Featured

Posted on June 28, 2022 by Lloyd Muller

History of US Supreme Court Decisions and Roe vs. Wade

Dear Readers,

My friend, Rusty, to whose wisdom I have long listened, posted on Facebook the entire decision paper of the Supreme Court regarding the validity of Roe vs. Wade. Considering its effect on the American populace, it’s well worth reading. My comments are offered here. Please be advised that this will be a rather long treatise, so knowing this, proceed at your own pace and risk. Also, be advised that this paper does not comment on the wisdom of the Court’s decision to overturn Rose vs. Wade. Everyone must decide for themselves on this matter. This paper’s purpose is to help readers understand how the Court could change its mind on this important matter.

First, before beginning, I would recommend a book that addresses the issue of how our system of jurisprudence came to be. Entitled, Empire of Liberty, its author, Gordon S. Wood, outlined the early legal history of our nation. The issues he recorded in the first 50 years of our nation’s legal history can be seen again in Roe vs. Wade.

This decision drew heavily on the influences of common law and statutory law. As defined in Wikipedia, common law is:

In law, common law, also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law, is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.^[2]^[3]^[4] The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis).[1]

This type of law is differentiated from statutory law which is defined as: “… a law that is determined by legislation or a legislative branch. This is the official classification of a ‘statute.’” [2]

Since American law has been strongly influenced from colonial times by British law, these definitions are important to know. Later parts of this discussion will be referencing them. Specifically, British common law existed long before Parliament was organized. It governed the actions of everyone from the king on down. Daily lives were governed by it until Parliament came into being. Under it, statutory laws governing were added to the traditions of common law. An example of this was its development of real estate laws. Prior to the Black Death plagues, the common law mandated a person’s status on the basis of birth. Nobility was nobility and serfdom was serfdom for generations. But rampant deaths caused this principle to become ineffective. The laboring classes were decimated and created a scarcity of workers that increased their value to society. With Parliament’s passage of the Statutes of Laborers in 1351, a statutory law was enacted to manage this new situation. This legislation clearly surmounted the pre-existing common laws.[3]

At the time of the American Revolution, the Enlightenment Movement was in full force. Knowledge was gained through reason. Thinkers thought the British mixture of common and statutory law was a confusing muddle. Rational thinking they thought could legislate laws of such precision that jurisprudence had only to access them for all legal issues. In effect, they envisioned a decision-tree logic.[4] As the post-Revolutionary War time passed, such thinking was seen as a wishful. Common law and its principle of stare decisis came to be accepted again as a necessary and valid part of American law.[5] Since that time, a conflict has festered between the effects of statutory law as ultimately exemplified by the Constitution and its interpretation by the influences of common law. This conflict can be seen full force in the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate Roe vs. Wage.

It is ironic that the Republican Party, which has been the traditional party of business, is now often seen as wanting the Constitution narrowly interpreted. Such is the bias of the Republican appointed justices seen in the Roe case. In early America, business proponents led by Alexander Hamilton saw strong banking systems as the vehicle to advance America’s industrial strength, wanted just the reverse or an expansive interpretation of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, a proponent of traditional agricultural values and who hated banks, urged a narrow interpretation that would have fenced in the activities of banks that he saw as antithetical to the interests of yeoman farmers. His party ultimately became the Democratic Party of today that advocates a liberal vision for the Constitution.[6]

The importance of this divide between Hamilton and Jefferson is how people have since seen judicial roles as expansive or restrictive. How the court would move was determined by the men appointed to the Supreme Court. Washington, for example, nominated men of an expansionist “federalist” persuasion as exemplified by his secretary of treasury, Alexander Hamilton.[7] Franklin Roosevelt, 140 years later, confronting the conservatism of a Supreme Court that thwarted his progressive ideas for economic recovery in the face of the Great Depression, wanted to expand its membership and dilute the power of “Nine Old Men.”[8]

What does this short history lesson say? It says that the laws that govern our nation are enacted and interpreted by men who have conflicting ideas that are rendered presumably in good faith. Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes stated it well in 1907 when he declared, “The Constitution is what we say it is.” Then, as these solons define it, all citizens are expected to abide by it until further review changes a standing interpretation. This obligation stems back to an ancient common law that emerged from the Magna Carta, which was an agreement between the Crown and the land’s nobility stating that the king, too, much live under the law and rule in accordance with it.[9] Thus, enabled by the political choices made by President Trump for replacement justices, the Court’s current majority rule through a narrow vision of the Constitution.

In their denunciation of Roe vs. Wade, they relied heavily on the Constitution’s silence of on abortion and the plethora of legal history by the states forbidding abortion. Thus, they were not lying or contriving. Rather, they were exercising their duties as they saw them when weighing the facts in the case. Whether the public would like their decision was not their concern. Their lifetime tenure removes them from the passions of the electorate. This makes the Supreme Court justices free to issue rulings based on their interpretation of our nation’s laws, rather than political favor. Noted legal scholar, Michael Meltsner, said,

“That was put into the Constitution to preserve the total independence of the judiciary… Once a justice is confirmed and takes a seat on the court, they’re not beholden to anybody… This makes Supreme Court justices free to issue rulings based on the law, rather than political favor.[10]

This independence can be seen how these same conservative justices decided against the assertions of President Trump that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. Had they been merely political hacks, such would not have occurred.

Does their decision invalidating a constitutional rule about abortion spell the end of the controversy? Not hardly. For example, the current Republican candidate for Pennsylvania governor, Doug Mastriano, is an unequivocal foe of abortion…even in cases where a mother’s life is in danger.[11] Now, this is definitely a stage for conflict between statutory law and common law. If his stance were enacted by statute, a pregnant woman in danger for her life would have no choice but to accept a possibly inevitable death. This violates the ancient common law of self-defense. As a retired career soldier, Mr. Mastriano would understand the right of a soldier to act in self defense against a foe. Likewise, police and civilians have the right to self-defense against any “clear and present danger.” Why can’t a woman facing a clear and present danger by the person growing inside her have the right to self-defense? Such a question would certainly attract the attention of the Supreme Court and possibly offer an exception to their existing ruling. Other .

Finally, the Supreme Court does and has reversed itself, which makes further review of Roe vs. Wade possible. A classic example is their decision in “Brown vs.The Topeka Board of Education.” In it, the old standard of “separate but equal” was denounced when Chief Justice Earl Warren opined that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”[12] This decision overturned a standard that that had been in effect since 1896 when the Supreme Court upheld segregation in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case.[13] This change was due to Thurgood Marshall’s argument that the sciences of sociology and psychology indicated that segregation inherently engendered an unequal learning environment. As the court stated in their 9 to 0 decision, “To separate [black children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.” Thus, it seems possible that Roe vs. Wade might be revisited at a later time when scientific evidence dictates a change.

Meanwhile the arguments will continue at the state level. The overturning of Roe vs. Wade essentially remanded the issue back to the state level because its decision essentially said that a federal level affirmation of abortion was unconstitutional under the Constitution. Here, the arguments presented before the Supreme Court will be re-argued before state courts. But, if the doctrine of self-defense were presented, it could boomerang the issue back to the Supreme Court. That is, under the separation of powers clause of the 10^th Amendment, Pennsylvania could state that since Roe vs. Wade had been remanded back to the states, it had the power to legislate any abortion doctrine it wished. Thus, the common law of self-defense contradicting a state law could become a national, or federal issue on abortion.

This discussion was intended to show how the current justices could legitimately overturn Roe vs. Wade despite strong public sentiments to the contrary. However, this discussion would not be complete without a cautionary note to conservatives who advocate a literal “black letter” interpretation of the Constitution. Be careful what you wish for… A complete insistence on literal interpretations of the Constitution could result in unintended consequences. For example, Indian tribes west of the Mississippi could conceivably try to argue before the Court for a separation of their lands from the territory held by the United States in 1783 at the end of the Revolutionary War. Specifically, the Constitution is silent about acquisition of new territories. Indeed, Jefferson, the stalwart of a restrictive Constitution, doubted his right to buy the Louisiana Territory from France. An amendment to the Constitution would have clearly cleared this hurdle, but he was afraid that the bargain basement deal for the purchase would fall through. Thus, he found himself expediently adopting an expansive interpretation of the Constitution.[14] Under these circumstances, the Indian tribes might argue that since France had no clear title of purchase for the land from the indigenous peoples living there they couldn’t sell what it didn’t legally own. For the US government operating under a rigid Constitution, it had no express authority to buy it. In sum, between the two parties lack of legal basis to transact the contract, the purchase on its face was illegal. Consequently, the lands should be returned to their proper owners. This case would really tie the Supreme Court justices into knots and create a maelstrom of protest that would make Roe vs. Wade seem mild. So, again, be careful what you wish for…you might get it.

[1] “Common Law.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law. 6/26/22.

[2] “What Is Statutory Law?” Study.com. https://study.com/learn/lesson/statutory-law-overview-purpose-creation.html. 6/26/22.

[3] Senn, Mark A. English Life and Law in the Time of the Black Death. Page 574. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20785740. 6/26/22.

[4] Wood, Gordon S. Empire of Liberty. New York, NY: Oxford Press. 2009. Page 403.

[5] Ibid. Page 405.

[6] Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. Kindle Reader. Location 8152.

[7] Op Cit. Wood. Page 412.

[8] Halabi, Gina. “Roosevelt Versus Nine Old Men.” U.S. History Scene. https://ushistoryscene.com/article/fdr-v-supreme-court/. 6/27/22.

[9] Magna Carta. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta. 6/27/22.

[10] Callahan, Molly. “Why Do the Supreme Court Justices Have Lifetime Appointments?” News at Northeastern. https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/09/21/why-do-supreme-court-justices-have-lifetime-appointments/. 6/27/22.

[11] “Where PA’s 2022 Candidates for Governor and Senate Stand on Abortion?” Philadelphia Enquirer. https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/abortion-pennsylvania-candidates-2022-midterm-governor-mastriano-fetterman-shapiro-oz-20220624.html. 6/27/22.

[12] Greenhalgh, Max. “Thurgood Marshal and Brown v. Topeka Board of Education..” https://www.historicamerica.org/journal/2021/5/18/2bn3bmvuyicx25gpi2fetg1lmykgma. 6/28/2022.

[13] “Plessy vs. Ferguson. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Plessy-v-Ferguson-1896. 6/27/22.

[14] Kelly, Martin. “Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase.” Thought Company. 6/27/22.

What’s What

Posted on April 11, 2024 by Lloyd Muller

This blog entry is a letter responding to an invitation to join a group interested in discussing current affairs in a thoughtful manner. Two more such entries will be added here. As others are written, they will be included here.

Gentlemen,

First, again, thank you for inviting me to this discussion. I’m honored to be included and encouraged to express some thoughts. But now a couple of points. First, I’m a retired college professor and no answer from me is short. So, be prepared. Second, some background about Mr. Fareed and me. He is a Muslim, and I am a Jew. Between us, we have our biases. He will tend to favor Palestinian positions and I will tend to favor the Israeli side. That’s just the nature of things despite our efforts to honor facts.

These facts, as Churchill once said, “United wishes and good will cannot overcome brute facts.”[1] Frankly, most news casts, and particularly, their pundits, ignore brute facts and proceed blithely into false idiocies. Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, was a master at this art. So, for this essay, I’ll try to cite sources for each of my statements to ensure they conform to concrete facts. My promise if we are to achieve a good understanding of how the world got into this mess in the Middle East. Incidentally, reliance on facts should prevail in the Ukrainian war.

This discussion seems to have come from Dr. Clark’s research into the Balfour agreement. Taken at face value, it does indicate a separate state for the Jews and another for the Palestinians. In fact, there was some recognition of this possibility. However, the Balfour Agreement was a vague document that reflected the various attitudes of the Europeans and the Arabs.

In general, there was a misconception that Palestine was an empty land. As early Zionist leader, Chaim Weizman, claimed with apparent general agreement among his peers, that Jews should settle in Palestine as it “was underpopulated, with plenty of empty space.” This conceit belied the existence of 700,000 people whose roots in the area were very old. The Arab delegate, Feisel, did not generate any strong protest about a Jewish settlement, and, in fact, had a friendly meeting with Weizman in which Weizman donned an Arab headdress. From it, Weizman reported that Feisel did not “place much value on Palestine: ‘He is contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn’t regard as Arabs.’” Still, both men were cautious about a Jewish state. Weizman talked only about a “settlement” and Feisal hedged his support with a requirement of conferring with his father, the Hajaz king.

The British envoy, Balfour, was emotionally committed to finding a homeland for the Jews. This comes through clearly in the letter cited by Dr. Clark. There was another motive to this support: blocking French dominance in the region that stemmed “from an ancient claim to Palestine” as protector of the Catholics living in the area. A Jewish population was seen as an effective blockade. However, the British had made numerous promises to Arab leaders during the War in hopes of gaining their support against the Ottoman empire. Those promises were expected to be met. Consequently, British diplomats had a straddle a fine line between support for a nascent Jewish settlement by any name and meeting Arab aspirations in the Middle East.

The Americans had just returned from the war Europe to end all wars. They felt they had done their job and renounced their position as a world-leader in place of a rising sense of isolationism. Eventually, the Senate would discard Wilson’s dream of a League of Nations. But still another fact had arisen in America. The Jewish population had grown immensely during the early decades of the 20^th century. Before WW I, American Jews numbered 250,000. Afterwards their population had grown to 3 million. Clearly, this number of voters meant something to American politicians even if they personally didn’t like Jews very much. [2]

There were people at the Balfour Conference who were clear in their ambitions. They wanted a Jewish state for Jewish people. Theit ambition ran counter to the vague statements and intentions of the envoys there. Weizman, would have perhaps wanted to advocate for a state, but he was cautious of pressing for it. That event would arrive in 1948 after the Holocaust when the United Nations, representing the majority will of world’s nations decided that indeed Jews needed a safe harbor. Immediately afterwards, Arab nations attacked in the War of Independence. Since then Israel has fought eight wars and a number of insurgencies. These conflicts would lead to world conferences and agreements such as the Oslo Agreement. As of now, Egypt and Jordan have honored their agreements even through very trying times.

The Gaza Strip had been controlled through these times by Egypt and used as a refugee camp until the Six Day War when Israel took it. It controlled the territory in keeping of their apparent policy of “You start the war; we keep the land.” The Oslo Agreement directed the establishment of a Palestinian government that would be under direction of Palestinian Authority. This authority was directed by Yasser Arafat who “renounced ‘terrorism and other acts of violence’ against Israel.’” This pledge was quickly broken, and the U.S. labeled the PLO a terrorist group. Subsequently, in 2005, under the direction of Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, Jewish settlements were evacuated and the IDF left the territory. In 2007, by elected victory, Hamas replaced the PLO and has remained its government since.[3]

The political position of Hamas is the establishment of a Palestinian government over the entire territory. It has never recognized the legitimacy of Israel. At best, it accepts Israel’s existence as a “fait accompli.” As cited in Wikipedia:

In 2007, Hamas signed the Fatah–Hamas Mecca Agreement.^[335] At the time of signing this agreement, Moussa Abu Marzouk, Deputy Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, said regarding the recognition of Israel: “I can recognize the presence of Israel as a fait accompli (amr wâqi‘) or, as the French say, a de facto recognition, but this does not mean that I recognize Israel as a state.”[4]

The policies of Hamas throughout its tenure have been the destruction of Israel and establishment of a Palestinian state. It has engaged in limited warfare that can be identified as “asymmetric.” This type of warfare can be typified as “guerilla warfare” in which the weaker nation engages in protracted insurgencies; attack and retreat; and usage of unlawful, civilian attired troops. Its purpose is the exhaustion of the larger, conventionally equipped nation such that it will accept the political terms of the weaker state.[5]

Included in its weaponry is the use of human shields. As defined in Wikipedia, these actions are the “deliberate placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets.”[6] An example would be housing combat forces in a hospital. Such actions are considered to be war crimes under the Geneva Convention and Rome Statute.[7] In the current war, usage of human shields not only provide some modicum of protection for its military and political forces, it also offers a political advantage of currying international outrage when news reports parade images of terrible human suffering.

This tactic puts Israel in a difficult, tenuous position. Since civilian populations wear no uniforms, they cannot be separated into “weapons of war” and innocents. Therefore if Israel forbears from attacking any of them, they leave Hamas with a significant military advantage. If they attack the civilian population at large, as they have done to obliterate the militarized segment, they incur international wraith as has happened. “They can’t win for losing” is a good way of describing their situation.

This type of warfare has a long history in America. Out Revolution was largely fought by irregular forces in asymmetric warfare against Britian. There are two books that describe well the problems Britain faced in combatting these insurgents. They are Cornwallis and the War of Independence and Redcoats and Rebels. Later we fought a prolonged asymmetric war against the Indians. A good book about them is The Origins of Native Americans. Finally our colossal failure in Viet Nam.

The great writer about war, Carl von Clausewitz, once stated that all wars are politics raised to a higher level of intensity. That dictum can be seen in this essay about the Middle East conflicts. Political leaders have been deciding the fate of Middle Easterners for more than a century. Thousands have died as a result: Muslims and Jews alike. In the UN decision to create Israel, Palestinians were forced from their homes never to return. I have personally spoken with refugees from this action. They were bitter. Israelis can be likened to the White settlers who decimated the Indians. Yet, Israel exists and will continue to exist just as the United States exists and will continue to exist. Will we give our land back? Not a chance. As Senator Hayakawa once allegedly quipped when asked about returning land, “Never. We stole the land fair and square.” Neither will Israel return its land.

These leaders are all following the calculus of their political positions. Consequently, from their perspective the questions must be asked: “Why should Hamas make peace with Israel?” “Why should Netanyahu stop bombing Gaza civilians?” “Why should President Biden completely adopt Fareen’s ideas?” From this perspective, the answers to these questions become clear: because it’s expedient not too. This means that pundits and leaders alike must study the positions of the antagonists and decide why change becomes an advantageous expedient. This does not imply morality. That is irrelevant in these negotiations. Real Politic is the incubus of these actions. Several Arab and Jewish leaders have tried to follow this idea. Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin were assassinated by fellow countrymen for their efforts. Such were the sacrifices made for steps toward enduring peace that led to normal relations between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. It’s a dangerous busine

[1] Churchill’s Statement About Stubborn Facts. https://search.aol.com/aol/video;_ylt=AwrErS9XPuZlQDIAM7FpCWVH;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?q=churchill%27s+statement+about+stubborn+facts&v_t=loki-keyword. 4 March 2024

[2] MacMillan, Margaret. Paris 1919. New York, NY: Random House. 2001. Chapter 28.

[3] “Gaza Strip.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip. 5 March 2024.

[4] “Hamas. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Etymology. 5 March 2024.

[5] “Asymmetric Warfare.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare. 5 March 2024.

[6] “Human Shield.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield. 5 March 2024.

What’s What 2

Posted on April 11, 2024 by Lloyd Muller

Here is a screed. I hate politicians of all stripes: right, left, and center. They have tasted the honey of power and become corrupted by it. They are addicted to it. Consequently, they declare wars with heedless thought about the thousand and millions of lives that will be destroyed by them.

About Netanyahu: again, I ask the question, why should he? Our expression of displeasure at his war policies? This is Biden’s position about the war. Israel should change its policies to enhance its world support. It’s a weak argument that politicians don’t hear. George W. Bush squandered world support after 9/11 after he needlessly invaded Iraq. Obama did not heed it during his tenure. Biden pulled out only when he decided that its continuance wasn’t worth the cost. World opinion never entered the equation. Meanwhile, thousands died.

There’s another factor that must be considered about world opinion. Antisemitism is virulent in the U.S. and Europe. Two university presidents were fired for not providing academic, and perhaps physical, security to its Jewish students. The newspapers have documented other instances of antisemitism. Consequently, Israel’s reputation is in the toilet. So, Netanyahu gains nothing by trying to court world opinion. Hamas will get some brownie points but no arms. No nation will overtly supply arms to Hamas that could turn the tide of battle. Netanyahu knows this; Hamas knows this; and Biden knows this. World opinion as an effective political tool is a chimera.

Next, Netanyahu has a military background, and he fully understands asymmetric warfare. Israel’s founding was based in it. Ben Gurion and others were terrorists against Britain. The premise of a weaker force is keeping a political force in the field long enough to wear down the will of a stronger nation until its political objective is met. That’s what we did during the American Revolution. That’s what Ho Chi Minh did in Viet Nam. That’s what the Taliban did in Afghanistan. In all three cases, the stronger force left the field and the weaker force marched to final victory. Netanyahu understands this same objective by Hamas. Give them respite and they’ll resurrect themselves to continue the war. This Netanyahu cannot allow to happen. He will continue the war until Hamas is physically crushed by using every tool at his disposal. He cannot afford to do otherwise. His internal support demands it.

David, your compassion for the Palestinians is commendable. I often note how warriors who bring destruction are more compassionate that the politicians who demand its deliverance. But, on the international scene, it’s real politic that counts and nothing else. So, the question is: why should change be made? Answer: only when it’s in the best interest of all the players, and so far, no good answer has been heard.

Now, changing subjects, about my book. It’s already written in draft. My question is to postulate in the Forward and Conclusion how painfully our Constitution came to be. Seven hundred years of trial and tribulation passed before the liberties we enjoy were guaranteed by the miracle we call the Constitution. We have seen during 6 January how close the nation came to losing them. For me, this is an existential matter for the world. If we lose our liberties, who will be strong enough around the world to champion them?

I talked at length about real politic and corrupt politicians. At the same time, I’m hoping, vainly perhaps, that another George Washington might come along and change our course towards a better nation. One that can carry the flag of human worth and dignity. Perhaps my book, vainly perhaps, might inspire such a person.

What’s What 1

Posted on April 11, 2024 by Lloyd Muller

Dear Dave,

About the Donald’s remark, “Finish the job,” I would like to make some remarks. But, first, for the rest of our group, let me introduce myself so they can understand where I’m coming from. You and I have known each other since 1967 starting when we were USAF lieutenants stationed in Germany. Before then I had lived in Turkey for two years developing contacts with all varieties of Muslims to include Palestine refugees. To this day, I have dear friends there and I will state categorically that the Palestinians, as a people, have been screwed royally since 1948. They were evicted from their homes and subsequently have been used as political pawns by their erstwhile leaders. That sad story is a subject for lengthy discussions. However, for now, those wishing to know more about me, I invite them to my website, www.lloydmuller.com. There they can read my musings on its blog and excerpts from the books I have written.

Now, about Donald and his remark, there is very little I like about the man or his ideas, but his comment was perceptive and not to be lightly dismissed. To understand why, we need to go back to my questions of “why should change be made?”

From the Israeli perspective, Netanyahu is prime minister of a deeply riven nation. The people there have been attacked for years with guerrilla raids and terrorist killings. I have seen the bunker built by a friend next to his house where he and his family have sat while calling me during air raids. The far right remembers well the Shoah (Holocaust) and say, “never again.” However, many of them are Ultra-Orthodox who claim exemption from the military while demanding non-observers to fight the wars. Those people loyally serve from 18 years of age to 55 either in the active forces or the reserves. Call ups are frequent leading to disjointed civilian lives. Among them are those who are bitter about this dichotomy between Orthodox and everyone else. Next, many secular Israelis believe that peace can only be achieved by acceding to Muslim demands that land be granted for a Palestinian state (among them my friend who served through several wars). I say Muslims because the nations from Iran to Saudi Arabia have historically demanded the expulsion of Jews from Israel and the destruction of their nation. Finally, the war has created a strident demand for the return of the prisoners captured by Hamas.

Netanyahu himself is a divided politician. He has been in power for many years and along the way been tempted by the lures of corruption. He has been tried as many times as Trump and by using many of the same tactics remained in power. He has paid a price for this success by having allied himself with the far right. Whatever he may personally believe about the Palestinian situation, he is politically driven to wage a vigorous war that eradicates Hamas. Since that involves a total war, he is obliged to bomb civilians, which creates the international condemnation I discussed earlier.

From the perspective of Hamas with their reliance on asymmetrical warfare, why should they change? Their hope for victory is to erode the political will of the Israelis. Dragging the war on forever; allowing thousands of civilians to be massacred, are prices they are willing to pay. This is not a new idea. During Viet Nam, SecDef McNamara, always the account, believed that killing enough VC solders would cause Ho Chi Minh to stop the war. Below is a photo of what that meant.[1]

r A group of people lying on the ground

Description automatically generated

Clearly losses such as these did not stop Ho Chi Minh from stopping the war. It was not until President Nixon bombarded North Viet Nam, and particularly Hanoi, did peace talks start. This bombardment threatened the existence of the Noth Viet Nam. Likewise, 30,000 deaths have not caused Hamas to sue for peace. Rather, they are playing gruesome images of these deaths for political advantage. If they can survive by doing so, why change?

Netanyahu has chosen the hard warfare line, at least to meet the demands of his supporters. However, to survive the demands of their opponents, he must bring his war to a swift and conclusive war. To delay invites the same conclusion that ended US involvement in Viet Nam: withdrawal and defeat. Trump’s remark is a sang froid recognition of this fact. He knows this; Netanyahu knows this, and Hamas knows this. Why change? If President Biden is to succeed in creating change, he must show how it is in everyone’s best interest to do so. That’ll be a hard task. Anyone got any ideas?

[1] https://search.aol.com/aol/image;_ylt=AwrEr6d.fehlUxAgGyFjCWVH;_ylu=c2VjA3NlYXJjaARzbGsDYnV0dG9u;_ylc=X1MDMTE5NzgwMzg3NQRfcgMyBGZyA3NiX3RvcARmcjIDc2ItdG9wBGdwcmlkA2h4eGptQVdoUUdXZWttODlONWhTZUEEbl9yc2x0AzAEbl9zdWdnAzAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC5hb2wuY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDMARxc3RybAMzMgRxdWVyeQNwaG90byUyMG9mJTIwZGVhZCUyMFZpZXRjb25nJTIwc29sZGllcnMlMjAEdF9zdG1wAzE3MDk3MzU0MTA-?p=photo+of+dead+Vietcong+soldiers+&v_t=sb_top&s_it=sb_top&ei=UTF-8&x=wrt&s_qt=&fr2=sb-top#id=92&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fphotos%2Fwar-and-conflict-the-vietnam-war-pic-january-1965-tay-ninh-south-the-picture-id80751644%3Fs%3D612x612&action=click. 6 March 6, 2024.

What Casey Has Taught Me

Posted on January 19, 2023 by Lloyd Muller

Over the past 18 months I have posted observations about cats in general and my Casey in particular. Now, we are well into our third year of living together and I’d like to talk about what I have learned from her…what she has taught me.

First, cats can’t lie. They want what they want and if we listen closely, they’ll tell us clearly what their needs are. At a basic level, they need safety, food, water, and a dry place to live. This is an instinctive level of need that is true for all of us. But they also learn. Who is a friend and who is an enemy. How to hunt. How to stay sheltered. What cold, hot, dry, snowy, balmy, means. Casey has learned these things and I trust her judgement. She will still go out in bad weather but it’s her choice and she picks her times. It took some time for me to accept her standing desire to be an outdoor/indoor cat. During the day, she roams. At night she comes in. She figured out that cars make noise that she avoids. She also knows that streets have cars and she avoids them like the plague. Rather she stays in back where she has acres of free, safe space. So be it. It’s her choice.

One thing that was not negotiable was loving her. When we first met, she was a scared castaway. Hungry, tired, thirsty, she wanted the basics. She got them. She also got constant loving. Every meeting was joyful full of petting and happy voices. 100%. Never an exception. No loud voices, no “no’s,” just love. Now she has learned to want this attention. She curls up to me at night where we spend an hour just cuddling. When I fall asleep, she goes off to her blanket for a good night’s snooze.

From these truths, I now see what is needed for our human babies. Like cats, they can’t lie. They want what they want. It’s our job as parents to provide it without taxation. Like Casey, they need to learn about the world on their terms. They also need 100% love. My kids have done very well in their lives but from Casey, I have learned what could have been done. This is a story that’s too late for me, but other parents out there, learn from your cats. They’re very wise.

Disasters and Money Spent

Posted on September 13, 2022 by Lloyd Muller

H’mmm. Let’s see now. I’m seeing constant reports of horrible floods around the world, scorching heat waves, devastating forest fires. Annual emergency expenditures of billions are needed to restore life to some semblance of recovery before the next disaster strikes.

Fifty years ago, scientists were warning the public of impending disasters if global warming was not addressed. A universal answer was “That’s too bad, but we can’t afford to make changes.” Instead our leaders embarked on two ruinous wars that couldn’t be won that cost trillions and killed thousands of people. Is something missing here? What would our current problems look like if a tenth of those trillions were spent on mitigating the effects of carbon pollution?

Oh well, not to worry. The children in the Congressional Day Care Centers are so far sighted and wise, I know we have nothing to worry about. I’m so happy.

Just Wondering

Posted on August 10, 2022 by Lloyd Muller

I’ve been wondering why it is that:

People who’ve never been in combat…………………often are the first to “send in the Marines.”
Men who’ve never been pregnant………………………..think they can tell women what to do.
People who’ve never read the Constitution….………know all about it.
People who don’t like minorities…………..……………..claim to be solid Americans.
Politicians who espouse democratic processes……refuse to negotiate with anyone.
Voters who don’t vote……………………..…………..….…..storm the Capital Building.

Just wondering.

To The Nation

Posted on August 4, 2021 by Lloyd Muller

Several weeks ago, I wrote a satirical piece for Facebook entitled, “Have I Got This Straight.” In it I had Mr. Trump gather all the members of Congress, TV cameras, and the nation’s audience gather in front of the Capital and shoot his son to prove he was invulnerable to impeachment. Sadly, my prophecy came true yesterday. Despite incontrovertible evidence, Mr. Trump was exonerated. Presidents in the future can now trample our Declaration of Independence and Constitution at will without fear of reprisal. These sacred documents are now quaint pieces of parchment filled with worthless writing.

The senators voting against conviction clearly did so for craven political reasons. As Anderson Cooper said on February 12, 2021, “The Fix Is Likely In” for an acquittal. Many senators claimed the case was unconstitutional despite historical common law judgements to the contrary. But, even granting their case, the Senate voted to hold a trial under the auspices of the Constitution. Its members were then obliged to weigh evidence and make an impartial judgement like any other jury. Then, the issue of constitutionality could be appealed to the arbiter of such issues: The Supreme Court. By evading this proper path to justice, you “dodged the bullet” of being honest jurors. In short, who do you think you’re kidding?

So, Mr. Trump, you won. You can do whatever you want. Run for re-election and be inaugurated in a brown uniform featuring a swastika surmounted with your capital T. You can be guaranteed your election will not be rigged because your black shirted thugs will invade our polling stations and dictate the proper choice for all voters. Afterwards, they can lead offenders to concentration camps and the gas chambers. Such will be your liberties offered to all Americans. On second thought, why wait? Now is the time for you to raid the Capital again and proclaim yourself president. Mr. Biden will assuredly vacate the White House for your return. Then, at the end of your days, you can rest assured that future presidents will not be bothered by smidgens of law for they will be laws onto themselves and called “Heil Trump.”

Now, for those senators who voted against conviction, shame. But you’ve done your deed. Just, please, do not call yourselves loyal Americans. You mock the words. Also, do not wear an American flag in the lapels of your suits for you desecrate it and the thousands of Americans who died defending it without a political agenda.

To Seven Honorable Republicans

Posted on August 4, 2021 by Lloyd Muller

Seven Republican senators voted to convict Mr. Trump. They did so in the face of a foregone conclusion and knowing full well they would be punished politically. And they are being punished. Yet, they voted their conscience based on the facts as they saw them in a manner expected of all jurists. This adherence to our law’s processes is called integrity, which is something not often seen in our halls of Congress. For this, they must be commended.

News Flash: President Trump’s Greenland

Posted on August 4, 2021 by Lloyd Muller

Newsflash: It’s now confirmed. President Trump is serious about buying Greenland. If the purchase comes to pass, then the Immigration, Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency will have a new home. Mr. Trump’s first action there will be to build a new Trump Tower. It will be constructed entirely of ice and become the headquarters of ICE.

Once lodged in Greenland, the first mission of ICE will be to kick out all of the people living there for hundreds, if not thousands of years. After all, once Greenland becomes the property of the United States, all of these people will instantly become illegal aliens. This is obvious because they did not go to Mexico and apply for a visa of any sort. So, they will simply have to go. After all, we can’t have these naughty people residing in our fair territory. They might eat fish that haven’t been certified by the Federal Drug Administration. If that isn’t bad enough, they may even want to sell them to us. Can’t you see it, gangs of illegal Greenlanders flooding us with foreign fish? It could become an epidemic that will curl the hair of our children. This just has to be stopped immediately.

When deported, where will they go you ask? Well, probably Mexico since that’s where we’re sending aliens regardless of their origins. We can’t consider Denmark because that’s been their citizenship since Leif Ericson landed there 1,000 years ago while en-route to North America. Thank goodness, he came and left our shores quickly. Otherwise, any descendents would have to be traced and deported. You know, children of illegal aliens brought to these fair lands.

So, stand by for more news flashes as information becomes available to your Daily Squawk.