The Gettysburg Address: Where America Isn't Today

“I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it. . . . In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government is necessary for us. . . . . I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. . . . . It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies. who are waiting with confidence to hear how our Councils are Confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet, hereafter, for the purposes of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and I am not sure that it is not the best. . . . . On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument.” Benjamin Franklin, 1787, stating his consent to the new US Constitution

The Gettysburg Address struck me as reflecting something that is now largely lost in much of American society. It refers to our, origins, and the war and sacrifices that social division fomented. It expresses a sentiment that despite our often bitter, unresolvable disagreements, there is still something valuable and decent here to fight for. As Ben Franklin astutely pointed out in 1787, we never were perfect right from the get go. Despite that, we only do what we can under the circumstances we find ourselves. Doing that requires sacrifice for the common good, despite some ideological claims that the collective interest is inferior and inimical to the sacred individual and sacred their property. Lincoln didn't see it that way in 1863. Not by a long shot. Neither do I.[1]

The Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. —Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863

Society seems to usually progress slowly. Sometimes, its spurts ahead for a while. Sometimes it goes in reverse, as it is doing now. We have quite a way to go to get back to where I think we were earlier in my lifetime. What could lead to a reversal of the reversal isn't clear, but is probably isn't going to just be pragmatic rationalism alone. That seems to be a glue that's emotionally too weak to cement the social social vision and cohesion that Lincoln tried to foment in 1863 and we now desperately need again.


Footnote:
1. For a while, maybe the last year or so, one thing that has felt deficient about pragmatic rationalism is its lack of some sort of a spiritual or emotional component. Not necessarily religious or supernatural, but something. It isn't clear what that component (moral value?) might be.

You make the call...

It’s a year divisible by four, which means it’s a presidential election year, here in the U.S.  Time to return from The Mall® and start thinking about your predictions and preferences.  Will it be, e.g.:

Biden-Sanders

Sanders-Warren

Warren-Buttigieg

Other possible players to consider in the mix: Bennet, Bloomberg, Booker, deBlasio, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Klobachar, Moulten, O’Rourke, Patrick, Ryan, Sestak, Swallwell, Steyer, Williamson, Yang, and VP long shots like Stacey Abrams, Sherrod Brown, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Susan Rice, … other?

How about this shockeroo:

Biden- Obama  Hey, not impossible! :-O

Q1: What do you predict as the democratic 2020 POTUS-VPOTUS ticket?

Q2: What do you personally WISH would be on the dem ticket?

Give answers and explanations.  

From Constitutional Rot to Constitutional Crisis

A previous discussion here focused in the concept of what exactly constitutes a constitutional crisis. To help define the concept, experts cite constitutional crisis and the related concept they call constitutional rot. The former includes legal but hyper-partisan hardball politics. The latter encompasses situations where the constitution is has literally failed and the rule of law disintegrates.

Constitutional rot

Constitutional rot (CR) arises when norms that held power in check fall, partisans play constitutional hardball and fair political competition comes under attack. We see this now. For example, it was constitutional hardball by the Mitch McConnell to ignore President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland. In CR, politicians favor short-term political gains over long-term damage to the constitutional system. As CR progresses, the political system becomes less democratic, e.g., as partisans pass laws to limit voting by the political opposition. State power becomes less accountable and less responsive to the public, while politicians become more beholden to backers who keep them in power. In essence, the country drifts into some sort of usually corrupt authoritarian despotism or oligarchy.

Constitutional crisis

A constitutional crisis (CC) is rare among nations that operate on a constitutional basis. There are three sources of CC. In the first source of constitutional failure, a CC arises when politicians and/or military officials announce they will not obey the constitution any more. That happens when politicians and/or military officials refuse to obey a court order. Once refusal to adhere to constitutional rules has occurred, the constitution has failed.

The second kind of CC arises when many people refuse to obey the constitution. In these scenarios, there can be street riots, or, states or regions try to secede from the nation. This involves "situations where publicly articulated disagreements about the constitution lead political actors to engage in extraordinary forms of protest beyond mere legal disagreements and political protests: people take to the streets, armies mobilize, and brute force is used or threatened in order to prevail."

The third kind of CC arises when the constitution prevents political actors from trying to prevent an impending disaster, which is a very rare event. In these situations, courts usually dream up some way to get around constitutional constraints. The problem with that tactic, is that it usually leaves in its wake a rancid precedent that authoritarians and tyrants can later use to oppress political opposition and dissent. An example is the United States Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). That very bad decision defended exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. Korematsu has widely been criticized as bigotry and a stain on US law.

On the cusp of a constitutional crisis

The New York Times is reporting that the Trump administration is refusing a court order to turn over 20 emails the NYT demanded under a FOIA request. The NYT filed the demand to get information about Trump administration escapades with Ukraine. The NYT writes:

“WASHINGTON — The Trump administration disclosed on Friday that there were 20 emails between a top aide to President Trump’s acting chief of staff and a colleague at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget discussing the freeze of a congressionally mandated military aid package for Ukraine. 

But in response to a court order that it swiftly process those pages in response to a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, lawsuit filed by The New York Times, the Office of Management and Budget delivered a terse letter saying it would not turn over any of the 40 pages of emails — not even with redactions. 

‘All 20 documents are being withheld in full,’ wrote Dionne Hardy, the office’s Freedom of Information Act officer. 

A report on Thursday by the legal policy website Just Security added further fuel to the controversy by revealing what was under some, but not all, of the deletions. The website said it had been shown some of the emails in unredacted form, including an Aug. 30 message from Mr. Duffey to a Pentagon budget official stating that there was ‘clear direction from POTUS’ — an acronym referring to the president of the United States — ‘to continue to hold’ the Ukraine military assistance.”

The White House asserts that the emails cannot be turned over to the NYT because that would “inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.” Another thing it would very likely do, is provide additional proof that Trump and his corrupt administration broke the law and committed impeachable acts in dealings with Ukraine. That is the real reason the president is withholding the documents.

This is not hyperbole: America is on the razor edge of a true constitutional crisis. The president openly refuses a court order to hide evidence of his corrupt and illegal actions related to Ukraine. Not only has our corrupt president attacked Iran (and, indirectly Iraq) twice in two days to try to deflect attention from disclosures of his illegal and impeachable actions in office, he also willingly put America on the cusp of a true constitutional crisis just to serve his personal political interests.

This case will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. If that court allows the president to keep the documents hidden from the public, the crisis will be avoided. If not, then the president can decide to thrown America into full blown crisis or to comply and avoid a constitutional failure.

As discussed here yesterday, when a person loses trust in someone or an institution, then that person’s mind is no longer constrained by norms that protect the person or institution to some extent from unreasonable beliefs and reality-detached conspiracy theories and opinions. Given the president’s undeniable track record of making thousands of false and misleading statements to the American people, there is no objective basis in evidence for any trust in anything the president says or does. The president deserves no public trust because he earned no trust.

That's not some unhinged or reality-detached conspiracy theory. It is a logical conclusion of truth based on undeniable empirical evidence in the public record.

Blind mystic Baba Vanga's predictions for 2020 - after foreseeing 9/11 and Brexit

A blind mystic who is said to have predicted 9/11 and Brexit has foretold trouble and darkness for the year ahead.

Bulgarian born Baba Vanga has been dubbed the 'Nostradamus of the Balkans' for her predictions.

Despite dying 23 years ago, those with a keen interest in mysticism continue to revere Baba's work, which some claim looks forward to 5079 - the year she believed the universe will end.

Right before her death at the age of 85 she made a series of predictions for the year 2020.

The most startling revelation is that Vladamir Putin and Donald Trump's lives are in danger.

The Russian president could reach the end of his mortal coil thanks to an assassination attempt made from within the Kremlin.

Almost as dramatically, the US president will fall ill with a mysterious illness which will leave him deaf and with a brain tumour.

Those with long memories may remember Baba foretold that Putin and Trump's lives would be in danger last year, suggesting some kind of cosmic rollover.

Another recurrent theme in her predictions has been the destruction of Asia.

Baba foresaw that “a big wave will cover the shore and people will disappear underwater” in what some interpreted as the destruction of Thailand by a huge tsunami in 2004.

The outlook in 2020 is equally as bleak, with more tsunamis and earthquakes scheduled to hit the continent.

A meteorite is also predicted to fall on Russia.

Perhaps the most ominous prediction of the clairvoyant was that the European continent could reach "the end of its existence" at the hands of "Muslim extremists"

The Bulgarian suggested that extremists would "use an arsenal of chemical weapons against Europeans”.

Supporters of Baba are keen to emphasise how spot on she has been, with "85% accurate" a phrase that regularly crops up in fan forums.

According to baba-vanga.com, the figure is drawn from research conducted by Professor Georgi Lozanov - a former director of the Bulgarian Institute of Suggestology.

Others point to her past successes as proof that she had foresight beyond that of a typical human.

In 1989 she guessed that America would be hit by two 'steel birds' in a terror attack, in what was later interpreted as a reference to 9/11.

She said: "Horror, horror! The American brothers will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."

Baba's big breakthrough had come a year earlier however, when she accurately predicted the sinking of Russian submarine the Kursk.

Before cancelling Christmas and ordering a nuclear bunker however, readers should know that some questions remain around Baba and her predictions - some of which have been proved to be way off the mark.

Her prophecy that Europe would cease to exist by 2016 was clearly wrong, unless seen through an incredibly generous Brexiteer lense.

Baba's suggestion that the 1994 FIFA World Cup final would be played between two teams beginning with the letter 'b' was equally wrong.

The nuclear war pencilled in for the years 2010 to 2014 also failed to materialise.

Perhaps more damning is the seemingly non-existent nature of her prophecies.

While Baba may have spoken or written down her predictions in Bulgarian, no credible version is available to view.

According to a 2012 Washington Post investigation, the few prophecies that can be traced back to their origins appear to come from Russian social media.

When Bulgarian newspaper 24 Chasa interviewed Baba's neighbours, they said she had never predicted 9/11, the sinking of the Kursk or the big war.

Regardless, her legacy could still be cemented if some of her more unlikely supposed predictions come to pass.

She foretold that in 2023 the Earth's orbit will change, in 2066 the US will unleash a climate change weapon on Muslim-controlled Rome and in 2304 humans will discover time travel.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/blind-mystic-baba-vangas-predictions-21151259

What Happens When Trust Is Lost

Yesterday's US attack on and killing of Iranian military leader Qassim Suleimani, provoked an immediate personal reaction: What is the bad news that the president is trying to deflect our attention from?[1] The administration’s claim that the killed Iranian was planning imminent attacks on Americans is a diversion. The dead general is always planning attacks on Americans and he had been doing that for years. The president intentionally timed this attack to divert public attention from damaging information from information coming out of federal courts.

The objective basis for that instant reaction is the president’s track record of constantly lying to the American people and his track record of trying to deflect public attention when bad news about him and his corruption becomes public. So far, the president’s public track record includes over 15,000 false and misleading statements he has made to deceive, confuse, distract and polarize the American people. He relies on tactics of lies and deceit to try hide his constant stream of crimes, corruption, incompetence and golf course sloth.

His non-existent golf outings have cost taxpayers about $115 million so far

More evidence of lies and illegal activities

It turns out that there is massive bad news that the president is desperate to deflect public attention from. Newly released documents the courts have forced to be made public show overwhelming evidence that the president obstructed justice. That evidence could easily be the basis to start another impeachment proceeding in the House against the president. Also newly released is unredacted documents proving that Trump and the administration was breaking the law in looking for dirt on Joe Biden from Ukraine. That could also constitute grounds for new House impeachment proceedings.

Kate Brannon at Just Security reported yesterday:

“‘Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.’ 

This is what Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now. It is one of many documents the Trump administration is trying to keep from the public, despite congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation. 

Earlier in the day on Aug. 30, President Donald Trump met with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the president’s hold on $391 million in military assistance for Ukraine. Inside the Trump administration, panic was reaching fever pitch about the president’s funding hold, which had stretched on for two months. Days earlier, POLITICO had broken the story and questions were starting to pile up. U.S. defense contractors were worried about delayed contracts and officials in Kyiv and lawmakers on Capitol Hill wanted to know what on earth was going on. While Trump’s national security team thought withholding the money went against U.S. national security interests, Trump still wouldn’t budge. 

Thanks to the testimony of several Trump administration officials, we now know what Trump was waiting on: a commitment from Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. 

But getting at that truth hasn’t been easy and the Trump administration continues to try to obscure it. It is blocking key officials from testifying and is keeping documentary evidence from lawmakers investigating the Ukraine story. For example, this note from Duffey to McCusker was never turned over to House investigators and the Trump administration is continuing to try to keep it secret.”

Also, documents related to the Mueller report were released. Buzzfeed reported yesterday that 356 pages of documents were obtained from FOIA litigation after a long legal fight between Trump’s corrupted Justice Department and the House Judiciary Committee. The House committee wanted to get an unredacted copy of the Mueller report and grand jury testimony from the investigation, along with FBI summaries of 33 interviews. Corrupt Justice Department officials claimed the impeachment inquiry does not entitle the panel to see those records. Buzzfeed commented: “A federal judge disagreed, ruling in October that ‘DOJ is wrong’ and that the White House and the Justice Department were ‘openly stonewalling’ the committee.”

But wait, it gets much worse

Release of all of that information is the real story the president is desperate to distract public attention away from, regardless of the cost or damage to American interests it causes. The president thus attacked and killed a bitter American enemy at this time to try to distract the public from the fact that there is plenty of new evidence for another impeachment proceeding in the House. The counts could include (1) obstruction of justice, and (2) illegally withholding aid to Ukraine. The two counts the House impeached the president on are (1) abuse of power related to Ukraine, and (2) obstruction of congress. If the House wanted to get aggressive, it could also add to the list the president’s stunt yesterday in trying to deflect public attention from his political problems at the cost of new Middle East unrest and maybe a new war.

That harsh assessment of the attack on the Iranian general yesterday is how an American could see it as a blatant attempt to deflect attention away from the newly released information that is very damaging to the president. That kind of thinking is what can happen when people lose trust in a corrupt chronic liar like Donald Trump.

Is that belief unreasonable or irrational? Opinions will obviously differ. But at the very least there is solid empirical evidence to believe this version of reality.

Footnote:
1. The president has a well-know track record of trying to distract public attention from his problems.

“PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP was facing a potentially very bad news cycle, with special counsel Robert Mueller preparing to testify before Congress and a past friend, Jeffrey Epstein, charged with sexually molesting underage girls. So he went on a rant about four minority, female members of Congress, calling on them at rallies and in tweets to "go back" to their countries of origin. It was a classic Trump move: distract, divert, repeat. When a presidential problem surfaces, the president finds a way to move the problem out of the public eye, relieving pressure on him to solve the actual problem.” (emphasis added)

“Don’t let Donald Trump’s antics distract you from what’s really important. He’s paying fraud fines and collecting bribes — and distracting you with Hamilton tweets. .... Foreign diplomats are booking rooms at Donald Trump’s hotel in Washington, DC because they believe that directly putting money in the pocket of the President-elect of the United States will serve as a bribe that helps them curry favor with him and influence foreign policy.”

Continuing Conservative-Trump Attacks on Science

One of the more blatantly false and damaging partisan aspects of conservatism, conservative populism and the president is their rejection of science they dislike. Conservative attacks on inconvenient truths go back decades but the trend is intensifying under our anti-science president. Attacks on the EPA are not new.

The New York Times reports that the president’s appointees to the EPA posted a draft letter criticizing the president's anti-environmental policies as not supported by science. This was unexpected because Trump appointees presumably were yes-people chosen for loyalty, not adherence to facts, logic or scientific principle. Some of the scientists that the president appointed had ties to the industries they were supposed to regulate. It is reasonable to think that the president will fire and replace these scientists with scientists who will claim that modern climate science is clear that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming or that science contradicts any regulation that the president wishes to gut. The NYT writes:

“WASHINGTON — A top panel of government-appointed scientists, many of them hand-selected by the Trump administration, said on Tuesday that three of President Trump’s most far-reaching and scrutinized proposals to weaken major environmental regulations are at odds with established science. 

Draft letters posted online Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Scientific Advisory Board, which is responsible for evaluating the scientific integrity of the agency’s regulations, took aim at the Trump administration’s rewrite of an Obama-era regulation of waterways, an Obama-era effort to curb planet-warming vehicle tailpipe emissions and a plan to limit scientific data that can be used to draft health regulations. 

A forthcoming rule on water pollution “neglects established science” by “failing to acknowledge watershed systems,” the scientists said. They found “no scientific justification” for excluding certain bodies of water from protection under the new regulations. 

Many scientists on the advisory board were selected by Trump administration officials early in the administration, as President Trump sought to move forward with an aggressive agenda of weakening environmental regulations. During the first year of the Trump administration, more than a quarter of the academic scientists on the panel departed or were dismissed, and many were replaced by scientists with industry ties who were perceived as likely to be more friendly to the industries that the E.P.A. regulates.”

Regarding the president’s proposal to limit scientific data in health regulations, the EPA scientists wrote that “key considerations that should inform the proposed rule have been omitted from the proposal or presented without analysis.” The Trump administration is receiving increasing criticism that policies ignore, distort or unreasonably downplay scientific data despite contrary environmental, public health and legal requirements.

This is more evidence of the corrupt, irrational ideological anti-science corruption that our president brings to bear on policy. Under Trump, the office of the US presidency has become an immoral disgrace.