Yesterday afternoon the FBI carried out a search and seizure order at Mar-a-Lago, and everyone is already weighing in with an opinion. From political pundits to the man on the street, everyone wants to either hang Merrick Garland or praise him.
Trouble is, no one – not a single one of us – knows why that order was executed. Not even the ‘pundits’ at Fox News, CNN or any other media outlet that peddles in political turmoil. The only ones who know at this point are a) the DOJ personnel who were involved in applying for the search order and b) the Federal District Court judge who actually issued it. Even the FBI agents who searched the former president’s property were not aware of what was in the affidavit accompanying the application (more on that later).
Meanwhile, everyone is up in arms. This whole Us versus Them thing has become something of a game, and anyone can play. All you need is an opinion and a political gripe and you, too, can roll the dice. And since it’s my turn to roll, I’m going to serve as the dungeon master and set some rules. The first rule is ‘Before you draw conclusions, know the facts’. I’m not talking opinions or political-speak but the raw facts. The second rule is, ‘Re-read the first.’
Informationally, we live in the greatest time ever. The internet, cable, streaming TV, and satellite radio have blessed us with more information than we can process. The trouble is that our tribal instincts turn us into channel selectors. We get our information from the sources that tell us what we want to hear, so why should we fact-check? That would only spoil our mindset. This is making us dumber than ever, whereas we should be smarter than ever.
And guess what? The political parties and the media all know it! In fact, they count on it to get elected or get their ratings up. It has to stop.
The Mar-a-Lago search appears to have been done for real reasons, just like any of the other thousands of surprise searches conducted every year. We just don’t know yet what those reasons are. That’s the only thing you should be taking away from the newscasts at this point. Everything else is mind manipulation by the media and a bunch of blowhard political figures looking for attention.
To the Trump supporters, I say this: What took place at Mar-a-Lago is serious stuff, and the DOJ knows it. If the DOJ was looking to destroy Trump, do you think they’d go raiding his house knowing he’ll only put on his victim hat and use it against them? What a stupid idea! But if that’s really what you think this is all about then be patient and let it to backfire. Only then will you have some meat behind your ‘Banana Republic’ and ‘Witch Hunt’ charges. Until then you’re allowing yourself to be played as a pawn.
To the Trump haters, I say this: stop counting your chickens. What if the FBI turns up nothing? What if this was all based on a bad anonymous tip, for example? The fallout on the Democratic Party is going to be devastating! Trust that Merrick Garland wouldn’t take such a chance but also realize that he’s human. You are always the first to espouse the virtues of the Constitution, so don’t forget that in this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
For the time being, we should assume that the DOJ had good reason to go into Mar-a-Lago when they did. We do know that Mr. Trump brought with him at least a dozen boxes of documents when he left the White House last year. We know that someone flushed torn-up notes, and that at least one former White House official claims she saw him discard or carry away documents that are supposed to be preserved. We know that officials were at Mar-a-Lago in June on a more ‘cordial’ basis, and it stands to reason that they would have taken care of this matter back then if they could have. Let’s face it: it’s hard not to speculate.
And that’s okay, so long as we admit to ourselves and everyone else that our speculations are based on opinion and pretty much nothing else. You see, the ones who drive this speculation – the game masters if you will – are politicians and the media. They’re all spinning this and looking for a way to gain by it.
We should be careful not to fall into that trap, yet we always seem to join in the chorus like the trained monkeys we’ve become. The rhetoric about the Mar-a-Lago search being a Banana Republic move is absurd – and more than just a little ironic when you think about it. ‘Banana Republic’ refers to the dictatorships down island and in Central America, where a strong man ruled with an iron fist and could do anything he liked. Those guys would not have requested a search warrant; they would just take what they want and disappear anyone who tried to get in their way.
In the United States of America, we have a process for a search like the one at Mar-a-Lago. A government agency (here, the U.S. Dept. of Justice) applies to a judge for a search warrant. The application must cite the crime that is thought to have been committed, and why a subpoena will not suffice – usually because there’s a real danger that the evidence will be destroyed or secreted away. Accompanying this application is an affidavit, sworn under the pains and penalties of perjury, describing in detail the facts upon which the application is based. Sometimes these warrant applications are turned down because the judge is not convinced it is necessary. When they are issued, there’s always a good reason.
This process is carried out every single day somewhere in this country. And former presidents, who are not above the law, are subject to the same warrants. Does this sound like ‘Banana Republic’ stuff?
I’ll tell you what would be ‘Banana Republic,’ and that’s allowing a politician to manipulate the masses into sending him or her to the White House with a mandate that the politician can do whatever he or she likes – legal or illegal – so long as they give their supporters what they want politically. The best way to do this would be to create an ‘enemy’ of the ‘righteous’ people, ratchet up the paranoia about that ‘enemy’, and get these ‘righteous’ ones so angry and worried that they’ll do practically anything that politician says. Meanwhile, the politician lies, says things are true without any proof, does nefarious things behind the voters’ backs, flirts with or even breaks the law, and maybe profits off the office. Whenever he gets caught, he simply blames the ‘enemy’ for victimizing him. That’s ‘Banana Republic.’
So, enough of the rhetorical claptrap! It’s hurting all of us by weakening our system of government. Let’s give the DOJ the benefit of the doubt. The truth will come out eventually. The Mar-a-Lago search had to have been done for one of three reasons: a) for nefarious political gain, b) out of stupidity but with good intent, or c) because they know something we don’t know. I’m betting it’s (b) or (c), but we’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?
This is dedicated to all the nurses, doctors and scientists worldwide who are fighting on the frontlines every day to save lives and eradicate Covid-19.
Last week I posted about the Rittenhouse and Arbery trials. My post elicited a spirited response, an encouraging one thanks mostly to an old friend who disagreed with some of my points and had some to make himself—all in a civil, constructive debate.
Today, something equally, if not more, controversial is on my mind: Covid-19. The new Omicron variant is coming our way, just in time for the holidays. It will spread rapidly, causing yet another wave of infections, and it couldn’t come at a worse time, not only because of the holidays with all the travel and family gatherings but because the U.S. and other countries have recently relaxed restrictions and opened borders. Borders will have to close again; travel restrictions will be beefed up. It’s back to Square One.
This morning, I read a post on Facebook from a friend of a friend, a nurse who treats Covid patients every day. Like so many other nurses and doctors, she’s been depressed because of the toll Covid is taking, and the helpless feeling of watching patients die needlessly. Her message was simple: Be aware of what is actually happening. Use a mask and get vaccinated. It’s worth a little discomfort and inconvenience.
When the post was shared on another person’s Facebook, one of the responses contained the query (paraphrased here), “Why do hospitals deny patients Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine with z-pack if what they’re already administering doesn’t work?” A fair question, assuming what she meant is “If there is no other hope…”. This nurse went on to explain in great detail that these drugs were tried and neither had any effect in the vast majority of patients. The drugs were found to actually cause harm or even kill some patients. She went on to list several medications they do use in her facility, such as vancomycin, Zosyn, ceftriaxone, Levaquin, and cefepime. What this nurse was trying to get across was that every good doctor or nurse abides by Hippocrates’ ancient admonition, “First, do no harm.”
Now, this Facebook Q&A centered on treatment, not prevention. But it points up a huge problem we have in this country with regard to Covid and its prevention and treatment. In the age of online sharing of information by admitted amateurs, we tend to believe what we want to believe. Why? Because we don’t get our information directly from the source any longer. We get it from friends and acquaintances—many of whom we’ve never met in person and know almost nothing about—who heard it from someone who heard it from someone else. Nine times out of ten, each source injected bias and misinformation. The other blame belongs to the media. Folks, I’m not just picking on Fox and Breitbart but CNN, MSNBC, and pretty much all the stations and newspapers and podcasts out there. There’s too much opinion slinging and ratings-grabbing, and not enough bare facts these days. Sure, ratings and subscriptions have always been important, but in the old days, you raised your ratings and subscriptions by bringing your customers scoops, exclusives, and above all, accuracy. Facts mattered because journalists knew that credibility was their stock in trade.
All of that has been gradually going out the window for decades. Nowadays, with so many media outlets competing for consumers, each news agency carefully selects what they think you want to hear about. They present it in terms that slant a certain way. And you, their bread and butter, gobble it up. Not because it’s necessarily true or even relevant, but because it’s the flavor you like best. Hence, our country is splitting into warring camps recruited by media personalities and politicians (more on the politicians further on).
Part of the problem stems from the fact that no one trusts scientists or the government. We’ve been led astray too many times. They told us marijuana had no value and that it would only lead to harsher drugs—then, when governments and corporations figured out ways to profit from it, we suddenly had legalization, which has led to all sorts of helpful THC-based remedies. Similarly, they told us that UFOs didn’t exist—until the military leaked videos showing that they really do exist. This was followed by hundreds of reports from pilots and police and all manner of reliable witnesses who have seen them.
But I digress. The point is that there are good reasons so many are skeptical of what they are told. Yet the right information is out there on that same wonderful internet we use to exchange opinions. You just have to take the time to look for it, digest it, evaluate it against other sources, and decide what is true based on facts rather than half-baked information. Doing so reveals two things: masks help a lot, and vaccines are very safe and effective. And yet people have been told all sorts of wild things, such as the vaccine is used to inject some kind of nano-sized tracker which can be proved by running a magnet over the site where the vaccine was injected. They’ve also been told that mandating masks is an infringement on a person’s personal rights protected under the U.S. Constitution and that it’s part of a slippery slope leading to other infringements on freedom.
But mask mandates and vaccines are not nearly as radical as you might think. Throughout our history, and especially since the dawn of the industrial/technological era, the U.S. government has stepped in to do similar things. During the Second World War, the government rationed gasoline, materials like nylon, certain foods, and all sorts of other items because they were needed for the war effort. In the ’50s and ’60s, the polio vaccine was required before a child could attend public school. Anyone who has seen the old footage of a kid in an iron lung can understand why.
Getting a Covid vaccine and wearing a mask is no different. In fact, you could say that doing these things is as patriotic as going to war to fight terrorists. In this case, the terrorists are microscopic, and masks and vaccines are offensive weapons for taking out those terrorists before they can do any more damage. Just as in the fall of 2001, we’re a nation in crisis; we’ve been suffering through that crisis for nearly two years now. Three-quarters of a million Americans are dead.
How many more will have to die before we begin to see that sound science, although not perfect, is still our best path to beating Covid? We need to stop being political about it and start realizing that we are one nation and that our nation needs these small sacrifices—the inconvenience of wearing a mask and taking a tiny poke in the arm—as a way of battling the enemy, just as Americans sacrificed so much during World War II.
When in doubt, we need to act like adults. We must take the time to educate ourselves instead of blindly listening to the media who are in it for profit, or politicians who’ll say anything to get elected. The only reliable sources—the only ones we have no choice but to trust—are the medical scientists. Sometimes they’re wrong, no doubt. But look at how much they’ve done right over the decades! We trust them to cut us open and fix a bad heart that would have killed that same patient a hundred years ago. We trust them to deliver our babies. We trust them to save our lives when we are severely injured in an accident. Why shouldn’t we give them the credit they deserve, and a chance to help us, so we can kiss Covid goodbye instead of our loved ones?
Doctors—not politicians, media, or Uncle Fred—are the only ones who abide by an oath that says, “First, do no harm.” Give truth and science a chance.
This week, verdicts were rendered in two murder trials. In Kenosha, Wisconsin, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges against him for killing two men and injuring a third. In Brunswick, Georgia, all three defendants were found guilty in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery.
Spoiler alert: I agree with both juries and their findings on all counts. I’m not alone, but my reasons may differ from others, so read on.
For those not entirely familiar, Kyle Rittenhouse is the kid who went to Kenosha during the riots there in August 2020. Only 17 at the time, his explanation was that he wanted to protect property from looters and administer medical aid. Rittenhouse lived in Illinois, so he had to cross state lines to get to Kenosha. Too young to purchase the gun he carried, an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle, he had an older friend buy it for him in Wisconsin. Ironically, that friend may be facing serious prison time for supplying a gun to a minor resulting in death, while the minor who pulled the trigger, and was tried as an adult, is walking free today.
Armed with his new toy, on August 25, 2020, Rittenhouse spent the evening walking the streets of Kenosha loaded for bear. He has always maintained that he carried the assault rifle only for protection, but he could just as easily have protected himself with a holstered handgun. By the way, it should be pointed out that he wasn’t the only amateur enforcer there that night. Unsanctioned militiamen calling themselves the Kenosha Guard came to Kenosha to play army, too. There’ no evidence, of which I’m aware, that they inspired Rittenhouse. I only mention this because the presence of these self-appointed militiamen has been blamed by some for escalating the violence.
But back to Kyle. Here’s this high school kid, too young to buy the gun he’s carrying, too young to join the military, too young even to order a beer or buy cigarettes, playing soldier with real ammunition. Pictures and videos show him walking around in a backwards baseball cap, locked and loaded, a boy who had yet to shed his baby fat. During his testimony, and upon the reading of the verdict, he broke down like a blubbering child. Not a tough, battle-hardened cop or soldier, but a child not mature or sensible enough to understand what he was getting himself into.
Others besides Rittenhouse and the militia members were carrying firearms that fateful night. However, most weapons were rocks, debris, and incendiary devices. Rittenhouse got in the thick of this, and amid the confusion, he shot and killed two men and wounded another. He claimed it was all done in self-defense, and the jury bought it.
“Rittenhouse, in essence, was the victor of a state-sanctioned duel — when everyone is armed, whomever squeezes the trigger first gets to claim self-defense.” — Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 22. 2021
The aftermath of the trial has been just as disturbing. Rittenhouse, it seems, has become the darling of conservative-leaning media, politicians, and activists. He was reportedly offered, or at least considered, for a Congressional internship; there was even talk of him running for office. Rittenhouse has never spent a day in college and has no experience that would qualify him for any of this. Based solely on his visit to Kenosha, he has become the poster boy for far right-wingers wanting to thumb their noses at gun control advocates.
Rittenhouse was interviewed on Fox, and the same station is working on a documentary based on footage and interviews collected during the trial and after. That’s right, even before a verdict was ever reached, the conservative media was preparing to turn the kid into an example of the oppression that supporters of the Second Amendment have to endure. Donald Trump, never one to pass up an opportunity to draw attention to himself, got his picture taken with Rittenhouse. Smiling for the camera, both flashed the thumbs-up sign. Seriously.
Some will go on hailing Rittenhouse as an example of why the Second Amendment exists, namely self-defense. They will be wrong. But don’t misunderstand me. Under Wisconsin law the verdict was fair, if highly unpalatable. Rittenhouse’s attorneys did a superb job of proving that the boy only shot out of a reasonable fear of being killed himself. After listening to all witnesses and seeing the video footage, a jury reasonably inferred from the evidence that this was the case.
But here’s the thing: he shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Not just because of his age, but because Kyle Rittenhouse was asking for trouble in an already volatile place. Instead of helping the situation, he escalated it. Instead of handling things right, as a trained officer or National Guardsman would have, he put himself squarely into circumstances he had no more business being in the middle of than the other rioters and looters.
Now, some of you may be thinking I’m one of those gun haters who want to take your guns away. You’d be wrong on both counts. I don’t hate guns; I hate what they do when put in the wrong hands in the wrong situation. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe it’s every person’s right to arm themselves for protection or even for sport. I just don’t believe in a wild west version of settling disputes and meting out justice.
Which brings me to the second trial, the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial in Georgia.
Ahmaud Arbery, a young Black man, had just committed the crime of going inside an unfinished, unsecured house under construction. In other words, he committed a trespass, a misdemeanor under Georgia law. For his crime, Arbery is dead. On the other hand, videos show that several people, including young White kids, had gone in the building as well, likely out of simple curiosity because, like Arbery, they didn’t steal anything. These kids probably got a stiff lecture from their parents and maybe a loss of privileges. At least that was the punishment my parents gave me for doing exactly same thing.
Without getting into all the facts, which are available elsewhere on the internet, Arbery was hunted down by three white men, Travis McMichael, his father Greg McMichael, and William “Roddie” Bryan. The first two were armed with a shotgun and handgun, respectively, and the third carried only a phone camera. Arbery was unarmed. After chasing Arbery up and down neighborhood streets, the three finally cornered him between their two trucks. A scuffle ensued during which Arbery was shot three times by Travis McMichael. Arbery collapsed and died on the street.
Claiming self-defense, the three defendants walked free for a while. At the time, there was a law on the books allowing a citizen’s arrest where a felony has been committed and the arrestors have first-hand knowledge of the crime, and the three claimed that was what they were exercising. But Arbery hadn’t committed a felony at all. Further, his pursuers had only heard from others that this might be the perp who’d been committing crimes in the neighborhood. None of them had any real knowledge of what Arbery had or had not done.
Much has been made of the racial implications of this case, but for our purposes here, that’s a red herring. Suffice it to say that a good circumstantial case could be made out for a hate crime. One of the defense attorneys, Laura Hogue, didn’t help matters when, in her bumbling closing argument, she described Arbery as having long, dirty toenails, an apparent reference to runaway slaves. Her comment elicited gasps from the gallery and condemnation by much of the media covering the trial. Such a misstep shows that she was either foolish or desperate, apparently thinking that race-baiting the nearly all white jury might get an acquittal for her client, Greg McMichael.
It backfired. Aside from sullying her reputation, her client may have grounds for an ineffective assistance of counsel appeal. Why do I say this? Because this jury of 11 Whites and one Black (thanks to peremptory challenges by the defense), completely rejected her Jim Crow gambit. Together, these good citizens sent a message: Don’t ask us to go along with your game. This is the 21st century. It’s wrong to go around toting dangerous weapons and using them on the streets against anyone. Period.
But the lesson from the Arbery case (among other lessons not covered here) is that it’s a bad idea to go around playing cops and robbers. Just as in the Rittenhouse case, unless you have a badge or official military garb, you have no better authority to be carrying a gun than anyone else on the street. Your intentions are never going to be clear. The Arbery case accentuates this notion because Travis McMichael is a Coast Guard veteran, and his father Greg is a former law enforcement officer. Both were trained in deescalating violence yet look what happened with them. Injecting yourself into a dangerous conflict while carrying a firearm is just asking for trouble. Someone is likely to get hurt or worse.
For this reason, the Georgia legislature has since repealed its citizen’s arrest law. More needs to be done, however. Better gun laws—sensible gun laws—are needed throughout this country. Just yesterday, news stations reported that Philadelphia had reached 500 homicides for the year. How many of them were caused by guns?
Guns should be regulated, but there are ways to do this without taking them away from law-abiding citizens. If a law had been in place in Wisconsin requiring a minimum jail sentence for any unauthorized person carrying a gun during a declared emergency, Rittenhouse may not have come to Kenosha. Even if he defied such a law, he would be doing time right now, sending a message to all others who would consider doing the same.
Likewise, if a strict law had been on the books in Georgia forbidding the carrying of a firearm on a public street, Ahmaud Arbery might still be alive. The police showed up shortly after Arbery was shot, meaning that his pursuers could have easily let the police know which direction he’d gone and let them handle it. That’s what responsible neighborhood watch groups do. It’s what police instruct them to do: be the eyes and ears, but don’t take the law into your own hands.
Of course, there will always be resistance to regulation and restriction on use of firearms, and I get that. Second Amendment advocates feel any regulation is a slippery slope leading to a full ban. That’s part of the reason it’s so difficult to get any sensible laws passed. It’s a hot button, a topic fraught with emotion much like abortion rights. No one wants to act like adults and look for common ground. Instead, everything is turned into a political statement. Politicians divide us to get elected. Media stars press our buttons so they can get better ratings. Meanwhile, we are destroying ourselves—but what do they care?
Three men are dead. Three men are going to jail for a long time. These cases are only a small example of what is wrong with America today. We are all victims—but also enablers—in a game of manipulation and deceit. We take sides in an all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners war. No one wins this war. We’ll all lose in the end unless we begin to realize who the enemy really is.