Scott Pruitt's gone; but deputy may be worse for the environment

Scott Pruitt's resignation is cause for jubilation -- just to get such an embarrassingly petty grifter out of there.    The triviality of his greed created such a media circus (trying to buy a used Trump hotel mattress) that it overshadowed the greater danger to the environment that his successor may turn out to be.

A former coal industry lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, has been deputy director and will assume the role of Acting Director.   He's a Washington insider who knows his way around the political quagmires, which is why I say he may be more dangerous.   And he won't be such a distraction.

Perhaps Pruitt's greatest talent was in knowing how to flatter the president.  His resignation letter drips with adulation for Trump the man;   his "gratitude" is for the "blessing" that was the opportunity "to serve you."    Nothing about serving the American people or preserving our planet.

And his refusal to take responsibility for any of this is utterly breath-taking -- just like his beloved boss.    He resigned because the media attacks on him had become "a distraction."    Not because of any failure on his part.

Ugh.     Good riddance.

Ralph

Our border cities are NOT under siege; crime is NOT rampant. A border resident says it's false propaganeda.

Victoria Ochoa is a Harry S. Truman scholar from the Rio Grande Valley and an incoming J.D. candidate at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.  She wrote this for the Washington Post.

*     *     *     *     *

"I am from la frontera, meaning "frontier" in Spanish but translated in English as "border." The news over the past few weeks might make you think that places such as my hometown — McAllen, Tex., in the Rio Grande Valley — are under siege from waves of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers, a crisis of lawlessness so extreme that drastic measures are needed. Tearing children from their parents, or, when that proves too unpopular, corralling families in tent cities. Then there's the $25 billion wall that's needed to safeguard the United States from the threat of being overrun.

"The view from down here is different. In a 2018 rating of the 100 most dangerous cities in the United States based on FBI data, no border cities — not San Diego, not Texas cities such as Brownsville, Laredo or El Paso — appeared even in the top 60. McAllen's crime rate was lower than Houston's or Dallas's, according to Texas Monthly in 2015. The Cato Institute's research consistently shows that immigrants, both legal and undocumented, are markedly less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

"In the U.S. borderlands with Mexico, our inherent duality is what helps our communities thrive. We work hard, attend school and worship just as Americans do all across the nation. Yet we are overwhelmingly Latino, and a quarter of us are foreign-born. We are here and there. Some of us were born here, and some of us were not. But it doesn't matter — pero ni modo — all are welcome.

"Maybe it is the composition of the humble communities already established in the borderlands, not the new arrivals, that so alarms some politicians and pundits. Maybe that is why militarizing a region supposedly in crisis has come to be seen as an acceptable idea. In 2016, Texas deployed 250 state troopers to our region, and in 2017, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed off on an $800 million allocation for border security (yet vetoed nearly $860,000 for the Colonias Initiative Project, a long-running state effort to help poor communities on the Texas border obtain drinking water, wastewater service and roads).

"This year, Congress approved 100 miles of border wall, and federal authorities are beginning the process of seizing land for it in my hometown. In April, the Defense Department began sending National Guard personnel to the border with Mexico, with as many as 4,000 troops authorized for deployment. The number of U.S. Border Patrol agents at the border is also rising.

"The government has a responsibility to police the nation's borders, and I am grateful for the people who keep us safe. But today's military presence and stepped-up law enforcement remind me that this isn't the first time that politicians have used Texas's southern border to burnish their tough-on-crime credentials.

"In 1915, the Texas Rangers were sent to establish control of the border when the Mexican Revolution prompted an increase in Mexican immigration and a threat to Anglo dominance in the region. Rangers and civilian vigilantes massacred hundreds of Tejanos with no repercussions.

"Nothing so extreme is conceivable today, but killings of immigrants by law enforcement in the borderlands still happen. In South Texas, we are still waiting to find out why a U.S. Border Patrol agent in May shot to death Claudia Patricia Gomez Gonzalez, a 20-year-old Guatemalan. According to news reports, she was trained as an accountant and, unable to find work, had traveled 1,500 miles in search of a better life. She was killed a mile into U.S. territory, in Rio Bravo, about 130 miles from McAllen in the same region where hundreds were massacred before.

"The heavy-handed law-enforcement presence in this region creates a climate of fear and mistrust. Residents are routinely stopped for no clear reason. Texas law now encourages local law-enforcement officers to hand over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement people who are in the country illegally. Border Patrol agents are known to ride with state troopers; in an area that is 88 percent Latino, routine traffic stops are regarded as a tool for implementing federal immigration law.

"Enforcement is ripe for the intimidation of noncitizens and citizens alike. At a Border Patrol checkpoint 74 miles from the actual border, agents have asked my purpose for leaving the area.

"I wonder what will finally placate the fearful people 1,500 miles away who sent these border agents and National Guard troops to the borderlands. More checkpoints, more families detained, vaster tent cities? Maybe the wall they dream of? For most people, or most open-minded people, a simple visit might be enough to be reassured that this is not a scary place. It's my home. Mi frontera. My frontier."

*     *     *     *     *

Exaggerating danger and portraying oneself as the savior on a white horse is pretty standard political fare.    But on immigration, we're seeing this play out on over-dose levels of steroids, enhanced by reality show TV theatrics, and ballyhooed by a master at the misstatement and misuse of facts.   In short, we all know by now -- and it is commonly so stated by news anchors -- that Trump lies, all the time.

This is all to the serious detriment, not only to the peace, but also the safety, of communities like McAllen -- and of the nation itself.

How long will it take us to reconstruct our democracy, to restore the trust of the people in their government, even in the most sacrosanct counterintelligence services, where Trump has sown doubt, mistrust, and even paranoia?  When will this civil war be over so we can begin the reconstruction and restoration of trust?

Ralph

NY Daily News skewers "the clown who plays king."

The New York Daily News is famous for its sometimes brutal covers.  This is the one for July 4, 2018 -- accompanied by the subheading:  "The clown who plays king can't overthrow the bedrock values this nation was founded on 242 years ago today."

Some news briefs

Trump and NATO:   Next week, President Trump heads to Europe for a NATO meeting.   Apparently he's going to swagger in with hostility and alienate our allies, as he did at the G-7 summit meeting.    Already, he has sent a letter to members demanding that they pay more -- not to support the organization but as a larger investment in their own national security.   In other words, he wants them to spend more money on their own defense.

     It's true that the U.S. does pay more for defense than anyone else.   It's also true that NATO has been viewed, since its formation following World War II, as a mutual defense alliance -- not as a business deal to haggle over.    Trump seems to consider it an inappropriate matter of U.S. largesse and that we are being taken advantage of.

      It may be appropriate now to ask others to pay a fairer share, now that their economies generally are better than in the post-WWII era.    But Trump seems intent on doing so with the spirit of a bully, rather than a big brother telling his younger siblings that they're now grown up and ready for more responsibility.

     Besides, it's not exactly that we get no benefits.    The U.S. too needs allies who will come to our aid (as they did after 9/11).   We need the good will of this group to allow us to have military outposts in their nations.   And we need their cooperation in counterintelligence monitoring that is invaluable to us.

     And, for starters, why be so hostile to our allies?

Senate Intel upholds findings that Russia helped Trump get elected.    The Hill newspaper is reporting this from an unclassified report made by the Republican Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

     "The Senate Intelligence Committee has unequivocally upheld the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia developed a 'clear preference' for then-candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 election and sought to help him win the White House. 

     "The assessment, announced in an unclassified summary released Tuesday, represents a direct repudiation of the committee's counterpart in the House - and of President Trump himself, who has consistently rejected assertions that Moscow sought to bolster his candidacy."
     Both committees are headed by Republicans, but the Senate chair Richard Burr (R-NC) is an honorable man, while the House Intel Chair is Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) who is nothing more than a hack and a midnight errand boy for President Trump.

Supreme Court nominee:  There are two tracks in the reactions to Justice Kennedy's resignation from the Supreme Court.

(1)  The prediction, accompanied by a sense of panic and activism, that Trump will appoint an ultra conservative replacement and thus shift the balance to conservative control for generations to come.   Several major decisions in the last week of the court's session bolster this thinking, plus the fact that Trump has said he will choose from a list prepared by the Federalist Society, meaning that any choice will already have been vetted and passed muster as an "originalist" who will overturn Roe v. Wade, further destroy Obamacare, restrict voting rights, and a host of other major issues we care about.    That's probably basically true;   the question is will this be as terrible as some think?    Or, according to the other track of reasoning, might that day come instead if/when Trump gets to make a third appointment?

(2)  The less apocalyptic reaction comes from legal scholars and court watchers who predict that Chief Justice John Roberts will assume the "swing vote" role that Kennedy has held -- and that, for one, he would not likely go along with overturning Roe v. Wade.     This is based on realizing that Roberts cares very much about the reputation and legacy of the court and sees himself as its protector.    An important basis for that legacy is the legal principle of stare decisis, meaning respect for precedent set by prior decisions.    Especially when the prior decision is long-standing, has been repeatedly upheld by later laws based on it, such that it becomes "established law."

     Now this is not absolute -- or else we would still have slavery and a lot of other bad things.    But it does ensure that changes are gradual and not overturned without good reason or because of shifting political winds.

     Abortion is a prime example right now.  Many politicians who might otherwise want to overturn it still demur, saying that it is established law and they respect stare decisis.   Of course, that's not by any means true of all.    Many see abortion as akin to the slavery question when it was overturned -- so heinous and against society's values that it should never have been law and must be overturned, even if Roe has been the law for 45 years.

    The question really comes down to this:    Roberts may provide the vote to keep it on the books -- and they may continue to strangle it by small cuts, as they've been allowing states to do for some time now.

     Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it doesn't mean that abortion will be illegal in the entire U.S.    Each state can pass it's own laws, some of which will be liberal and permissive;   others, as has already come about in many red states, will put so many restrictions on the facilities, the providers, and the process that it will have the effect of depriving most of the people of that state of abortion services.    Only those who can afford to travel to another state will have access.

How to reduce the number of abortions:   We've already proved that the best way to decrease the number of abortions is through reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.    In truth, if conservatives really wanted to reduce abortions, they should support the widespread dissemination of birth control information and techniques -- and the best way to do that is to support Planned Parenthood.   It's amazing what has changed since Roe was passed in 1973.     There are actually fewer abortions because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies.

     In addition, there are now the "morning after pills," some of which can prevent a pregnancy up to five or six days after exposure;  as well as long-term, implantable contraceptives and better hormonal pills to stop pregnancy.  So let's not lose our heads and wring our hands that we'll be returning to back alleys and coathangers.

Nevertheless -- I do think it is a tragedy of great proportions that Donald Trump gets to appoint two (and maybe more) Supreme Court Justices, as well as the hundreds of lower court judges -- and in doing so will remake our judiciary far more conservative for generations.    But we probably have more to worry about with a possible third appointment by Trump than by this second one -- if Roberts does what some think he will now do.

Ralph

An immigrant success story for July 4th

I find little to be proud of in the way our current president is conducting himself and the government in our name.    No issue brings more daily sense of shame and outrage than the way immigrants are treated.    Some of the treatment, especially of asylum-seeking refugees, is actually breaking international law.

But here is a success story, from another time in our history, when we were willing to share our good fortune in our own adopted land.

A family fled religious persecution in Russia in 1893 after roving marauders burned their house to the ground.   This refugee family, which included 5 year old Israel and his brother and sisters, had traveled thousands of miles to arrive here because they knew the United States to be the land of hope for people like them.

The boy, Israel Berlin, grew up to be Irving Berlin who became a songwriter who gave us what has become our second, unofficial -- and easily singable -- national anthem, "God Bless America," an expression of Berlin's love and appreciation for the country that accepted him and his family and respected their religious beliefs.   The song has its 100th birthday this year.

Somewhere amidst all the fireworks and hot dogs and flag-waving this 4th, I hope people will give some thought to the role of immigrants in this country and rethink our attitude and policies and treatment of those seeking refuge from persecution and worse.     That starts with you, Mr. Trump.

Ralph

Good News: Thai soccer team safe after nine days trapped in cave

CNN is reporting that:  "Rescue teams have found all 12 boys and their soccer coach alive in a cave in Thailand nine days after the group went missing."   Ranging in age from 11 to 16, the soccer team was on an outing when they "became stranded in the dark tunnels by a sudden and continuous downpour."

International rescue teams, including Thai Navy SEALS and experts from the US, China, Australia and the UK were involved in the effort.   Apparently as flooding waters filled the intricate cave system, the group went deeper into the caves hoping to find refuge.

Authorities have confirmed that all of the boys are safe, although they have had little food for more than a week and are in a weakened condition.   And it will still take some work to get them out of the cave due to water filling the large, deep chambers which will have to be drained.

Medical doctors who are also divers are standing by to go in when it becomes possible so that they can stabilize the boys' conditions before trying to take them out.

The cave labyrinth is popular with tourists attracted by the limestone formations and an amphitheater-like area.   But then it becomes treacherous after the first kilometer, as it branches off into smaller areas that can easily become blocked by water flooding into the system.

Well, it's refreshing to have a spot of good news after the last week.    Deep breaths . . . . slow . . . deep . . . just breathe.

Ralph

The separations, the protest marches

Tens of thousands of people flooded the streets in over 700 U.S. cities on Saturday, marching in solidarity and protest of the Trump administrations' treatment of would-be immigrants and asylum seekers, galvanized by the separation of children from parents.

Here's how seriously the New York Times editorial board takes this from their editorial on Saturday:

*      *     *     *     *

"The marches taking place across the country this weekend are really about the soul of America.  Forcibly separating children from their parents is not about 'deterrence,' or the legal technicalities of law, or illegal immigration, or anything else President Trump has claimed to justify his latest and most odious outrage.  'It's about "Cruelty and perfidy secretly paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation," to borrow from the Declaration of Independence.'

"No, the United States does not have clean hands:   It has tolerated many inequities and atrocities throughout its history, toward Native Americans, blacks, Japanese, and women, among others.   Yet against that is the tradition in American law, culture and practice to defend the weak, to welcome the other, to give refuge to the oppressed and to refuse to acquiesce when a government acts against basic dictates of conscience.

"The Trump administration has committee a gross offence.   It is the duty of every decent American to demand that it promptly reunite these children with their parents."

*      *     *     *     *

Amen.

An impossible dream

President Donald Trump is known for being unpredictable, right?   So let's indulge for moment in a dream of what could be if we lived in the spirit of respect, compromise, and doing what's best for our nation and its people.

It would certainly be unpredictable for him to do something like that, so I'm not holding my breath but, rather, taking a breather from all the chaos and rage -- and indulging in a dream of what could be, if he surprised us in a good way.

I'm referring, of course, to Trump's selection of a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.    Remember, when Justice Scalia died, President Obama did exactly that.   He chose a judge whose decisions reflected a spirit of moderation, respect for law, willingness to compromise -- and certainly what would be best for us all at that particular time.

Before Scalia's sudden death, we had essentially the same situation we have now:   four conservative judges, four liberal judges, and one judge who most often provided the swing vote (although he did not like that title) -- so that he, Justice Anthony Kennedy, more often than any other, cast the vote that created the majority in a five to four split.

I'm not saying that Obama's choice was a strict originalist, like Scalia.  He was a moderate liberal.  But rather than grab an opportunity to shove the court further leftward with an idealogue, in choosing Merrick Garland, Obama chose respect for the Constitution, the settled law, and the spirit of compromise.   And he showed deference to the realities of the political moment.

We all know how the Republicans rewarded that extended hand of compromise from President Obama -- they slapped it away, and Mitch McConnell declared his newly created dictum:  no Supreme Court appointments during the last year of a president's time in office.   "Let the people decide" through their voice at the ballot box.    McConnell refused even to allow any hearings on Garland's suitability.

At the time, everyone, including most Republicans, expected Hillary Clinton to win.   No doubt she would either renew Garland's nomination or else pick someone she preferred, probably someone more liberal.

But Trump won and promptly turned to a list provided for him by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society -- and we got Neil Gorsuch, who is proving to be a solid, very conservative justice, with growing influence on the court.

It's true, Obama used his first two appointments to put young, liberal women on the court:   Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.  But at a point of division and controversy, his third appointment was an olive branch.

Trump has made one appointment, as conservative as Obama's first two picks are liberal.   And we are at a point about ten times as divisive and dangerous as we were when Obama extended his olive branch with his choice of the moderate Judge Garland.

So isn't it time for President Trump to put on his big boy pants, stand up and be a man -- and realize that there is more to the job of being president than just "winning"?    What the country needs right now could be provided in an instant, if Trump extended the same olive branch.

He could do that by re-nominating Judge Merrick Garland.

Please don't laugh me out of the room.   I did title this:   "An impossible dream."  But it's only impossible because Trump's instincts are not to surprise people with good or noble deeds.    And he is about to go meet with his friend -- or Master ?? --  Vladimir;   and Mueller is breathing down his neck.

But we can still dream . . . .    or have we lost that too?

Ralph