Author Archives: Sheila

It’s Murder, Not the 2d Amendment

Interestingly named Whitestown is one of several bedroom communities around Indianapolis, in central Indiana. It is 93% White. It is also the site of a recent murder–and I use that term intentionally.

The facts–at least, the readily ascertainable ones– have been widely reported. Members of a cleaning crew went to the wrong house in what has been described as a “cookie cutter” neighborhood. Two of them–a Hispanic couple–knocked on the door of that incorrect address, and in response, someone shot the woman through the door, killing her.

As of a week later, no charges had been filed by the county prosecutor, although the Indianapolis Star reports that the homeowner had hired a “Second-Amendment lawyer.” (Update: since I wrote this, the prosecutor has brought charges against the homeowner.)

The owners of the Whitestown home where a 32-year-old woman was shot and killed have hired one of Indiana’s most prominent constitutional lawyers.

Guy Relford, also known for his weekly “Gun Guy” show on WIBC, has practiced law for more than four decades. He specializes in the Second Amendment.

As the Star also reported,

The shooter — who has not been identified by law enforcement — could face criminal charges in connection with Maria Florinda Ríos Pérez’s death, pending the outcome of an ongoing review by the Boone County Prosecutor’s Office. Authorities have not confirmed whether the homeowner was the shooter.

Other than identifying the person who actually fired that gun, I cannot imagine what an “ongoing review” could uncover–and I certainly can’t imagine what defense “gun guy” will be able to offer. (Perhaps the shooter’s mental illness??)

I write these blog posts a few days ahead, so perhaps we’ll know more by the time this is published, but as I write this, it seems pretty clear that what we’ve seen in Whitestown is the merging of America’s racism and gun culture. The person inside that home saw two Hispanic people, and evidently equated “Hispanic” with “home invasion,” although I rather doubt that many home invaders knock on a home’s front door.

As the Star reported, Indiana has a Castle Doctrine law–one of those “stand your ground” statutes that give people the right to use deadly force to prevent unlawful entry into their homes. But even under those laws, the shooter’s belief of imminent danger must be “reasonable.” I find it extremely difficult to label shooting a woman knocking on one’s front door as “reasonable”–even if that woman’s skin color means she doesn’t look like a resident of Whitestown.

Of course, if far too many Americans weren’t in possession of firearms, incidents like this would be less likely. Having a gun in the house rather obviously increases the likelihood that that gun will be used–and in many cases, used inappropriately. Studies have found that 58% of gun deaths are the result of suicide, and the CDC has reported that nearly two out of every 10 non-lethal firearm injuries are unintentional–the result of accidents. (The CDC also reports that people who survive a firearm-related injury typically experience long-term problems with memory, thinking and PTSD, even if they don’t have permanent physical disabilities or paralysis.)

Maria Perez was a 32-year-old house cleaner, and the mother of four. An immigrant from Guatemala, she died in the arms of her husband when they arrived at what was definitely the wrong house–a house occupied by someone who was armed and evidently terrified of or hostile to people who looked “different.”

So here we are.

Four children no longer have a mother. A husband is left with memories of holding his dying wife in his arms. I’m sorry, but no “Castle Doctrine” can justify this; no “gun guy” can find a defense even in a Second Amendment that has been reinterpreted from its initial meaning in order to protect the gun industry and America’s gun fetishists.

There is no excuse.

Comments

THE Question

I know, I know. I keep coming back to what has been the most confounding question of the past decade: why on earth would any sane voter cast a ballot for Donald Trump? The man is personally repulsive, obviously both ignorant and mentally ill and just as obviously totally disinterested in the job of governing.

That question arises again in the context of the Epstein files. 

One of the newsletters I read each morning is Robert Hubbell’s, and a couple of days ago, it included a paragraph that amplified the sheer incomprehensibility of Trump support. Hubbell wrote,

Trump’s presidency began with and was facilitated by a cover-up of a sex scandal involving Stormy Daniels. Trump won despite the Access Hollywood tapes in which Trump described his behavior in a way that can fairly be described as that of a sexual predator. Indeed, the E. Jean Carroll defamation case led to a finding by a civil jury that Trump likely engaged in sexual abuse of Carroll that matched his modus operandi described in the Access Hollywood tapes.

No other president of the US—past or future—would have or could survive a single one of the multiple sex scandals that Trump has endured.

Add to that absolutely accurate observation a discussion in the Contrarian of where Americans currently find ourselves as the result of the “performance” of this petulant toddler: the job market has crumbled; the affordability crisis is getting worse with health insurance costs set to skyrocket; the rich and Trump-connected are making out like bandits; and an increasingly decrepit president couldn’t care less about Americans. (In fact, he’s willing to maximize their pain).

Why in the world do approximately a third of our fellow Americans support this bloated excuse for a functioning human? I can only assume that his obvious hatred for the people they hate–those despised “others”–is enough to outweigh not only the daily evidence that he is personally corrupt and despicable, but the incredible harm he is doing to the country–very much including his supporters.

Rather obviously, this conundrum leads to a second question: will the slow-rolling but seemingly inexorable Epstein disclosures be enough to finally shatter the MAGA cult’s inexplicable worship? It’s speculative, but Bill Moreau–founder of the essential Indiana Citizen–recently reminded me that last Thursday was the 100-year “anniversary” of the conviction of the KKK’s D.C. Stephenson.

The 1925 trial of D.C. Stephenson, the powerful Grand Dragon of the Indiana Klan, followed the abduction and assault of Madge Oberholtzer, a 28-year-old state education official. Oberholtzer’s dying statement, taken days after she was attacked, led to Stephenson’s conviction for second-degree murder on November 14, 1925. Once seen as untouchable, Stephenson’s downfall sent shockwaves through state government, revealing how deeply the Klan’s influence had reached.

That reminder brought me back to Hubbell’s observation–and the uncomfortable possibility that racist citizens will no longer desert a man who is demonstrably guilty of truly heinous behaviors. Trump has already been revealed as a felon and a predator–unless someone is immersed in MAGA’s alternate reality, they can’t help but be aware of the Access Hollywood tape, the payoff to Stormy Daniels, the 26 women who have accused him of sexual assaults, and the verdict obtained by E. Jean Carroll. (Is the fact that–at least as far as we know– he hasn’t killed and mutilated any of the complainants enough, in MAGA’s eyes, to absolve him?)

It has become abundantly clear that Trump’s disastrous presidential performance– his corruption and ignorance, his pathetic, incompetent Cabinet, his frenzied efforts to rig the upcoming midterm election, his insane rantings on Truth Social–haven’t shaken the support of his rabid base, or caused the defection of the cowardly Republicans currently “serving” in the House and Senate. Thus far, neither has the abundant and clear evidence of his sexual crimes.

Will the inevitable Epstein disclosures finally do to Trump what they did to D.C. Stephenson? I guess we’re about to find out. 

Comments

The “Welcome Nazis” Administration

It’s no longer possible for any sentient American to deny the virulent racism at the heart of MAGA and the Trump administration. The efforts to characterize DEI as “anti-White,” the dismissal of credentialed and competent Black officials and their replacement with buffoons whose only visible “credential” is White skin, the privileging of White South African immigrants…

Those well-publicized efforts have been joined by other, more covert moves to diminish recognition of the important roles played by minorities in our society–exemplified, most recently, by the removal of memorials to Black WW II soldiers in a Netherlands graveyard.

Two display panels in a cemetery in the village of Margraten commemorating African American soldiers were “quietly removed.”

The move has sparked shock in the Netherlands, with critics of the removal, including a community that cares for the graves, demanding answers about why the black American soldiers have all but vanished from displays.

MAGA’s embrace of bigotry is currently playing out more publicly in debates about Tucker Carlson’s friendly interview with “out” neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes. But even while those internal MAGA battles rage, there’s growing evidence that the Trump administration’s racism and anti-Semitism isn’t simply grist for domestic politics. It’s internationally recognized.

My oldest son recently sent me a link to a story I’d missed.

A prominent far-right German activist has applied for political asylum in the United States, citing fears for her safety, as the Trump administration has signaled plans to prioritize protections for White refugees and Europeans who claim they are being targeted for their populist views.

The activist, Naomi Seibt, is a social media influencer and supporter of the nationalist, anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which German authorities have labeled extremist.

Seibt is currently living in Washington, D.C., while her application is being processed.

That application is unusual–most candidates for asylum are people fleeing war or repressive regimes. The article notes that this “rare application from a citizen of a wealthy Western democracy” is evidence of the increasingly close ties between Germany’s far right and Trump’s MAGA movement. Seibt is close to Elon Musk and to several Republican lawmakers.

Seibt met on Oct. 30 with Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida), who said in a statement that she is “personally assisting” with Seibt’s asylum application and making her case to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

In 2020, Seibt was the subject of a Washington Post profile highlighting her paid work for a think tank allied with the Trump administration casting doubt on the scientific consensus around climate change.

Seibt asserts that she feels unsafe in Germany, a country that has made speech that incites hatred, threatens public order or attacks human dignity illegal. She contends that police in Germany refused to act on her complaint that she had received death threats. (The German police declined to comment, noting they don’t speak about individual cases.)

The Trump administration is actively positioning itself to be a refuge for racists and neo-Nazis. According to the linked report,

The Trump administration has already granted refuge to dozens of White South Africans who claimed to be persecuted at home.

 The administration is contemplating a broader overhaul of the refugee resettlement process to prioritize such Afrikaners at the expense of groups traditionally seen as fleeing danger and persecution. A draft proposal from the State Department also would give consideration to “free speech advocates in Europe,” according to a former U.S. official who had seen the document.

The article quoted Michael Kagan, a professor of immigration law, who observed that It will be interesting to see whether Seibt’s application is scrutinized as rigorously as others, given that the status Seibt seeks is a difficult one to win.

Seibt, however, says she’s optimistic “because my beliefs strongly align with the Trump administration’s.” She’s right–and that observation should ring the alarm bells of every American who believes in human equality. Although the State Department declined to comment on Seibt’s case, a spokesperson for the department was quoted for the statement that the U.S. “supports all Europeans working to defend our common civilizational heritage.”

I’m pretty sure that MAGA’s definition of “our common civilization heritage” would be a good deal more restrictive than mine…

And there we are.

The difference between the Trump/MAGA vision of America and that held by the rest of us is the essential fault-line between today’s GOP cult of White Christian nationalists and the majority of Americans who accept (and even celebrate) the diversity of our multi-ethnic, multi-racial society.

The Trump administration wants to remake America into a fascist haven for neo-Nazis. We absolutely cannot allow that to happen.

Comments

The President As Mob Boss

Before I retired, I spent 21 years teaching Law and Public Policy to students who wanted to know about those topics, and I can confirm that even individuals with an interest in government often had a hard time following the intricacies of the policy process. When we come to the population at large–people who (as Jon Stewart once memorably explained) “have shit to do”–it isn’t surprising that much of what this blog addresses might just as well be written in ancient Aramaic. Policy nerds like yours truly talk about Trump violating the Emoluments Clause, and the average American wonders what that is.

Widespread ignorance of the laws–of America’s so-called “guardrails”–has allowed Trump to violate all manner of constitutional and statutory rules without generating an appropriate amount of concern. But sometimes, visual evidence of the arrogance and self-dealing breaks through. That’s what we are seeing with the destruction of the East Wing of the People’s house and its planned replacement with a gaudy and inappropriate ballroom, funded by people who have business with the government, and whose “contributions” are rather clearly bribes.

As Jennifer Rubin recently wrote in the Contrarian,

If you were watching any of the voter-on-the-street interviews Tuesday, you might have been surprised to hear how many Americans are deeply disturbed, furious even, about Donald Trump’s bulldozing of the White House to make way for a garish $330M donor-paid ballroom. It may not be the most egregious offense of the Trump regime (which has kidnapped people off the streets, sent them to foreign hell holes, and cut off SNAP benefits, among other outrages). It is not even the worst case of corruption, given the estimated $5B or so in wealth Trump and his family have hauled in from (among other sources) foreign buyers of crypto. But the ballroom is the most visible, easily explained, and visually disgusting evidence of Trump’s destruction of our democracy and the public’s ownership of our institutions.

Rubin cited a report from Public Citizen that–as she wrote–“captures the stomach-turning effort to transform the White House into a monument to private greed and public corruption.” Among other things, the report found that 16 out of 24 donors hold government contracts. Overall, those corporate donors benefited from nearly $43 billion in contracts just last year and $279 billion over the past five years.

More significantly, most of those donors—14 out of 24—are either currently facing federal enforcement actions “and/or have had federal enforcement actions suspended by the Trump administration,” including major antitrust actions, labor rights cases and SEC matters. The report also noted that these companies and wealthy individual donors have invested “gargantuan sums in combined lobbying and political contributions, totaling more than $960 million during the last election cycle and $1.6 billion over the last five years.”

In other words, those generous donations to Trump’s bad taste are rather obviously bribes.

You can almost hear the mob boss crooning into the ears of the supplicants: “you want this little enforcement problem to go away? Want another cushy contract? Just pony up for my ballroom and government will look out for you.” Trump is frequently described as “transactional,” a nice word for a mob boss approach that begins with “what’s in it for me?”

Citizens may not have noticed other corruption. Take the Trump family’s crypto scams, for example. Through their World Liberty Financial, they launched Trump-branded “tokens”–coins with no intrinsic value, purchases of which are efforts to gain or retain the good graces of our would-be King (aka bribes). Unlike those and similar transactions, the visual–and visceral–impact of East Wing destruction is hard to ignore. It’s an entirely appropriate metaphor for Trump’s mob boss regime.

As Rubin argues:

Certainly, any 2028 Democratic candidate worth his or her salt would need to advance a mammoth anti-corruption plan to tackle not only this outrage (“Tear it down, rebuild democracy!” would make a lively campaign chant) but to severely regulate crypto, recover unconstitutionally acquired foreign emoluments, restore prosecution of foreign bribery statutes and other white collar crimes, and undergo an exhaustive investigation and prosecution of any bribery that took place in the Trump regime.

As with other autocratic atrocities, the corruption issue is too important to leave solely to the politicians. Shareholders of these companies could demand a full accounting and pursue shareholder suits if appropriate. Consumers can organize public campaigns to expose and embarrass these companies or conduct targeted boycotts (e.g., cancel Amazon Prime, do not patronize Hard Rock Casinos and restaurants). And further No Kings events should keep corruption front and center.

Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Comments

Cultural Nostalgia

Sometimes I read an essay or an op-ed that hits me–a sentence or paragraph or analysis that seems so on-target that I feel impelled to share it. That was my reaction to a recent op-ed by Fareed Zakaria (always one of my favorites) in the Washington Post.

Zakaria began by noting that partisanship has become the lens through which Americans interpret reality.  Although a majority of voters still say the economy is their top concern, for example, they interpret the state of the economy through that partisan lens. “When their party is in power, they think the economy is strong; when the other side takes over, that same economy suddenly looks dire. In effect, politics now shapes people’s sense of economic reality, not the other way around.”

And as Zakaria notes, people have chosen their political tribe guided by “two markers the left has long struggled to navigate: culture and class.”

Those two markers aren’t unique to the U.S.–they are global. Social changes wrought by globalization, the increasingly digital nature of our environment, immigration, and the emergence of new gender and identity norms have engendered a cultural backlash.

Over the past 40 years, billions entered the world market, millions crossed borders, the internet collapsed distance and hierarchy, and women and minorities claimed long-denied rights. Scholars celebrate this as progress, integration, emancipation. Yet to many, it feels like dislocation — a dissolving of familiar identities and moral coordinates. A 2023 Ipsos Global Trends survey showed that in many advanced democracies, large majorities think the world is changing too fast, including 75 percent in Germany and nearly 90 percent in South Korea. In the United States, a 2023 Gallup poll showed that more than 80 percent of Americans believe the nation’s moral values are getting worse. These numbers cut across income and region; they reflect not poverty but that much of America feels culturally adrift.

Hence the paradox: Populism thrives in countries that are, by virtually every measure, richer, safer and freer than at any point in history. Its fuel is not deprivation but disorientation. The right has learned to weaponize that unease, offering a story that is emotionally coherent even when factually thin. It promises a return to the world many people remember — a society of stable hierarchies, recognizable roles and shared norms — if only the global elites are cast down. It is, in essence, the politics of nostalgia.

Zakaria points out that this isn’t new. A similar “cultural nostalgia” erupted in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, when figures like Benjamin Disraeli and Otto von Bismarck appealed to the working class through “nationalism, religion and pride, pairing social reform with cultural conservatism.” Our contemporary populists are following the same formula.

There is, Zakaria tells us, one difference: what constitutes class in today’s societies. Today’s divide is no longer between capitalists and workers; it’s between people who flourish in a credential-driven economy and those who don’t.

The commanding heights of business, media and government have converged into a single, credentialed class. In principle, it is open to all; in practice, it has become self-replicating…. And the party that once spoke for the working class is now seen — fairly or not — as the party of the professional elite: urban, secular and fluent in the idioms of globalization.

The reactionary Right has exploited that cultural resentment. Trump’s cabinets– packed with billionaires– have been “ferociously anti-elitist.”

His enemy is not the hedge-funder but the Harvard professor, not the CEO but the columnist. “The professors are the enemy,” Richard M. Nixon once quipped, and JD Vance has repeated the line. Trump turned it into strategy, waging war on America’s cultural institutions — universities, the press, the federal bureaucracy — and convincing millions that the real ruling class was not the wealthy but the educated…

That divide isn’t imaginary.

Among White voters without a college degree, Republicans now win by more than 25 points. Democrats typically win nationally by around 16 points among college graduates. The urban-rural divide is at heart a class divide that has become a political one as well.

There are ways, Zakaria insists, to bridge these gaps. We can build a more democratic meritocracy, one more open and welcoming. And Democrats can “embrace the party’s best instincts — compassion, inclusion, reform — with a tone of respect for those uneasy about rapid change.” Progressives can show their patriotism. Liberals can speak the “language of tradition.”

Right-wing populism is not destiny; it is nostalgia. Liberalism has been counted out many times before, only to prove itself remarkably resilient — because, in the end, it addresses the most powerful yearning of human beings: for betterment, progress and freedom.

Nostalgia, after all, isn’t progress. It’s a dead end.

Comments