If Our Masks Could Speak

In his column (A-23, 7/29), Thomas Friedman put his finger right on the nub of the problem of a spreading virus when he described the attitude of anti-maskers as being “Don’t tread on me but I can breathe on you.” That implicit quote captures perfectly the warped notion that personal liberty entitles one to engage in any activity without regard to its impact on others.
That is the same twisted philosophy which underlies the callous objections to smoking bans. “ I can choose to put my own life at risk even as I blow carcinogens up your nose.” Surprisingly, this corps of “libertarians” has not yet asserted the right to expectorate even if you happen to be in the way. But don’t get complacent, that’s probably next.

Biden Should Send a Letter to Putin

Given Donald Trump’s abdication of his constitutional responsibilities and his blatant obeisance to Vladimir Putin,  Joseph Biden should immediately issue the following statement with a copy sent directly to Vladimir Putin.
President Putin,
In a few months I will be sworn in as president of the United States notwithstanding your best effort to achieve a different result.
You are hereby put on notice that Russia must cease forthwith its interference in this nation’s electoral process and immediately halt offering bounties on the lives of American soldiers. Your failure to comply with these demands will result in dire consequences for your country. Immediately upon my assumption of office I shall move to impose the most severe sanctions upon Russia financially, politically and diplomatically. I will lead an international coalition to isolate your country as an outlaw nation and will initiate a criminal investigation to hold individual wrongdoers, including yourself, personally accountable. Mr. Trump will have no authority to pardon you.
Joseph Biden
Prospective President of the United States

The Barr Hearing

Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee squandered their one and only opportunity to expose Attorney General Barr as the  rule -of -law -breaking charlatan he is. Instead of asking probing questions supported by record facts, the representatives generally repeated, in long soliloquies, well known accusations of Mr. Barr's widespread acts of corruption. Once again the Democratic members of the committee demonstrated their utter inability to interrogate in an effective, meaningful manner. Well qualified questioners could have confronted Mr. Barr with his prior contradictory statements, compelled him to acknowledge his unprecedented intrusion in criminal cases to favor presidential allies, explore his mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and expose his misuse of armed federal forces in the streets of the nation.
Republican members of the committee, similarly, used the hearing to further the Trump campaign strategy of painting a picture of chaos in cities and alleged spying by Democrats.
The net result; undecided viewers gained no new insights and were left to wade through competing, well worn rants in search of underlying truth.

Baseball is Back, Sort Of

I have been an unregenerate Yankee fan since the days Joe D floated in the outfield at the old stadium. Like millions of others, I have been desperate for the return of baseball. I have watched every inning of the preseason and expect my upcoming nights to be spent in front of the television during the truncated regular schedule. As always, my moods will swing with the fortunes of my team, my days will be spent reading  about the niceties of last night’s game. But it won’t be the same.

As Baseball’s anthem implores, “take me out to the ballgame, take me out to the crowd”. The crowd is the soul of baseball and without the roars of approval, the boos of disapproval, the buzz of anticipation and the anguished cries of defeat, that soul will be stilled.

Like the Potamkin figures in the stands at Citi Field, baseball will be little more than a cardboard cutout. There will be no joy in Mudville.

What a Second Trump Term Would Look Like

While Prof. Eric Posner warns against the dire prospects of a second Trump term, he understates Mr. Trump's lunatic lust for power and the extent of the damage already done to our democracy. His assertion, that Mr. Trump has not violated the law or the Constitution and that he has not tried to expand his powers is simply wrong.

Mr. Trump's claims of presidential immunity from criminal investigation and congressional oversight, his wholesale dismissal of inspectors general, his dismantling of regulatory authority, by installing lobbyists to head agencies that oversee the very industries they had been promoting and diminish the power of those agencies and his use of the Attorney General and the Justice Department to influence and interfere with criminal and antitrust cases, constitute violations of law and the Constitution. 

His derogation of the judiciary, his demonization of the press and his contempt of Congress are aimed at weakening the powers of the institutions charged with checking a rogue president and are done to promote his attempt to create an imperial presidency. 

Finally, Prof. Posner is engaging in sophistry when he declares that Donald Trump's danger to democracy is not by his overturning the Constitution but by leading Americans to reject it in exasperation. Isn't that result one and the same?

Supreme Court Rulings on Trump Subpoenas

Once you get passed the window dressing it is obvious that the Supreme Court has handed Donald Trump a huge victory. While the court rejected his claim of immunity from investigation and prosecution, that specious contention was always a non-starter and it is hardly surprising that the justices slapped it down.
The bottom line, however, is that Mr. Trump will be enabled to keep his financial and tax records from public scrutiny until well after the election and, given the litany of tests that the court said Congress must satisfy in order to compel delivery of any documents by the president, it seems likely that this or any future president has been given a clear path to thwarting congressional investigations going forward.

Neoliberal Looting of America

While the OP-ED by Professor Mehrsa Baradaran (“The Neoliberal Looting of America “)(A23,July 8) is erudite and factually accurate, her unfortunate choice of title is likely to mislead. It is true that Friedrich Hayek’s promotion of private investment in public markets as the better road to wealth and economic co-ordination than government spending programs was denominated “classical liberalism “. It is also true that private equity firms have embraced that philosophy and have carried it to an extreme that has created the concentration of wealth and power and the disparity of benefit in current society.
Indeed, Hayek, together with other economic thinkers, including Milton Friedman, popularized the term “neoliberalism “ to describe a philosophy committed to enhancing the rights of individuals while being wary of the dangers of unlimited democracy. Hayek believed that the market was a better regulator of monetary policy than centralized governmental planners.
However, it is unfortunate Prof. Baradaran has chosen to resurrect the term neoliberal in describing the societal problems and gross inequities fostered by private equity firms. While these firms may be following, and exceeding, the tenets of classical liberalism, they do not in the least espouse modern day liberalism as that designation is now commonly applied.
Unlike Hayek and his ilk, today’s liberals strongly favor government intervention to address the ills and to overcome the disparities of a society structured to reward only the very few.
So, by describing the private equity marauders as neoliberals as she damns them for present day economic woes, Prof. Baradaran misleads the casual reader to believe erroneously that liberalism as the term is currently used has dis-served the common folk and is responsible for the existing imbalance of wealth and wellbeing. That is not the case, as the article actually demonstrates.

Court Permits Funding Based on Faith

Chief Justice John Roberts has, over the years, shown flashes of judicious, even-handed decision making, most recently in cases involving abortion, gay and immigrant rights. However, his majority opinion in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which strikes down state constitutional prohibitions against use of government funding aiding churches or sectarian purposes, demonstrates his continuing notion that the First Amendment separation of church and state was intended not to keep religion out of  governance but to insure that proponents of religion can obtain public funding to promote their beliefs. Thus, he has written that excluding a church from a public benefit “ is odious to our Constitution “.
That is the same sort of twisted logic that led Justice Roberts to invalidate a key provision of the Civil Rights Act which was enacted to prevent states from perpetuating race-based obstacles to the free exercise of rights by all citizens regardless of color. Justice Roberts essentially labeled that protection a form of discrimination when he disingenuously wrote that the best way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating.
Progressives should harbor no more than a modicum of hope for the direction of Justice Roberts’ future pronouncements.