THE HAMAS FIELD TRIP

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The news media has reported numerous Pro-Palestine, Pro-Hamas, Anti-Israel protests on a wide variety of American college campuses. This is bizarre, and perhaps the student protestors (paid outside agitators notwithstanding) are a bit misinformed.

Some recent, undisputed history. As previously stated in a prior blog, on October 7 Hamas put on a freak show that would have embarrassed the Gestapo. Over 1200 Israelis were murdered. Yet, fast forward from what, historically, is the blink of an eye, college students are conducting protests for Hamas and against Israel. Also as previously blogged, Israel is in a moral quandary, having to kill innocent civilians (including children) in an attempt to survive (Israel has been attacked on 4 sides by terrorist organizations). Only a Solomon could figure this out. This is the torturous position in which Israel finds itself: do nothing and risk everything, or kill innocents in order to survive. But the mindless miscreants on college campuses, caught up in the latest frenzy, seem to have skipped that day in class on October 7, and have bought into the goading of the paid anarchists on various campuses. They began setting up encampments and shouting slogans based on an alternative reality and a need for expression reserved only for the emotionally over-stimulated, dim-witted neurotics all too present in past times of mass hysteria.

However, we may have a solution. There is an opportunity for these pseudo-radicalized college students who feel so strongly about Hamas, Palestine, Israel and America, to gain a bit of perspective on this troubling situation, and that is to go to the source. A Palestine field trip. Pack up and go, possibly funded by the SAVE AMERICA PAC, the Trump for President organization. They can learn first-hand what is really going in, from the ones doing the fighting and suffering. But the otherwise-coddled college students may have to toughen up a bit: no Starbucks, no lattes, no instant satisfaction, no Door Dash pizza deliveries, and no one to rub their tushies when they get a bit fussy. In Hamas-land, women do not fare particularly well, nor do protestors. Instant death seems to be the controlling technique, and we cannot be sure how these privileged Americans would fare under such circumstances with no First Amendment, no fawning student organizations, and no sympathetic, permissive, paranoid school administrators to crank out the excuses and rationalizations for their inexcusably irresponsible behavior.

One can only guess as to how many of these earnest but challenged protesting students would take advantage of such an offer, but we may surmise that the volunteers would not take up too much space on one of several open-minded international carriers (presumably El Al would not be a first choice). And many in this latte-dependent cohort may have to send less caffeine-reliant proxies in their stead. Those that brave the trip may learn more than they bargained for, as they involuntarily manifest into the next round of hostages, having to negotiate the tender surroundings of a Hamas tunnel some 80 meters below the streets of Rafah.

INFLATION IS RISING, OR IS IT FALLING?

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

Politicians love to spin reality into a self-serving interpretation. Inflation may be the number one topic in this year’s presidential election, and both Biden and Trump have contrived diametrically opposed stories. Both cannot be true at the same time, but this is the silly season. The key topic this year, as in most elections, is the economy.

Inflation is defined as too many dollars chasing too few goods, creating economic conditions whereby prices rise. There are a number of metrics for this but the most recent number being reported is 3.5% for March of 2024 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 04/10/24). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the most used term for inflation, a measure of the change in the prices of basic goods, and what we worry about most is food and energy (e.g., gas). When Trump left office, the CPI was 1.9% (Investopedia, 04/30/24). Under Biden the CPI rose as high as 8.0% in 2022 (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 04/30/24).

So here’s the conundrum: the rate of inflation rose dramatically during Biden’s term but has since decreased. So far so good. But how do we word this? If inflation is currently increasing at a 3.5% rate, it is still going up. But it was rising at about 8.0%. So is it correct to state that inflation itself is coming down, or is it just going up less? It would be correct to say that the rate of inflation has come down since 2022 but it’s not factually correct to state that “today’s report shows inflation has fallen more than 60%…” (The White House, 04/10/24) inferring that the rate of inflation, and therefore prices, are coming down (thus things are getting better). Under Biden the price of consumer goods has constantly increased. To manipulate the wording to make it seem like the opposite is true, is to engage in the kind of political deception we see too often in today’s political environment. And Biden has said this many times, part of his Bidenomics mantra (a term he has recently dispensed with). Under Biden, consumer prices have increased by about 20% (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 04/30/24). This has crushed the middle class and the working poor, who are struggling to pay for food and gasoline for their vehicles.

This is reflected in the political polls, which show Biden has lost about 6% overall since he won in 2020[1], and its worse in 7 swing states[2] (Wikipedia n.d.; RealClearPolitics 04/30/24). He is on the defense in every swing state he won in 2020, and if the election were held today, he would lose most of them, and with them the election. Clever arguments about the economy, and treating the electorate as morons, will not win him a second term.

References:

Federal Reserve Bank. (04/30/22). Consumer Price Index 1913-. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-

Investopedia. 04/30/22. Average Yearly Inflation Rate by President. https://www.investopedia.com/us-inflation-rate-by-president-8546447

RealClearPolitics. 04/30/24. RCP Poll Averages. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

The White House. 04/10/24. Statement from President Joe Biden on the March Consumer. Price Index. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/10/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-march-consumer-price-index-2/

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 02/06/22. Consumer Price Index Summary. Consumer Price Index Summary – 2024 M03 Results (bls.gov)

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 04/10/24. Consumer prices over 7.5 percent over year ended January 2022. Consumer prices up 7.5 percent over year ended January 2022: The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov) 

Wikipedia. (n.d.). 2020 United Staes presidential election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#:~:text=Biden%20ultimately%20received%20the%20majority,Bush%20in%201992.

[1] Biden beat Trump 51.3% to 46.8% in 2020, a margin of 4.5%, but in the RCP average Trump currently leads Biden in a 5-way race (including the third party candidates) by 1.6%, showing a statistical shift of 6.1%.

[2] As of this report Trump leads Biden by more than the margin of error in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Georgia; Trump leads Biden in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania but within the margin of error.  This is based on an average of recent polls.

PAPER TIGER REDUX

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

President Biden’s foreign policy mantra is to avoid escalating current conflicts. To use his favorite word: don’t. Don’t do anything that will upset America’s enemies, don’t properly defend American troops abroad, don’t do everything possible to protect American interests, and certainly don’t upset the not-so-mainstream media, upon whom his re-election, in large measure, depends. But history sadly shows us that such weakness causes the very escalation such policies seek to avoid. Trying not to risk expanding conflicts generally leads to expanding those conflicts. One word admonitions scare no one and accomplish nothing, except to make the United States look ridiculous. The US is confronted with multiple wars and serious threats, yet the White House seems oblivious to the lessons of history.

English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain famously engaged in a policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler prior to WWII in an attempt to avoid a major conflict. Hitler had taken the Rhineland, Austria, and part of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Chamberlain met with Hitler to appease him in order to avoid war and both signed the Munich Agreement in 1938. Hitler agreed to no more territorial acquisitions and Chamberlain stated, “I believe it is peace in our time.” But in 1939 Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland, starting WWII.

By the 1850’s the US Congress had made several agreements between northern states and southern states about the extension of slavery as the country grew westward including the Missouri Compromise (1820) and the Compromise of 1850. The war with Mexico, ending in 1845, reignited the slavery issue as Texas would be entering the union as a slave state. Northern abolitionists opposed the extension of slavery and southern slaveholders insisted on it. The Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case in 1857 made the situation much worse by ruling that Congress did not have the authority to prevent the extension of slavery into the new territories. President James Buchanan, a northern Democrat with southern sympathies took office in 1857 but failed to resolve the slavery issue, taking a passive stance and leaving the issue to the radicals on both sides of the issue. He did not run for re-election in 1860, eleven southern states seceded and the Civil War started in April of 1861.  More Americans lost their lives in this conflict than in all other wars combined.  Buchanan didn’t think those states had the right to secede, but he did nothing to stop them, nor to resolve the conflict.  He left office in April 1861 with the country in shambles.

There are other historical examples. The price of weak leadership is extraordinary, but the Biden White House is trying to make sure that whatever we do, we do nothing to expand any of the currently expanding conflicts. We don’t want to further upset anyone. We issue warnings and have demonstrations of force but do little. Evidently the policy is we can get mad at them, but we don’t want them to get mad at us.

The Biden administration is preoccupied with how our enemies feel, so the president makes sure the US doesn’t overreact, even when American interests and American friends are under assault. Terrorist organizations have attacked American bases in the middle east over 100 times, Russia has killed thousands of Ukrainians in a war of conquest, the Chinese Communist Party is working overtime to wreck the US economy and on October 7 Hamas put on a freak show that would have embarrassed the Gestapo. There are college students demonstrating in support of this ridiculous terrorist organization. How crazy do you have to get before these students see how bad this is? Biden does not want to upset these college demonstrators and the Palestinian supporters either, so he simultaneously supports a middle east ceasefire to call attention to the plight of the Palestinians but then states again he is “rock solid” behind Israel.  Then no one gets mad at him or the US.  But as it turn out everyone is mad at America.

Weakness solves nothing, and as Sen. Kennedy (R-LA) stated “more sheep is not going to solve the wolf problem.” Biden cannot ignore the consequences of appeasement and inaction. This toxic dissonance results in bold moves by American enemies abroad, and nationwide demonstrations at home. Biden has the same title as Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, but he is not in the same league.

THE CORRUPTION OF THE MEDIA IN A POLARIZED POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

By Ken Grossberger, PhD

The media, both liberal and conservative, would have us believe every paranoid notion they foment, like Biden will sell us out to Iran and Trump will be a dictator. Believing this nonsense is  the intellectual equivalent of going to a bar at 2AM and taking notes. Journalism, as we used to know it, was about providing information on the critical topics of the day. Now it’s an opinionated free-for-all with a can-you-top-this attitude in sensationalism where commentators cannot pile it on enough in a desperate attempt to bash the other side on a daily basis. They are down to name calling on a level that would embarrass the occupants of a junior high school locker room.

So CNN beats up Trump and Fox beats up Biden. Every day. All day. Each candidate is described in the most horrific, belligerent terms, and each is labeled a criminal and an existential threat to democracy, depending on the media outlet (oh yeah, and our guy is the savior). They would have us believe (whichever side they are on) that we certainly could not survive the election of the guy they don’t like. Yet we just survived a combined seven years of both.

Too many politicians, like many media types, cast ethics to the winds, and have no more respect for civility and honor than a storm has for the grains of sand on a beach. The negative lessons for the young may have lasting effects, as many continue to be lost in the dark hole of the internet/cellphone void. Yet, oddly, the percentage of voter turnout has been on the rise in recent elections. Below is a chart of the presidential elections since 2000:

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TURNOUT
2000-2022
YEARTURNOUT
202266.6%
201660.1%
201258.6%
200861.6%
200460.1%
200054.2%
ave.60.2%

This represents an increase from the 1990s and 2000s when the average turnout was in the mid-fifty percent range. Perhaps voters are driven by party loyalty, anger, or fear but certainly not by respect for the political system. Below are the average approval ratings for the last 3 presidents in their third year in the White House:

Biden               40%

Trump              42%

Obama             44%

All three were disliked by more than half the country. All were in office during the attack-media period. Not that the media was all that kind in previous years, but it has gotten much worse.

It is routine to tune into one of the major media outlets and witness outright bashing of politicians and candidates, even making jokes about them in these “panel” discussions of so-called experts. They make up alternative realties to suit their tribal narratives, and facts don’t seem to be a concern.  To add fuel to the neurotic fire social media is a sea of uninformed opinion, vindictive hyperbole and hysterical vitriol and it seems more like a therapy session on steroids than a marketplace of intelligent ideas.

So where does the voting public go from here? Perhaps the one critical issue that is not mentioned is the need for political education, so people know more about how government works and what the candidates really stand for. Maybe then voters can intellectually separate legitimate policy ideas from the hysteria.

POLLS, POLLS, POLLS – What Do They Really Tell Us?

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

It’s the silly season (again) and all the punsters and pollsters are making predictions as to who is leading and who will win. How do they know? The answers they use are in the almighty polls, but what do those polls really tell us?

The consensus is that voters begin to seriously focus on the election after Labor Day, so the early polls may provide an indication, but we need to look deeper to understand what the polls may mean. Polls are not necessarily predictive but are designed to provide qualitative data on popular sentiment. Gauging a number of polls over time yields trends, which are retrospective, not prospective. In other words, political polls look at the present and the past, not the future. Yet many play the prediction game because we think that what is probable today might tell us what’s going to happen tomorrow. Not necessarily.

Political polls are public opinion surveys, and thus we have to be concerned with the data collection methods as well as the data parameters. For example, in order to collect data many polls use a technique known as Random Digit Dialing (RDD) to ensure all voters in a population have an equal chance of being called. The survey staff must be properly trained and supervised, and samples should be large enough to be statistically meaningful or they may suffer from small sample size validity issues (which may lead to results that are true, when they are false, called Type II error in statistics).

For instance, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll (04/15/24) showed that 833 registered voters preferred Biden to Trump by 41% to 37%. The margin of error (MOE, the statistic that indicates how far off a survey may be) was 4% with 22% of those polled having no preference/might not vote/favoring a third party candidate. So what does this really tell us? The media would report that Biden has 4 point lead, but is that accurate? Does this poll have any realistic predictive value?

My observations are as follows: any sample of less than 1,000 respondents is too small to have much statistical power, and the results are within the margin of error as well.  Also, 22% undecided is too large a group to give us confidence in the determination as to which candidate may be leading. This is just the tip of the statistical iceberg. Many polls suffer from considerable statistical issues:

  • Registered voters vs. likely voters: polls that measure registered voters only are weak as they measure people who may not vote; likely voter responses are more meaningful
  • Timing: polls from last month may be out of date in an age of fast paced news cycles
  • Sample size: it’s doubtful that a sample of less than 1,000 voters could be representative of the voting population of the United States
  • Undecided responses: the Reuters/Ipsos poll mentioned above had 22% choosing something other than Biden and Trump, with only a 4% difference between the two with seven months to go to the election – this makes it very difficult to draw any meaningful  inferences
  • Margin of error: rates over 4% are usually too large to provide confidence in the result, and leads within the MOE means no one has a lead
  • Outlier polls: a result that is far from the average of the other polls – the media on either side loves to quote polls that show their guy in the lead, even if it is way outside the average

So to revisit the Reuters/Ipsos poll, a result that seems to favor Biden: it’s a small sample of registered voters only, a result within the MOE, with a large amount of undecided. If you’re looking for a prediction, don’t bet any real money using this poll.

Another issue is using the average of polls, a method which is supposed to give us a solid basis as to who is leading whom. Perhaps the most popular is the RealClear Politics (04/15/24) average of polls (widely quoted by the media) which is an unweighted average, meaning it’s a simple average of polls with different sample sizes. Here is a recent report:

POLLSTERDATESAMPLEMOETRUMP (R)BIDEN (D)SPREAD
RCP Average3/21 – 4/7——45.545.3Trump+0.2
Morning Consult4/5 – 4/76236 RV1.04443Trump+1
Reuters/Ipsos4/3 – 4/7833 RV4.03741Biden+4
I&I/TIPP4/3 – 4/51265 RV2.84043Biden+3
Emerson4/2 – 4/31438 RV2.54645Trump+1
Rasmussen Reports3/31 – 4/21099 LV3.04941Trump+8
Data for Progress (D)**3/27 – 3/291200 LV3.04647Biden+1
NPR/PBS/Marist3/25 – 3/281199 RV3.74850Biden+2
Forbes/HarrisX3/25 – 3/251010 RV3.15050Tie
FOX News3/22 – 3/251094 RV3.05045Trump+5
Quinnipiac3/21 – 3/251407 RV2.64548Biden+3

But when the samples are weighted by the number of voters (a sample of 1,438 is given more “weight” than a sample of 833), Trump’s lead doubles. Also, note how many of the polls are “RV” or registered voters, and that some of the polls are older, meaning from prior news cycles. The age of a poll is an issue as in just one month Biden may have any number of mumbled gaffes, Trump may insult another dozen people, and another war or two may break out. All of these sway public opinion and affect the polls.

Anyone who draws firm conclusions from these polls is engaging in a neurotic level of wishful thinking. But there is hope, many surveys over a period of time (longitudinal, in statistical language) generate more confidence than one-off polls (cross-sectional). There are no simple answers, we have to do the work. For example, most recent polls show Trump with a lead outside the MOE in the swing states over a period of time, and we therefore can have some confidence in that result. In recent history polls tend to tighten as we get closer to election day, and much can happen. We will see what events move the arc of the current trajectory.

References:

RealClear Politics. 04/15/24. RCP Poll Average. RealClearPolitics – Live Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls. RealClearPolitics – Live Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Palmer, Ewan. 04/15/24. Donald Trump’s Polling Numbers Are Dropping. Newsweek. Donald Trump’s Polling Numbers Are Dropping (newsweek.com)

A HOUSE DIVIDED, OR IN THIS CASE QUARTERED

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

In the United States we have two political parties, but two major groups each within each of those two parties. The Republicans still have the mainstream, traditional GOPers, and also the Freedom Caucus-Trump nationalist types. The Democrats have their own mainstream, left of center group plus the progressive left wing. There are a scattered number of liberal Republicans (e.g., Sen. Susan Collins) and conservative Democrats (e.g., Joe Manchin) in Congress. Each party is thus divided, and therefore the country is divided. In Lincoln’s famous speech in 1858 he warned of such political divisions and feared for the country: “it will become all one thing, or all the other.” His way of saying be careful what you ask for.

Where does this leave voting Americans? There are still many who are unenrolled (note: we register to vote but enroll in a party) in a major party or have cast their lot with minor parties. The independent and minor party voters make up almost 40 percent of the electorate. But a Pew Research Center survey (2019) suggests that even among independents, most lean to one major party or another (see Political Independents: Who They Are, What They Think – Pew Research Center), but choose to remain officially unaligned.  Why is this?

We may infer an inherent distrust of the two major parties among many independents as both have displayed a good deal of corruption in recent years. The duplicity and animated rhetoric test the tolerance of even the most loyal members outside the base of each party. The language is abhorrent, and the ethics are scandalous. Its win at any cost: say anything, do anything, just get and maintain power. Once in power each side investigates the other and weaponizes government institutions, the media and public policy, on a massive search and destroy mission of their opponents. They just can’t stand each other, and the American public suffers from an overload of bitter, vindictive rhetoric designed to damage each member of the other side to the maximum extent possible. Lincoln warned, in the same speech, of a such a “battle” in the political arena raging “under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy…”

Thus the two major political parties divide America as they themselves are also divided. It becomes a free-for-all in a rule or ruin atmosphere and a vulgar display of exactly how the founders did not want our government to work (“of the people, by the people….). The hot topics exacerbate the fight: abortion, the border, inflation, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Hamas war, and others. Each side leverages virtually anything to force the hand of, or better, to bury the other side. The outright lying is ridiculous and the media on both sides have become wholly owned subsidiaries of their political masters. Each party forces a different reality that excludes the other, and that reality is further parsed by the division within each party. And there is no end in sight as we are eight months away from the general election. There are many reasonable people in politics, yet the current conversation is dominated by shallow thinking, paranoid types like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marjorie Taylor Green.

The electorate needs to better educate itself on the issues as well as the candidates. The test for those who choose to vote is to resist the party label, to see beyond the ideological divide, and to vote for reason, thoughtfulness, and a better chance for a decent future.

KENNEDY’S VEEP: THE STRUGGLE FOR CREDIBILITY

By Ken Grossberger, PhD

RFK Jr. has picked Nicole Shanahan for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. The ex-wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin is a lawyer and an activist, and at 39 finds herself in the center of the American political arena. Kennedy, in his introduction yesterday warned her about the candidate risks in current political times: character assassination, name calling, negative reporting, exposure, investigations, lawsuits, etc.  She has no experience as a political office holder, which may be one of her strengths. She is from humble origins but has been in a position to contribute to various causes such as climate change, female reproductivity and criminal justice. She has also contributed to the campaigns of Democrats and progressives, and her checkbook may be one of the most attractive features to the Kennedy campaign.

But the main issue for Kennedy is his credibility. Does he really intend to win, or just make a statement? Is this a set up for 2028? There is a long history of third-party candidates for President of the United States. The fledging Republican Party (in the process of replacing the Whig Party) was running candidates in 1856 (John C. Fremont) and 1860 (Abraham Lincoln). In the 1890s issue-oriented groups formed the Greenback Party, the Populist Party and the People’s Party. The early 1900s saw the rise of the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party with Teddy Roosevelt as their candidate in the chaotic election of 1912). Southern Democrats ran as Dixiecrats with Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate in 1948. Gov. George Wallace of Alabama ran on the American Independent line in 1968 and John Anderson ran as a liberal Republican on the National Unity Party on 1980. Ross Perot was an independent candidate in 1992 and 1996. The Reform Party ran Pat Buchanan in 2000 and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 2012 and 2016. The Green Party has run Ralph Nader several times in recent history and now Jill Stein in 2012, 2016 and this year. All of this with little success, but Lincoln won and Perot got 19% in 1992. Most of the rest were also-rans with low percentages of the votes.

So, the probability of a Kennedy win is exceptionally low, even in a cycle where both major party candidates are seriously flawed and highly vulnerable.  But anything that includes Trump will defy any odds thus history may not be as much of a factor as it usually would.

TRUMP’S VEEP (AND REPLACEMENT?)

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The latest polls suggest a probable Trump victory in November based on his edge in the swing states. Assuming this holds, his Vice-Presidential pick looms large as a successor if Trump gets convicted of any of the criminal charges against him in the multiple jurisdictions in which he has been formally charged. So who will it be?

The short list, as reported, includes Sen. Tim Scott, Gov. Ron DeSantis, business guy Vivek Ramaswamy, Rep. Byron Donalds. Gov. Kristi Noem and now former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Others have been mentioned (including former Gov. Nikki Haley). All this is speculative as Trump dangles a lot of bait in many directions. If Trump suffers a criminal conviction or goes bankrupt (or both), there is a scenario where the Republican National Committee (RNC) would have to replace him, and if he has already chosen a VEEP (before or after the Republican convention in August), then the RNC (led by his hand-picked chair and his daughter-in-law) might well select his pick as the successor presidential candidate.  If recent polls are any indication, that successor might fare well against President Biden (polls during the primary showed Haley doing better against Biden than Trump did).

If Trump survives the barrage of lawsuits against him then this is a moot point and then it’s on to November. But if he takes a bad hit and is mortally (politically) wounded, then his number 2 becomes the Republicans’ number 1, and we are in a brand new ballgame.  But if the potential replacement is likely to have better numbers against Biden, then exactly what is the political rationale behind the Democrat’s massive push to remove Trump from the political landscape?

Most of the Democrats’ campaign strategy revolves around bashing Trump, so if he’s not there, what do they do?

PHARMA CARTEL MEXICANO

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The Mexican drug cartels, as a collective, are some of the largest suppliers of pharmaceutical grade drugs to the US.  Reports state that record amounts of fentanyl were illegally exported to the US in 2023.  Last year, these reports tell us, about 240,000 pounds of drugs were seized by the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) including over a billion fentanyl doses. All this came through our southern border and was consumed in the United States.

This is a huge market. All of the US government attempts to interdict the flow across the border, all of law enforcement attempts to apprehend the offenders, all of the diplomatic attempts to get help from the Mexican government, have all been of little or no avail under the current administration. President Biden has shown little taste for doing anything meaningful at the border and has even taken Texas to court to stop their attempts to stop the flow.  Clearly, the tsunami of illegals (sorry, the “deprived newcomer future Americans”) and the avalanche of drugs crossing the border are apparently what he wants.  Nothing effective has been done by the White House as the problem worsens, and Biden is left in desperation to blame Trump and the Republicans.

So we look at another option.  A French drain (not to be confused with the French Connection), is a technique whereby a structure constantly gets flooded, so instead of trying to stop it, the water is let in through a drain, and then it is let out by the same drain. In other words, control the flow.  Why not do the same thing at the border?  Let the drugs in but regulate it, and then tax it. If we’re not going to stop it, we might as well make some money from it.  Maybe Biden can use some of his proposed almost 100,000 IRS agents to collect taxes from the cartels.  If he doesn’t want to secure the border, at least he can get some revenue out of it (“the rich should pay their fair share”). So let’s make a cartel out of the cartels. As Pharma Cártel Mexicano (stock symbol PCM) grows, Biden can get a brokerage to put together an IPO and Americans can then invest, hopefully making enough money to pay for the drug rehab for relatives addicted to the fentanyl that illegally came across the border in the first place.

THE IGNORABLE PAIN OF THE VOICELESS: ISRAEL’S MORAL QUANDARY IN GAZA

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The butchery and torture that took place during the attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7, 2023, would have embarrassed the Gestapo. Israel immediately declared war and attacked Hamas in the Gaza strip, a small piece of land in the Middle East and one of the most densely inhabited areas in the world. The Jewish state is convinced that Hamas must be eliminated to ensure the survival of Israel, but unfortunately Hamas was, and is, deeply embedded in the Palestinian people. This is the deadly tactical issue, how can the IDF kill Hamas without killing innocent Palestinians. The answer: they can’t.

Reports (which vary) state that about 31,000 people have been killed in the war, including around 12,000 Hamas fighters and several hundred journalists and UN workers. This leaves about 18,000 or so Palestinian civilians killed. About 1,800 Israelis have died, including almost 600 IDF soldiers. Again, reports of these numbers vary. But if they are reasonably close, a lot of innocents have been killed, which has generated a great deal of protest and uproar. Much has been made of the IDF killing civilians, and this in a region where the fighting has a long history. Many have died on both sides over a long time thus October 7 cannot be viewed in isolation, but the sheer savagery of Hamas cannot be condoned in any historical frame. Israel means to destroy that organization once and for all, but not without severe collateral consequences. It has tried to minimize the casualties but are getting a lot of blame in the press and from around the world nonetheless. There is a partial defense for Israel in that attempting to not kill innocents, and actually killing innocents, are two different ethical constructs, but the damage has been done and the dilemma remains. Israel does not want to kill Palestinians but must kill them to accomplish its mission to eliminate what they firmly believe is an existential threat.

Palestinian children caught in the cross-hairs of a violent war are innocent in the baseline meaning of the word, and by any estimate thousands have been killed. This is the agonizing choice for the Israeli people, and a desperate moral quandary: are the deaths of innocent children necessary to the survival of the Israeli people? Supporting Israel and saving the innocent Gazans are not necessarily mutually excludable goals, thus the current attempt at a deal between the warring parties to exchange the remaining hostages in return for a 6 week pause in the fighting. But then Hamas resupplies and repositions, and how many more IDF soldiers would die as a result? How does Israel make such a decision? Innocents for soldiers. No good answer.

Not as many Americans are paying attention as there were in the early days of the war. How quickly these disasters fade in the rearview mirror, maybe a few new cycles. But the great moral issue remains.