Supreme Court Religious Decisions (Coach Kennedy; Maine school stipend)

 If I favor Supreme Court decisions protecting freedom of religion, I think my opinion is noteworthy because I am agnostic.  Clearly, I am not taking a stance that will work to my personal benefit.  It seems clear that I am evaluating based on principle.

I acknowledge that some members of my family have strong religious beliefs and that some attend religious schools, but none are in situations that would be affected by these rulings.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

The facts of the case are clear and agreed to, by all parties. 

1.      Coach Kennedy continued some unconstitutional practices that had been going on before he arrived at the school, and he added some unconstitutional practices of his own.  After many years without incident, the school district insisted that he stop such actions and he complied.  The case is NOT about that activity.

2.      Coach Kennedy subsequently took 30 seconds to pray silently at mid-field after the football games, not in the company of students.  For that, he was fired.  The case relates to these prayers and his firing.

It seems odd to argue that his personal silent 30-second prayer away from his players was an example of government establishment of a religion.  If so, what religion?  How would a “reasonable observer” know for sure that he was praying?  If the observer presumed he was praying, to which God was he praying?  Might he have been praying to Pokemon gods?

The first amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

No party related to this case has noted that the first amendment refers only to Congress.  Apparently, it has been broadly accepted to restrain the actions of any government entity.

Clearly, all these restrictions are intended as a package to protect each individual’s right of freedom of religion.  The School District perceived a potential conflict between Coach Kennedy’s rights and the rights of his students.  How were his students’ religious rights harmed by his actions?  They were off singing the school fight song when he said his silent 30-second prayer.

The School District maintained that a reasonable observer could (mistakenly) infer that the District endorsed Mr. Kennedy’s message.  I question whether a reasonable observer would reach such a conclusion and if they did, the School District could clarify that it did not endorse any religion.  Beyond those counterarguments, I wonder what “message” was being endorsed.  Again, both parties agree that he was silent for about 30 seconds, separate from his students.  How does that establish a religion?  What message does that convey?

The Court ruled that Coach Kennedy engaged in “private speech” done alone on private time.  Despite wild claims to the contrary from some conservatives and some progressives, the ruling clearly does not permit school employees to lead students in prayer at school.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent seems embarrassing.

She continually cites Coach Kennedy’s previous actions which are not part of the case.  He had ceased all the practices that were unconstitutional, and the School District had acknowledged so.  Those previous actions were not related to his dismissal.  Yet, Justice Sotomayor wrote:

·        “this Court consistently has recognized that school officials leading prayer is constitutionally impermissible”

·        “The record reveals that Kennedy had a longstanding practice of conducting demonstrative prayers on the 50-yard line of the football field.”

·        “Kennedy consistently invited others to join his prayers and for years led student athletes”

·        “The other team’s coach told the principal that he thought it was ‘cool’ that the District “would allow [its] coaches to go ahead and invite other teams’ coaches and players to pray after a game.”

·        “The District Court found, in the evidentiary record, that some students reported joining Kennedy’s prayer because they felt social pressure to follow their coach and teammates.”  This argument has a particularly interesting flaw (besides being irrelevant because it is unrelated to the behavior in question in this case).  Clearly, we want to avoid students feeling coerced by a coach/teacher/etc. to participate in religious activity.  Apparently over the course of all those years when Coach Kennedy did lead players in prayers, the School District was unable to find a single student who felt compelled to participate to please the coach in order to earn playing time, etc.  Some chose to participate because they wanted to be with their friends.  What is the problem here?

·        There may well have been other such comments in her dissent.  I did not try to log them all.

Justice Sotomayor cites “the severe disruption to school events caused by Kennedy’s conduct”.  But the School District acknowledges that Kennedy’s unconstitutional activities went on for many years WITHOUT ANY disruption.  The disruption resulted from the School District dismissing Kennedy.

Ms. Sotomayor points out that “The county is home to Bahá’ís, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and many denominations of Christians, as well as numerous residents who are religiously unaffiliated.”  Someone walking on the scene might infer that Coach Kennedy was praying but they would not know to which God.  Contrast that with a Muslim who prays to Mecca or wears a hijab.  In those cases, it is clear that the behavior reflects Islamic faith.  Should the Muslim behavior be disallowed?  Is wearing a chain with a cross disallowed?  I don’t think such behavior should be disallowed.  If such behavior should not be disallowed, then clearly Coach Kennedy’s behavior should not be disallowed.

 

Sources:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-supreme-court-coach-prayer-schools-602630743738

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf

 

Carson v Makin (Maine grants for students not supported by public schools)

Maine is the most rural state in the USA.  Some areas find it non-economic to provide public education, so the state provided $12,000 for each student, but restricted use to non-sectarian schools.  29 private schools participate in the program, enrolling 4,526 students.

It seems quite clear that this discriminates against religious schools, as the Supreme Court appropriately observed. 

The Supreme Court dissent by Justice Breyer argued that, by allowing money to be used in a religious school, the state would be establishing a religion.  To me, this argument holds no water:

1.      It does not specify any particular religious school.  A student could attend any qualified school, regardless of religion.  So, how is it establishing a religion?

2.      A student can select any non-sectarian private school, hence is not forced to attend a religious school at all. It is only at the student’s volition that the student attends a particular religious school.  The state has not established that school, the student has exercised his/her own free will.

3.      I think a student could also opt to attend a non-local public school.

Further, Justice Breyer argued that excluding religious schools was helpful in “avoiding religious strife”.  Au contraire, the only related “religious strife” was caused by the state’s exclusion of religious schools.

As the Supreme Court pointed out, the state could offer other alternatives, such as remote learning, local public education, improved transportation to other public schools, or even boarding schools.  Such activities would not unfairly discriminate against religious schools.  The unfair discrimination occurred when the state chose to support private nonsectarian schools but not private religious schools.

The Supreme Court clearly did not suggest that states need to support religious schools.  The Court solely said that if state or local government decides to allow public money to pay for education at private schools, it cannot discriminate based on religion.

This case is consistent with two other recent cases, appropriately decided:

a) Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, in which the justices ruled that Missouri could not exclude a church from a program to provide grants to non-profits to install playgrounds made from recycled tires

b) Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, holding that if states opt to subsidize private education, they cannot exclude private schools from receiving those funds simply because they are religious.  (essentially an identical case)

Sources:

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/despite-supreme-court-ruling-maines-religious-schools-face-hurdle-to-state-tuition/2022/06#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled%20Tuesday,learning%20of%20a%20new%20hurdle 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/

West Virginia v EPA, No. 20-1530 (Supreme Court)

 I have not read deeply about this ruling, but my thoughts are influenced by the following experience and years of concern about the issues related to this case.

In 2010, I was involved in a private meeting that approximately 15 long term care insurance experts had with two Federal regulators tasked with implementing the CLASS Act (a long-term care insurance program that was supposed to be part of “ObamaCare”). 

The regulators’ intentions clearly violated the Act.  When I asked them how they could do something contrary to the wording of the Act, one responded “I’m comfortable doing so because we’re making it better.” (may not be an exact quote but the meaning is accurate).  The other then added “We might not get away with it.” (that is an exact quote)

As the world is much more complicated than at the founding of our country, I recognize that legislators don’t have the expertise to define laws precisely.  Since that meeting in 2010, I’ve advocated that Congress should ask the Executive Branch to fill in the details of an intended bill, then to send it back to Congress for approval.

The practice described above could be time-consuming and awkward.  It might extend across different Houses and/or Senates so the votes that might have existed to pass the bill in the first place might be gone by the time the analysis is returned.

Furthermore, the staff cannot foresee everything.  The public should be able to comment, which adds further to the timeline.

The timeline can be shortened with a quicker request from Congress or with the Executive Branch starting analyses prior to a request from Congress.

Even if this process worked smoothly, we’d need to be able to react if something went wrong.  Could specific power be granted to deal with such issues?

As per my previous writings, I believe Separation of Powers is the key to our success and our future.  Therefore, I have not been comfortable with the growing power of the Executive branch administrative staff, the use of Executive Orders by Presidents of each party, the failure of Congress to do its job, etc.

I hope West Virginia v EPA will help shake up Congress to force it to improve.  We’ll need pressure from the voters and likely other changes to make this happen.

In the meantime, it could be chaotic.

Unfortunately, Congress’s performance is poor.  How can we improve it?  Here are some ideas:

1)     Consider outlawing practices that the parties use to undermine compromise.  I’m not expert in this area but I think there are other such practices that are questionable.  I’m just trying to get discussion started, more so that strongly advocating specific steps.

a.      The Leader of the House generally does not allow a bill to come to the floor unless it is supported by a majority of the majority party.  If the majority has 51% of the seats, 73% of House members might want to vote for a bill but not be able to bring it to a vote.  If the majority has 60% of the seats, you could still have 70% of the members wanting a bill but not being able to bring it to a vote.  This is disgusting, hence should be outlawed.

b.      Party bosses use committee assignments, etc. to force members to toe that party’s political line.  Maybe we need some reforms in those areas.

c.      If the Executive branch submits a bill, it should get a timely vote.

d.      Politicians use tricks to avoid having to get agreement between the House and Senate on inconsistent bills, such as by pushing the envelope on what can be considered under budget reconciliation short cuts.

2)     I support the filibuster (which encourages compromise).  However, I think the filibuster should require continuous speaking as it did in the past.  There may be other modifications I would support.

3)     I believe Ranked Choice voting would help to address this problem, as I’ve written elsewhere.

4)     A strong (moderate) third-party would also be helpful.  Prior to the Trump administration, I felt that a third-party would not be helpful.  But now, both of our traditional parties are dominated by extremists, hence neither party seems able to represent the broad center of USA politics.

5)     There are other reforms that would/might be helpful that are not directly related to this topic:

a.      Executive nominees should get a vote in a reasonable time frame.  A situation such as Merrill Garland’s should be illegal.

b.      Congress uses a variety of inappropriate accounting mechanisms, akin to Ponzi schemes and check-kiting.

c.      I think ‘litmus test’ questions for Supreme Court candidates are improper.

Sources:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843 (Supreme Court)

 (also general comments on gun control)

This decision deals with Second Amendment rights.  I have never owned a gun of any type, although I had a rifle assigned to me while in the military.  I shot that rifle several times at training sites, but never in combat.  Furthermore, I have never been a member of the National Rifle Association or any other group (other than the military) related to weapons of any type, nor am I a weapon collector. 

The above statement indicates that any support I provide to gun rights does not serve personal interests other than my general interests as a citizen of the USA.  However, in fairness, I note that I have been tempted to secure a gun because my worst nightmare is seeing one or more other people accosted and not being able to help defend them.  Such risks are increasing in our society and seem likely to continue to increase, with or without gun control laws.  I am not expert in these issues, but I am concerned.

This case builds on the outstanding 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

Our country has been, at least in some respects, increasingly unable to protect our citizens and in some cases has intentionally failed to protect citizens (e.g., during riots and afterward).  Yet some politicians have wanted to preclude citizens from protecting themselves.

It is relatively easy for people who live in gated communities or other safe places to preach disallowing guns, but people who live, work in, or travel through more violent neighborhoods can suffer serious consequences from such laws.  People intent on doing harm may find access to guns on the black market, by 3-D printing, etc.  They may attack in numbers and perhaps armed with non-gun weapons.  How can people defend themselves?

·        What about the single mother living in a drug-infested neighborhood (who has had the courage to call police about drug-pushers)?

·        What about the small business owner or manager with a cash register and inventory?

·        What about someone transferring cash to a bank?

·        What about a person who has been threatened?

·        What about a private security guard?

·        What about a vulnerable retiree or handicapped person?

·        Etc.

Some gun laws have been clearly too restrictive.  In Heller, the District of Columbia wanted to turn gun control into a total ban on guns or at least a nearly total ban on guns.  At least some of the above profiles reflect people who were forbidden to have a gun in DC.  When states create too high a bar for someone to justify bearing a gun, those same problems occur as with a ban.

Heller rejected the DC law.  As a result, it allowed people to retain guns in their home for self-defense.  In NY State Rifle & Pistol, the Supreme Court extends that right to concealed carry outside the home, permitting the state to restrict gun ownership in reasonable ways.  The Supreme Court said that the state could not require that a citizen provide adequate justification to get a permit; rather, the state had to demonstrate why a permit should not be granted or create reasonable boundaries, etc.

I’d certainly want to bar states from arbitrarily denying such licenses.  Requiring applicants to explain their need does not seem unreasonable to me, but clearly it has led to arbitrary denials.  The Court’s interpretation of the constitution seems clear and reasonable.

Justice Breyer’s dissent opined that the majority did not provide enough clarity as to permissible restrictions.  I would certainly have given careful attention to his comments in that regard.  So, I can’t be sure how I would have voted, had I been a justice on the Court.

Before reaching a conclusion on this case, I’d want to read the arguments as to whether the State has a compelling reason to abrogate a Constitutional right.

Semi-automatic weapons can be created through 3-D printing and that technique can also create high-capacity magazines that could circumvent limits on assault weapons, sears that could weaken control on fully-automatic firearms, and pistol braces that undermine limits on short-barreled rifles.

So, clearly, no matter what we do, we won’t end all gun violence.  Justice Alioto asked rhetorically “Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?”  He also asked “And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”  (We don’t know how many gun deaths would be avoided.  Unfortunately, a limited time trial won’t give us good information because the effectiveness of a gun law should increase over time.  A limited locale restriction may also produce weaker results than would be the case with a broader area of gun control.  What did NY do relative to people bringing guns across state lines?)

However, reducing gun violence is a worthy goal and gun control seems likely to help.  We must also consider other steps.

Proponents of gun control cite that we have a lot more gun murders than comparable countries with fewer guns.  That’s persuasive, but we could also make that same comparison two or three decades ago.  Did the excessive number of guns in the USA at those times result in similarly higher gun mortality in the USA?  I think a lot of cultural change issues have also contributed to the increase in gun murders, some of which politicians have contributed to.  (Politicians rarely question their own behavior.)  Again, the point is that some gun control laws are both reasonable and legal, but we should also seek other ways to reduce violence. 

This Supreme Court decision permits gun laws such as limiting ammunition and capacity; limiting licenses due to age or “for cause” reasons.  It allows requiring waiting periods, finger printing, background checks, training in gun management and laws, etc.  So, there is a lot that can be done.

Hunting and recreational gun use does not require rapid-fire automatic weapons.

I suppose there could perhaps be different standards relative to concealed carry vs non-concealed carry.  I’m not prepared to address that.  Concealed carry may be safer.

The more we limit places where guns can be brought, the more we’ll need secure gunports outside such locations, so people can disarm before entering.  I remember seeing such storage facilities commonly outside banks in European countries decades ago.

I worry about unlikely occurrences that would have major detrimental impact, particularly changes that would be difficult to reverse.  Throughout my life, others usually tell me that those societal, governmental, economic, etc. situations “could never happen here”. I retort that believing they could never happen here encourages us not to be vigilant, which ends up making them more likely.  It is a whole lot easier to lose freedoms than to regain them once lost.

Thus, I’m concerned that an autocratic government could subjugate our freedom.  Both the extreme left and the extreme right are threats in that regard.  Strict gun laws could make it easier for government (or organized crime) to impinge our freedoms. 

Jack van der Geest was a member of the Dutch underground during WW II (and he did much more; I STRONGLY recommend his book “Was God on Vacation?”).  One thing I learned from his book is that Queen Wilhelmina introduced gun registration in the late 1930s, explaining how safe it would make the Netherlands.  Shortly thereafter, the Germans rolled into the Netherlands, secured the list of registrations and went house-to-house knowing exactly what weapons to demand.  As a result, the Dutch resistance to the Nazis had no guns.  Of course, that reinforces my under-lying fear.  In fairness, I acknowledge that the Dutch have maintained strong gun control despite that history, and it has worked well for them since then.

I also acknowledge that even without gun control, it could be hard to defend ourselves for a variety of reasons.  Separation of Powers is a MUCH better defense.

As I am more comfortable with gun control when separation of powers is enforced, the current Supreme Court makes me more comfortable with gun control.  However, efforts to centralize power make me less comfortable with gun control laws.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/supreme-court-ny-open-carry-gun-law.html

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-acts-scotus-ruling-invalidating-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law#:~:text=The%20New%20York%20State%20Senate%20passed%20legislation%20in%20response%20to,concealed%20carrying%20of%20a%20firearms.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

10 (Obvious?) Lessons to Learn from Russia’s attack on Ukraine

2025-03-30 update: The Trump administration continually sacrifices Ukraine's position prior to detailed negotiations with Putin.  If Putin appears to have "won", Putin and Xi and other aggressors will be emboldened.  Trump has rattled international confidence in the USA with his lies and by endorsing brute force to settle issues.  This will have detrimental long-term impact.  (It may be acceptable to allow Putin to "save face" internally, but President Trump's administration's wording has gone far beyond that.)

It is important to remember that the USA, as well as Russia and Ukraine signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994 in which Ukraine committed to full nuclear disarmament in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.

2022-07-10 update (but not new thoughts).  2023-10-15: one new item regarding how Biden caused Putin to think he could attack Ukraine with impunity.  

We have not (at least not publicly) supported Ukraine in controlling its airspace or shipping routes nor in being able to strike points in Russia.  Perhaps surreptitiously, we have done so, which would be a good way to do it. 

I don’t think I have to explain the importance of air space and shipping routes.

If the Ukraine can't hit targets in Russia, the Ukraine can defend itself only by destroying its country and putting its citizens at risk.  Furthermore, there is little deterrence for Russia if their sites are safe.  And Russian citizens are less likely to understand what is going on if Ukraine can't hit Russian targets. 

The Ukrainians are not only defending themselves, they are defending many European countries.  We and Europe should help them win the war, rather than hamstringing them with likely increased Ukrainian casualties and compromised territorial integrity at the end.

Earlier I updated 4i, 10b and 10f.

Here are 10 lessons to learn from Russia’s wanton attack on Ukraine.  Unfortunately, we need to learn these lessons over-and-over again, which suggests that our education system, media and politicians need to improve significantly in this regard.

1. We believe what we want to believe; we must get out of our echo chambers.
2. “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  (Lord Acton, paraphrasing earlier statements by others.)
3. Nuclear proliferation must be resisted more forcefully.
4. To secure peace, it is important to project strength.
5. Short-term destruction of the coal, oil and gas industries is not a good idea.
6. Spending on guns vs. butter must be balanced.
7. CNN and media attention impact history while reporting it.
8. Democracies must band together to protect each other.
9. The USA is a good country, albeit with flaws that can be addressed.
10. Too little, too late is insufficient.

1.      We believe what we want to believe; we must get out of our echo chambers.

a.      This problem seems to be increasingly widespread and endemic.  We must seek alternate ideas and consider them respectfully. 

b.      Many Presidents and many media commentators misread Putin despite ample evidence (Chechnya; Georgia; Crimea I and II and continual statements about his intent to re-build the Russian empire).  They believed what they wanted to believe then.  Now they don’t want to believe/admit they were wrong, so they claim Putin has changed.

c.      Kudos to Madeline Albright for being an exception, admitting she was wrong to mock Mitt Romney in 2012 when he said “Russia is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.”  Certainly, you could disagree as to #1, but President Obama, VP Biden and Secretary of State Albright skewered him for what appeared to me to be political reasons but may have been due to amazing, serious naïvete. 

d.      A friend suggested, prior to the invasion, that an agreement should be reached giving Russia the then-contested Ukrainian provinces.  When I objected that such an action would whet Putin’s appetite for further aggression, he dismissed my comment, saying the domino theory had been disproven in Viet Nam.  His comment makes no sense but was comfortable for him because it supported what he wanted to believe.  Saying that Viet Nam disproved the “domino theory” is like saying if a basketball player misses a shot, she will never make a shot.  Furthermore, the Viet Nam domino theory related to guerilla communist movements; I was talking about the actions of a bully.

e.      The “Speak Your Truth” movement started admirably, encouraging people to have the courage to speak up.  Alas, it morphed into encouraging people to tenaciously cling to distorted views, as whatever idea you might come up with was blessed as your “truth”.

f.       Throughout my life, I’ve heard people say “all human lives have equal value”.  But the overwhelming majority clearly don’t practice what they preach.  They are virtue-signaling, perhaps mostly to themselves.  I’ve asked people if their neighbor’s life is as important as their family’s life; if the life of someone across town is as important as their neighbor’s life; if the life of a person living in a far-away USA state is as important as the life of someone living across town; and if the life of someone in another country is as important as the life of a USA citizen.  Clearly almost everyone puts a higher value on some lives than others.  The Ukraine situation highlights that inconsistency:

                                          i.     Most people consider Ukrainian lives expendable to keep the rest of us from being exposed to the risk of WW III.

                                         ii.     The lives of Russian soldiers and the losses their families will grieve rate even less concern.

2.      “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  (Lord Acton, paraphrasing earlier statements by others.)

a.      See my earlier blog about the importance of Separation of Powers.  Sadly, too many of us support centralized power because they think it is more efficient and/or more fair or because they believe that centralized power will produce desirable political outcomes.

b.      As a young person, I strongly subscribed to the “more efficient and more fair” perspective, but I’ve learned that I was naïve in that regard.  Benjamin Disraeli said “A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart.  A man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head.” (Anselme Batbie is the first person documented to have made such an observation; George Clemenceau is another.)  I certainly have observed that the idealism of my youth, while admirable, did not lead to conclusions that would most benefit mankind.

c.      Term limits is an attempt to reduce this impact.  Although I appreciate the intent, I have a preferred approach.

d.      The idea of packing the Supreme Court is a cardinal example of undermining Separation of Powers.  It is one of many “slippery slopes.”

3.      Nuclear proliferation must be resisted more forcefully

a.      Please see my earlier blog in which I explained how our governments have encouraged countries to develop nuclear weapons.  If a country develops nuclear weapons, we offer huge enticements to discontinue.  The return on investment is attractive.  Meanwhile their military strength is recognized by other countries and their leaders can strut in local politics.

b.      Now, we’ve spotlighted that countries should never agree to surrender their nuclear weapons.  In 1994, the USA, UK and Russia convinced Ukraine to surrender their nuclear weapons in return for guarantees that they would not threaten Ukraine sovereignty.  Russia has now flagrantly broken that treaty.  The USA and UK position is that they have not violated the treaty and did not promise, in the treaty, to provide defense if a party violated the treaty.  The USA and UK position is consistent with the treaty wording, but why should a country surrender nukes in the future?

c.      Nuclear war is clearly an existential threat.  World leadership should dramatically alter its approach, as per my blog on the topic.

4.      To secure peace, it is important to project strength.

a.      Putin invaded Ukraine because he had a reasonable expectation that he would get away with it.  Excuse me for addressing this at length below.  It seems important because some people with whom I’ve discussed this issue have clearly significantly misunderstood the image that the world has had of the USA.

b.      The US government, led by President Biden, and the West, in general, projected weakness.  We led Putin to believe he could invade Ukraine at little cost.  Shame on us.

c.      To be fair, Biden was handicapped coming into office by President Obama and his involvement in that administration, by President Trump (cuts both ways; in some ways an advantage) and by some of his own past actions.

d.      Campaigning for President the first time, then-Senator Obama urged mediation when Putin invaded Georgia while Senator McCain took consistently stronger stances against Russia.  At the time, Obama’s position did not stand out as particularly weak, but with his subsequent actions, the pattern became clear.

e.      The “Obama administration deferred to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s concern that lethal-arms assistance to Ukraine would only prolong a war that that country was bound to lose, and it refused to provide such support.”

f.       President Obama reacted mildly to Russia’s incursion into Crimea.

g.      He declared a “red line” in Syria, then decided he did not want to enforce it (he pretended to change his mind as to his authority, so he could blame Congress for not enforcing it).  Under his watch, USA influence in Syria dropped and Russian influence grew dramatically.

h.      The above comments d-g should not generate much disagreement from readers.  However, some people might disagree with my belief that President Obama showed weakness relative to Iran, Cuba and by undermining Israel, etc. and that candidate Biden indicated that he would resume some of those positions.  [Disclosure: I voted for Barack Obama the first time he ran for President, but not the second time.  I voted for Biden in 2020.]

i.       President Trump handicapped Biden and encouraged Putin by disrupting NATO politically and with harmful tariffs.  He espoused what sounded like an isolationist policy.  (Trump’s actual behavior was more volatile, not consistently isolationist, which I think Putin recognized.  Trump fired missiles at Russians twice in Syria, once in combination with the French and British.)  However, Trump’s behavior made Biden’s election very well-received.  NATO welcomed a President who would bring them together.  Trump’s demand that NATO countries honor their commitment to spend 2% of their budget on defense made it easier for Biden to re-build relations but to insist on the 2% (Biden abandoned the 2% as far as I know, but I may be wrong).  Biden was harmed in that even if he proved to be a strong ally for NATO members, Trump caused NATO members to fear that a future president might shy away from NATO again.

j.       Note: Biden has done a good job of bringing NATO back together, but Putin seems to have stimulated the NATO rapprochement more than Biden did. When Biden abandoned Afghanistan, he did not coordinate with NATO allies who were supporting our efforts.  He also has kept damaging tariffs in place.

k.      Biden may have been hurt by his past, but I am not expert in that regard.  Gates said that Biden was wrong on foreign policy a remarkable percentage of the time.  Even if that were accurate, “wrong” does not necessarily mean “weak”.  Biden has been criticized for not wanting to attack Osama bin Laden’s compound.  Not having been involved in the discussion, I can’t criticize that position, but it may have contributed to Putin thinking Biden is weak.  (Even sound decisions may be (mis)-interpreted to be weakness.)

l.       Biden’s precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan certainly encouraged Putin.  Biden’s repeated statements that he took full responsibility (while blaming the Afghans, Trump, and his own staff) exposed a very weak leader.  When the Bay of Pigs invasion failed, President Kennedy took responsibility.  He did not try to shift it to the victims or his staff.  Although the Bay of Pigs plan was developed in the Eisenhower administration, JFK was silent about that, taking responsibility.  President Biden said Trump’s agreement with the Taliban bound his hands, but the agreement was dependent on conditions the Taliban did not meet.  It was Biden, not Trump, who decided to waive those requirements.  Furthermore, Biden actually did change the agreement, delaying its date, despite later saying that he couldn’t change it.  [Disclosure: I did not support Trump’s agreement with the Taliban; excluding the Afghan government from the discussions seemed to me to be a bad idea.]

m.    Biden promoted a budget overwhelmingly tilted toward “butter”, not “guns”.  The European democracies have done that for a long time, increasingly relying upon protection from the USA.  The USA has underfunded the military for a while.

n.      Demands to de-fund the police and the presumption that police were guilty when incidents occurred were significant to foreign observers.  We were unwilling to defend our cities from lawless looting.  If the USA lets lawless people take over Seattle, why would Putin think the USA would defend Kiev?

o.      Biden focused his administration on climate change and choosing leadership based on identity not just capability.  Climate change is a real issue and I applaud some of Biden’s steps, such as procuring environmental vehicles for the government.  Asking the military to assess and consider climate change is a good idea, but should be done quietly to avoid the impression that Biden was taking his eye off security.  For political reasons, Biden preferred to spotlight it, which I thought was not a good idea.  If he wanted to spotlight it, he should have at least kept a public focus on security as well, but he did not.  People like to say that perception is reality.  I don’t agree.  The perception that Biden was focusing the military on climate change may not have been reality.  But perception impacts reality!

p.      Clearly, we have many people of minority races, religions, sexual preferences, etc. who are outstanding.  Because their talents have not been recognized in the past, it makes sense that they would comprise a higher percentage of appointments than their percentage of the population (this could be partially offset by their lack of experience if they have been held back by prejudice).  Here, again, President Biden’s approach may not have reflected reduced concern about competency, but it added to an impression that the USA is weak.

q.      Strongly favoring the left wing of his party, Biden strengthened Putin’s hand by his positions related to coal, oil and gas.  He reversed the USA’s opposition to Nord Stream 2 and lifted sanctions against one of the construction companies, thereby undermining Ukraine as well as helping Putin make Europe more dependent on Russian gas.  He declared that he wanted to put the coal industry out of business and also warred with the USA oil and gas industry.  He then begged other countries to boost production of energy that he was trying to quell in the USA.  Why did it make sense to shift energy production (and jobs) to other countries whose industries pollute more than ours?  Why did it make sense to undermine our security and ability to wean Europe off Russian oil?  Clearly, President Biden put domestic politics (catering to the left wing of his party) above sound practices.  Of course, that’s going to encourage Vladimir Putin to attack Ukraine!

He publicly contradicted President Zelensky's claim that NATO was ready to accept Ukrainian membership.  (Inserted on 15Oct23; quoting from Walter Russell Mead in the Wall Street Journal of October 10, 2023.

r.       As mentioned in my blog about voting rights, President Biden’s rhetoric has continually divided us rather than bringing us together.  I recognize that most other people who voted for President Biden will not agree, but I think that gets back to point #1.

s.      When Putin amassed his forces, President Biden immediately encouraged him by emphasizing that the USA would not defend Ukraine.  Does anyone really think that President Biden’s declarations that the USA would not get involved somehow discouraged Putin from attacking Ukraine?

t.       President Biden even made the horrendous mistake of indicating that Russia might make a “slight incursion” that might warrant a softer reaction.

u.      President Biden and the West have done an excellent job of creating tough sanctions, but only after the fact.  Likely, President Biden would not have been able to convince NATO allies to take a strong stance sooner.  Likely, he did not want to do so himself either.  What possibly could Putin have expected?  Any intelligent person other than an extremely cautious person would have expected that the threatened sanctions would be weak.

v.      President Biden did a very good job of exposing what Putin was preparing to do, but his wording was injudicious.  He kept saying "Putin is going to attack” rather than saying that “Putin has marshalled his forces in a way that would support an attack”.  His choice of wording would have made Putin look weak if he backed down.  Putin is not someone who wants to be viewed as backing down.

5.      Short-term destruction of the coal, oil and gas industries is not a good idea.

a.      I’ve explained this above in 4p, so I won’t re-hash it.  But it is an important strategic position hence deserves to be highlighted.

b.      It is worth understanding that I have been an environmentalist for at least 60 years and have lived my life, done advocacy and invested consistently with those principles.  I’d love to see renewables replace coal, oil and gas and have worked to help that to occur.  So, when I argue against the left’s vendetta on conventional energy, it is not an attack on environmentalism.  It is simply a call for sanity.

c.      I have always feared radioactive nuclear waste.  However, I’ve grew to recognize that nuclear might be a good transitional source of energy.  And nuclear fusion avoids the risk of radioactive waste or at least hugely reduces it. 

6.      Spending on guns vs. butter must be balanced

a.      As noted above, President Biden over-emphasized (in my opinion) butter over guns.  It is clearly a tough issue.

b.      Note: I have mixed feelings about gun control.  Hunters don’t need Uzis and it makes sense to restrict gun rights for stalkers.  Other restrictions may also make sense.  But I am haunted by the Dutch, who put in gun control immediately before WWII.  When the Germans rolled into the Netherlands, they found a government list of the guns that were owned, allowing them to go door-to-door to confiscate those guns.  What if Ukrainian citizens were not allowed to have guns now or if Russia got their hands on a list?  People often tell me “that could never happen here" (on issues other than guns as well as related to guns) but such attitudes increase our risk.

7.      CNN and media attention can impact history as well as reporting it

a.      I remember CNN reporting from Tiananmen Square in 1989. It was an incredibly revolutionary moment (please excuse the pun).  For people around the world to see what was going on in real time was incredible.

b.      When CNN showed Boris Yeltsin getting on that tank, I realized that CNN’s presence not only is educational, it actually changes history.  Yeltsin’s efforts might have ended differently without CNN.

c.      Now in Ukraine, CNN’s efforts have made the world more aware and more united in opposition to Russia’s efforts.  CNN has undermined Russia’s disinformation campaign.  The question now is “How long will the world’s resolve last?”

8.      Democracies must band together to protect each other

a.      Martin Niemoller said it more effectively than I can: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Socialist.  Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Trade Unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew.  Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

b.      I made this point in my January email to my Congresswoman, Sharice Davids (see my January 22nd blog).

c.   Ukrainian President Zelensky has argued effectively that Ukrainians are fighting to protect democracy everywhere.

9.      The USA is a good country, albeit with flaws that can be addressed

a.      I’ve never been an “America, love it or leave it” person.  Patriotism includes helping the USA live up to its ideals.

b.      Clearly, it is important for us to understand our history and our weaknesses.  A person or country who does not acknowledge its weaknesses handicaps its ability to improve and a person or country which does not acknowledge its past mistakes is likely to repeat them.

c.      Nonetheless, we have reason to be proud of our country.  Our constitution and principles totally changed the world, putting people in charge of the government and, as I’ve explained, elevating the most critical principle: separation of powers.  While we are flawed, we’ve improved significantly.

d.      I believe we can improve further.  It is healthier for us to identify as USA citizens and work for our common interest rather than to band according to various subcategories, focus on real and imagined victimhood and fighting on behalf of those subcategories.

e.      My local newspaper (the KC Star) published an editorial calling upon those who oppose pandemic restrictions to calm their "tyranny" rhetoric, recognizing the difference between the USA and Russian or Chinese tyranny.  I agree, but it was unfortunately characteristic that the KC Star would observe such lack of appreciation of our country only on the right and would ignore it on the left.  To achieve their goal of bringing us together, they should have been non-partisan.

f.      It is clear to me that I should have done more to help the USA improve but I sadly seem to have a better track record in this regard than most people.  (I say “sadly” because it would be much better if most people had made efforts greater than mine.)  My point here is not to brag but simply to make clear that I am not an apologist for improper behavior.

10.   Too little, too late is insufficient. 

a.      I fear that the support we are providing to the Ukrainians is “too little; too late”.  As President Zelensky said, strong sanctions on Russia for gobbling up the Ukraine do not help the Ukraine, as it will have already been sacrificed.

b.      I recognize the counterargument that supporting the Ukraine more strongly could have enflamed Russia’s fears or at least have enabled a Russian disinformation campaign.  But what friend tells you that you aren't going to be admitted into NATO because doing so would encourage Russia to attack you, then says they won't defend you if Russia attacks you anyway?

c.      Such issues need to be discussed more fully in our government circles and by non-government citizens (see #1). 

d.      Defensive weaponry may have been a good solution.

e.      A non-aggression pact may have helped.

f.       Will the Western resolve hold up?  Once the shooting stops, many people and countries are likely to want to end sanctions.  Some will want to end sanctions to benefit their economies.  Others will say the sanctions have no purpose at that time.  Still others will argue that we need to end the sanctions so that we have the threat of re-applying them if Putin attacks another country.  These arguments miss the point: The sanctions were widely and appropriately characterized as a "punishment"; they were not intended to protect Ukraine; they were intended to dissuade future attacks.  If they turn-out to be short-term sanctions, their deterrent value will be reduced.  I agree that they should not be permanent, but a strong case could be made that they will continue until Ukraine is again free.  Practically speaking, that seems very unlikely.  So what is the proper sentence for such aggression and killing?   Ten years does not sound unreasonable and could be a strong deterrent.  However, I fear our weak-kneed Western "leadership" will abandon peace efforts again by eliminating the sanctions relatively quickly.

g.      I know I don’t have all the answers.

Calling out the NY Times for calling a "no fly" zone tantamount to a declaration of war

 In its March 11 editorial, “The Price of Putin’s Belligerence”, the NY Times wrote “to enforce a no-fly zone above Ukraine … would be tantamount to a declaration of war”.  Calling a peace-keeping mission a “declaration of war” is Orwellian.  The New York Times has shockingly provided documentation to support Putin’s, or any aggressor’s, future claim that a no-fly zone is a declaration of war, thereby carelessly undermining future world peace.  You may oppose establishing a “no-fly zone” because you feel it increases the risk of a confrontation with Russia, but that does not justify labeling a peace-keeping mission “a declaration of war”.  With the NY Times’ logic, had Russia sent tanks into Ukraine without firing and the Ukraine had defended itself by attacking a tank, the Ukrainians would have been the side that started the war.