A few reflections

Given all that has transpired over the past several months, it is somewhat challenging to isolate on an area that might have some degree of interest.  Certainly, there is the impeachment event in Washington that has captured a significant amount of time with the media outlets as well as characterizing the banter around the country’s pubs and other places were people gather.  There are those who side with what has been a very tepid defense of the wayward activities of a president who seems to be able to justify anything and everything that he does whether it be right, wrong, or questionable.  Conversely, there are those who believe, without the slightest of reservations, that the president has engaged in the abuse of power by his attempt to pressure the Ukrainian President.  His stonewalling decision-making about the release of documents and making administrative personnel unavailable for questioning, hence the obstruction of congress. 

To bolster the defense to justify the president’s actions and to undermine the articles of impeachment, two distinguished jurists, Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, were brought into the fold.  It has been somewhat fascinating to listen to each of them speak with forked tongue.  Going back to the impeachment of President Clinton when they both argued that an impeachable offense does not have to be the commission of an actual crime.  Now, compare that with the language of today.  Particularly, Dershowitz has argued that “no crime has been committed”.  He justifies the obvious contradiction by stating that he had not considered other arguments defining an impeachable act.  What?  This noted legal scholar admitting that he failed to consider all aspects of this critical issue in times past.  Certainly, there is an absence of evidence that this noted scholar is influenced by or adhering to the hallowed legal principle of precedence.

 Further, do also keep in mind, that this is the same Kenneth Starr who was the president of Baylor University when they were exposed for failing to address sexual allegations from women who claimed to have been abused by some football players. In his presidential capacity, Starr ordered an investigation into the charges by a prestigious law firm, and in a scathing 13-page summary the law firm found that Baylor, under Starr’s leadership, had done little to respond to accusations of sexual assaults.  Yes, this is the same Kenneth Starr, who as Special Prosecutor, vigorously and with great zeal pursued charges against President Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky.  Bit ironic, isn’t it.    

 On another note, the recent tragic death of basketball legend, Kobe Bryant, his daughter and seven others in the helicopter crash over the recent weekend highlights the fragile reality of life.  “In the twinkling of an eye” life can be no more.  In the Book of James, it states: “Whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow.  For what is your life?  It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.”    Indeed, those lost in the crash are gone and there is no tomorrow.  Similarly, here in Alabama, the fiery tragedy at the boat dock in Scottsboro which, as of this writing, took eight lives that will not have any more tomorrows.  Certainly, there is a permanency in death.  It is final.  There are no maybes, what ifs, or second chances.  Indeed, we will all face the end of life at some point and, I believe, I’m getting closer and closer to that eventuality.  In each of these tragedies, it all happened, accidently.  There was not a plan to be followed or preparations to be made—it just happened.   A friend falls, undoubtedly hits his head, and his life is snuffed out.  No more tomorrows.  Even when one lingers with a chronic illness and the end of life is inevitable, when it happens, it’s difficult because of the finality of life no more.  Those who subscribe to various religious orientations can find solace in the belief that there is a tomorrow.  There is a life after the earthly journey and those beliefs can provide a modicum of calm and acceptance. 

Granted, there are other events that have occurred during this time and I have, no doubt, fixated on the more surreal and unfathomable.  Why are we experiencing the events that are going on in Washington?  Is this all simply an inevitable outcome of repeated behavior by someone who seems to believe that there are no boundaries that must be recognized and followed?  Was the helicopter crash simply the fateful outcome of a bad decision to take off when visibility was so poor and all law enforcement aircraft had been grounded?  Was the pre-dawn fiery inferno on the backwaters of the Tennessee River just a bad nightmarish event due to someone being careless or inattentive?  Answers are not easy to come by and for those of us still waddling our way through life, we shall keep on waddling.

David versus Goliath

Many of us are familiar with the Biblical story of David versus Goliath.  In addition to it being included in the Bible, it has become a reference to the fight between the small and the mighty.  Let me share such a story with you.

For most of the years we have been members of the faculty of the University of Alabama or retirees from these positions, we have purchased season tickets for home football games.  This past year, 2019, was no exception.  Both my wife and I had the option to purchase two tickets for each of the home games and we did so.  In the earlier part of the season, we gave away several of the tickets to games that we had no interest in attending.  As the season progressed, I decided to place two tickets on StubHub for the Arkansas and Tennessee games.  StubHub is a secondary ticket outlet that has an agreement with the university to allow individuals to sell tickets on this outlet.  I have been doing this for several years, but this year I had a much different experience.  Do keep in mind that the university encourages ticketholders to use StubHub so that seats do not go unoccupied.  In previous years they included a brochure advertising StubHub in the envelope that included the season tickets. 

I listed the Tennessee tickets at the price I paid for them and the Arkansas tickets at a price below what I paid.  In both instances, I would have to pay a fee to StubHub; therefore, I would lose money.  Both sets of tickets sold, and I was instructed to enter the barcode numbers.  I listed these numbers and received a message that the tickets were not eligible for resale.  Needless-to-say, I was surprised and annoyed.  Several calls to StubHub led to the same message that the University of Alabama had placed the restriction on the resale of the tickets.  Let me note that the tickets were Faculty/Staff tickets, but this has never been an issue in the past.  Not only was I being restricted from selling the tickets that I purchased, I was also obligated for a “fine” by StubHub to cover their cost in finding replacement tickets for the purchaser of my tickets.   My annoyance became a bit more magnified.  I sent an email that included the Athletic Director and everyone I could of think of below him.  Subsequently, I received several calls from the Associate Athletic Director who has responsibility for the sale of tickets. 

I rent an office from an attorney and discussed all of this with him.  I was able to advise the Associate Athletic Director that I had consulted my attorney about the obvious inconsistency.  He informed me that they had been in consultation with the university attorneys as well.  In my discussions, I stated that they were talking out of both sides of their mouth.  On the one hand, they instruct the ticketholder to sell tickets on StubHub and on the other hand, preclude this from happening.  I stated that this was not right, and I was not going to lose any money.  I was assured that this would not happen.   I was also told that I had brought this inconsistency to their attention and they were appreciative of my actions which would lead to them revising their policy and practices.  On the ticket application there is a section that describes selling Faculty/Staff tickets at a profit and the state Ethics Law.  The University claims that selling tickets at a profit as a state employee is in violation of the Ethics Law.  It is interesting that through all of this, the University came to the realization that retired Faculty/Staff are no longer state employees and; therefore, are not bound by the Ethics Law regarding the sale of tickets.  David, in this case me, sort of has the Mighty (Goliath), in this case the University of Alabama, over the proverbial barrel.   Somehow StubHub negated the Tennessee sale, but did charged me $32 for their trouble regarding the Arkansas tickets. Subsequently, they credited my charge card the $32.  We’ll see if the policy changes.

Given, I could not sell on StubHub, I decided to try Craig’s List and that’s another convoluted story.  The Arkansas tickets sold with no problem and we met and sat next to the couple at the game.  The Tennessee tickets, not so.  Initially, I received a text from an “alleged husband” asking on behalf of his “alleged wife” if I still had the two Tennessee tickets.  I responded, I did.  Then I began to receive emails from “Monica Lawrence” instructing me to get the tickets to her husband.  Never was there a response that gave a name, address or a way to get tickets to the “husband”. After numerous exchanges, I received an envelope delivered by FedEx with a check in the amount of $1980.  The tickets were no longer an issue, but I was to take out $100 for my trouble and get the rest of the money to her “husband”.  I had no idea how to do this.  The check was “allegedly” drawn on an Edward Jones account by the Fort Worth Foundation in Fort Worth, Texas to the Attention of Bill Boomer.  I called the Foundation and asked by Bill Boomer and the person stated, “did you get a check, too?”  It was mentioned that the Foundation had received 10-15 similar calls and, yes, it was all a hell of a scam.  I did get a subsequent email from “Monica Lawrence” threatening to report me to the authorities.  I did contact the FBI and they put me in contact with their cyber unit.  I completed a report and have heard nothing.

I mention the use of Craig’s List to put the total experience in perspective.  I would never have had to deal with “Monica Lawrence” and “her husband” if the “mighty” – the University of Alabama - had not screwed with “David” – me.  I sincerely do hope they clean all of this up because we did not deserve to go through this mess nor should anyone else.  I spent a lot of time dealing with a mess that should never have occurred.  Through it all, I did lose the payment for the Tennessee tickets and chose to donate them to a local charity. 

An argument for impeachment

Although we recently celebrated Thanksgiving, there is just a bit of irony in the use of that word at this challenging time in our nation’s history.  It is interesting to reflect that in my lifetime, we have endured two impeachments and a third that will, no doubt, reach that status, in a period of around five decades.  Prior to the 1970’s, the previous impeachment was back in 1868.  A little over 100 years passed until we had the impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon.  As we know, the Judiciary Committee of the House approved two articles of impeachment against the current president and next week the full House will, undoubtedly, support the Committee’s recommendations.  The Republican controlled Senate will conduct a trial and the outcome will be a mystery to no one.  The president will be acquitted by a vote that will, probably, follow party lines.  Although this will be the third impeachment trial, no president has been found guilty.  Nixon resigned rather than face the possibility of being impeached.

Does acquittal mean that there is no guilt?  Absolutely not.  To reach a vote that would lead to the removal of the president, there would need to be 67 senators vote in favor of this to happen.  A very high bar to attain.  In reviewing the now famous phone call between the president and his counterpart in Ukraine, it is difficult for me to come to any conclusion other than a direct request was made by Trump.  Further, there has been enough evidence to support the fact that around $400 million in military aid was being held as leverage to persuade the Ukrainian president to do Trump’s bidding.  The words are there for all to read in the “perfect call”! The argument that, ultimately, Ukraine received the aid does not negate the substance of the words in the call.  Let me draw an analogy from the time I was a Juvenile Probation Officer in Indianapolis.  I recall a case I had where a young person had held a gun on someone to rob them and even though the gun was not real, the judge ruled that the person being robbed did not know this.  The act was the same as if the gun would have been real and loaded.  Not being real was not an excuse to absolve the young man from being responsible for putting the victim in fear.  How is this any different from what occurred in the interaction between Trump and Zelensky?   

In In reviewing the impeachment of the other three presidents there is an obvious difference in what the other three were charged with and the current articles of impeachment.  Briefly, in Andrew Johnson’s impeachment there were 11 Articles of Impeachment, but nine of the 11 dealt with the Violation of Tenure in Office Act.  This was an Act that was passed in 1867 to limit the president’s ability to remove individuals from office without senatorial approval.  He attempted to remove the Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, and this led to the impeachment.  The vote in the senate sparred him from removal by one vote.  The vote was 35 guilty and 19 not guilty on each Article; therefore, the two-thirds majority was not reached.

There were three articles of impeachment brought by the House Judiciary Committee against President Richard Nixon; obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of congress.  Each of these articles revolved around the breaking into the Democratic Headquarters at Watergate and the subsequent cover up by members of the president’s staff and the president, himself.  He resigned from the office of president prior to the vote of the full house and the subsequent trial in the senate.

In the impeachment of President Bill Clinton there were four articles of impeachment created by the House Judiciary Committee, but only two were approved by the full House.  The first article dealt with the commission of perjury, including false and misleading testimony.  The second article focused on the obstruction of justice, specific to the case brought against him by Paula Jones.  The vote in the senate on the first article was defeated with 55 not guilty votes and 45 guilty votes.  On the second article the vote was evenly split 50-50.  Neither vote reach the two-thirds requirement.

In each of the other three instances where impeachment proceedings were brought against a president, the basis of the decisions revolved around domestic-related issues: Violating a politically motivated act of congress, breaking into a rival’s headquarters and covering it up, and lying about civil actions brought against the president.  In the current impeachment proceedings, the articles focus on the interaction with a foreign entity for the benefit of the sitting president.  Just on the face of it, the current action is much more egregious.  Not only was the call a source of specific information, but the failure to respond to subpoenas and denying access to staff comes quite close to the actions of Nixon.  The defiance of the president is without excuse, but quite consistent with the behavior we have witnessed since he took office. Resorting to name-calling and demeaning others has been his hallmark reaction to any situation that does not fit his preconceived notion of what should be.  His most recent admonition to the Democrats that the they have brought embarrassment to the country is just a bit misplaced.  No, Mr. President, it is you who has been an embarrassment to the country and to the office of the president.  It is you who has been the laughingstock of other world leaders, as was apparent at the most recent NATO meeting.

Does the end justify the means?

There seems to be a perplexing phenomenon happening in the country that has the potential to reshape the evangelical community.  Granted, there is a great deal of dissension, distrust and delirium throughout the country created by a myriad of issues.  Abortion, gun control, federal judge and Supreme Court appointments, immigration, climate change, environmental concerns, Trumpisms, Medicare for all, free college tuition, etc. etc. etc.  Yet, while each of these areas of concerns have adherents and opponents, there is nothing that seems to rise to the level of the impending impeachment of the president.  Further, embedded in the furor surrounding the impeachment process, is the support that the president continues to enjoy from the evangelical community.  A basic question surrounding this support is; how can those who espouse belief in the basic tenants of Christianity support a president who by his actions and words is the antithesis of those tenants.  Here is a man who has publicly bragged about grabbing women in the most private areas of their bodies, who utters disdain for anyone who is afflicted, who degrades those who have a different belief system (assuming he has a belief system), who is nothing short of an egotistical, self-serving, narcissistic, hedonistic individual. 

In reviewing brief biographies of each of the presidents who have preceded the current person sitting in that position, I have not found an equal to what our nation is currently experiencing.  Indeed, there have been issues with many of the previous presidents, including questionable behavior and actions, but in my judgment, nothing rises to the level of disrespect for the office of president as we are currently experiencing.  There have been those that have been either elected to the presidency or ascended to the position due to the death of the president who have brought dishonor to the office.  Most recently, we have the impeachments of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.  Nixon resigned before being impeached and Clinton was sparred by the vote in the Senate.  Only one other president, Andrew Johnson, came close, surviving by one vote in the Senate.  We are witnessing blatant disregard for long-standing precedents that presidents have followed throughout the history of the nation.  We have an individual who vacillates from truth to fiction as if there is nothing wrong with fabricating facts or as his counselor, Kellyanne Conway, noted, using “alternative facts”.   Indeed, other presidents have, no doubt, been guilty of embellishing or misleading or sharing limited information, but not just out and out lying from incident to incident.  In an interview, the president’s biographer, stated that he moves from lie to lie and does not seem to realize the difference between fact and fiction.

I have attempted to create the context that further exacerbates the above-mentioned phenomenon of the ongoing support of the evangelical community.  The results of a recent poll found that over 70 percent of white evangelicals who attend church regularly continue to support the president and will vote for him in the 2020 election.  The same poll found that 65 percent of white evangelicals who are not regular church goers continue to give their allegiance to the president. His behavior, actions and words, notwithstanding.  Recently, the president of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell, Jr. was quoted as stating that the president is a street fighter and that is what is needed by the Republican Party.  He went on to state that most Republicans in positions of power are wimps, unlike the pugilist in the White House.  A recent article in The Atlantic stated: “The enthusiastic, uncritical embrace of President Trump by white evangelicals is among the most mind-blowing developments of the Trump era.  How can a group that for decades—and especially during the Bill Clinton presidency—insisted that character counts and that personal integrity is an essential component of presidential leadership not only turn a blind eye to the ethical and moral transgressions of Donald Trump, but also constantly defend him?  Why are those who have been on the vanguard of “family values” so eager to give a man with a sordid personal and sexual history a mulligan? 

It seems obvious that for most of the evangelicals, the ends justify the means to that end.  How else can you explain how these Bible-believing Christians, “Love the Meanest Parts of Trump”, which is the headline in a November 3, 2019 article in The Atlantic magazine.  In the judgment of many, he fights for what they believe, and all his transgressions must be accepted because the ends justify the means. During the height of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s efforts to weed out communism in the country, I recall a slogan that was popular in some evangelical circles, “Kill a commie for Jesus”.  Yes, the end would justify the means.  To engage in such ruthless behavior would rid the country of the godless philosophical and political alien communistic orientation.  Eliminating a communist leaning person would be for the greater good, thus it would be deemed acceptable.  Scary, yes, but we are not far removed from that today.  To many evangelicals, Trump is God’s chosen person for these times.  It is he who has been chosen to fight the evils being perpetuated by the liberals and in doing so will save the country.  Dare we stand by and let this happen?

Coming to the end

Going through the mail each day, it never ceases to amaze me about the number of requests I receive from organizations I have never heard of asking for financial support.  I do realize that organizations that I do contribute to sell mailing lists, and this is what leads to the abundance of requests that I find in the mailbox in the course of a week.  I have been asked to help alley cats survive, donkeys to be cared for, big cats to not be forgotten, elephants to be protected, etc. etc. etc.  The other day I did receive an unsolicited request from, Compassion & Choices.  As I read the information that accompanied the request for support, I became interested in the issue that they were championing.  They cited a U.S. Supreme Court Case, Gonzales v. Oregon (2006).  The Court ruled by a 6-3 vote, that federal statutory authority cannot preempt a state’s medical practice law which allowed for physician-assisted suicide.  The Oregon Death With Dignity Act that the citizens of Oregon passed back in 1994, permitted licensed physicians to dispense or prescribe a lethal does of drugs to patients with incurable and irreversible diseases in situations in which death was imminent within six months.   The law also stated that the physician could not administer the drugs.  The Attorney General of the United States argued that the Oregon law violated the Controlled Substances Act (1970).  Simply, the Court majority argued that the federal government did not have the authority to intervene in the medical practices of the state and upheld the Oregon law.

Subsequently, I learned that in addition to Oregon, there are eight other states and the District of Columbia that give individuals the right to physician-assisted suicide and include the states of Washington, Hawaii, Maine, California, New Jersey and Vermont.  It is allowed in Montana by action of the state court. 

Obviously, giving individuals the right to request assistance of a physician to end their life would be viewed by a significant number of people as unconscionable and wrong.  For a variety of reasons, it would be argued that this is not a right to be given to an individual.  For religious and/or moral reasons such a decision is not within the purview of a person.  It is interesting to note that language in the Oregon law includes the provision that the action must be done voluntarily by the person.  Conversely, to those who would argue that only God can decide the end of life, is there an argument for the right to die with dignity?  Once a person approaches the end of life due to an incurable disease or other physical condition, is it wrong for them to make a voluntary decision to terminate their time on earth in a dignified manner.  Having visited friends and relatives in nursing homes where so many are merely existing, what is to be gained by prolonging a life absent of any quality or sustainability.  Many are dependent on others for their very existence and assistance with the basics of human life and survival.  They are unable to do anything for themselves and linger in a state of being, but not living.  Is this right? 

I recall standing beside my mother’s hospital bed with my brother and my mother’s sister, waiting for her to leave this earth.  She had suffered an unrelenting stroke and we were assured by her physician that she would never regain consciousness.  For us, it was the humane decision to make to allow her to die rather than for her to be kept alive by modern medicine and technology.   Is allowing someone to request the assistance of a physician to die any different than the decision we made?  We could be chastised by some who would argue that miracles do happen, and my mother might have consciously rebounded.  Yes, that is always a possibility, but an unlikely probability. 

Each of us will have to come to our own decision as to how we will deal with the decision when we are still able to make the decision.  Will you hang on to the belief that it is not your decision to make and the end will be determined by a higher being?  Whatever decision that you decide to make, it is imperative that you let those who might be responsible when your life comes to that time, what your desires are and how you want them to be followed.  The older I get, the more I realize that we are mortal beings and cannot cling to immortality.  Life does come to an end.  I certainly do not mean to morbid, just practical and realistic.  I think I will make a contribution to Compassion & Choices—the organization that was the impetus for this discussion!