Three dysfunctional strikes . . .

Indeed, these are days filled with extreme contradictions, confrontations, and conflict.  It is a time when there appears to be a floating series of definitions of what is ethical, what is moral, and what is legal.  Lies and innuendos have become commonplace in the rhetoric of those who seek and are given an audience to influence.  There appears to be no boundaries or guardrails designed to maintain some modicum of order over chaos. 

 Recently, it became known that another Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito, Jr., had been the recipient of a plush fishing trip to Alaska, paid for by a Republican billionaire.  The known benefactor was alleged to have been involved with several cases before the supreme court that came before the court during Alito’s tenure on the court.  At issue is not only the question about whether he should have recused himself from those cases, but he also failed to report the trip on his annual financial disclosure form.  Interestingly, Alito took unprecedented action by writing an Op Ed for the Wall Street Journal before the Information was made public by ProPublica. It is not only uncommon for justices to respond so publicly, but it is even more out of character to take this step before the information is published.  One could surmise that, perhaps, Alito took this tact to deflect what many would conclude was an action that was, in the least, unethical.  In his defense, he made the statement that the seat he occupied on the plane would have gone empty if he had not gone on the trip.  Not exactly a resounding defense!  Do keep in mind that this is the justice who wrote the majority opinion of the case that undid the 50 plus years of the Roe decision on abortion rights.  He along with his fellow, ‘judicial heartthrob of the far right”, Clarence Thomas, have been singularly focused on undermining the Roe decision.  These two represent the staunchest conservative justices and their decisions reflect this over and over.

The current court continues to undo precedents in cases that they believe have been too overreaching and violate the specific intent of the authors of the constitution.  I continue to be perplexed and amazed that those who define themselves as originalists have the wherewithal and insight to unwaveringly know what the founders meant.  Is the constitution meant to be a stagnant document that would not be subject to interpretation that fostered change consistent with society’s perspectives?  Was it meant to be a fluid document that ebbs and flows with changing norms, mores, and practices? Recently, the conservative composition of the court by a 6-3 majority, ruled that affirmative action in higher education was unconstitutional, thus another precedent is swallowed up by the self-appointed guardians of what is right in our society.  Parenthetically, it is interesting that the staunchest conservative on the current court, Clarence Thomas, benefitted from affirmative action.  His admission to Holy Cross University and Yale University Law School was certainly aided by his race.  It seems that now that he’s “in the club” he’s going to keep others who look like him out.  

To be fair and balanced, it should be noted that not every decision by the current court has been of some concern.  Recently, in a case involving the State of North Carolina, the court struck down the state’s attempt to exercise control over federal elections.  It has been common knowledge that state legislatures in several states have passed legislation that makes voting more difficult for certain people and less available to many of these same individuals, The North Carolina action was one more attempt to control the election process and attendant procedures.

It is not only the action of the Supreme Court that highlights the divisions in the country, but also the current legal activity surrounding the former president.  His conviction in New York for sexual harassment and his indictment on 37 counts in the documents case are historic when laid down beside others who have served as President.  Not even James Buchanan, who had the distinctive honor of being recognized as the “worst president in history”, until Trump came along, could boast of being criminally and civilly charged.  Trump’s response to his current woes is to lie and justify what he has done and repeatedly boasts, “I did nothing wrong”.  Further, he is using these legal actions as political fodder with his minions.  At his campaign rallies, he distorts any facts, makes up alternative information, and resorts to adolescent “name-calling” of those who he claims are against him.  The fealty that his followers give him is unprecedented and quite perplexing.  His recent claims are that these legal actions are really directed toward his followers, and they are using him to get to them.  He has stated that he “has the courage” to represent those who blindly provide him with his ego maniacal need for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion.

Th third area to look at which reflects the divisiveness in the country is the Congress, especially the House of Representatives.  It seems as if each day there is just one more bizarre incident that belies any sense of reason or rationale.  There is such divisiveness that very little has been accomplished and it looks like very little will be accomplished with this dysfunctional congress.  The Freedom Caucus is hell bent on getting its way and the numbers allow for this to happen.  The Republicans have only a 4-vote majority so any desertion from the total number undermines a specific action.  There seems to be very little concern for or attention to what the country needs and what individuals want.  Many are beholden to lobbyists or special interest groups who have their own agenda and that is often at the peril of the country’s needs.  There may be change in the composition of the congress in 2024 but it may not be in the direction of what’s best for the body politic.

Yes, there are problems, but they are not insurmountable.  Yet the only answers lie in those in power coming to the realization that there is a need to work together.  History has underscored the reality that this was the hallmark of past generations.  There were party differences, but often, there was the move to work together and embrace the “art of compromise”.  Hopefully, we can return to this saner approach.

Life's contrasts . . .

For the [last several weeks there has been one accusation after another about the questionable behavior and activity associated with Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.  Obviously, he has been the beneficiary of multiple “perks” provided by multi billionaire, Harlan Crow of Dallas. Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge there is no familial relationship between Harlan Crow and me.  Traveling on yachts and planes, being wined and dined at private quarters, both in Dallas and in the Adirondack Mountains of New York, provides a picture of opulence and privilege that few have or ever will understand or enjoy.  It is also known that Crow purchased the boyhood home of Thomas with the intent to make it into a museum honoring the life and accomplishments of the Justice.  Additionally, it has come to light that Crow, along with another benefactor, paid the lucrative tuition for , “Thomas’s grandnephew to attend prestigious boarding schools in Georgia and Virginia. As Richard Durbin (D-Ill) commented “that the tangled web around Clarence Thomas just gets worse by the day”. 

Justice Thomas is somewhat of an outlier even in the current Court’s composition.  As described in Jeffery Toobin’s book, Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, Thomas rarely asks any question of litigants and has, typically. not been given major decisions to write on behalf of the majority.  It is not uncommon for him to include his lone opinion on a case rather than be party to the language of the majority.  Thomas describes himself as an Originalist in interpreting the words and meanings of those words imbedded in the country’s constitution.  An Originalist is one who maintains that the interpretation must be as the framers of the constitution meant them to be.  How one knows, explicitly, what was meant has always been a bit of a mystery to me.   

As the actions and behavior of Justice Thomas is considered, there is an apparent disregard for ethical decision-making by him.  He seems to believe that he is above the law and is not required to report the gifts and other amenities bestowed on him.  The Supreme Court is the only federal body that “polices” itself on matters of “appropriateness”.  All federal employees must report any gifts or amenities that exceed a certain amount and do so on an annual basis.  Interestingly, Thomas was reporting some of what he was given, but then stopped doing so.  He claims that he did not understand that he had to make such a report.  This begs the question of his integrity and adherence to ethical behavior.

By contrast to what has been noted about Justice Thomas, let me highlight a Federal District Judge who was the epitome of integrity, honesty, and ethical behavior.  Frank M. Johnson, the Federal District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, is the person that I became acquainted with shortly after joining the faculty at the University of Alabama.  A colleague of mine, Charlie Prigmore, and I were talking one day about the impact that Judge Johnson had on social policy, not just in Alabama, but nationally.  We decided to work on a book to highlight all that he had done.  We spent the next two-three years interviewing individuals who knew the Judge and read countless news articles that were kept in the Judge’s office in Montgomery.  I spent more than one evening in the homes of those who grew up with the Judge in Winston County Alabama.  Winston County was known as the “Free State of Winston” and when Alabama ceded from the union Winston County sought to cede from Alabama.  During the Civil War there were more union soldiers from Winston County than those who fought for the confederacy.  Additionally, Winston County was an integral part of the underground railroad for those seeking to escape slavery.  Judge Johnson’s father was the Probate Judge of the county and was also the lone Republican representative in the state legislature. 

 I recall discussions with the Judge about his decisions and he often stated that he was simply interpreting the constitution.  He would say that he did not want to run the prisons, or the mental health facilities or the state troopers, but he had to make decisions about all these areas.  One of the most seminal cases during his time on the bench was the Wyatt v. Stickney case that dealt with the mental health facilities in the state.  Without going into detail, the most significant aspect of the case was the decision of the Judge, that those who are involuntarily committed to the Department of Mental Health, had a “right to treatment”.  He arrived at this decision based on the wording of the 14th Amendment which provides for Equal Protection Under the Laws.  There was much more to that decision, but that was a landmark contribution to mental health practice throughout the county.  Similarly, he found that prisoners in Alabama were subject to “Cruel and Unusual Punishments” which violated the provisions of the 8th Amendment.  The number of cases that he ruled on or was a member of a three Judge panel are too numerous to go into at this time.  I mention this about “The Judge” because it points out a sharp contrast between the two judges being discussed.  There was never any question about his integrity nor his adherence to ethical behavior.  Incidentally, Judge Johnson paid the price over and over for his decisions.  His home was bombed as was the home of his mother.  A cross was burned in the front yard of his mother’s home and if he came into church and sat in a pew where others were sitting, they would get up and move.  We did have a third person join our project, Wayne Greenhaw, and had a contract with Prentice-Hall publishers.  The title of the book was The New G-Man.  President Carter had appointed him to be the Director of the FBI, but a heart condition derailed the appointment as well as the book.

It is not a mystery that Judges do have a great deal of influence in our society.  This is especially true regarding the Supreme Court.  Back in the 1970s Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong compiled a comprehensive expose of the workings of the Supreme Court back at that point in time.  The book that they wrote, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, described in detail how decisions were made and how various Justices were influenced by their own beliefs and legal philosophy.  Decisions were written on napkins in restaurants, deals were made to gain support for a decision with the promise of payback of a pet decision of the other person.  The belief that the Supreme Court was the last bastion of objectivity and fairness was shattered. 

 A person sitting as a judge at any level is supposed to be  impartial and open to discussion of various points in a specific act of litigation.  Yet, judges are the product of their own background and how that background has shaped their beliefs, values, biases, etc.  To argue otherwise is laughable and absurd.  In an article in The New York Times, it was noted that  Chief Justice Roberts has argued publicly that the Supreme Court is not a part of the country’s polarized political environment.  In the same article Justice Amy Coney Barrett was quoted as stating that neither she nor her colleagues were a bunch of political hacks.  Further, the article also included a statement by Justice Thomas that the justices do not decide cases based on personal preference.  All these words of denial may sound appropriate, but they are simply not true.  Let me make a point from my experience.  My first professional employment following graduate school was as a Juvenile Probation Officer in Indianapolis.  The court I worked in had one elected judge and seven referees who acted as judges.  As a Probation Officer I would shop around for a hearing officer who would support my position and I knew the predilections of each individual.  Popeye is quoted as saying, “I yam what I yam and that’s what I yam”. We are all who we are by virtue of a myriad of life experiences.

Currently, the Supreme Court is taking a very active role in society, but it has done so in the past as well.  Back in the Warren court, the liberal side had the votes and now the conservatives do.  It is my belief that as Justice Sandra Day O’Conner stated, the constitution is a living document and must be viewed in the context of where society is at a point in time. Indeed, this position is supported by Frank C. Huntington in his  book, Making it Up as They Go Along: Stories the Supreme Court Tells About the Constitution. We’ll see where all this leads us.   

Again and again. . .

Back in the 1960s I was the Assistant Director of a social agency located in New York Cit’s East Harlem community.  At this time the use of, primarily, heroin had gotten a stranglehold on the youth and young adults that our agency was seeking to help.  Death by overdose was a common occurrence.  Lives were torn apart, and safety was a distant memory for many of the community’s residents.  Drug use created a much different culture, one characterized by being preoccupied with getting the next “fix” at any cost, including stealing from family and friends. The racial/ethnic composition of the East Harlem community was overwhelming Puerto Rican and Black, hence not a great deal of attention was given to the drug epidemic.  It was only when some of the power brokers in Albany learned that their children were also using drugs, including those available by prescription.  Drug use was no longer limited to the prescription drugs. and many a trip was made to the “ghettos” of New York City to buy drugs on the street.  Following some of these children being arrested, the brokers in Albany began to fund all manner of programs, allegedly designed to treat those addicted.  Do understand that the brokers to whom I refer were primarily white, as were their children.  Drug use was no longer a problem for those other folks, it now was in the homes of the white majority and there was a rallying around the need to address the problem.  It was a problem before it made it into suburbia, but it was one that was hidden by racial and ethnic prejudice and bias.  The problem of drug use gained interest and attention when it impacted the broader community and hiding from it was no longer an option.  Something had to be done and radical programs were funded.  I am personally aware of some very shady programs that existed to fatten the bank accounts of those in charge rather than providing meaningful services and programs for the drug user.  An example was a program housed in the basement of an individual’s home which  provided, virtually, no services to address the problem of addiction, but it did provide sums of money for the director.

 I mention what I have in the preceding paragraph to bring the current situation in this country into some focus.  What I have attempted to portray is the reality that it matters who is affected before action is taken, meaningful or otherwise.  Just a few days ago, six lives were snuffed out by a shooter armed with an AR-47 rifle.  As we know, this occurred in a church-related school located in the Covenant Presbyterian church in Nashville.  Six more lives lost and added to the following list of deadliest active school shooter attacks as reported by the New York Times: 1989, Stockton, California – 5 dead; 1992, Olivehurst, California – 4 dead; 1998, Jonesboro, Arkansas- 5 dead; 1999, Littleton, Colorado – 13 dead; 2005, Red Lake, Minnesota – 7 dead; 2006, Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania – 5 dead; 2012, Newtown Connecticut – 26 dead; 2014, Marysville, Washington – 4 dead; 2018, Parkland, Florida – 17 dead; 2018, Santa Fe, Texas – 10 dead; 2021, Oxford, Michigan – 4 dead; and, 2022, Uvalde, Texas – 21 dead.  Indeed, these are sobering statistics, yet here we are, once again, just a year following the horrific tragedy in Uvalde and six more lives related to shootings that have occurred in schools.  These are only school-related deaths.  As reported in a recent article in Time magazine, there have been 50,000 gun-related deaths since early 2021 and 1,468 mass shootings or 1.8 mass shootings per day. What will it take for meaningful action to be taken at the state and federal levels.  Will we have to wait until some legislator’s child becomes one of these statistics?  Do not lose sight of the fact that the leading cause of death in the United States of children and teens is caused by firearms.  Death by firearms has surpassed death by motor vehicles and other injuries.  Although death by firearms is the number one cause of death for children and teens in this country, it is the fifth leading cause in other industrialized countries.  Once aga, the “love affair” with firearms in this country is out of sync and magnified when compared with other countries. 

 In Tennessee were this latest tragedy occurred, the Republican Congressional Representative of Tennessee’s Fifth District, Andy Ogles, claimed to be heartbroken by the tragedy in his district.  It is this district where the Covenant school is located.  Yet, this Congressman, in the 2021 Christmas card that he sent out, showed he, his wife and two of his three children holding firearms in the family picture.  The third child, I guess, was too young to hold the rifle.  When confronted with this Christmas card, Ogles only comments where that he was defending his second amendment rights and that more attention needs to be given to the mental health needs of people in this country.  This is the congressman who was heartbroken as he wielded his rifle for all to see.  What is the message he is giving his children?  Seems as if Tennessee has elected some interesting individuals to represent the state in Congress.  The Republican Congressman who represents some of the Knoxville area, Tim Burchett, was quoted in an article published by Nexstar Media, Inc, by the following statement: “It’s a horrible, horrible situation, and we’re not gonna fix it.  Criminals are gonna be criminals”.  A really resounding statement of support for addressing this “horrible” event.  When confronted with the question by reporters about how he would react if it were his child, his answer was “we homeschool them”.  These men are in Congress voting on legislation that impacts all of us and it is quite concerning that they are so flippant about what took place in their state.  Further, there is a callous disregard for the magnitude of this problem and that too, is cause for serious concern.

 Over and over, the issue of mental health gets bantered about when these tragedies occur.  I would agree that there is a need for more attention to be given to the mental health needs of individuals, but such attention needs to be sustainable and adequately supported, financially.  It needs to be understood that treating an individual who is experiencing a mental health issue can be exceedingly challenging.  It is quite different from treating some of the other common illnesses.  Treating cancer, a heart condition, pulmonary problem, etc., is much more defined.  Mental health problems are often not visible and are hidden in the recesses of the mind.  There are drugs that can be of significant benefit, but it requires that a person take the medication as prescribed.  It is here that the need for closer monitoring of those with mental health problems needs to be focused upon.  While there is a need to address this critical area of need, it cannot become a “smoke screen” that clouds the larger need of getting some control over the use of firearms in our society.  Do understand that I am not advocating removing guns from members of our society.  I am advocating for greater attention to eliminating the use of assault rifles, the expansion of background checks, the use of red flag procedures and other regulatory actions.  Do not lose sight of the fact that the 28-year-old shooter in Nashville had legally purchased all the firearms that she had in her possession.  It was also reported that she had been receiving some treatment for a mental health problem.  Given this knowledge, should she have been able to purchase firearms?  Could this tragedy have been avoided with more careful attention to some of the regulations suggested, perhaps.

 Briefly, let me note an additional concern.  Not only can the problem of mental health treatment become a smoke screen there is another phenomenon that has come to light in the recent shooting.  The 28-year-old perpetrator was a woman, but it is alleged that she referred to herself as being a man, hence the issue of Transgender has been raised. This too can become a distraction from the larger area of need.  Whether or not the person is Transgender or not has absolutely nothing to do with what was done.  Did it contribute to some level of anger that led to the shooting?  We will never know.  Did it influence the individual to make a statement supportive of being a Transgender person?  Will probably not know that either.  Let us not lose sight of the real issue and some of the real and practical answers.

 As we reflect on the epidemic of mass shooting in our country, let us be mindful of one word that does not seem to go away.  The word to which I refer is, “again”.  After each of these tragedies that word surfaces – “again we have lives lost to the senseless act of gun violence.  Again, Congress is called upon to pass legislation limiting the sale and use of assault rifles.  Yet, again Congress has little to no interest in dealing with the problem.  When will be the next occasion that this one word will be used—let us hope that it is not – again!

Here come the clowns ...

“Here come the clowns” as Frank Sinatra wrote many years ago, but can aptly apply to the behavior of multiple members of the US House of Representatives.  One of the most recent actions by the clowns has been the introduction of the AR 15 National Gun Act to, specifically, make this fireman the official gun for the country.  It was developed in the 1950s as a military rifle and by 2019 over 15 million of these weapons had been sold in this country.  The bill has been crafted and introduced by one of the stalwarts of the sitting clowns, Rep. Barry Moore of Alabama.  To add to the questionable credibility of the intent of this legislation it should be noted that Rep George Santos of New York has signed on as a cosponsor as has Rep Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Rep Andrew Clyde of Georgia.  Clyde is the Congressman who referred to the insurrectionists as simply a group of tourists as they ransacked the capitol on that fateful January 6th day of infamy.  These individuals, along with many of their colleagues, drag out the constitution to attempt to make their point. The introduction of this bill is just one more attempt for a certain segment of the population to impose their will on all citizens.

 Indeed, the Second Amendment does state that:, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  As one reflects on what was happening in this fledging country in 1791, the need for such an amendment was a necessary reality.  Do keep in mind that those who had come to the new country were fleeing religious and political persecution and had the need to protect themselves and others.  Moving up to the present day, we do not have the need for a militia nor are there any recognizable state militias.  There are existing entities within law enforcement and the military to meet the needs of this sovereign county that were absent in the country’s infancy. Certainly, an individual has the right to own a gun for the purpose of protection, but as we witness every day, guns have become the action of choice to solve disputes and differences.  Recently, a member of the University of Alabama basketball team was involved in a shooting that left a young woman dead.  How did an altercation between a couple of individuals rise to the level that involved the use of a gun?  That student along with the shooter have been charged with capital murder and are sitting in the local jail awaiting further judicial action.  As a result of such inexcusable and inane behavior, lives are changed forever.

We are all too familiar with the mass shootings that have occurred in the past few years.  It is as if we are becoming immune to reacting to these events because they are so frequent.  According to the Insider there were 647 mass shootings in 2022 leading to the death of 44,000 people due to gun violence. Grasp the magnitude of this number.  Thousands upon thousands of individuals are no longer coming home, raising their children, starting a family or engaging in any activity that can only be carried out by those of us who are still alive. These shootings have occurred in schools, malls, businesses, churches, parks, and anywhere that people are gathered.  No area of the country or size of the population makes a difference where such actions occur.  Are we safe anywhere?

 The mentality that we must make it easier to own and carry a weapon is, in my judgment, farcical.  In the past year, the legislature in Alabama passed a law and the current governor signed it that allows an individual to purchase a gun without obtaining a permit to own the gun.  The net effect of this legislation  is that there are no safeguards to controlling who gets a weapon.  The state also allows individuals to avoid concealing the gun so they can carry it outside of their clothing.  This all gives the appearance and the reality of returning to the old west when disputes were handled down at the OK Corral between gunslingers.  According to a recent article the United States has 120.5 firearms per 100 residents which makes this the country having more civilian-owned firearms than people.  A 2018 report by the Small Arms Survey found that there were 393.3 million weapons in the US and at that time the population was 330 million.  This is scary.

How has our society gotten to this point that guns have become the equalizer.  I can recall growing up in the 1950s when kids would have differences, they would settle the difference by a fight and then it was over. Today, a gun comes out and the other person responds by also pulling out a gun.  Why have we deteriorated to this level of baseless behavior?  In the aforementioned incident with the basketball player, he texted another member of the team to bring him his gun which, unbeknown by the car owner,  he had left in the back seat of the car.  The ease with which guns can be purchased and carried heightens the probability that they will be used.  If you do not have a gun readily available, then you cannot use it, but that’s not the way it is today.  As a society, we have seemingly resorted to a barbaric  resolution to disputes and differences.  What will it take to stem this depraved approach?  If there is going to be any resolution it will need to require gaining some control of who can purchase a weapon, what kind of weapon can be purchased, where should the weapon be carried, and other regulatory actions that bring a semblance of sanity to an insane atmosphere.

What was learned - election 2022

Now that the midterm elections are behind us, what did we learn, if anything, from what took place throughout the county on November 6th and four weeks later in Georgia.  It is certainly no mystery that the country is so strongly divided that the likelihood of much being accomplished for the good of the country is, at best, unlikely.  Perhaps one of the most alarming outcomes of the elections were that it has become ever so apparent that people are voting for the party, not the person.  A prospective voter sees a capitol R or capitol D and that is the determining basis for a decision.  How sad and how potentially disastrous.  This was never so glaring as in Georgia in the race between Herschel Walker and Rafael Warnock.

Senator Warnock was the Democratic incumbent and Walker was the Republican candidate who, incidentally, was endorsed and supported by former President Trump.  Throughout the campaign and the ensuing runoff, Walker made one absurd statement after another.  One example was when he stated that the problem with the climate was that China’s bad air was replacing American’s good air.  Not sure what this means, nor do I believe Mr. Walker knows what he meant.  Additionally, he has lied, repeatedly, about being a graduate of the University of Georgia, being a law enforcement officer, being the number one student in his high school graduation class, and on and on.  Of course, his mentor, former President Trump, could very easily be crowned the “King of Lies”.

Not only has Walker made unsupported claims and foolish statements, but he has also been found to misrepresent what he says he believes.  An example of this. which has been documented over and over, has to do with abortion.  While he claims to be against it and has stated so in his campaign, he also demanded that two different women that he impregnated, have abortions and paid for them to be done.  Further, he claims to be a peaceful person, but an ex-wife and his son have stated that he has been abusive to them and held a knife to his ex-wife’s throat. 

There is more that could be included about the lack of appropriateness for Walker being a nominee for anything short of the football Hall of Fame.  There is no question, he was a heck of football player in college and in the pros, but his claim to fame begins and ends on the field.  The brief overview of the situation in Georgia was provided as an indication of how a totally inept and unprepared individual could come so close to winning a statewide election.  Over 48% of those who voted in Georgia voted for Walker which equates to over 1.7 million votes.  One can only surmise that the basis for this decision was the capitol R beside his name.  Granted there were those who were adamantly against the Biden administration and anything Democratic, but would Walker have been an adequate answer to these concerns?  He would probably have been a given Republican vote on any actions in the senate, but there is no evidence that suggests that he has the capacity to engage in critical thinking or decision-making. I am aware that such attributes are not prerequisites to being elected to office, but when the ineptness is so glaring, how can you turn a blind eye. 

As a country we have become so polarized that the concept of compromise has, basically, become a dying phenomenon.  It has been ever so rare that any legislation has had bipartisan support and when it has it is only a handful from the minority party.  The purpose of the legislative bodies, the house and the Senate, is to engage in activity that is beneficial for the country and the citizens therein.  As stated in the constitution’s, preamble—to promote the general welfare of the people.  This seems to have been lost. The capitol R and the capitol D seem to reign supreme.  You must wonder if an Orangutan ran with the capitol R or D beside its name, would it get elected.  Could happen! 

While the decision by the Senator from Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema, created a bit of havoc and chaos for the Democrats in the Senate, I understand her point.  I do believe that her decision was, primarily, a political decision rather than a philosophical one; however, she did state that the two parties had become too partisan.    It can certainly be argued that there is something to be gained from being an independent and not being aligned with a specific political party.  Theoretically, as an independent you can consider the issues on their merit and face value and view them from the perspective of the best interest for the general welfare rather than for the best interest for a particular party.  It is understood that any significant movement toward independency would undermine the current two-party system; yet that might not be a bad thing.  At the Federal level the parties have become so, uncompromisingly, entrenched that stagnation and stalemates characterize the legislative climate.

Will we ever get to a point when elected individuals vote for what is best for the general good?  Will the role of lobbyists ever be brought under control and some meaningful oversight Will politicians come to act as independent thinkers and not be beholden to the lobbyists who donated the largest political contribution?  Will there ever be campaign finance reform that means something?  Will we return to the era of compromise and genuine collegiality?  The answers to these questions remain unanswered and well might for years to come.  Although the answers may be difficult to achieve, it does not mean that we should not continue to “fight the good fight”.