alexanderboulton

To my friends who are thinking of voting Republican,
Hey, I get it. You don’t like Joe Biden. I have some qualms about him too. You are concerned about the price of gas. You think that we need a better policy about the border. You are worried about your family and the future of the country. I share many of your concerns. But let’s take a broader view. Back when I was growing up, the Republican party was been the party of the wealthy and of big businesses, and the Democratic party was the party of the working class. The Democratic party was the party that brought you Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act – policies that helped create the middle class. All of them are policies that Republicans were against, and which many in the party still want to cripple. Much has changed over the past few years, but the fundamentals of the parties have not changed. All of the major accomplishments of the Republican party over the last century have benefited the wealthy by reducing their taxes and benefited corporations by reducing regulations: regulations that protect consumers, establish safety standards in industries, and protect the environment.
So what, you might ask, have Democrats done for you lately?
Under Biden, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the American Rescue Plan, and (with the help of Republicans) an Infrastructure bill. All of this new legislation reduces the costs of your medical insurance and prescriptions. These acts have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries, and in the construction of roads and bridges. These programs have led to higher wages and have reduced childhood poverty.
I suspect that there are many things that we agree upon. We would like responsible gun laws, probably, background checks. We would like a return to the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. We would like corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. If you agree with these things, maybe you should think twice about voting for a Republican.
Yes, there are still major problems confronting us. Inflation is high, mostly due to supply lines broken by the Covid epidemic and the fighting in Ukraine. There is no resolution to the crisis at the border. Homelessness is on the rise. Global warming continues. These are problems that need responsible government that is committed to giving every individual the opportunity to attain their best lives. These are problems that will not be solved by divisive rhetoric and vitriolic name-calling. As Barack Obama said, “There is more that unites than divides us.”
Peace and love,
Alex

November 4 2022

If you would like a free copy please email me at aoboulton@hotmail.com

Democracy and Empire, The Athenian Invasion of Sicily, 415-413 BCE

Alexander O. Boulton

Introduction:

Athens was at the height of its power when it decided to invade Sicily in 415 BCE.(1) The conquest of Sicily, if it had been successful, might have made Athens the victor in its long war against its enemy, Sparta. It could have cut off Sparta’s access to the grain and timber that they imported from the great island in the center of the Mediterranean, and it could have been the first step in Athens’ domination of Carthage, Italy, and the Iberian Peninsula. Three hundred years later, the conquest of Sicily would initiate Rome’s subjugation of virtually all the lands surrounding the Mediterranean. And, 2,400 years later, the invasion of Sicily by the Allied Powers during World War II, would be the beginning of the end of the Axis powers. In those cases, the occupation of Sicily initiated two of the greatest epochs in the history of humankind with unprecedented levels of material prosperity, political stability, peace, and artistic and intellectual creativity.

This could have been Athens’ destiny. The result of the Athenian campaign, however, was one of the most catastrophic defeats in military history. It was the tipping point in Athens’ war against Sparta, which led ultimately to Sparta’s victory and the end of the Athenian Empire. This was one of the great turning points in history, whose long-lasting consequences continue to shape who we are and how we think nearly two and a half millennia later.

The story of this tragic event was first told by the Greek historian Thucydides, who was one of Athens’s foremost generals in the war. Unfortunately for Thucydides, he failed to prevent Spartan forces from taking an important Athenian outpost in the war, and the Athenian Assembly punished him for this failure by removing him from command and exiling him from Athens. Fortunately for us, this gave Thucydides time to write his great history of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE), named after the large Peloponnesian peninsula at the southernmost tip of mainland Greece and the home of Sparta.

Also, fortunately for us, Thucydides spent much of his time in exile behind enemy lines with the Spartan forces. From this unique perspective on the war, Thucydides crafted one of the first, and one of the greatest, historical narratives ever written. His history of the war is the principal source for this retelling of the story of the Sicilian campaign.

My original intention in writing this book was solely to describe the Sicilian Campaign, which I believe is the most important turning point in the war between Athens and Sparta. It is also an exciting story of remarkable personalities and dramatic events. As I wrote and revised this work, however, it became clear that this story could not be told without also considering the complex relationship between the Athenian democracy and the Athenian Empire.

Thucydides gives us the first and the best description of the workings of the world’s first democracy. The Athenian ideas that common citizens can make their own laws, that citizens hold the rights of free speech and equality before the law, and that government serves the interests of all its many people without favoring the few who are rich, were all ideas unknown in the world before his time.

Moreover, for many people, including many of America’s Founders, Thucydides’ story of Athens’ failure in the Peloponnesian War and the collapse of its empire is proof of the weakness of a democratic system of government. For them, the Athenian democracy was the cause of the demise of its empire.

 Nearly 2,500 years later, we might believe that we see parallels between our situation today and the collapse of the Athenian Empire or the decline and fall of the Roman Empire 1,000 years later. But history is not solely a story of tragic declines and falls. It is also a story of growth and rejuvenation, and one might seem like the other to those who are in the midst of experiencing them.

Thucydides is a wise guide to many of these issues. He has been praised throughout the centuries for his realistic depiction of events and for his objectivity. He saw how the actions and motives of individuals often had great unforeseen consequences, and he saw how small details shaped larger historical patterns. He wrote his narrative of the war between the Athenians and the Spartans during one of the most remarkable periods in human history. Many people who lived in Thucydides’ home of Athens and its neighboring territories were beginning to see the world with eyes newly opened. A veil of superstition, of oracles, and of prophecies was slowly being lifted. During most of humankind’s history, the physical world and a supernatural realm seemed to coexist without borders. Spiritual forces swirled around, flowing in and out of the material world, and minds perceived things beyond the powers of eyes and ears. Thucydides was one of the first to exclude supernatural forces from his observation of the world in much the same way that we do today. The story of the Sicilian campaign is, thus, many stories, both dark and brilliant, and we can choose one, or we can imagine another, which is more relevant to each of us.

Admittedly, the story of the Sicilian campaign and the Peloponnesian War is not very well known. For most people who have heard of it, it is a story of a long-dead people in a far-away land in an inconsequential war. Part of the blame for this rests with Thucydides himself. As important as his history is, in many places, it is a very dry and boring catalog of places and events which have little clear significance to anyone but the most pedantic scholar. Thucydides admits early on in his book that his goal was not to appeal to everyone. He set out to write about the war as accurately as possible, “as a possession for all time,” without any romance or poetry, and purposefully not “to win the applause of the moment.” Evidence of his disregard for popular approval is seen in his writing style, which is, according to one of his admirers, “complex,” “convoluted,” “idiosyncratic,” and “obscure.” (3)

The awkward style and structure of Thucydides’ narrative is partly the result of the conditions of its composition. Thucydides began to write his history near the beginning of the war and continued to write while the war was going on. In most cases, he had no idea as he wrote which events would have a greater or lesser impact on subsequent events, which events he should highlight in his narrative, and which events he should pass over quickly. If he had more time to revise his work, perhaps, it would have been very different.

In addition to all this, Thucydides often assumes that his readers are familiar with the geography of ancient Greece. Who knows today where Amphipolis, Thrace, or Euboea are? — or the thousands of other places that Thucydides names? Often modern historians have only contributed to these problems, themselves getting lost in all the minutia of details, losing sight of the larger picture, and filling voids in Thucydides’ narrative with sometimes dubious conjectures.(4)

A close reader of Thucydides’ text, however, is likely to be rewarded for the effort. Thucydides’ history is a complex tapestry of events in which he tells many overlapping stories simultaneously. Its various threads weave in and out, in a complex and often awe-inspiring pattern. This is often confusing, but it is also part of what gives his history such power. A reader can become emotionally and intellectually engaged as the work unfolds, and as the reader sorts out the many narratives to find meanings in the myriad assortment of details. Much like real life itself.

For those of us who do not have the time to engage with all these issues, this book simplifies Thucydides’ monumental history by describing a single, narrowly-focused event in Thucydides’ history—the Athenian invasion of Sicily. This was the pivotal event in Thucydides’ history, and, as I believe, the single most decisive event in the history of ancient Greece. Critics can argue that the result is a brutal surgery of Thucydides’ text, since it leaves out many important events, and dismisses many of the themes that make his book still relevant two millennia later. These criticisms, of course, are appropriate. If this work, however, inspires readers to discover the work of Thucydides on their own, or to delve further into the history of ancient Greece, or stimulates thinking about the interrelated natures of democracy and empire, then some of the purpose of this book will have been accomplished.

“No Trump Fingerprints Doesn’t Mean No Crime,” Baltimore Sun, 3/30/2019

The old joke that absence of evidence is proof that the conspiracy is working is no longer a joke, and no longer old.

Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report stated that it did “not establish that the President was involved” in collusion with Russia to interfere with the 2016 elections. This seems on first reading to be a fairly straightforward statement that the president was innocent of collusion. But what is this conclusion based on? The investigation into Russian collusion was impeded every step of the way by the president’s public actions, which may have prevented relevant facts from emerging.

The fact that Mr. Trump and his associates have been able to leave no fingerprints at the scene of the crime does not prove that no crime was committed, nor that he is innocent.

To many of us who have followed this story, Mr. Barr’s conclusion is incredible. Despite Mr. Barr’s statement to the contrary, there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that Mr. Trump and his associates worked with Russia to manipulate the 2016 presidential election. According to the Mueller report, the Russians made multiple attempts to contact the Trump campaign, and we know that at least Donald Trump Jr. was very eager to accept their aid when he responded to a request for a meeting to discuss “dirt on Hillary.” “I love it,” he replied. The result was the famous Trump Tower meeting of June 2016 in which the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr.; Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner; and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, met with four Russian operatives. President Trump subsequently advised Mr. Trump Jr., to lie about the purpose of that meeting, stating that it was about adoption policy.

We know as well that a large number of Mr. Trump’s advisers, including Mr. Manafort and Michael Flynn, his national security adviser, had numerous meetings with Russian operatives before the election, and that they lied about those meetings. Mr. Manafort is also charged with giving Republican polling data to a Russian operative. This data could have been used by the Russians in their social media campaign to influence the 2016 election.

In addition to the secret meetings that Mr. Trump’s advisers had with Russians, we should add President Trump’s own secret meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin (five according to the New York Times), at which no American officials other than Mr. Trump were present, and in which the translator’s notes were confiscated.

So far, five associates of Mr. Trump have been convicted as a result of the Mueller investigation, while others are facing trial on charges related to the Russian investigation.

From the investigations, it is clear that the Russians wanted to work with the Trump campaign, and the Trump campaign wanted to work with the Russians, and they each had ample opportunity to do so. Eventually, we may know much more.

The case against Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice is equally compelling. The evidence for this starts with Mr. Trump asking the director of the FBI, James Comey to “let this go,” meaning the investigation of Michael Flynn. Ultimately, Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice relating to the Russian investigation. By then, however, Mr. Trump had fired Mr. Comey, publicly stating two times that he did so because of the Russian investigation. Add to this Mr. Trump’s frequent criticism of the Mueller investigation and his attempts to impede its work, most clearly by refusing to testify in person with Mr. Mueller’s investigators. And, add to this his dismissal of his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, related to Mr. Sessions’ recusal from oversight of the Russian investigation.

Finally, there is overwhelming evidence that Russia received benefits from their support of Mr. Trump in the 2016 election including: the relaxation of the Russian sanctions on some of Mr. Putin’s key associates; the weakening of a statement on Ukraine in the Republican Party campaign platform in 2016; Mr. Trump’s consistently siding with Mr. Putin, most notably his agreeing with Mr. Putin (in Helsinki) that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election, despite the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community. And, most importantly, Mr. Trump’s lack of support for NATO and the weakening of our ties with our traditional allies in Europe.

William Barr’s report unfortunately leaves many of the most important questions raised by the specter of Russian interference in the 2016 elections unanswered. That is why Congress and the courts must continue to aggressively investigate these issues, and why the full Mueller report must be made public.

Alexander O. Boulton (aoboulton@hotmail.com) is a professor of history at Stevenson University.

“Doubling Down on Trump,” Baltimore Sun, January 16, 2019

Many people have concluded by now that it is impossible to understand the workings of the mind of President Donald Trump. Is he a masterful politician following a preconceived plan to reform government and strengthen America’s international relations? Or is he a bully and a psychopathic liar whose policies will destroy American democracy and the nation’s status in the world?

While understanding Donald Trump might be near impossible, a book written in 1956 may give us insights into the motivation and behavior of Mr. Trump’s base of enthusiastic supporters. The book is “When Prophecy Fails,” by social psychologist Leon Festinger.

In it, Festinger described how he with a group of colleagues joined a doomsday cult led by a charismatic Chicago housewife, who claimed to communicate with extraterrestrial aliens who revealed to her that the world would be destroyed in a great flood on Dec. 21, 1954. She gathered a small group of followers who believed that they would be saved at midnight of the 20^th by boarding a flying saucer that would take them to the planet Clarion. Many members of the group of true believers quit their jobs and sold all their possessions in preparation for the event. On the appointed night, the group sat in a circle, waiting for the flying saucer to appear. Instructed to remove any metallic items from their persons, they removed belts, bras and zippers from their clothing.

Midnight came, a clock struck 12, and (surprise) nothing happened. A long silence followed. Some in the group begin to cry in shocked disbelief, but others were comforted by the leader’s message that God had prevented the great flood because the group had, by their patient waiting, spread a light that saved the world.

Contrary to what might be expected, the failure of the prophecy only strengthened the faith of many of the individuals in the cult. Subsequent prophecies of global destruction (which obviously never happened) only re-energized the faith of the true believers.

In his book, Festinger called this process “cognitive dissonance.” He generalized from this example that under certain circumstances — specifically if an individual has expressed his or her commitment to a cult or set of ideas with some physical acts that cannot be reversed, then the individual may try to mitigate the contradiction between their ideas and reality by, in effect, “doubling down” and becoming even more committed to the ideas or the ideology. Every event or fact that contradicts one’s beliefs can actually work to increase a commitment to a false narrative.

This psychological inversion is especially powerful if it has the support of a larger group of true believers, and is reinforced by activities that bring believers together. These activities can include increased efforts to convert others — sometimes by spreading rumors that provoke personal fears, which themselves can be part of a cycle in which those rumors serve to confirm the fears that they provoked.

The idea of “cognitive dissonance” can describe much more than just the psychology of cults. Cognitive dissonance is in fact a fairly common coping mechanism, which all of us have probably used at one time or another. A smoker who is confronted with evidence of the dangers of smoking will often claim that the effects of smoking are not as bad as described. (You can substitute “climate change” in the previous sentence for “smoking.”) When we are confronted with two contradictory ideas, we often do not choose rationally between them, especially if we have already committed ourselves in some way to one of them.

To resolve such contradictions, to avoid the anxiety that holding two mutually exclusive ideas causes, we are apt to energetically embrace the idea to which we have previously committed ourselves. Once firmly committed, it is increasingly difficult to turn back. Once you buy a MAGA hat or attend a Trump rally, it is an easy step to disavowing previously-held abstractions such as free trade or reducing the debt. Before you know it, you find yourself believing that a wall will save us from rapists and terrorists, that America’s international allies are our enemies, and that our Cold War enemies are now our friends. The next step is believing conspiracy theories about sex slaves in Washington D.C. pizza shops. Before you get to that step, hopefully, reality will slap you on your head and tell you to wake up.

Alexander O. Boulton is a professor of History at Stevenson University. His email is aoboulton@hotmail.com.

“The New World Disorder,” Baltimore Sun, January 20, 2017

With the tumultuous events of the past year slowly receding in our rear view mirror, we can reasonably say that the world of 2017 is going to be fundamentally different from that of 2016. A great transformation has occurred in the past few months that will leave the United States and the world dramatically changed.

The election of President Donald Trump, which left many conservatives elated and many liberals in despair, is only part of a larger picture of a revolution in world affairs. In the aftermath of the Cold War, many commentators described a “new world order,” in which ancient conflicts of us-against-them were all replaced by America’s leadership in a community of nations. For a long period from 1989 to very recently, America developed friendships with Russia and China. We had strong allies and friends around the world in Europe and the Middle East. Despite the rise of fundamentalist Islamic groups who were animated by a hatred of the United States, we continued a policy of advancing our mutual interests with much of the Islamic world. In 1990, we fought alongside Arab nations to curb the aggression of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We “led from behind” against first al-Qaida and then ISIS, helping to stabilize nation-states in crisis, while avoiding direct U .S. involvement, which would foster more hatred of the U.S. During this time, the global community was further strengthened by expanding economic markets with the European Union and the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.

The new world order began to unravel in 2003 with George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and has continued during the Obama presidency. Russia and China have entered a new phase of imperialistic expansion. Old allies — Turkey, the Philippines and recently Israel — are increasingly antagonistic. The European Union has been weakened by the British decision to leave, with other nations nearing important decisions on their future in the union.

In the United States, the election of Donald Trump is only one sign of a great revolution in world affairs. His personal, confrontational style, which propelled his success in business, will be translated into American foreign policy with much more uncertain results. A realignment of our international relationships, especially with Russia, Israel and the United Nations, threatens a period of increased instability around the world. Meanwhile, American domestic policies, particularly concerning issues of immigration, abortion, health, education and the environment are being wrenched in a radically conservative direction.

Despite the swiftness of these dramatic changes in world and domestic affairs, we should perhaps not be surprised. The storm was brewing for a long time before the clouds opened up and the lightning struck. The expansion of the role of mass media and social media, which allow each of us to cherry-pick the news and the facts that we want and identify with communities that know no geographic boundaries, has allowed numerous factions to form in opposition to the status quo.

The power structures, centralized political institutions, scientific and educational organizations that offered intellectual coherence, political stability, prosperity and some degree of justice to large numbers of people have been largely discredited, despite their undeniable accomplishments. In this environment, groups with very narrowly-focused agendas, from the tea party to ISIS, have proliferated.

Corporations and big businesses have played both a positive and a negative role in this by advancing globalization through the expansion of markets, while at the same time appealing to smaller and smaller market niches.

Similarly, American political parties have played an important role. Both parties mix pragmatic realism with abstract ideology, and both parties embrace the ideal of personal freedom. There the similarities stop, and it is a disservice to both of them to argue, as many people do, that both parties are alike. For most Republicans, personal freedom depends on ideals of individual initiative, moral responsibility and “pulling yourself up by the boot straps.” Ironically, these ideals, while noble in themselves, have fostered a degree of social inequality unseen before in U.S. history. Democrats, on the other hand, have fought against these headwinds believing that personal freedom depends on equal opportunities to education, access to health care, good jobs and a clean environment, and that only a strong and active government can ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.

There are strong arguments in favor of both personal responsibility and government activism, but until we work out these fundamental contradictions, the world will probably continue to unravel.

Alexander O. Boulton is a professor of history at Stevenson University; his email is aoboulton@hotmail.com.

  “Stevenson University Students React to Trump’s Win” Baltimore Sun, November 30, 2016

Students in my history class at Stevenson University were asked to finish this sentence: “When I heard that Donald Trump was elected president…” Here’s what they said:

“America will live on.”

“I was relieved that Clinton lost. I don’t like Trump and I didn’t vote for him, but I believe he is more fit to run and will make a better president than Clinton.”

“I was horrified and confused. I was shocked to see so many people actually voting for a man who has no background to handle being president of the United States.”

“I was excited that our country was finally going to experience real change.”

“I cried, and then I thought it was best to just get over it and try to have some hope for my country’s future.”

“I thought to myself ‘these next four years are going to be interesting.'”

“I was a little hesitant; but I still have hope that no matter who is president, things will work out positively for our country.”

“Happy my party/candidate won. Optimistic of what would happen in the future.”

“I packed my bags to move to Canada, but the Canadian website crashed.”

“I first panicked. Then I realized that regardless of who was elected, I was still going to wake up and do the same thing, so there was not much point to complaining and sulking over it.”

“I cried and started to mourn democracy.”

“I laughed. I thought about how I never thought Americans would actually be stupid enough to vote for him. They proved me wrong.”

“I was so shocked and in denial that it almost felt like I was grieving the death of a family member.”

“I had a panic attack and became scared for the future of the world.”

“I worried about the impact of having an impulsive leader as a role model not only for children, but also adults that see the president as someone whose behaviors they should also exhibit.”

“I woke up at 2:50 a.m. rubbing my eyes in disbelief that the candidate that I voted for won. I cried tears of joy at the thought of a Republican president, bringing change to the White House, Congress and Supreme Court. I’m just as excited for Donald Trump today as I was a week and a half ago, despite all of the problems.”

“I was satisfied.”

“I danced around the room full of happiness.”

“I knew that the country would be divided by controversy.”

“I was distraught, disappointed and upset. It shows how racism is still upon us. Yet I was not surprised, just a shocking reminder.”

“I was surprised because in Australia we joked about him all the time, so I was really shocked to see that it actually happened. My friends back home messaged me a lot saying ‘what the hell?’ My Mom messaged me saying she really wants me to come home because she is worried about America.”

“I was disappointed in humanity because I thought as a nation, we knew better.”

“I was disappointed. I wanted Hillary to win.”

“I cried in the shower for 40 minutes.”

“I thought America still has a chance to be great again.”

“I immediately began to worry about my future and the other lives that will be negatively impacted as a result of his election. America’s future is in grave peril with this man.”

“I was in shock. I’d been watching the New York Times live map the whole night, so I knew logically that it was coming. But honestly, nothing could have prepared me for it actually happening.”

“Was concerned about how everyone would react. Honestly, I expected a more severe series of protests than we have experienced.”

“I was surprised, every poll had him down on Hillary Clinton, but the American people made their voices heard, and I am pretty optimistic and interested in the future of this great nation.”

“I took a breath.”

“I was excited that career politics and corruption had been beat by an outsider (Donald Trump). It’s now time for us to come together as Americans to make our country better than it is already.”

“I thought it said more about Clinton than Trump. People disliked her so much that they were all right with Trump possibly being president [because] they stayed home, did not vote, etc.”

“I was disgusted, angry and scared, but not surprised at all.”

“I wondered what changes would occur and how people would respond. I didn’t like either candidate, so either way things would be interesting.”

“I knew our country was a joke.”

“I was in complete shock. I began to feel angered that the American people voted for a racist, sexist idiot. I also felt scared for my future as a female and feminist who has a very diverse group of friends. I felt sad for the kids who look up to our president, and felt concerned to think they would look up to him. I felt unsafe in America and debated moving to Canada.”

“I thought to myself ‘does he realize the position that he has just obtained and does he understand how much time and responsibility it takes to run the United States?’ Also I felt as though he signed his own death certificate because a lot of people will try to ruin/take his life.”

“I was scared.”

Alexander O. Boulton is a professor of history at Stevenson University; his email is aboulton@stevenson.edu.

Stevenson Villager blog

April 6, 2017

The split between Donald Trump and fellow Republicans keeps getting wider. Traditional conservative Republicans have long favored open markets, favoring extensive trade with other countries, and have opposed federal spending on infrastructure projects which threaten to increase the national debt. Trump has a more isolationist trade policy, which has brought him support among many traditional Democratic blue-collar workers, and Trump supports spending money on America’s crumbling infrastructure. On the other hand, Trump is at odds with many of the Republicans who form the House “Freedom Caucus,” who oppose any new health care plan that does not go far enough in dismantling Obamacare.

The recent failure of the Republicans in the House of Representatives to agree on a promised plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, despite President Trump’s active support, has brought Trump’s poll numbers to a new low. According to a Quinnipiac University survey, only 35 percent believe Trump is doing a good job.

Evidence keeps mounting that members of the Trump campaign had numerous questionable contacts with Russian spies and Russian banks during the 2016 election. It is difficult to keep up. Every day new revelations emerge. There are presently three ongoing investigations (in the House, the Senate, and the FBI) into charges that Russia actively sought to disrupt the election by planting false stories which were detrimental to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and which were echoed by Trump and his campaign. Meanwhile, Trump and conservative commentators charge (with no evidence) that the Obama administration spied on Trump, and subsequently leaked incriminating stories about him and his associates to the press. So far, the only leaks that have been traced back to their source were from the White House itself.

Grim news: In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, Assad’s government forces used chemical weapons against civilians, killing scores of people

China’s President Xi Jinping will visit Washington and will meet with President Donald Trump. What will they talk about? Trump wants China to rein in North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, who is threatening to launch a missile attack on the U.S. Other possible things to talk about: trade, China’s construction of military bases in the South China Sea, and China’s human rights policies.

The rules of the Senate currently require a two-thirds majority vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice, but Republicans will change the rules this week to allow Neil Gorsuch to join the court with only 50 percent of the Senators voting to confirm him.

What do Bill Cosby and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News have in common? Both have been accused by multiple women of sexual improprieties. Fox News has paid $13 million to O’Reilly’s victims of sexual harassment. There is no amount of money that will get Cosby out of a trial for using drugs to rape women.

March 23, 2017

I love Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy, and Alex Baldwin!  Their portrayals of Jeff Sessions, Sean Spicer, and Donald Trump (the Attorney General, the Presidential spokesperson, and the President) have sent Saturday Night Live’s ratings to new heights. The funniest skits show Russian President Vladimir Putin, bare-chested, bragging about his bromance with Donald Trump.

But it is difficult to laugh at Russia’s attempt to disrupt the 2016 election.  James Comey, the director of the FBI, announced this week that the FBI is investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.  Already, many people are asking, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

People who will likely be part of that investigation include Jeff Sessions (Attorney General), Michael Flynn (former National Security Advisor), Rex Tillerson (Secretary of State), Wilbur Ross (Secretary of Commerce), Paul Manafort (a former campaign manager), Roger Stone (Trump advisor), Jared Kushner (Trump’s son-in-law), Carter Page (a former advisor), and J. D. Gordon (a former advisor).  All of them are known to have had ties with Russian banking and business interests, or met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the days preceding Trump’s election.

The announcement that Rex Tillerson, the U.S. Secretary of State, will not attend a meeting of NATO next month and instead will visit Russia, seems to confirm that Russia is America’s newest best friend, and this has many European leaders scratching their heads.

In other news, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that 24 million Americans will lose their health insurance over the next decade under the Republican plan to replace Obamacare (Will you be one of them?).  The CBO report will make it difficult for Republicans to come up with the votes they need to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Trump and conservative Republicans will be happier to know that Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to fill the Supreme Court seat of the late Antonin Scalia is moving forward, and he will almost certainly be confirmed.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, according to (non-) reputable sources is in Hawaii plotting a coup to take back the government.  Many people wish that this conspiracy theory was true.

March 2, 2017

“I am a World History student at Stevenson University. The professor of this class asked if anyone is being affected by any of the decisions made by President Trump in his first 100 days in office. I raised my hand – here is my story. I am married to a Chilean. He has been in the U.S. since 2003. He came here on his student visa. After completing his Masters degree in science, he found a company to hire him and start the process of a working visa. He has been with this company for over five years and his working visa is still being renewed.  He has been following all the rules of the process of legally getting his citizenship, but it’s been 14 years and he still doesn’t have it. Now that he is married to a U.S. citizen, everyone thinks that he is ‘in the clear.’ Not true at all. We have had to pay out of pocket the cost of filing for the permanent residency application. We filed in November 2016, but we probably won’t hear anything until June/July 2017. This process may be even more extended due to the number of people applying for citizenship before President Trump came into office. For my husband, it’s a waiting game to see when he will begin the process of permanent citizenship – this includes an interview of us as a couple, proper financial documentation, proof we are living together, and photographs during the stages of our relationship are just a few things needed to make sure our relationship is legitimate. After he is granted permanent resident status, he will then have to wait five years until he can apply for citizenship.

My husband and I are also worried for his brother and sister who are also here on student/work visas. His sister came to the U.S. in 2001 also on her student visa. She completed her Master’s degree in science and is practicing as a physician assistant. Her job also promised they would sponsor her for the working visa, but sadly she just got the news that her job is not going to renew her working visa. A work visa expires every three years and can be renewed a maximum of two times, for six years total. She is at her maximum. Her only option is to renew her Chilean visa every year. This is another incident where President Trump is affecting our family. He wants to revoke the Trans-Pacific treaty already established with Chile. So for my husband’s sister, it will be a gamble every year to see if she can stay. His brother hasn’t even been given the chance to be sponsored by a job. He is working on his second Master’s degree to stay here legally on a student visa and is starting the process of applying for an entrepreneur/investor visa. This is another route for citizenship. If this does not work out, he will have to return home to Chile.

For citizenship, there is no direct route to achieve it. It is a long process that takes many years to complete. There are a lot of hoops to jump through. When President Trump got elected into office, my husband and his family are fearing for the worst. President Trump’s actions may tear families apart – legal and illegal.”

March 9, 2017

“There’s no question that something happened,”  said Sean Spicer, President Trump’s press secretary, who was defending the President’s accusation that former President Barack Obama wire tapped Trump Tower.  The White House has offered no evidence of this, and Trump’s allegation has been rejected by intelligence officials and by many Republicans as well as Democrats in Congress.

A few weeks ago students were asked, “Is it appropriate for faculty to discuss their political views in the classroom?”  (See “People are Saying,” February 23).  Below, some faculty responded to the question:

“I think faculty can (and should) discuss political views, but from a fact-based and tolerant perspective.  We need to emphasize academic freedom above all things, for both students and Faculty.” (Dr. Mark Branson, mathematics)

“I generally avoid any discussion of politics ever with anyone because it has been my experience that most people are not able to listen respectfully and allow themselves to disagree respectfully in the current political climate.”

“Sometimes expressing political views allows for a particular concept to be taught in an engaging manner.  Sometimes it is not necessarily my political view but a type of pedagogy.  A tool to get students thinking.  I should be able to do so as part of presenting concepts with evidence.” (Ingrid Tulloch, psychology)

“Faculty should be responsive to students’ interests in discussing current events and politics.  The faculty need not impose his/her opinion, but rather facilitate healthy and respectful discussion.” (Bob Pelton, education)

“I believe instructors should be able to discuss their political views in part because the category of “the political” is so vast that to exclude it would hinder the acquisition of knowledge.  However, I believe it must be done with great care.”

“It is appropriate as long as they are open and welcoming to all viewpoints and they must be absolutely clear that there are no negative consequences to expressing a view.” (Joe Matanoski, environmental science)

“I believe faculty have a responsibility to foster critical reflection.  One way to do that is to model expression of beliefs in a way that demonstrates use of evidence to support conclusions.  As long as faculty are not imposing and do not allow their beliefs to affect their judgment of students, its important.” (Jamie Goodall, history)

“Now more than ever it is important to discuss politics. Virtually every day, history is being made.  The country has not been this politically polarized since perhaps the 1960s.  College is one of the few places were rational discussion of these issues can take place, and faculty have a responsibility to lead these discussions and offer their political perspectives.” (Alex O. Boulton, history)

February 23, 2017

Is it appropriate for a teacher to discuss his/her political views in class?  A selection of answers from SU students:

“I think that there is nothing wrong with a teacher discussing his/her political ideas.  I just simply don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to.  If they offend someone’s feelings, Oh well.  People express themselves every day.  Freedom of speech.”

“No.  I don’t believe it is appropriate for a teacher to discuss their political views in class because that is a very alienating topic.  I believe that discussing politics is okay, but I don’t think they should reveal their personal views on it.”

“I think it is appropriate for a teacher to discuss his/her political ideas.  Especially at this age.  We are old enough to hear and respect anyone’s opinions regardless of who they are.  I don’t feel knowing my teacher’s political views will influence my learning in the class.”

“Discussion of a teacher’s political views in a classroom depends on the class.  It is OK if the class is related to politics.  For example, it is appropriate in a history class, but not a math class.  It is also important that the teacher remains unbiased and fair to students with opposing views.  Lastly while this is OK in some classes, this discussion shouldn’t occur every time the class meets.”

“It is not appropriate because some students may find a teacher’s political views highly offensive.”

What do you think?  Please enter your comments below, or send your responses to aboulton@stevenson.edu.

February 16, 2017

The greatest team in sports history?  The University of Connecticut women’s basketball team has a 100-game win streak, and is going for more.  Second place belongs to the UCLA men’s basketball team, which won 88 consecutive games between 1970 and 1974.

The Russian connection?  President Trump’s National Security Advisor, Michael T. Flynn, was fired this week for his possibly illegal conversations with the Russian ambassador.  This might be only the tip of the iceberg of Trump’s questionable ties to Russia.  Our new Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was awarded the Order of Friendship by Vladimir Putin.  He opposes sanctions on Russia for their annexation of Crimea and their military actions in Syria and Ukraine.  Also on the radar of investigators is Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign manager, who was a top advisor to a pro-Russian political party in the Ukraine, for which he was scheduled to receive over $12 million.  Trump’s well-known bromance with Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to be in the news a lot in the coming weeks and months.

President Donald Trump’s problems continue to grow. A federal court stopped his ban on migrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, and Trump will probably be forced to re-write his executive order. Also, the nomination of Andrew Puzder for Labor Secretary may be in jeopardy, since a video of his ex-wife accusing him of domestic abuse has surfaced.

Other cabinet nominations include (1) a Secretary of Education who is critical of public schools; (2) a head of the Environmental Protection Agency who is a climate change skeptic; (3) a Treasury secretary from Goldman Sachs, (4) a head of the Department of Energy who could not remember the name of the department when he advocated doing away with it; (4) A head of the Veteran’s administration who has never served in the military, (5) a chief presidential advisor, who was the head of the alt-right, crypto-racist, Breitbart News, and (6) a new Attorney General who failed to win a federal judgeship for his racial comments.  (Extra points if you know their names.  Answers at the bottom of the page)

Judge Neil Gorsuch will soon fill the seat on the Supreme Court left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia despite the efforts of Democrats who have promised to filibuster his nomination.  Like Scalia, Gorsuch believes in interpreting the U.S. Constitution as its original authors would have intended.  Liberals argue that the law should reflect the subsequent evolution of American society.  Some of the big issues at stake are voting rights, women’s rights to abortions, and the role of money in politics.

(1.Betsy DeVos, 2. Myron Ebell, 3.Steve Mnuchin, 4. Rick Perry, 5. Steve Bannon, 6. Jeff Sessions.)

February 9, 2017

The greatest comeback in football history was not the Patriots’ victory over the Falcons in the 2017 Superbowl. It was the Buffalo Bills over the Houston Oilers in 1993. Oilers were up 28-3 at halftime and scored again opening the half, giving the Bills a 32- point lead. Stunningly, the Bills came back to end regulation play at 38-38, and scored a touchdown in overtime to win 41-38 — the greatest comeback in NFL history.

Lauren Weaver, an SU Bizz Comm major, attended the Women’s March on Washington Jan. 21.  She reports, “The march was a powerful and emotional experience. After being on an extremely crowded metro for what seemed like forever, we finally reached our station. When the doors opened, the sound of women cheering flooded into the train. I swear, there were enough people in the station alone to make a statement. Little did I know, the mall (a much larger space) was going to be just as packed full of people. Hearing the cheers of thousands of people from around the nation echo through DC not only unified us but filled us with hope.”  Asked why she went, she said, “I went because I believe that all people should be treated fairly, and normalizing misogynistic behavior is something I will not stand for.”

Trump’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries is being reviewed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Critics of the Trump order say that it is a ban on Muslims, which is illegal since the Constitution prohibits favoring or discriminating based on religion. The administration argues that it is not a Muslim ban, and that the president has the executive powers to determine who is and isn’t allowed into the country. The legal issues are murky, but it is clear that, legal or not, the ban is stupid. It limits students and scholars from coming into the U.S., restricts intelligence gathering essential to fighting terrorism, and fuels anti-American sentiment around the world.

In other news, the Republican majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has banned the words of Martin Luther King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, from being read in the U.S. Senate. See the video here:

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004918915/elizabeth-warren-jeff-sessions.html?action=click&contentCollection=us&module=lede&region=caption&pgtype=article

December 7, 2016

Fake news:  “An FBI agent investigating Hillary Clinton’s e-mails was found dead in an apparent murder-suicide.”  “The Pope endorsed Donald Trump for President.”  “Hillary Clinton operated a pedophilia sex ring out of a Pizza parlor in Washington.”  “Busloads of people were paid to protest at a Trump rally in Austin Texas.”  If you believe any of these stories, you need to find a better source for your news (like this one).  Most of these stories are anti-Hillary Clinton and pro-Donald Trump.  Are Republicans more gullible than Democrats???

Real news:  Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Indians won a (temporary) victory this week when the U.S. Corps of Engineers refused a permit for the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was slated to pass under the Missouri River near sacred Indian burial sites.

On April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, Walter Scott was pulled over by police officer Michael Slager for a broken brake light.  Cell-phone video shows Scott running away from the officer, as the officer shot Scott in the back, killing him.  Scott was black; Slager is white.  Slager’s trial for murder this week resulted in a hung jury.  Prosecutors plan to retry Slager, who will also face federal charges.

Thirty six people perished in a warehouse fire in San Francisco Friday, December 2.   The victims were young adults, mostly in their twenties and thirties, who were attending a dance party in the warehouse called the “Ghost Ship,” which was home to an artist community.

With the tumultuous events of the past year slowly receding in our rear view mirror, we can reasonably say that the world of 2017 is going to be fundamentally different from the year 2016.  A great transformation has occurred in the past few months that will leave the United States and the world dramatically changed.  We should not pretend that the world continues to revolve around the sun in its same orbit, and that nothing has changed.   The election of President-elect Trump, which left many conservatives elated, and many liberals in despair, is only part of a larger picture of a revolution in world affairs. In the aftermath of the Cold War, many commentators described a “new world order,” in which ancient conflicts of us-against-them, of capitalists versus communists, and of democracies versus tyrannies, were all replaced by America’s leadership in a community of nations.  For a long period from 1989 to very recently, America developed friendships with Russia and China.  We had strong allies and friends around the world in Europe and the Middle East.  Despite the rise of fundamentalist Islamic groups who were animated by a hatred of the United States, we continued a policy of advancing our mutual interests with much of the Islamic world.  In 1990, we fought alongside Arab nations to curb the aggression of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  We “led from behind” against first Al Queda and then ISIL, helping to stabilize nation-states in crisis, while avoiding direct U.S. involvement which would foster more hatred of the U.S.  The global community was further strengthened by expanding economic markets with the European Union and the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.

We have watched this new world order unravel during the Obama Presidency. Russia and China have entered a new phase of imperialistic expansion.  Old allies, Turkey, the Philippines, and recently Israel are increasingly antagonistic.  The European Union has been weakened by the British decision to leave, with other nations nearing important decisions on their future in the Union.

In the United States, the election of Donald Trump is only one sign of a great revolution in world affairs. His personal, confrontational style, which propelled his success in business, will soon be translated into American foreign policy with much more uncertain results.  A realignment of our international relationships, especially with Russia, Israel, and the United Nations, threatens a period of increased instability around the world.  Meanwhile, American domestic policies especially around issues of immigration, abortion, health, education, and the environment are being wrenched in a radically conservative direction.

Despite the swiftness of these dramatic changes in world and domestic affairs, we should perhaps not be surprised.  The storm was brewing for a long time before the clouds opened up and the lightning struck.  The expansion of the role of mass media and social media, which allow us to cherry pick the news and the facts that we want, and identify with communities that know no geographic boundaries has allowed numerous factions to form in opposition to the status quo.

The power structures, centralized political institutions, scientific and educational organizations, that offered intellectual coherence, political stability, prosperity, and some degree of justice to large numbers of people have been largely discredited, despite their undeniable accomplishments.  In this environment, groups with very narrowly-focused agendas, from the Tea Party, to ISIL, to left-handed basket weavers, have proliferated.

Corporations and big businesses have played both a positive and a negative role in this by advancing globalization through the expansion of markets, while at the same time appealing to smaller and smaller market niches.

Similarly, American political parties have played an important role.  Both parties mix pragmatic realism with abstract ideology, and both parties embrace the ideal of personal freedom.  There the similarities stop, and it is a disservice to both of them to argue, as many people do, that both parties are alike.  For most Republicans, personal freedom means the ability for individuals to engage in “the pursuit of happiness.”  Individual initiative, moral responsibility, “pulling yourself up by the boot straps” are their important watch words.  They complain of paying taxes to support government programs that create a culture of dependency and distort the natural competition to improve oneself.  Democrats, on the other hand, believe that personal freedom depends on equal opportunities to education, access to health care, and good jobs, and a clean environment, and that only a strong and active government can insure the greatest good for the greatest number.

There are strong arguments in favor of both these positions, and until we work out these fundamental contradictions, the world will continue to unravel.

Published in the Baltimore Sun, January 22, 2017

Be careful what you wish for.  If you voted for change in the last election, you are going to get plenty of it.

Trump will dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, starting by placing Myron Ebell, a climate change denier at its head.  The progress that the US has made working with other countries to combat global warming will be at risk.  There will be more erratic weather patterns, rising sea levels, hurricanes, fires, droughts floods and famines.

Trump’s isolationist foreign policy will reduce US influence around the world.  His criticism of American commitments to our allies in NATO and South Korea raises uncertainty about our policies, and threatens America’s continuing influence around the world.  Russian President, Vladimir Putin is likely to take advantage of what he sees as America’s weakness, and Trumps’ wide-spread economic interests in Russia and elsewhere will only complicate America’s foreign relations.

Trump will nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court who will turn the court in a conservative direction for the next couple of decades.  The Court will continue to disable voting rights, limit women’s rights, and allow corporations to spend unlimited funds on political elections.

Some things will not change.  Workers in rust-belt America will continue to look for a decreasing number of jobs.  Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) will not be repealed.  We will all be able to continue to watch the greatest reality TV show of all time . . .   until they turn off the power.