’s own Department of Justice in the person of Attorney General Bill Barr, a Trump supporter, stated that there was no evidence of wide spread voter fraud anywhere.  Election officials, both Republican and Democrat, in all 50 states, certified the election results, sometimes after detailed recounts. 

The Republican ‘supporters’ of Trump who attacked the Capitol with the intent of overturning the results of an election did, in fact, have numerous opportunities to have their concerns heard.  They simply chose to ignore the results of those hearings since because they didn’t like they outcome. 

Trying to draw an equivalency between the BLM protests that are seeking to draw attention to the reality of systemic racism and the Trump supporters who attacked the Capitol with the intent of overturning an election are two completely different things.  Trying to draw this false equivalency by arguing that Republican concerns about the election have not been heard is just a patently false statement.  Multiple opportunities were provided for these concerns about the election to be heard.  They were heard.  They were adjudicated.  They were dismissed for lack of evidence. 

They don’t replay the Superbowl just because some segment of the population doesn’t like the outcome.  It’s time to move forward and stop this nonsense.

I must say that I am much more relaxed these days.  My brain doesn’t seem to be constantly on overload based upon the latest story of chaos, corruption, or cronyism that seemed to emanate from the Trump White House on a daily basis.  Living under the Republican regime here in Montana will certainly be challenging for the next four years but I will try to contain my commentary on that to the local newspaper although, some of that may, from time to time, spill over into this blog.   But today as we move forward and we have a new administration that intends to be an administration of truth, trust and transparency, there is still the issue of millions of Americans who believe the election was ‘stolen’ from Trump.  And adding to this problem are a number of media outlets that are continuing to pump out lies and misinformation.

I just don’t know how you convince people who are choosing to listen to inaccurate and misleading information and believe things in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  For a long time in this country there was something called the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ that basically said radio and TV stations broadcasting over the air had to present both sides of an issue.  The coverage had to be fair, as it were.  The Fairness Doctrine was in effect from 1949 until the FCC under Ronald Reagan repealed it.  There was an attempt to codify the Fairness Doctrine in to law at one time but that effort was vetoed by Reagan in 1987. 

With the rise of Fox News and other very biased media organizations, there have been some calls to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.  It is highly unlikely that will ever happen.  Any attempts will get all wound around the axle because of First Amendment ‘free speech’ issues.  In addition, there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court which is highly unlikely to uphold anything like the Fairness Doctrine due to those same First Amendment considerations.  The reality is, we will be living in a world of media outlets that can and will continue to push conspiracy theories, propaganda, misinformation and sometimes out and out lies.   How do we move ahead and strive for unity given this is the reality of the world we now occupy?

I was watching a podcast by Neal DeGrasse Tyson yesterday in which he was discussing the scientific method.  To illustrate what he was talking about, he used examples of how the scientific method was used to solve questions about the perturbations in the orbits of Uranus, Mercury and Neptune.  After I got done listening to his talk, for some reason, I got to thinking about the Flat Earth Society.  I kept asking myself, “How do people belong to and believe in the Flat Earth Society in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary?”  It’s the same phenomena as to why people believe political conspiracy theories. 

I decided to visit the website of the Flat Earth Society and do a little poking around.  I did learn a new word – “zeteticism.”  This is defined as a method of scientific inquiry.  “Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.”¹ Zeteticism is apparently one of the basic tenets of the Flat Earth Society.

“For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.”¹

I think the key words are in the last sentence where it says, “leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.”  The way I read this, if I am standing on my deck and looking out in all directions, the earth appears flat [topography is something different] therefore the earth must be flat.  There is really no need for me to pursue this any further because my observations are all I need in order to understand the ‘truth.’  In a similar manner, if the news channel that I choose to watch broadcasts unfounded conspiracy theories, I needn’t look into it any further because my observations tell me all I need to know.

There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is not flat.  There is overwhelming evidence that the election was not ‘stolen’, was conducted fairly and there is not wide-spread voter fraud anywhere.  I guess the zetetics amongst us don’t care what the evidence says.  I wish we lived in a world where rational civil discourse and science-based policy making were the norm.  Unfortunately, conspiracy spewing broadcasters, zetetic ‘flat earthers’ and science deniers will be with us for the foreseeable future.   These are kind of like termites attacking a house.  You often don’t understand how bad the damage is until it is too late.   And since we can’t call the local pest control agent to deal with the problem, we will just have to be vigilant and try to build a society that will stand up to the attacks.