After the First Presidential Debate

I just finished listening to the first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Here’s what I took away:

• The moderator, Chris Wallace, failed to maintain control of the debate;
• Trump was his usual rude self, interrupting and talking over Biden;
• Wallace should have cut Trump off the first time he tried to take over the narrative;
• The best way the debate could have been br0ught under control was to allow the moderator to mute the candidate that didn’t have the floor;
• Biden performed ok, but he was outclassed in the contest to take control of the narrative.

I don’t know how the pundits will judge this debate, but my personal opinion is that Trump won, simply because he seized the narrative.

If you watched the debate, I would like to know what you think. Answer below in the comments.

Economic and Political Enlightenment From Hellas

This morning I watched a YouTube talk by Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis, former financial minister of Greece. The audience was the Cambridge (Massachusetts) Forum, an intelligent assemblage of locals, including students and faculty from surrounding colleges. 

The title of his presentation: Is Capitalism Devouring Democracy?

The lecture is followed by a question and answer session. Varoufakis's answers are as enlightening as the lecture.

He first relates the economic history of England from around 1400 to the present, emphasizing the effects of the enclosure movement and its role in the industrial revolution. He ties these developments to the growth of finance and shows how financial institutions like banks gained power over the political system. He then explains how it has led us unaware into the unhappy condition we now face— like the rest of the world.

This video is a must for anyone who wishes to understand how this historical process gave us Donald Trump. Watch it. This is important stuff.

Thoughts on the Worst Case Scenario on November 3, 2020

 

I didn’t think it possible that US politics could get any worse, but it has. Those employed to investigate such matters have amassed substantial evidence that Trump plans to remain president at all costs. He will likely contest the election to the extent that it would be up to the Supreme Court, stacked 6–3 with conservative judges. He expects the Supreme Court to decide the election in his favor, just as it did for George W. Bush in 2000.

As I see it, the democrats can overcome this scenario by landslides in the Senate and House of Representatives, in which case the legislature could impeach Trump, either before or after he takes office, as the case may be. The new Congress meets the first business day after January 1, 2021, and has until January 20 before the inauguration.

Without a landslide, the Senate, composed of shameless lemmings, will do Trump’s bidding. Even if there is a landslide in both houses, nothing will happen unless the new Democratic Congress is willing to expand the Supreme Court to allow a Democratic president to appoint additional justices. Beyond that, it can do little other than impeach, which is probably not in the cards.

A more drawn-out, iffy course of action would be an amendment granting Congress the power to nullify Supreme Court decisions by a 3/5 or 2/3 majority of both houses. A slightly more limited congressional power would allow nullification only if 2, 3, or 4 justices dissent from the decision. The amendment could limit Congressional power to nullify judgments only when one or more of the dissenters vote to submit the disputed issue to Congress.[1]

At first blush, such an arrangement might not even require a constitutional amendment. The Constitution empowers Congress to establish rules for federal courts, create inferior courts, etc.

There is a problem, however, regarding the Article III phrase “judicial power.” The annotations to Article III at the Cornell University website cite US Supreme Court decisions holding that final judgments of the Court are not reviewable by the other two branches. Chicage & Southern Air Lines, Inc., v. Waterman S.S. Corporation. Civil Aeronautics Board v. Same, 333 US 103 (1948). If my hypothetical statue allows Congress or the Executive to review a judgment of the Court, it has no jurisdiction over the case.

To change this would require a Constitutional amendment.

---

1. Congress would determine the number of justices.  ↩

Healthcare: Will We Learn?

I just returned from a follow-up visit at one of the finest cancer hospitals in the world. The doctors were first-rate, the technicians and nurses seemed to know almost as much as the doctors, the equipment was the newest and best, and the atmosphere in this institution where so many children and adults suffer and die from incurable cancers was unexpectedly warm and caring. Almost everyone, even children with head bandages walking down the hall, was smiling.

Between Medicare and a costly private medical insurance policy, my bill totaled zero. My only expenses were transportation to and from the hospital, lodging, and meals. I am lucky; I would have almost certainly died seven years ago without Medicare and private insurance.

U. S. citizens under 65 are not eligible for Medicare, and as a federal retiree, my private policy is subsidized by the U. S. government. Otherwise, it would be beyond my means.

Only a small minority enjoys these kinds of benefits. Many who barely scrape by earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid but not enough to buy a decent medical insurance policy. 11.4% of the population is uninsured, amounting to approximately 34 million people. These are the people who have slipped through the cracks in the system. When they become sick, they must resort to hospital emergency rooms and incur medical and hospital bills they have no hope of paying.

Thoughts About Anti-Semitism

The New York Times ran an absorbing story about the movement of ultra-orthodox Jews out of New York City into deteriorating neighborhoods of northern New Jersey and New York. Typically, they buy up blocks of boarded-up houses and construct what amounts to Jewish enclaves, with synagogues, community centers, and shops selling kosher food and other goods specific to Jewish practice. The influx of newcomers has been the source of worry among long-time residents who are concerned that the new arrivals will alter the existing culture in undesirable ways.

Orthodox Jews are industrious, frugal, and law-abiding, but they keep to themselves and seldom socialize with the goyim[1]. Reading the article prompted some thoughts.

The Shadow

According to Carl Jung, we are usually aware of a small fraction of our thoughts, experiences, and memories. The remaining matter resides in the subconscious. Jung named this mental structure the shadow. Consciousness, it has been said, is a peanut floating in the vast sea of the subconscious.[2] It is invisible because the mind cannot deal consciously with the firehose of sensations and the tsunami of thoughts with which we are daily bombarded.