Blog Archives

The Supposition Being...

7/25/2025

Back in the fall of 1968, I enrolled at Northern Arizona University.  I was a young 17-year-old, naïve as hell about life.  I relied on the educational experience I had gained from a small, but productive high school (My graduating class of 68 members had three National Merit Semi-finalists).  When I met with my NAU academic advisor to determine which classes would be the best for me to enroll, I was told to take PS260.  My NAU advisor said if you are going into education, you will need this class to meet teacher certification requirements.  I agreed.

On the first day of class, I scouted out the other students who had enrolled in PS260, and I immediately knew I may be trying to swim in deep water.  The class membership was predominantly juniors and seniors, and I was questioning not only my resolve, but my academic advisor’s advice.

Class began when Dr. William Strauss arrived.  He was a small man, looked to be in his 60s, white hair, spoke with an evident southern accent, and dressed in a navy-blue suit.  When he laughed, his head would turn stoplight red and accentuated his white hair.  Strauss had an idiosyncratic behavior of putting his head down and rubbing his hand through his short-cropped hair saying, “The supposition being…”.  Anyone who was enrolled in a class taught by Dr. Strauss knew this to be true.

As class continued throughout the semester, I found the upperclassmen in enrolled in PS260 were just about as confused as I was.  Don’t get me wrong…Strauss was a great teacher, knew his material backwards and forwards, but had not put his thoughts together in a well-structured setting.

One class, Strauss decided to speak about elections and election campaigns.  During his lecture, Dr. Strauss said, “I told Lyndon…” and at that point an upperclassman immediately interrupted Dr. Strauss and asked, “Lyndon who?”  Dr. Strauss simply answered, “I was Lyndon Johnson’s campaign manager in 1948 in Texas”.  From that moment forward, the entire class knew we were in a special situation, and the concentration in class surged.

During the semester, Dr. Strauss brought to us his expertise in elections, campaigns, and winning elections.  He brought forth the concept of understanding what must be realized about the electorate, and where the positions of candidates must be if the candidate wished to win.  And with that, I would like to share what the good doctor gave the students of PS260.

What Dr. Strauss brought to our attention was the Bell Curve and how it played in the role of an election.  For clarity, A bell curve is a graph that shows how values in a dataset are disbursed, with most falling near the average, and fewer appearing at the extremes. It is used to understand patterns, trends, and variation in data.  The highest point of the bell curve represents the middle of the data…in Strauss’s world, the middle of the population or electorate.

The Bell Curve is divided by “standard deviations”.  A standard deviation is a measurement used to quantify the data dispersion in a set of given values around the mean.  According to Dr. Strauss, the values he was used for the Bell Curve was political thought (campaign issues) of the electorate (population).

One standard deviation to the left of center represents roughly 34 % of the population.  Combining that with one standard deviation to the right of center, according to Strauss would represent 68% of the electorate.  And, according to Dr. Strauss, it was easy to say, anything to the right of the median of the Bell Curve was Republican, and anything to the left of the median could be considered Democrat.  As Dr. Strauss was carefully showing his students all of this, it became apparent, if one wished to win an election, the candidate had to draw voters from the standard deviation closest to the median.  In other words, the candidate had to have some centrist qualities to attract voters from the other side of the median.

According to Dr. Strauss, what this means, is the potential candidate must be agreeable to work for the benefit of the entire country and not just his voter base should the candidate be elected.  The candidate can still have a conservative or liberal philosophy of how to govern, but, the elected official must work across the aisle to accommodate the “minority party”, the party not in control of the national or state politics.  If the elected official failed to do so, his tenure as a political leader would be rocky at best.

With that being said, it brings me to this conclusion.

Unfortunately, the current state of politics in our nation is nowhere near Dr. Strauss’s idea of politics.  The Bell Curve has been turned upside down.  The die has been cast.  The combined standard deviations from the median no longer represent 68% of the electorate.  The attitude is you’re either with us or against us.  And in my view, that comes from both parties.  There are no centrist elements of the current administration being displayed, and that causes the retort of the minority party to be curt and abrasive.
Both parties have had elected officials resign because of the behavior and actions of their respective party leadership. This doesn’t promote a healthy, cohesive and effective government, one of the people, by the people and for the people.

With the mid-term elections approaching in November of 2026, and potential candidates already posturing to gain public attention, it will be interesting to see if the political pendulum swings back to a more centrist position.

And with acknowledgement to Dr. Strauss, “The supposition being…if government doesn’t return to a more centrist philosophy, the next few years could be rocky at best.  And what will that produce?”

0 Comments

And So it Goes

7/24/2025

0 Comments

The term “deflection” is part of sport.  In football, members of the defensive line are told to raise their arms to try and deflect a pass attempt; the defensive backs are told to deflect the thrown pass, if not intercept, so the receiver will not catch the ball.  In hockey, it is the charge of the goalie to deflect any and all shots on goal.  Good defense in basketball includes deflecting a pass from one person to another.  I’m sure there are other examples of how “deflection” is used in the world of sport.

Now it appears the term “deflection” has entered the world of politics at the highest level.

When the current President was asked about the possible inclusion of his name in the Epstein Files, the President did what any defensive back or hockey goalie would do, he deflected the question to another subject, thereby not answering the question.  Instead, the President went on the attack of former President Obama, stating Obama was a principal in an attempted coup of “rigging” the 2016 election.  President Trump has openly said an investigation regarding his accusation should commence and Obama should be prosecuted.

To be clear, it has been reported by news outlets, Trump’s Attorney General, Pamela Bondi, advised the President in the spring of this year, his name appeared in the Epstein File numerous times.

The President has used the terms witch hunt, hoax, and scam when answering questions about his past behavior.  In a previous entry to this blog, I wrote about the “ad hominem” argument, which is commonplace for President Trump responses to questions he doesn’t want to address.

And now, the real witch hunt may have begun.  Many news outlets have reported the following:

A vote in the House Oversight Committee to subpoena the Department of Justice for files related to Epstein worsened Trump’s political headache, since it revealed the appetite for more disclosure among some MAGA Republicans. The GOP-majority committee also voted to subpoena testimony from Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison term.

Please note, there are MAGA Republicans on the House Oversight Committee who voted for the subpoenas. One of Trump’s biggest supporters Marjorie Green Taylor has said, “the base will turn” if Trump doesn’t release the Epstein files.

In sport, if a player doesn’t do his job of deflecting well enough, the player’s career is shortened by being released from his team, his career potentially over.  In Salem during the witch hunts of 1692-1693, those found to be “guilty” were either imprisoned or hanged.

To borrow a phrase from Vonnegut…”and so it goes’…

0 Comments

Where has the Rule of Law gone?

7/16/2025

2 Comments

I’m not a Rosie O’Donnell fan.  Not at all.  I don’t like her act whatsoever.  But there is something about Rosie I do like, and that is she sometimes is not afraid to express her thoughts or her doings.  Rosie has moved to Ireland.  The reason seems to be her disdain for the President.

It was reported, after O’Donnell’s move to Ireland in January, Trump threatened to “revoke” her citizenship in the United States.  He stated so on this Social Truth platform.  Since the breakup of the bromance between Elon Musk and the President, the President has said he would consider “revoking” Musk’s citizenship.

This isn’t akin to a judge suspending a driver’s license because of a person operating a motor vehicle under the influence. It is creating a situation much like a short story by Edward Everett Hale, first published in 1863, “A Man Without a Country”, with one small exception.  It was O’Donnell’s choice to move to Ireland, regardless the reason.

The President wrote "Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her citizenship."

“She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. God Bless America!"

Rosie O’Donnell a threat to humanity?  Nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity; the black plaque was a threat to humanity; the Spanish Flu epidemic that occurred in 1918-1919 was a threat to humanity…but Rosie O’Donnell?  C’mon man!

I researched the possibility of Trump going through with his threat.  I’m not sure the President has done so. Rosie’s father was from Donegal, Ireland; her mother Irish-American born in the United States.  Rosie was born in the United States.  She has citizenship being born in the United States to an American citizen.  On what grounds would the President revoke O’Donnell’s citizenship?  Because she moved to another country and spoke badly about him?

This threat by the President goes along with his idea of dismissing “birthright citizenship”.  Imagine if the President were to pursue this and be successful, everyone in the United States could have our citizenship revoked because of … speaking our mind and criticizing the President … uhhh, that is a First Amendment Right.

It is well known, the President, in an interview with Kristen Welker of “Meet the Press” indicated he didn’t have to worry about what he could or couldn’t do as President in regards to the Constitution.  When Welker pressed the President on upholding the Constitution, Trump’s reply was, “I don’t know.  I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”  But please notice, the President didn’t say he would uphold the Constitution.

So, what does this indicate?  It is apparent President Trump would like to negate the 1st Clause of the 14thAmendment to do away with “birthright citizenship”.  But please understand, that is the same clause that gives ALL citizens 1st class citizenship to include the Bill of Rights.  It is the same Amendment that gave us SCOTUS decisions of Topeka v. Brown, Bakke v. UC Davis Regents, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which, surprisingly, affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents.

If the President were to be successful in negating the 14th Amendment, could he pick and choose what he wishes to negate in the Constitution?  In a recent ruling by SCOTUS, the Court said anything the President does in an official capacity as President of the United States is legal.

And that brings me to the real nuts and bolts of this article:  The Rule of Law.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has recently spoken out about the erosion of “the Rule of Law” in the United States.  Chief Justice John Roberts has consistently expressed concerns about the state of the rule of law in the United States, pointing to several areas of concern:

Eroding Public Trust and Disregard for Court Decisions: Roberts has warned against public officials, regardless of political affiliation, who suggest open disregard for federal court rulings. A Gallup poll found American's confidence in the country's judicial system dropped to a record low of 35%.
Attacks on Judges and Judicial Independence: He's cautioned against "ad hominem" attacks on judges and stressed that criticism should be directed at the decisions themselves, not at the judges personally.
Importance of Civic Education: In a recent address to Georgetown Law graduates, Roberts highlighted the importance of civic education, stating that a lack of understanding about the courts and the different branches of government among young people poses a significant threat to the rule of law. He emphasized that strengthening the rule of law requires a better understanding of how the U.S. system of justice works.
Overturning Precedent and Legal Stability: He believes that overruling precedent solely because a different group of justices holds a differing opinion is not a sufficient reason and could lead to legal instability.

In essence, Chief Justice Roberts' concerns about the rule of law center on maintaining the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary, protecting judges from intimidation and threats, and ensuring the public's understanding and trust in the U.S. system of justice.

How does this apply to the Executive Branch, namely the President?

A New York Times columnist, Charlie Savage, wrote, “In the radical opening weeks of his second term, President Trump has appeared to feel little constraint by any need to show respect for the rule of law."

What must be remembered, and should have been learned in government class in school is:

The Legislative Branch (Congress) makes laws
The Executive Branch (the President) enforces law
The Judiciary (the court system) interprets law

Please keep in mind, the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful.  This was to prevent one central figure from garnering authoritarian or autocratic power.

President Trump began the first weeks of his second term with a flurry of executive actions and orders that pushed beyond the limits of executive authority. As of this writing, since Trump took office some 6 months ago, President Trump has signed 166 Executive Orders …which have the same force as law.  In his eight years as President, Ronald Reagan signed a total of 381 Executive Orders.

Is Trump overstepping his authority?  Is the Executive branch becoming all too powerful, and if so…why?

Let me suggest this:  The President is one who is promoting “Ad hominem” attacks. This simply means, in an argument or debate, one doesn’t defend their argument or position.  One attacks the person.  The buzz word for this behavior is “bully”.

This is exactly what behavior Trump has demonstrated.  If one is not loyal to Trump, if one questions his ideas or proposed policies, Trump attacks the person and doesn’t defend his argument.  He has verbally attacked judges that didn’t deliver an opinion in his favor.  Trump has attacked the work of the January 6thCommittee…personally using a verbal attack on Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger, both Republicans.  Cheney lost her primary election to a Trump backed candidate.  Kinzinger chose not to run for re-election. Trump continually blames his shortcomings on President Biden, often calling him “the worst President in the history of the United States.”

Is it this behavior that prevents the Republicans in Congress from speaking out against Trump, from performing their job of oversight?  Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina spoke out and voted against the Big Beautiful Bill Act for which he was rudely chastised by the President, who even indicated Tillis would not have his support in his upcoming election.  Tillis, a well-respected Senator, surprised just about everyone  by stating he was not going to run for re-election, thereby declaring he was not beholding to the President.

Are members of Congress afraid of the President and his personal attacks?  I believe the Chief Justice did say so…in a very diplomatic manner.  If this is the case, and the Legislative Branch will not use its power of checks and balances on the Executive Branch, then it is up to the Judiciary to do so.  Unfortunately, even if SCOTUS were to deliver an opinion that was not favorable to the President, how would it be enforced when the Executive Branch is the enforcement arm of our government?

So, is it Trump’s behavior of requiring complete loyalty of his minions causing the court system and Congress to look the other way and allow the checks and balance system to fail?  Because, if that is the case, the Rule of Law doesn’t apply and an Imperial Presidency is exactly what will develop…something the Founding Fathers did not want.

That is why the Constitution was written as it is.  In fact, Article 1 of the Constitution is the Legislative Branch, NOT, the Executive Branch, and it was done so because of the fear of a singular person becoming all too powerful.

I’ll let you arrive at your own conclusion.

2 Comments

Lost concept

7/7/2025

0 Comments

I would like to address a concept of politics, whether it be in the United States or any other democratic state in the world.  That concept is “loyal opposition”.  We have lost that in our American democracy.

This concept is vital to keep an open and meaningful dialogue for those in power.  A concept promotes friendly, but sometimes heated debate.  It allows the difference of opinions to exist without reprisal from the party in the majority.  Why is that important?

The term “loyal” indicates that no matter what the difference of opinion may be between two political parties, all members of such parties recognize they are citizens of the same country.  It implies, if the country fails, then the elected politicians fail those who elected us to our positions of power and authority.  And with that, from the debris of a failed constitutional democracy, another form of government will emerge.

The term “opposition” indicates the elected politicians of the minority party, will represent the opinion of that part of the citizenry who supports them.  That opinion may very well run contrary to some, if not all ideas of the majority party.  The rights of the minority party are given a degree of respect.  In a sense, this means the minority parties rights are not set aside by the majority party by the legislative process, by executive order, or by royal decree.

Loyal opposition promotes statesmanship.  It promotes the management of public affairs in such a manner that both parties can reach an agreement.  In other words, compromise, which is a fundamental element of a democracy much like ours in the United States.

Because of the lack of understanding the term of “loyal opposition”, we, as a population, have learned to hate, despise, loathe members of the political party of which one may not be a member.  All one has to do is read commentary of one of several social media platforms to realize this to be true.  How far has this gone?  In a political speech conducted by the current President of the United States in the state of Iowa, the President said,

“…with all of the things we did, with the tax cuts and rebuilding our military, not one Democrat voted for us. And I think we used it in the campaign that’s coming up, the midterms, because we got to beat them. But all of the — all of the things that we’ve given, and they wouldn’t vote, only because they hate Trump. But I hate them, too. You know that? So, it’s sort of the — I hate — I really do.”

When the leader of the United States, the leader of the free world, the one person who is supposed to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States makes this kind of statement, he is encouraging division in our One Big Beautiful Country.  He is rejecting the concept of “loyal opposition” to the point of implying, “if you ain’t with us, you’re against us” or “it’s our way or the highway”.  There is no room for compromise and that leads to a very hostile atmosphere in our political system, one that cannot sustain a somewhat harmonious life for those of us who must decide which political party to support…or just say the hell with it and not participate at all.

And that my friends may very well be the beginning of the end for the United States of America as we know it to be.  That is just this man’s opinion.

0 Comments

Educational Funding...at what price?

7/3/2025

0 Comments

I must give thanks for Dr. Sasha Anaya for bringing this to my attention.  The good doctor is one of my former students.  She has done well for herself.

As of July 1, 2025, the Department of Education is withholding approximately 6.2 BILLION in funding for education throughout the United States.  According to Reuters on July 2nd, “A spokesman at the White House Office of Management and Budget said on Wednesday there was an "ongoing programmatic review" of education funding and that initial findings showed what he termed as a misuse of grant funds to "subsidize a radical leftwing agenda."

However, The Learning Policy Institute stated the billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funds across five programs currently remained unavailable to states and territories. The funds were meant for after-school and summer programs and initiatives for migrant students and those who speak limited English, it said.

The Trump administration has threatened schools over other matters that include DEI practices, transgender policies, and protests against Israel and supporting Palestinians.  Many universities are now examining their DEI policies and are in the midst of acquiescing to the demands of the President.  Harvard may be the only university to be objecting to the threat by the Trump administration.

So, the question that needs to be answered is:  How can the Department of Education withhold Congressional appropriations when the Constitution gives the strings of the national purse to Congress?

It is generally not legal for the federal government to withhold appropriated funds.  The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (CIA) restricts the Executive Branch ability to refuse to spend money that Congress has approved. The President can propose rescissions or deferrals, but these require specific procedures and congressional approval.
Please allow me to provide an explanation to the process.  And you may thank AI for this.

Constitutional Basis:

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the "power of the purse," meaning they control government spending. The President's role is primarily to execute the laws passed by Congress, including spending laws.

Impoundment Control Act:

This act was passed in response to President Nixon's attempts to withhold funds from programs he disagreed with. It established procedures for the President to propose rescissions (cancellations) or deferrals (temporary delays) of appropriated funds.

Rescissions:
If the President wants to cancel an appropriation, they must send a special message to Congress outlining the reasons and the proposed impact. Congress then has a set period of time (45 days) to approve the rescission. If Congress does not approve, the funds must be released.

Deferrals:
The President can also propose a deferral, which is a temporary delay in spending. This also requires a special message to Congress.

GAO's Role
The  Government Accountability Office (GAO) plays a role in overseeing impoundments and ensuring compliance with the ICA. The GAO can review impoundment actions and report any violations of the law.

Consequences of Illegal Impoundment:
Refusing to spend appropriated funds without following the proper procedures is illegal and can be challenged in court. For example, several cases against President Nixon's impoundment practices were successful.

Exceptions and Limitations:
While the ICA generally prohibits the President from unilaterally withholding funds, there are some limited exceptions and situations where the President may have some flexibility, such as in cases of budget emergencies or when funds are not needed.  However, even in these cases, the President must act within the established legal framework.

So, then, the answer to the posed question?  The One Big Beautiful Bill Act

How does that happen?

The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is a budget reconciliation bill. It was passed by the House of Representatives and Senate using the reconciliation process, which allows certain bills to bypass the usual Senate filibuster rules. In essence, the reconciliation process allows the previously ratified budget from the prior year to be changed.

Keep in mind the budget from last year was ratified by the House and Senate in 2024, with the Republicans controlling the House and the Democrats controlling the Senate.  And just for general knowledge, ALL revenue bills must originate in the House.  So, it may be assumed, the Republican controlled House had a great deal of influence on funding SNAP and Medicaid when the budget was ratified.

In the context of the US budget reconciliation process, a reconciliation bill can be used to affect spending, but the process has limitations regarding canceling previous appropriations.

Let the following explain what the reconciliation process can and cannot do.

Mandatory Spending: Reconciliation bills can be used to make changes to mandatory or entitlement spending programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. This is because mandatory spending is determined by existing laws, and reconciliation allows changes to these laws, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Discretionary Spending: Generally, reconciliation has not been used to either enact new or cancel existing discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, such as annual funding for the Departments of Education or Defense, is controlled through the regular appropriations process, which is separate from the reconciliation process.
Rescinding Previously Appropriated Funds: In theory, a reconciliation bill could include a provision to rescind unspent and unobligated discretionary funds that were previously appropriated. However, this would require specific instructions in the budget resolution given to the Appropriations Committees. The Economic Policy Innovation Center reports that the Appropriations Committees have not received such instructions since FY 1982.
Byrd Rule: A key limitation on the reconciliation process is the "Byrd Rule." This rule states that provisions in a reconciliation bill must be primarily budget-related. The rescission of previously appropriated discretionary funds would have to demonstrate a clear change in outlays to comply with this rule. Provisions that don't change spending or revenues, or that rely on future action (like subsequent annual appropriations), are unlikely to pass the Byrd Rule test.

In essence, while a reconciliation bill could theoretically be used to rescind unspent discretionary funds, it's generally not used for this purpose due to the rules and limitations of the process, particularly the Byrd Rule. The primary focus of reconciliation is on mandatory spending, revenue changes, and the debt limit.

What are the points of emphasis for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?

·       "One Big Beautiful Bill" context:
The "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a reconciliation bill that was a key part of President Trump's second-term domestic agenda.

·       Key components:
The bill includes significant tax cuts, funding for defense, and provisions related to border security, immigration, and healthcare programs like Medicaid.

And that will bring us back to Doe, as the song lyrics state.  Only this doe is a Supreme Court decision that originated in Texas in 1982, Plyler v. Doe.

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot constitutionally deny a free public education to students based on their immigration status.  The 1982 case involved a Texas law that withheld state funds from local school districts for educating undocumented children and allowed districts to deny enrollment to these children. The Court held that this violated the Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

There are many aspects of this case that should apply to the federal government withholding appropriated money from the education system of our nation.  Those aspects are as follows:

·       Texas Law:

The Texas legislature enacted a law that allowed local school districts to deny enrollment to, and withhold state funding for the education of, undocumented children.

·       Fourteenth Amendment Violation:

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law to all individuals within a state's jurisdiction.

·       Undocumented Children's Rights:
The Court recognized that denying undocumented children access to public education creates a marginalized group with limited opportunities, harming both the individuals and society as a whole.

·       No Rational Basis:
The Court found that the Texas law lacked a rational basis for discriminating against undocumented children and did not serve any legitimate state interest.

·       Impact:
Plyler v. Doe ensured that all children, regardless of immigration status, have access to a free public education through 12th grade, according to the National Immigration Law Center.

It is my opinion if the President wants to close the Department of Education as he has stated, then do it.  First, get permission from Congress to do so…that should be a slam dunk.  Then, give the individual state ample time to raise taxes to replace the lost federal funding.  It is also my opinion the Department of Education, acting upon the direction of the President, is withhold funding that public schools around the nation built their budgets on.  By state law, most all school expenditures must be included in the state budget and that amount is the sum of each school district budget.  That money being withheld by the federal government is appropriated by Congress, and it is categorized as “Discretionary Spending”.

Withholding funding will undoubtedly cause school districts to cut programs and faculty.  Why?  Because the individual states haven’t had enough time to raise taxes to compensate for the lost federal funding.  This will set education in the United States back for years to come.  The only ones who will suffer the most will be the students.  Classroom teachers, of which there is a national shortage as it is, will leave the classroom for greener pastures.  The job is tough enough as it is…why would classroom instructors stick around to work in an underfunded entity?

If the Learning Policy Institute is correct, the funds meant for after-school and summer programs and initiatives for migrant students and those who speak limited English, being withheld by the Department of Education, under the direction of the President, could quite possibly be in violation of Plyler v. Doe.  Unfortunately, it will take a long, drawn-out court battle to see who is compliant with the law.

I’m betting it isn’t the Executive Branch.

0 Comments

One Man's Opinion

The Supposition Being...

And So it Goes

Where has the Rule of Law gone?

Lost concept

Educational Funding...at what price?

Archives