robertbrigham-books
  • Home
  • About the author
  • Books by Robert
    • When Your Lover Dies
    • Math Is Murder
    • Murder by the Numbers
    • You're Almost There
    • Patriotism
  • Leave Feedback
  • Fluff & Tough(

Just a Week to Go

10/28/2020

0 Comments

 
One week from now we’ll know who won the election. Or we won’t. If it’s close, it will mean the voter suppression techniques instituted by the Republicans worked.
 
My hope is for a blowout for Biden, a result that is so clear that the packed courts won’t be able to save it for Trump.
 
If Trump wins, I fear our nation will never recover from the damage wrought over the next four years. There will be no constraints. The cowardly Republican legislators, in order to save their jobs, as opposed to their souls, will genuflect and do whatever the master commands. We will have driven the final nail into the nobility of our nation.
 
If Biden wins, I’m not sure what to expect.
 
I believe he’s a nice guy. I can only hope he’s an effective leader.
 
One of the problems is I think the country in the present circumstances is ungovernable. It will remain that way as long as most individuals, on the right and on the left, continue to eschew compromise.
 
If he wins, the problems Biden will inherit are many and fierce, from the virus to national defense to health care to poverty to racism to the national debt, etc., etc., etc. How do you solve them if compromise doesn’t exist? Oh, if House and Senate are aligned with the presidency, laws can be rammed through. And then repealed when the other party takes power. We need permanent solutions to problems, solutions that will not disappear just because a new person is in the White House. And, by the way, it won’t be long before all those problems are no longer inherited problems; they will be Biden problems.
 
Will Biden be able to make headway? I think he will attempt to work with Republicans. But will the Republicans respond? I’m not hopeful. Recall Mitch McConnell’s statement days into Obama’s presidency that the only goal was to make him a one term president.
 
And how about the Democrats? Will they be willing to compromise? Again, I’m not hopeful. Because I see the same small mindedness in the actions of the Democrats as I do in the Republicans. This is illustrated by the recent vote in the Judicial Committee to advance the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. The vote was twelve to zip. Sounds unanimous. Except all ten Democrats on the committee boycotted the vote. Like children who didn’t get their way. And what positive did it accomplish? Absolutely nothing!
 
What bothers me even more is all the Democrats marched in lockstep. Not one dared to challenge the decision to boycott, at least publicly enough to vote. How is that any different from the Republican members of Congress not daring to challenge the craziness of their president?
 
Both parties demonstrated their intransience on Barrett’s official confirmation vote. Only one senator out of 100 had the courage to desert the party’s stand, and that’s probably because she’s in a tight reelection battle.
 
So I’m afraid there doesn’t appear to be any more desire to compromise by the Democrats than there is by the Republicans. I fear they will remember all too well how the Republicans have acted and revenge will be a driving force.
 
I would hope Biden would attempt to temper this, to steer his party into efforts to work with the opposition, in sharp contrast to the way Trump has used his party as a prop to divide the country and build himself up. And I would hope Republicans would respond in ways that have been absent since the time of Nixon.
 
I’m tired of my way or the highway types, no matter the party affiliation.
 
I’m sure you must be thinking I’m living in a dream world to even suggest the possibility of maturity. Heck, I think I’m living in a dream world.
 
If we win, we must be willing to be just as demanding of the Democrats as we have been of the Republicans. Especially if they can’t figure a way to govern the entire nation, not just half the nation.
 
So I really don’t know what a Biden administration will accomplish, or even can accomplish.
 
But one thing I know with absolute certainty. It must be given the opportunity to try. Because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
0 Comments

John Bolton's The Room Where It Happened

10/21/2020

2 Comments

 
I recently completed John Bolton’s book The Room Where It Happened. It was written by a man I have never liked about another man I have never liked. I’m going to do what I so often do in these postings, talk about things of which I have limited knowledge and no expertise. I have read book reviews by The New York Times, Washington Post, Vox Media, The Guardian, and NPR. The prevailing conclusion is the book demonstrates an inept president being advised by a scary National Security Advisor.
 
I have a few of my own takes on the book and offer them for what they’re worth.
 
  • John Bolton has a huge ego. He is convinced he and he alone knows what is best for our country’s foreign policy and any not agreeing are weak and deserving of scorn. At one time or another almost everyone else falls short. But he never does.
 
  • He was Trump’s National Security Advisor. Until he wasn’t. He claims he quit. Trump says he was fired. Sound familiar? I believe Bolton’s version. I think he’s a man of principles. The question, of course, is whether his principles are ones our nation and the world can stand.
 
  • His list of incompetents is long. Obama, of course. But to my surprise most of his rancor was aimed at fellow Republicans. There are few in the foreign policy area who escaped his scorn, including in no meaningful order Steven Mnuchin, Jared Kushner, Melania Trump’s staff, Nikki Haley, Rex Tillerson, Rudy Giuliani, James Mattis, and Michael Flynn.
 
  • Coming off better are Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, and John Kelly. They achieve higher status because they agreed with Bolton more than others. But all of them failed to pass muster at times and hence deserved reprimands.
 
  • Special places in Bolton Hell are given to Democrats, NATO, and the European Union, but, in all fairness, they were treated only slightly more harshly than most of the Republicans mentioned above. Except for Obama.
 
  • Of course, it’s President Trump who’s at the center of most of the discussion and, in an epilogue, receives massive condemnation. He comes across as resolute (read tough on foreign policy) at times and wishy-washy at others. And never consistent. Bolton whines of the difficulty of keeping Trump focused on the best foreign policy steps, that is, on the ones Bolton wants. Bolton details constantly changing views and angry outbursts. In his summary he says he can’t recall a single policy decision based on anything other than how it would assist in Trump’s reelection. What’s best for the country didn’t come into play.
 
  • Bolton seems to be extremely smart, though not necessarily wise. He has great knowledge of history. He appears to be widely read, including in the classics.
 
  • He does not trust Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran. He believes nothing should be given to them without getting something significant back. For example, we should give no relief of sanctions to North Korea without a complete and verifiable denuclearization. I find myself agreeing with most of his stands regarding these nations.
 
  • He seems honestly dedicated to the safety of our country, at least in foreign policy. However, he expresses no concern for how areas outside foreign policy can ruin our nation, including climate change. Or racism. Or poverty.
 
  • Claims of endangering national security were at the heart of attempts to prevent publication. I don’t know if there is validity to this. What concerns me more, though, is Bolton’s description of the irrational way Trump handles foreign policy and his affinity to play up to the dictators of North Korea, China, and Russia. I think it may give those smarter individuals hints of how to manipulate Trump to the detriment of our nation. Even more than they have already. It does not bode well if Trump achieves a second term.
 
  • It’s just a guess, of course, but I bet Bolton will vote for neither Trump nor Biden, a net gain of one for Biden.
 
I’m glad I read it, but now my mind needs cleansing. I can’t wait to get my hands on Bob Woodward’s new book.

2 Comments

Protesting the Nut Speaker

10/14/2020

0 Comments

 
Twenty-four-year-old Kaitlin Marie Bennett is a gun toting Trump supporting right winger who posed for her graduation photo in front of a Kent State University sign while holding an AR-10 long gun. She was claiming she should have been allowed to openly carry while a student in order to protect herself from the sort of situation that occurred during the 1970 campus shootings there.
 
A few weeks back she, with a host of bodyguards, made an appearance at the university where I spent decades, speaking on grounds that are open for discussions of any type.
 
She is just one of many holding far right views who have insisted on speaking on college campuses.
 
I have no problem with this. I believe almost all views, as long as they are made peacefully, have a right to be stated. Otherwise how can we claim a university is a door to the examination of new ideas?
 
These presentations, including the one at my university, have been met with protests, vocally always and physically sometimes.
 
What happened at my school was typical. As a result of the conflict, Bennett received coverage in the news, both television and print and probably also a lot of social media. She made the most of it and her message was broadcast far and wide. She even called for a reduction of federal funds to the university.
 
Bennett’s message was loud and clear, terrible as it was.
 
The protesters’ message, which I believe was intended to be the complete opposite to Bennett’s, received zero attention. What was broadcast by the media was the shouting and shoving.
 
Score: Bennett 1. Protesters 0.
 
The scorecard has been the same for all the similar events of which I’m aware.
 
What, then, is a better way to protest these outrageous talks and showcase the lack of relevance of the radical ideas?
 
It’s simple. Ignore the speaker.
 
Don’t stand around listening.
 
If you come upon the event by accident, shrug and walk away. Don’t say a word.
 
Media video will show a speaker talking to empty air, indicating no one thought the message worth hearing.
 
They will show reasonable people refusing to give the speaker’s negative message any value. If the non-attendees happen to be interviewed, they can say the speaker had nothing worthwhile hearing.
 
It’s time we become smarter than the opposition, that we control what the media reports, that we create a different outcome. If we do…
 
Score: Protesters 1. Bennett 0.

0 Comments

Confirming Supreme Court Nominees

10/7/2020

0 Comments

 
On September 21, 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice by a Senate vote of 99 to 0.
 
On October 6, 2018, Brett Kavenaugh was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice by a Senate vote of 50 to 48.
 
What a difference! How pleasant life must have been in 1981. A unanimous decision! Can you imagine anything like that happening today?
 
I’ve checked out the confirmation votes for several Justices and many fall in the approval range of 60 something to 30 something. So unanimous or near unanimous votes are rare. But even that range is far different from what I fear the current trend is: super-partisan votes of the type received by Kavenaugh.
 
Some of this, of course, is because the nomination of a Justice is always a political act. Presidents pick people they feel will advance their own agenda. Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is a flagrant attempt to turn the court in his favor so it will assist in his reelection if matters wind up there.
 
In the past, presidents have been disappointed. President Eisenhower said one of his worst mistakes was nominating Earl Warren.
 
What bothers me is nowadays the surprises are few. One can often predict the vote on a case based solely on what the case is about. This doesn’t make sense to me. Can a conservative and a liberal look at the same facts and the same laws and the same precedents and come out with different conclusions that happen to agree with their known political leanings? Now I know nothing about the law, but can it be as imprecise as that? That’s hard to take for a mathematician! Or is it likely the Justices are playing games to achieve a predetermined result? There are all too rare exceptions to this predictability, although a few have been provided by O’Connor, Kennedy, and Roberts.
 
We are heading into another highly partisan confirmation process with Barrett. I wonder what the advantage is to Democrats to pull out all the stops. Especially when the chances of success range from zero to slight.
 
It didn’t work with Clarence Thomas. It didn’t work with Neil Gorsuch (a 54 to 45 vote). It didn’t work with Brett Kavenaugh. There was a great deal of nastiness in the opposition to these nominations. And I wonder what good it accomplished. And what good it will accomplish with Barrett.
 
I think Justices are, believe it or not, human. It’s the only miniscule bit of hope I have that in certain cases they will judge without bias. As humans, though, they might react to hostile treatment in much the same way we mere mortals would. Something along the lines of “Why should I consider your point of view when you vilified me during confirmation hearings?” Presumably Justices are above such mundane thinking. But are they?
 
Certainly Clarence Thomas has been a consistent vote against everything I believe. Gorsuch and Kavenaugh are earning that reputation. And now there is Barrett.
 
She is going to be attacked as a threat to the Affordable Care Act. It’s a legitimate fear that she will help gut it. But what is to be gained by being nasty. She’ll remember that when she comes to consider the case. Now I know this Democratic approach probably is a ploy to convince voters to vote the “right” way November 3. But that’s a shortrange goal.
 
I guess I can accept that the Affordable Care Act fear is a point worth making, but can’t it be done in an adult non-attack manner? And what is the advantage in the stand taken by some Senate Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, that they won’t even meet with her? That’s just plain foolish. And petty. What is the harm of establishing even the most trivial personal relationship? It can’t hurt and there is, small as it might be, a hope it could trigger at least a deeper consideration of some point.
 
Modern day politics sickens me. On all sides.

0 Comments

    Author

    Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed