DCUM Weblog

Today we will ponder the question, "How much trouble can a Congressman get into and still remain a Congressman?" Spoiler alert: If you are a Republican and represent the 7th District of Florida, the answer appears to be "unlimited." At least that seems to be the case with Representative Cory Mills, who may or may not have 99 problems, but women make up quite a few of them. Or, more accurately, Mills is the problem where a number of women are concerned.

If you were casting for the evil character in a political drama, you could hardly do better than Cory Mills. Mills served four years in the Army, including a stint in Iraq during which he received a Bronze Star. However, there have been allegations of stolen valor made against Mills and soldiers involved in the events that led to his award deny Mills' account of what happened. After leaving the military, Mills became an international arms dealer. One of his weapons deals was a $228 million arms sale to the government of Iraq. However, his company, PACM, soon ran into financial problems and has been plagued with large debts that the company has been unable to service. Mills' company has also supplied less-lethal munitions to domestic law enforcement agencies, and Mills has bragged that he supplied tear gas that was used against Black Lives Matter protesters.

The battle between the administration of cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump and Harvard University is shaping up to be more fit for a dramatic novel than an example of the proper implementation of government policies. Events also raise the age-old question involving the Trump administration about whether officials are acting due to malice or incompetence. Of course, with this administration, the answer could easily be "both." Regardless, in the dispute between the Trump administration and Harvard regarding antisemitism, Trump officials appear to have engaged in repeated episodes of shooting themselves in the foot, which have undermined potential settlements with Harvard and pushed the university towards fighting the administration in court.

Soon after taking office for his second term, Trump issued a series of executive actions, some of which dealt with combating antisemitism on college campuses. For the record, anyone who believes that this administration is authentically committed to fighting antisemitism must be seriously deluded. As I have previously documented, Trump has appointed a number of notorious antisemites to positions within his government. Trump himself recently engaged in the antisemitic trope of referring to unscrupulous bankers as "Shylocks." Nevertheless, the specter of challenging antisemitism has provided the Trump administration with a convenient cudgel with which to beat universities into submission. Based on allegations of antisemitism on college campuses, Trump has frozen billions of dollars worth of federal grants that had been committed to colleges and universities. Then, the administration has attempted to negotiate onerous terms with schools in order to reinstate the funding. Trump has so far concluded settlements with Columbia University, Brown University, and the University of Pennsylvania.

Just about everyone now agrees that former President Joe Biden suffered disqualifying cognitive decline as President. Cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump has actually demanded an investigation into an alleged coverup of Biden's mental and physical health. However, there is ample evidence that Trump himself is suffering an equally-serious loss of cognitive abilities. However, the situation with Trump may be far more dangerous for our country than it was with Biden. The argument that Trump and his MAGA supporters make about the Biden Administration is that unelected staff members ruled in place of a cognitively-disabled Biden, thereby exercising unconstitutional powers. In the case of Trump, staff members are continuing to follow his instructions despite clear indications that he lacks the mental ability for the position. During the Biden administration, regardless of who was calling the shots — and, to be clear, I believe it was Biden — we had stable leadership and responsible decision-making. Now we are being led by a mad king, and his entourage is either unable or unwilling to acknowledge reality. As a result, we are going through inconsistent, unstable, and often senseless decision-making that changes daily depending on the President's whims. 

Yesterday I wrote about shifting attitudes towards Israel among Democrats. A similar change of opinion is occurring among Republicans. In both parties, the shift in support has been most noticeable among the young and the grassroots. However, whereas elected Democratic officials are themselves starting to reflect the changing landscape, Republican officials are mostly continuing to stand strongly by Israel. A key factor among Republicans is the role played by cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump. For the most part, Trump has been providing complete support to Israel — even going to war twice on the country's behalf. Republicans, who tend to unquestionably adopt Trump's positions, have therefore had little reason to deviate from their pro-Israel stances. However, two factors are causing dissension among some Republicans: the isolationist trend among many party members and the role of Christianity.

It has long been believed that support for Israel was near universal among elected officials in the United States, especially in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Every once in a while, a brave — or depending on your perspective, stupid — soul would step out of line, and Israel's supporters would quickly make an example of the individual by soundly defeating him. Back in 1984, Senator Charles Percy, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was defeated when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) turned against him due to his support for selling AWACs aircraft to Saudi Arabia. Last year, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups were able to defeat Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush in their respective primary elections. Former Vice President Kamala Harris was so reluctant to allow even the slightest light between her position and that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that she arguably crippled her presidential election opportunity. It is therefore remarkable that yesterday a majority of Democratic Senators voted in favor of blocking arms sales to Israel. The tide is clearly turning with regard to Israel's support among Democrats.

One irony to which liberals may not be sensitive is that it is hard out there for most MAGA officials. Try as they might, few politicians can replicate the qualities of cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump. They are faced with a MAGA base that values insanity, forcing MAGA politicians to constantly attempt to one-up each other in craziness in order to get attention. In a world in which Republicans are accusing Democrats of controlling the weather and intentionally creating storms in Republican areas, claiming that Haitian migrants are eating pets, and arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell is actually a victim of the Jeffrey Epstein affair, it is almost impossible to stand out as uniquely crazy. But one politician who has managed this task is also one of the newest kids on the block, Randy Fine.

I've always been interested in history, and one of the aspects of history that I have most enjoyed was learning about how events are connected. One thing can often lead to another in a very unexpected way. Every day now in the United States, we see history being made right before our eyes as cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump transitions our once-great country into something akin to Vladimir Putin's Russia or Viktor Orbán's Hungary. Autocratic rule joined with corruption is the order of the day. That and incompetence. Combine all three, and the results are not only likely to be unexpected but unwanted. For instance, who would have predicted that the arrest of a gay make-up artist at a U.S. border crossing, the similar detention at another border crossing of a former professional soccer player, the seizure of an employee of a bakery who had an autism awareness tattoo, and the arrest of hundreds of similar men would ultimately lead to the release of a three-time murderer into the United States? Yet, this is exactly what happened. Let's connect the dots.

I am back from my break from posting and will resume where I left off, discussing Israel's genocide in Gaza. Whenever I write about this genocide, I receive a considerable number of responses arguing that I am wrong to describe Israel's actions as "genocide". To some extent, I agree that the label is less important than a proper understanding of exactly what is happening in Gaza. However, those who oppose using the term almost universally also deny the reality of Israel's actions. Therefore, it is worth discussing why it is accurate to describe what Israel is doing as "genocide."

Genocide is officially defined in Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. There are two elements to the definition. The first is the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." The second component is a list of five actions, any of which is sufficient to satisfy the definition. Intent is difficult to determine, but in the case of Israel and Gaza, we have plenty of statements from Israeli cabinet members and other government leaders that expose their intent. I listed several such statements in my previous post, but one example from just last week was made by Amichay Eliyahu, Israel's Heritage Minister. During a radio interview, Eliyahu said that "The government is racing ahead for Gaza to be wiped out ... Thank God, we are wiping out this evil". He went on to add that "All Gaza will be Jewish".

I am taking a break from posting this week but I am interrupting that break because of the dire situation in Gaza. The utter destruction of Gaza and the expulsion, confinement, or death of its inhabitants is nearing completion. The U.S. government is a full participant in this genocide and, even today, few in the political establishment — whether Republican or Democratic — are willing to speak out against it.

In the early part of the 20th century, those favoring the settlement of European Jews in the land that is present-day Israel often claimed that it was "A land without a people for a people without a land." In reality, the land had a people, and that people presented a major hurdle to the Zionist project. At the time of Israel's creation, Zionists confronted this issue by expelling the majority of the native Palestinians from what would become the state of Israel. However, the fact that two peoples claim the same land has been a constant source of conflict. Today, in Gaza, we are seeing Israel again use the tactics of massacre and expulsion, with the added weapon of starvation, to remove the local population. Starvation has reached a critical state in Gaza. Meanwhile, food distribution is limited to a few Israeli-controlled aid hubs at which the Israeli military conducts daily massacres of those desperately trying to obtain food. Food and starvation have been weaponized to aid the expulsion of the Palestinians from Gaza.

For the next week or so, I will be putting my attention elsewhere and won't have time to post here. But I'll return to this blog as soon as I can. In the meantime, I want to provide a few thoughts about what I believe to be the three greatest dangers that our country is currently facing. There is a bit of overlap among these, and none of them can be covered to the extent that they deserve in a post of this length (or, more accurately, shortness). I have previously touched on all of them as well. But to get to the point, the three great dangers that I see facing the United States are cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, and political autocracy.

The dangers of cryptocurrency are not really the currencies themselves, but the side effects of them. The original vision of cryptocurrency, at least as I understand it, is that it would create a currency that was not controlled by governments. The philosophy of cryptocurrency supporters was aligned with the thinking of libertarians who valued freedom from government. Implicit in this thinking is that cryptocurrencies would actually be used. Individuals would be able to buy things with the currencies just as they do using U.S. dollars. Increasingly, however, cryptocurrencies have become vehicles for investment. In very simplistic terms, there are two types of investment. In one, the investment makes steady, though perhaps modest, returns. These returns could be in the form of dividends, for instance. Alternatively, the goal of the investment is profit from the increasing value of the asset. In other words, buy something at one price, wait for the price to go up, and then sell it. Monthly dividends are generally not much of a concern in this case. Almost exclusively, cryptocurrency investments are the second type. Cryptocurrency investors hope to buy low and sell high, but they don't really plan to use the currency as actual currency.