President Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

President Trump decided to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites.

The big failure here is the United Nations and also the Soviet Union/Russia and the USA historically.  People love to talk about existential threats.  Nuclear war is as existential as it gets.  Allowing proliferation of nuclear weapons is begging for disaster.

A friend recently argued strenuously that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because the USA has nuclear weapons.  He apparently values equality over survival.

His argument reminds me of school systems which conclude that only some students are capable of advanced studies, so they will disallow advanced studies.  They value equality over benefits to society.  (The nuclear equality argument is worse than this education argument.)

I have long felt that if a country starts to develop nuclear weapons, they should be given a short deadline for demolishing those efforts or an international consortium will destroy the site.  (That link goes to my blog on that topic.)

 So, Israel initiated what the UN or Russia and the USA should have done together.

The USA’s involvement, if successful, saved lives because otherwise, Israel would have had to invade to complete the destruction of the sites.

Thus, President Trump’s decision makes sense.

Someone might challenge that, arguing that Iran was not close to creating a nuclear weapon.  My read of the situation is that Iran was a nuclear threat.

Others might argue that we should have continued President Obama’s agreement with Iran.  That agreement was never approved by Congress and wasn’t an opportunity at this time.  More significantly, that agreement recognized Iran’s right to have a nuclear weapon within 15 years.

However, I do think Congress has the authority to declare war.  The question is: How do we involve Congress without tipping off opponents and risking USA lives?  There are probably several ways to do so.  For example:

• Rather than vote to attack Iran, Congress could have voted to authorize the President to use his judgement.
• Congress could perhaps have passed a secret law to direct President Trump to unleash an attack.

President Trump alerted key Republicans but not key Democrats.  That seems inappropriate.

President Trump did not seem to rush to judgement.  Taking time gave Iran a chance to make concessions to establish meaningful discussions.  It also gave Israel more time to create a safe environment for USA jets.

In addition to not involving Congress, I think Trump could have done better in two ways:

• He threatened Iran publicly.  Public threats seem aimed to puff yourself up in front of your constituents.  The disadvantage is that it makes it hard for your opponent to save face.  Their constituency is more likely to react negatively, if they back down.  It is much better to threaten privately.
• He seemed to give Iran a longer time frame (“I’ll decide in two weeks”) then suddenly reversed.

In his speech announcing our great “success” (full text below), Trump:

1. Said “Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”
2. Announced a “spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated”.  It does not seem that we could have known yet how successful we were.
3. Said “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not. Future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.”  Later in the short speech, he said ““There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.”  Those statements contradict #1.
4. Said “So many were killed by their general, Qassim Soleimani. I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue.”  That seemed to be tangential, unnecessary bragging.  Perhaps no harm, no foul.
5. “We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before.”  Not only is this hyperbole, but he earlier said we were not involved with Israel’s effort.

 

Full text of his comments:

“Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.

Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not. Future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.

For 40 years, Iran has been saying. Death to America, death to Israel. They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs, with roadside bombs. That was their specialty. We lost over 1,000 people and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East, and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular. So many were killed by their general, Qassim Soleimani. I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue.

I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done. And most importantly, I want to congratulate the great American patriots who flew those magnificent machines tonight, and all of the United States military on an operation the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades.

Hopefully, we will no longer need their services in this capacity. I hope that’s so. I also want to congratulate the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan ‘Razin’ Caine, spectacular general, and all of the brilliant military minds involved in this attack.

With all of that being said, this cannot continue. There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes. There’s no military in the world that could have done what we did tonight. Not even close. There has never been a military that could do what took place just a little while ago.

Tomorrow, General Caine, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will have a press conference at 8 a.m. at the Pentagon. And I want to just thank everybody. And, in particular, God. I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.”

President Trump deploys troops to Los Angeles

 President Trump deployed 2000 National Guard and 700 Marines to Los Angeles during protests in June 2025.  Some of those troops protected government buildings.

1.      I believe Trump mishandled the situation.  At a minimum, he should have discussed the situation with Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass before acting.  (He may have been looking for an opportunity to deploy forces.)

2.      His effort stimulated additional protests nationwide.

3.      Some people handled the situation well. 

a.        The LAPD seemed to do well, despite being “overwhelmed” according to the police chief. 

b.       I heard a lady who had been an assistant something-or-other on Kamala Harris’s staff speak well about the situation on CNN. 

c.        Most protesters acted properly.

4.      However, Mayor Bass and Governor Newsom were slow to address the issue and contributed to a fertile ground for problems.

5.      The LAPD has about 1,300 fewer officers than a decade ago and about half as many per capita as NYC, despite a much broader footprint.  This spring, Mayor Bass proposed cutting another 400 positions.  (The Wall Street Journal | Page A017Monday, 16 June 2025)

6.      California’s Fast Food Council bars fast-food employers from inquiring into immigration status of employees and applicants.  AB 450 requires employers to notify workers of ICE enforcement and bars them from verifying immigration status without state approval, with fines up to $25,000 for each violation.  (The Wall Street Journal | Page A011Saturday, 14 June 2025)

7.      Representative Maxine Waters stated, on CNN, that demonstrations are non-violent unless people are shot or killed.  The CNN host cited violence several times, unsuccessfully trying to get her to soften her position.  This was the same broadcast that Ms. Harris’s assistant spoke on.  Elsewhere, Ms. Waters consistently denied that violence occurred.  Sadly, this is typical of Ms. Waters.  She urged protesters to “get more confrontational” if Derek Chauvin was not found guilty in the death of George Floyd.  She also urged her supporters to confront Trump cabinet members in restaurants to tell them they were not welcome there or anywhere.

8.      Other than for extreme circumstances, I don’t think it is appropriate to be a sanctuary city or state.  If you’re a sanctuary city normally, you’ve removed a key way to respond to improper behavior.  See my separate piece on sanctuary cities.

9.      I am not aware of demonstrators turning over film of people engaged in destruction or pelting police.  If you’re going to protest, I believe you need to hold your associates accountable.

Sanctuary Cities and States

According to Britannica, there are three arguments for being a sanctuary city:

1.      Undocumented people are less likely to report crimes and to cooperate with police investigations because they fear being deported.  My comments:

a.      I agree with the statement, but not with the conclusion.  People who use drugs are less likely to report a crime or cooperate with an investigation.  Does that mean we shouldn’t enforce drug laws?

b.      The same logic applies to enforcement of parking tickets, child support payments, etc.  It is a slippery slope if you stop enforcing the law.

c.      In normal times, people who have been here a long time and haven’t broken laws are not deported. (Obviously, this argument applies only in “normal” times.  See 3a.)

2.      Sanctuary cities are upholding the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.  My comments:

a.      The 10^th amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

b.      Nothing in the 10^th amendment requires states or cities to be sanctuary cities.  Saying the states are “upholding” the Tenth Amendment is clearly misleading.  That leaves room for an interpretation that the 10^th Amendment protects states that want to be sanctuary states but read on.

c.      Courts have ruled that the Federal government is responsible for protecting our borders.  (Strangely, to me, the courts have ruled that if the Federal government fails to protect a state’s border, there is nothing a state can do about it on its own.)  They have also ruled that the Federal government is responsible for immigration.

d.      The 10^th amendment relates only to powers not delegated to the Federal government.  As immigration control is delegated to the Federal government, it does not come under the 10^th Amendment.

e.      U.S. Code, Title 8, § 1373 (1996) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”  One of the items listed is “Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.”

                                          i.     At least two Federal district courts have found it unconstitutional.

                                         ii.     But the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution) says the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land; state laws cannot nullify them.

f.       The Federal E-Verify law requires all employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all new employees (including U.S. citizens) within three days of hire.  This means that it is Illegal under Federal law for an illegal immigrant to be hired.

                                          i.     But California’s Fast Food Council bars fast-food employers from inquiring into immigration status of employees and applicants.    (The Wall Street Journal | Pg A011, 14 June 2025)

                                         ii.     California’s AB 450 requires employers to notify workers of ICE enforcement and bars them from verifying immigration status without state approval, with fines up to $25,000 for each violation.  (The Wall Street Journal | Page A011, 14 June 2025).

                                        iii.     The above California laws seem to violate the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution) which says the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land; state laws cannot nullify them.

3.      Sanctuary cities protect undocumented immigrants from unjust federal immigration laws

a.      In extreme circumstances, I support this argument.  Extreme circumstances may exist now.

b.      However, extreme circumstances have not existed in general when states and cities have adopted “sanctuary” status.

c.      Furthermore, sanctuary efforts should be selective, aimed at protecting people from unjust deportation.  The biggest issue is whether states or cities that release an illegal alien from prison/jail should cooperate with Federal authorities to turn that released convict over to ICE.  Deporting an illegal alien who committed a crime is not unjust federal law.  So, this third point cannot apply to the key bone of contention.

d.      Proclaiming sanctuary status when immigration enforcement was not unjust removes a key lever of expression if/when such enforcement becomes unjust.  If many jurisdictions passed sanctuary laws in response to unjust enforcement, it would be a strong message.  That message cannot be conveyed if the jurisdictions already have sanctuary laws.

There is another issue not mentioned by Britannica.  States benefit from illegal immigration in several ways:

1. Illegal immigrants are sources of inexpensive labor and will do jobs not filled by citizens.
2. Illegal immigrants count toward Congressional representation, rewarding more political power to states that encourage illegal immigration.
3. Federal education funds are granted based on the number of students, including illegal aliens.
4. States may profit by allowing illegal aliens to qualify for Medicaid expansion.  The Federal government pays 90% of the cost; the states charge the Medicaid providers a tax to fund the state’s 10% share; and the state benefits from economic growth and higher state income taxes.
5. There are probably other such advantages.  For example, states and cities seek Federal grants to deal with immigration issues.

6.      To the degree that such advantages influence politicians, sanctuary laws might not be based on “immigrant rights” idealism.

       Now that our borders are more secure, I believe we should create paths to citizenship for immigrants who have been here a long time, contributing positively to our society.  Doing so, would reduce concern about deportations.

Why I am Pessimistic

This is a message I sent to a Yale, Class of 1969 list serv for political discussion:

I came to Yale from an inner-city high school and was clearly among the more liberal members of our class in 1965.  Despite being a liberal, I was disappointed to see that conservative attitudes were not respected in some sectors of the community.  That has gotten to be worse since then.

Although my friends and associates consider me to be optimistic (because I am quick to jump in to try to solve problems), I’ve always been pessimistic regarding the future of our country.

Politically, I’ve moved to the center, partly because of what I would consider to be my thinking maturing (some of you would obviously disagree 😊) and partly because the standard shifted significantly over time.  I’ve been more fearful of the extreme left than the extreme right because the extreme left infiltrated our institutions, suppressing conservative thought.  January 6^th seemed to confirm that the right-wing threat was less likely to succeed.  The current administration is the first time I’ve felt that the threat from the right is greater than the threat from the left.  (Note: I voted for Biden and for Harris; Progressives can disregard my comments if they’d like to, but they can’t write me off as a crazy Trump supporter.)

Why have I always been pessimistic?

1. All previous great civilizations have ended.  From an early age, I realized our citizens take our freedoms for granted, get very busy in their personal lives, and are not willing to sacrifice for our country.
2. Our education system is a huge problem, particularly in the inner city, with low expectations, low standards, lax discipline, etc.  In addition to attending an inner-city high school, I taught in South Central Los Angeles and East LA.  It is totally unconscionable to trap kids in these “schools”!!  I’m a big fan of public charter schools, particularly in the inner city, but the teachers’ unions fight them tooth and nail.  How do Progressives propose to solve this problem?  Throw more money to support terrible schools and kneecap students with high potential to reduce academic differences.  (Note not in original: People frequently respond that our K-12 may be weak, but our universities are great.  I ask them: How many of the successes in our universities relate to foreign students rather than those educated in our K-12?  For 50 years, I've feared that we'll suffer a lot when the brain drain shifts.  Alas, President Trump is working hard to reverse the brain drain.) 
3. Over time, my pessimism grew because I realized that when a revolution is necessary, it is hard to get everyone on the same wavelength at the same time.  Although a vast majority of our population believes they’d have been American revolutionaries in 1775, fewer than half the population supported it.  (I think I would have been slow to get on board but would eventually have done so.)  A slow developing revolution was much more feasible in the past.  The powers that governments have now is chilling (see how effectively the Chinese repress the Uighurs and the Tibetans with spying technology, ideological training, etc.).

Sidenote 1: I’m glad some of you Progressives have pulled back on your talk about violence.  I know I’m slow to resort to arms, but clearly, we should give our courts and our upcoming 2026 elections a chance.

Sidenote 2, for those who talked about raising arms: Did you support Hillary Clinton when she said that reversing Heller was a litmus test for any Supreme Court justice she would nominate?  If guns are forbidden, how would you counter an armed fascist regime?  In the 1930s, the Queen of the Netherlands introduced gun control, persuading the population that it would make them safe.  When the Nazis rolled in, they found a government list of all the guns in the country and went door-to-door knowing what to demand.  As a result, the Dutch underground had no guns.

4. In our society, most people believe what they want to believe.  We have short attention spans, cherry pick a piece of data or opinion that justifies our pre-conceived notions, and conclude that the evidence supports our bias even if it does not.  We believe the ends justify the means and criticize the other side for behavior we defend when our side does it.  We rationalize bad behavior with the argument that the “other side” did it first.

Sidenote 3: I was never a meaningful donor to Yale because I figured other non-profits needed my money more than Yale did.  But several years ago, I shifted my donations to the Buckley Institute (at a higher level than I’d given to Yale).  If you don’t think that Buckley ad is spot-on, I suggest you test whether you are in an echo chamber.  I agree with Jay, Ben Sasse is outstanding.  One of his earlier articles explained that the challenge in our society is not the extreme right vs. extreme left, but the two extremes against the middle.

Sidenote 4: For those of you who truly believe in democracy, how are you comfortable with Democrats investing heavily in Republican primaries to get their supposedly-feared Trumpists nominated?  How are you comfortable with the Democratic Party pulling major hoaxes in three consecutive presidential elections?  Neither party cares about democracy other than to the degree that it can be used to solidify their power.

5. Forrest Gump is the most upsetting movie I’ve seen.  I’ve never recovered from seeing scenes of Gump with President Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe.  When we lived in small towns, we knew who told the truth and who didn’t.  When our cities got larger and populations got more mobile, we relied on photos and recordings.  If we can’t trust pictures and recordings, how can civilization survive?
6. I’ve been flabbergasted to see every administration incentivize countries to develop nuclear weapons.  Instead of firmly stifling nuclear weapon development, we shower huge financial rewards on a country that develops them, in return for a promise to discontinue.  Why wouldn’t a ruler develop nuclear weapons when it causes enemies to restraint themselves, gives him/her more local support, and then becomes a tremendous economic success because of the bounties offered (sometimes more than once)?  “Existential threats” is a phrase du jour.  Does the nuclear war risk justify pessimism?
7. Biotech, AI, robotics, drones and other technologies encourage great hope, but bring tremendous downside risk that is hard to avoid.
8. Our society does not sufficiently build/encourage character, as partly alluded to above.  We don’t sufficiently respect religion.  (Note: I am agnostic, but I respect that religion builds character, despite some exceptions when religion is misused.)  We prefer to tear down our past heroes, rather than to acknowledge their humanity, with strengths and weaknesses.   We refer to athletes who cheat as “smart”. 
9. We haven’t had a president who tried to bring us together since Bill Clinton.  Both parties seem to have the same view of the USA: there are the far right and far left, one of which reliably supports us and the other will always oppose us.  In the middle, there is a lethargic, distracted group that don’t get actively involved.  So, the way to increase our power is to energize our supporters.  The best way to energize our supporters is to vilify the other side as immoral ogres.
10. It is much easier to lose freedoms than to recover freedoms.  Countries often lose their freedom because the public willingly accepts a dictator to rescue them from something bad.  That has contributed significantly to Trump’s success and may open the door to leftist totalitarianism in response.

It is possible to oppose an administration without painting all its voters as demons.  You can have respectful conversations and find common ground.

Note: I surprised I didn't mention #11 at least.

11. We are creating a huge financial burden for future generations that will crush our country.  Our huge deficit understates the problem greatly because of the unfunded liabilities of our entitlement programs, which are not included in the budget.

12.  Our tort system is out of control with large settlements that have significant economic repercussions.  For example, I have a heart loop recorder in my chest, not because my cardiologist thinks it is necessary, but apparently because his older associate advised him to do it for liability reasons.  (He was explaining to me why it wasn't necessary, then excused himself to chat with an associate and came recommending strongly that they to induce an arrhythmia and if they fail, insert a recorder.  Think how much tort causes in the development of drugs, chemical products such as fertilizers, etc.

13. Bad actors increase our costs tremendously for computer security, etc., precautions, etc.  And regulatory requirements (also intended to avoid bad actors) add even more overhead.  Politicians say they favor small business, but it is extremely difficult to run a small business. 

The problem of jurisdiction shopping and one judge imposing a national injunction

Determination of the legality of various Presidential actions has become problematic in the USA because:

1.      Presidents are claiming expanded powers in executive orders and under emergency decrees.

2.      Opponents are aggressively shopping for favorable district courts in which to file a suit to block the president (for example, the political left typically files suit in California while the political right typically files suit in Texas).

3.      A single judge then frequently issues a nationwide injunction.

We can improve the process by requiring a panel of 3 district judges to hear cases involving the President of the USA (I’m flexible as to the definition of the cases over which such a panel would preside).

The panel could be required to consist of district judges from 3 different states.  There might be a principle determining one district judge and the others might be picked randomly.  (Again, I’m flexible as to the details.)

The advantages would be:

a)      Less power for a single judge to exercise a national injunction, thus addressing item #3 above.

b)     Less ability to shop for judges and less consequence even if plaintiffs shopped for one of the judges, addressing item #2.

c)      The decision would reflect three different judges’ perspectives, which is broader than current practice.  Not only does this bring more expertise and diverse views, it also brings more discussion amongst the judges.

d)     Unanimous decisions would carry much more weight than decisions made by a single judge.  There might be little reason to pursue the issue further.  Such decisions would create less pressure for review than current one-judge rulings.

e)     Even 2-to-1 rulings would be more decisive in the sense that rather than having a close call, perhaps, for one judge, we’d have at least two judges concurring on the decision.  A strong dissent could distinguish cases worthy of further pursuit.

It would be more costly to involve three judges (including travel) and it could take more time (scheduling for example), but those costs seem small for the advantages that would result.

These issues are bi-partisan, so hopefully Congress could pass such reform.  It clearly is within Congress’s scope, as demonstrated by the following history.

Article III of the Constitution grants the federal judiciary the power to hear cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States and grants Congress the authority to fill in details.  The Constitution does not mention district courts.  The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the federal district courts.  In the  Judicial Code of 1911, Congress abolished US Circuit Courts, giving district courts more power.  I have not reviewed how/where the power of district courts to decide cases involving the President is defined.  But, clearly, Congress has the ability to change the rules.

Note: Joel Cohen and Bennett L. Gershman, wrote an article* on this topic in the Wall Street Journal.  They recommended that the Supreme Court require that the judge grant an automatic stay of [5] days to allow an appeal.  The appellate court would be required to decide the case within [30] days.

Their suggestion seems superior if the cases would be rarely appealed, because, in that case, their suggestion would save time and money.  My suggestion seems better if the cases were likely to be appealed, because it would avoid the cost and time for two hearings.

Rep. Laura Libby denied speaking and voting rights in Maine Assembly because of Transgender Facebook post

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/rep-laurel-libby-supreme-court-transgender-athlete-facebook-post-c35a3c1c?st=ayp86t&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink:  Maine State Representative Laurel Libby posted a picture of a student on the podium for winning the girl’s pole vault (see below), which allowed her team to win the state title by one point.  She showed a public picture showing the winner previously competing in the boy’s pole vault, criticizing ME law that allows transgender males to compete in female competitions.  It is my understanding that she named the student.  According to the WSJ, the Maine constitution allows the House to expel members with a 2/3 vote.  By a majority vote, the Democrats censured her for endangering the student and demanded that she apologize.  When she refused, the Speaker banned her from speaking and voting in the House, under a law based on someone being in breach of House rules.  The Democrats claim they did not expel her, and that it was “modest punishment” that merely required her “to apologize”.  According to a poll cited by Fox, 64% of the Maine public opposes permitting transgender athletes to compete in female competitions (29% approve; 7% undecided).  Ms. Libby had been banned from representing her constituents for three months when the Supreme Court removed her punishment pending resolution of the complaint.  Justices Sotomayor and Jackson objected.  The WSJ reported that Jackson called the decision “both inequitable and unwise”.  I think it is more pertinent that Justice Jackson opined that the watering down of the court's standards for granting emergency relief is hardly a model for sound decision-making and will cause a surge in requests for 'extraordinary' intervention — at earlier and earlier stages of ongoing lower court proceedings.

Here's my take:

• Ms. Libby could have made her point without posting the pictures and naming the athlete.  She should have been willing to apologize for identifying the athlete while reiterating that it was appropriate for her to cite the incident and criticize state law.  (I’m guessing the Democrats would have accepted that, ending the problem.  If not, then they’d be more clearly wrong.)
• Taking away her right to represent her constituents indefinitely seems to be an inappropriate penalty.  They already had censured her.  I think that was enough.
• Justice Jackson has a good point, but taking away a representative’s right to vote indefinitely is significant, so I would have voted with the majority.  However, I would have liked the WSJ to publish that aspect of Justice Jackson’s complaint.  I think they could have fit it into their editorial; if not, they could have published a more complete article and referred to it.

Are libraries permitted to curate book lists?

U-S-_&_World_Page_46.pdf: TX Supreme Court ruled 10-7 that Llano County library can remove 17 books due to their content on race, gender, sexuality and children’s books that contained nudity.  “All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collection.”  “Such decisions are very subjective, and it’s impossible to find widespread agreement on a standard to determine which books should or should not be made available.”  According to the majority, the plaintiffs felt “that libraries cannot even remove books that espouse racism.” 

The dissent wrote “Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas.”  “But this case concerns the politically motivated removal of books from the Llano County Public Library system by government officials in order to deny public access to disfavored ideas.”  The majority “forsakes core First Amendment principles and controlling Supreme Court law.”  “Because I would not have our court ‘join the book burners, I dissent.”

I side with the majority here.  This clearly is NOT book-burning.  It is the library's responsibility to reflect the community's standards.   The plaintiffs should ask the library to create an appeal process.  If the library is unwilling to do so, they should seek a law.  The policy/law might work as follows:

1. The library will make a book available (or unavailable) if a majority of voters express their desire for that book to be available (or unavailable).
2. If [30%] of the number of voters sign a petition to request that a book be made (un)available and the library refuses to do so or fails to act within a year, that book will be voted upon in the next election (but not sooner than [6] months).  (CT: the percentage required has to be high enough to dissuade rampant activity and to make it likely that the voters would agree.)
3. Each book on the vote list will require a separate response from the voter.
4. When the public has voted to make a book available or ban a book from the library, the library will comply for at least [10] years.  (CT note: the library has to regain discretion eventually.)
5. A book that has been voted upon cannot be reconsidered by voters for another [3] elections unless the library reverses the (un)availability or at least [50%] of voters sign a petition.

The Wall Street Journal link below describes many publishers refusing to publish a book by an award-winning author because that author was not the right race to author that book.  I find that objectionable, and it affects the book's availability not just its availability through public libraries.  My first inclination was that the publisher can choose what to publish.  The author in this case was able to find another publisher, and it is relatively easy to self-publish these days.   However, on further thought, this seems to be a situation of racial discrimination.

https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/why-my-new-novel-about-racial-conflict-ran-into-trouble-53a53f54?st=XotXic&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink  

Some minority authors say publishers won't publish their books if their writing is not related to their experience.  The following links might be of interest to you.

Diversity Syndrome: On Publishing’s Relentless Pigeonholing of Black Writers ‹ Literary Hub

Should Authors Write Characters Outside Their Race? - The Good Men Project

I wrote a book about Black queer joy and pain. It's already been banned in 10 states

Response to a classmate's posting on our college listserv

A Yale classmate wrote the following on our class listserv: “The right wing media juggernaut, oligarch money and voter suppression easily account for Trump’s victory.”

I responded as follows: 

I been a “never Trumper” for many decades but am a centrist who tries to credit each side for things they do well and criticize each side where appropriate (sadly most of the time).

Jeff, could you explain “oligarch money”?  Perhaps you are referring to the terrible idea of accepting an airplane from Qatar.  But I inferred you were talking about political donations.  Kamala Harris raised $1.994 billion compared to Donald Trump’s $1.453 billion, according to https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race.  The left has lots of major donors.

As to the “right wing media juggernaut”,  my main news television station is CNN, which, while claiming to be independent, is strongly biased to the left.  Consider:

·        On May 14^th, Jake Tapper admitted he was wrong to hide President Biden’s cognitive difficulties.  That was proof of bias but a welcome suggestion that he (CNN?) wanted to improve.

·        That was followed immediately by a CNN poll that 76% oppose “major cuts” to Medicaid.  They railed about how terribly unpopular it is to make major cuts to Medicaid.  What if they had had the integrity to ask:

o   Do you think able-bodied people without dependents should qualify for Medicaid if they don’t, for at least 20 hours/week, work in a paid or volunteer capacity or pursue education?

o   Do you think people who qualify for Medicaid should continue to get benefits even if they no longer qualify?

·        The previous day, a guest speaker had said that President Trump’s “most favored nation” requirement for government payment for drugs was the same as President Biden’s approach.  CNN did not challenge that statement.  But President Biden’s approach empowered the government to set a maximum price.  If a manufacturer did not accept that price, it could be hit with an excise tax.  (See the progressive Kaiser Family Foundation.)  HUGELY different!

As regards “voter suppression”, where is the evidence?  If interested, you can read a blog I wrote several years ago:  Voting Laws and Voter Suppression.

I am active in the “No Labels” movement which encourages politicians to reach across the aisle and educates voters to try to protect those politicians who do so.  Both parties punish their politicians who do so.  We have great public webinars with outstanding guest speakers.  If you’d like more information, let me know or click here to register on No Labels website.

By the way, unlike Jeff, I entered and left Yale as a liberal (although I was disappointed that conservative voices were sometimes unwelcome at Yale even in that era).  Like Jeff, I taught in the Los Angeles inner-city upon graduation (Jefferson HS and Belvedere JHS).  I saw the same problems he did and supported bussing (which may be what he refers to as “worked for school desegregation”).  However, when I joined the union and participated in a teacher’s strike, I became uncomfortable with the union.  I’m a strong advocate of public charter schools, which the teachers’ unions fight tooth-and-nail.  It is tragic and unconscionable that we have wasted many generations of inner-city youth (of various races) and continue to do so by forcing them to accept inferior education.

President Trump's second term

Although a never-Trumper, I credit him for good things he does (e.g., Trump did some good things as president, 8Jul23).  I continue to do so (ask me for detailed comments if you'd like).

Sending Venezuelans to El Salvador is NOT a question of appropriate/inappropriate deportation.  The Trump administration sent those people to a high-security prison.  It is like sending them to Siberia, indefinitely or permanently, without due process.  This is much worse than deportation!

(Even people willing to sacrifice other people’s rights should be concerned about the terms of the deal.  How are we paying to this?  But more fundamentally, what if your child had been sent off?)

Trump is also intimidating attorneys and law firms.  So far, he has pursued Paul Weiss; Perkins Coie; and Jenner & Block because he disagrees with things they have done.  He has suspended security clearances for their lawyers, restricted their access to government buildings and officials, and barred them from federal contracting work.  He took action against two attorneys at Covington & Burling for having represented his opponents.  Such intimidation discourages attorneys from defending clients on causes Trump might not like.  It causes clients to shy away from the law firms to avoid Trump's enmity.  He has also reportedly directed DOJ to recommend similar actions against firms representing immigrants or that sued the government in the past 8 years.  This is a clear parallel to Nazi Germany (https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/legalcomm-sept13-pdf-1.pdf). 

He says dissenting judges should be impeached.

Consider the following: First, he imprisoned Venezuelans in El Salvador; I did nothing because I figured most of those people deserved it.  Then, he intimidated attorneys; I did nothing because they weren't my attorney.  Then, he intimidated judges; I did nothing because they weren't judging my case.  He has also started intimidating the press, but I'm doing nothing (not sure why).  When he comes after you or your loved ones, who will be left to protect you/them?  You likely recognize that I'm re-phrasing Martin Niemoller’s famous quote.

A good companion quote is from Rabbi Hillel: “If not you, who?  If not now, when?”

Relative to the phone call that permitted the reporter to join, I don’t believe people should necessarily be fired after making a mistake.  That person may be less likely to make that mistake in the future than a replacement employee.  However, firing people for blatantly lying to Congress is appropriate!

I have written that Separation of Powers has been the most critical factor in the success of the USA.  It is under threat:

1. Congress fails to do its job.  Citizens must push Congress to do its job and reward those politicians who do their job well.
2. Both parties undermine the judiciary to promote their party’s interests over the country’s interests.  President Trump seems to be trying to overwhelm the judiciary with a blizzard of challenges to existing laws.
3. Trump claims broad powers.  Though he is partly making changes that reduce executive power, concentration of power is scary.  He does things he aptly criticized Biden for doing.

Internationally, President Trump has abandoned the USA’s traditional values-based world leadership.  I acknowledge that we often failed in that regard, but President Trump’s “might makes right” approach seems to be hurtling us toward George Orwell’s 1984, in which 3 super-powers carve up the world.  In addition to bullying and ridicule and outright denial (e.g., discussion of detailed war plans is not classified information), Trump’s negotiation style includes frequently changing positions to keep others off-balance (e.g., tariffs are variously about trade balances, jobs, security, fentanyl, etc.)  Unpredictability can be effective (I believe it would have kept Putin from invading Ukraine), but it often secures short-term gains at the expense of long-term results.

President Trump’s inconsistency makes it harder to discern his end game.  That is probably his intended result.  Freedom is fragile; it is much easier to lose freedom than to regain freedom.

A huge problem for the world is that the USA has not had a president who tried to unite us since Bill Clinton.  Both parties believe: The large “middle” is too lethargic, busy, or distracted to get involved in politics.  The people on the other extreme can’t be persuaded, so the way to maximize power is to energize their “base” by taking extreme positions and lying about their opponents to make them look like ogres. 

Democrats don’t recognize that their excesses and lies led to Trump’s re-election.  Trump supporters should be upset that his lies, excesses and communication needlessly alienate many people, which will undermine Trump’s supporters’ goals in the long-term.  (I’m working with No Labels to help educate the “middle” and to encourage them to push Congress to do its job and to reward politicians who put the country’s needs ahead of partisan politics.  Such politicians have a lower re-election rate because their parties punish them for being principled.)

Today’s complex world makes government greatly more difficult than in 1787.  While it makes sense for Congress to rely on the Executive’s staff to flush out details, the Executive’s plans must then be voted on by Congress.

I don't know how to attach my spreadsheet, but you could ask me for a copy.

My comments on the "Review of Actions" spreadsheet are organized alphabetically under the following topic areas: Budget, Culture, Education, Executive Orders, Foreign Policy, Government, Judiciary, Nat'l Security, Pardons, Self-Aggrandizement, and Staff.

My ideas are not fully formed, and I am very open to your comments.  I can update this spreadsheet in the future.  Currently it addresses 65 topics, so you'll likely want to be choosy about what you read.  On the right side of the spreadsheet are columns noting repeated characteristics.  For example:      

·        I noted 4 areas where his efforts would reduce Presidential power in the future.

·        I noted 17 comments where he is exceeding his authority in my opinion.  I'm confident that many liberal readers would wonder why I did not check that column more often.

·        I noted 29 issues in which he has unnecessarily alienated people.  This is a huge weakness of his.  Even people who agree with his actions should be very concerned that he is ginning up tremendous opposition and is positioning himself to clamp down on rights.

·        Of course, I noted a lot of areas in which he was rude, a bully or vindictive.

Some readers who support Trump may think I'm allowing my anti-Trump bias to affect my interpretations.  To them, I would say:

1)     Note how often I indicate positives about Trump’s positions or actions.

2)     A person's character is important.  Trump's track record has to inspire distrust.