Where We Are This Week 06/30/2023

The Biden's get worse, affirmative action is put down, no elections in Ukraine, and the wise words of Randy Newman.

Do we ever really get better? Individually, I think so - I hope so. For my wife's and daughter’s sake, I hope I’ve improved from the person I was a decade ago.

It’s possible to learn from mistakes, that I know. Measure twice, cut once. It doesn’t take too many times not following that advice until you take it to heart and adapt.

But is it possible as a people to learn from our mistakes? To improve? I’m less sure - but even more hopeful seeing as a lot more depends on our ability to do so.

This is precisely why it’s important to read stories and know history. While my wife was pregnant, and when we welcomed our child into our home, I would read War and Peace to her as she rested in bed or rocked our little girl.

Tolstoy’s masterpiece was originally published serially in 1865. If you could transport yourself to that year - not just in Russia, but here in the US - life would look unrecognizable. No cars, no radios, no telephones. Yet, somehow, the love, the desire, the folly that Tolstoy imparts in his characters are no less relevant today.

The politics of ancient Rome or Greece read like transcripts from the halls of Congress and the plight of the worker, the soldier is indistinguishable from that of their modern counterpart. Sure, life has materially improved; we’re safer, less violent, and healthier* than ever before, but we’re the same. Our wants, our jealousies, our short-sighted tendencies are the same as our ancestors - if some aren’t, regrettably, even slightly worse.

I don’t know the steps we take as a species to produce the type of improvement we need, but I do know what it takes to improve much more locally - self-reflection, humility, and a willingness to learn. Anything to quit saying, ‘wait, I’ve heard this one before.’

But who’s to say we, as a people, can’t change? There’s no one pulling the strings from the top down preventing us from evolving. No, for better or worse, it’s up to us.

To quote the one and only Randy Newman, "Hey, who’s in charge here?”

---

Hunter Keeps Huntin’

I didn’t think I’d have to be making a follow-up post to last week’s Hunter Biden segment so quickly. But, oh my, how I overestimated the integrity of the First Family.

In yet another twist in the drug-addled, sexual escapade tax evasion of the president’s son, an IRS whistleblower has now made his way to the fore. This story got a little buried due to the fact a coup was staged in Russia last weekend so we’ll cover it now. Do I smell a conspiracy? Someone check Hunter’s laptop for correspondence with Yevgeny Prigozhin.

Last Thursday, new whistleblower testimony was released by the House Ways and Means Committee alleging that the federal prosecutors involved with the investigation repeatedly forestalled and obstructed the proceedings to prevent charges from being wrought.

One of the whistleblowers, special supervisory agent Gary Shapley - reads like the most mundane version of a Jack Reacher novel - stated that the investigation had not been handled like any other he’d experienced in his decade-long career in the IRS. Shapley attested that the investigation was repeatedly hampered when the trail of evidence could have led to the very top of the Biden food chain.

Shapley was denied the ability to charge the younger Biden for not paying millions of dollars - millions of dollars, the luxury! I’d settle for not paying a thousand - in income taxes outside of the state of Delaware by a Biden-appointed DA. That doesn’t have the best of optics, does it?

The damning - but not surprising - tidbit of information to come out of the allegations were the text messages revealing that contrary to what he’s said for the past several years, President Biden may have known a lot more about his son’s business activities than he’s previously let on.

Now, it’s not a shock to learn the president isn’t the most scrupled of individuals; during his time as senator, his colleagues frequently called him the ‘Senator from MBNA’, referring to the incestuous relationship between his family, his legislation, and MBNA America Bank. It’s not even a shock to learn the DoJ went out of its way to protect a member of America’s political elite.

What is a shock, however, is that through some perverse series of events, I am somehow rooting for the IRS? What have I become? How is it that the tax collectors are behaving as the most honest actors through all of this?

Perhaps, the smoking gun of the three-year-long Hunter Biden controversy was presented through Shapley’s testimony. For years, Joe Biden has done nothing but assert he knew nothing of his son’s business dealings. When asked if he and his son ever talked about what he was doing in China and Ukraine, Biden responded, "No, because I trust my son.”

What? If my dad were vice president of the United States and was flying to distant, exotic lands, and I were constantly hitching a ride so that I could get some business done, I think it would warrant some questions. At the bare minimum, “What’d you do today, son?” would have been expected.

The critical piece of evidence that shows that Joe Biden not only could have been lying about his ignorance of his son’s dealings but was actively playing a part in them comes in the form of a WhatsApp message from Hunter to a business associate that read as follows:

"I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight.

And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father."

It’s been confirmed by Hunter’s legal team that these messages were, in fact, his. We also know that, thanks to images on his laptop, the pair of them were together on the day the messages were sent.

Ruh-ruh, Reorge.

The Bidens’ future text exchange, probably.

Of course, the message alone isn’t enough to confirm the president’s involvement with his son’s business, but it’s surely enough to draw some inquiry. The media is split on this one. The legacy media that has been hellbent on protecting the Biden family throughout this debacle can’t decide whether they want to press President Biden on his knowledge of his son’s dealings or praise him for being a supportive father.

Again, what?

Finally, some outlets are asking the president the questions they should’ve been asking during the 2020 election. To which Biden’s team’s response has changed from ‘President Biden knew nothing of Hunter’s business, and he’s proud of his son’ to the most recent statement, "President Biden is not in business with his son.” Quite the shift in tone, is it not?

The other half of the media have gone full sycophant - as if there were rope left in that direction - and have repeatedly chosen this story to highlight how incredible of a father the president is. Despite these corruption accusations, he invited his son to a state dinner just days after his plea deal was announced. What a guy!

The dots are so close together, they practically connect themselves at this point, but guilt or implications aside, this is one of my least favorite things our media and society do. Quit lauding our political leaders as the epitome of morality. In reality, they’re the opposite; I would suspect that being morally bereft isn’t just an advantage, it’s a prerequisite to being a career politician.

Lest we forget, Lovable Poppa Joe is the same guy that refuses to acknowledge one of his own grandchildren, the one whose mother Hunter took to court to ensure that the 4-year-old couldn’t use his last name. The idea of President Biden being a role model for fathers everywhere is about as laughable as the notion that Trump is a religious, family man.

It’s unclear whether any new consequences will be brought in light of the new testimonies, but Attorney General, Merrick Garland, might be the first domino to fall as impeachment charges have already been rumored. We’re just a handful of actions away from a 2024 election that could feature the two candidates actively fending off prosecution.

If only they could both be jailed in time for the election so we could see prison rallies, prison debates, and prison demands for a recount! For a society that has the highest incarceration rate of any developed nation (by a country mile), I could think of nothing more fitting. I know, it won’t happen - but a guy can dream.

---

Elections Can Wait

The title of this segment is a direct reference to the Prince song Breakfast Can Wait. It’s a tune from his 2014 album ART OFFICIAL AGE - which isn’t exactly his most well-known work - so the reference is obscure and conspicuous enough that I felt it deserved an explanation. Sometimes, it’s nice to just do things for yourself.

In an interview with the BBC last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reiterated that while under martial law, no elections, presidential or otherwise can be held in the embattled nation.

One need not wonder too long as to who is in charge of declaring martial law in the country, of course. Zelenskyy established the wartime order back in February of last year and has extended it seven times since. Referring to next year’s presidential election, he said that, naturally, Ukraine will hold open elections but only if the wartime provision has been rescinded - which doesn’t look likely.

Earlier still, Ukraine’s parliamentary elections should be held in October of this year, but as martial law remains enacted, they will be forgone. The inclination to not bother with the ballot box during a time of crisis is understandable but I would venture to say that’s the time elections are most needed. It would have been unbelievably unconstitutional for the United States to prolong the presidential elections of 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The people deserve the opportunity to decide how their government will handle the crisis in which they are. Interestingly, Zelenskyy, like his Russian adversary, is a very popular president so the measure is likely a moot point - but one that strikes an antidemocratic tone. What will be fascinating, is if Russia decides to hold its presidential election in 2024. Regardless of the legitimacy of either process, it’s a political slam dunk for Putin to appear more democratic than Ukraine.

The United States, probably the best - but far from perfect - representation of Western democracy - has never suspended an election. And we’ve had our fair share of elections during wars - the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War II (our closest brush with dictatorial politics), Vietnam, etc.

Abraham Lincoln refused to suspend the elections in 1864, in the middle of America’s civil war, despite his full expectation that he would be beaten by the more reconciliatory candidate, Democrat George B. Mclellan. Fortunately, for him, and for our nation’s future, Lincoln won in a landslide.

The election itself was a referendum on the policy of the war - should the Union continue to sacrifice their sons to better fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence or should they settle with the South. Because the decision was the people’s, the belief in the integrity of leadership and the value of the effort was redoubled.

This isn’t an anti-Ukraine attack piece, it’s just to make sure everyone is informed about the type of government we’re backing in the war. This isn’t supposed to be a nation-building venture like in Iraq - however misguided that turned out to be. No, we’re supposed to be helping protect a pristine democracy in Ukraine. One whose leader, I should remind you, banned activities of political opposition parties last year.

It matters who you are as a people in a time of crisis because it shapes the society to come. If your leaders can’t remain faithful to their nation’s ideals during times of volatility and uncertainty, then they can’t be trusted to do so during peacetime.

Friedrich Nietzsche said it best I think. “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

---

The End of Affirmative Action

In a sweeping 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the race-based affirmative action practiced by colleges across the nation is unconstitutional.

While many on the left will receive the ruling with an amplitude of distress, it’s a huge win for meritocracy and a chance to restructure higher education in a way that offers true equality of outcome for all different types of Americans.

I mentioned in passing a couple of weeks ago the failure of affirmative action - how it had descended from such noble heights as protecting black Americans from disproportionately serving on the front lines in World War II to discriminating against the high-achieving parts of the Asian American population.

In their most recent decision, the court ruled that the policies of those institutions under review, Harvard and the University of North Carolina, are not protected by the Constitution and instead, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

To achieve the educational benefits of diversity, respondents measure the racial composition of their classes using racial categories that are plainly overbroad (expressing, for example, no concern whether South Asian or East Asian students are adequately represented as “Asian”); arbitrary or undefined (the use of the category “Hispanic”); or underinclusive (no category at all for Middle Eastern students). The unclear connection between the goals that respondents seek and the means they employ preclude courts from meaningfully scrutinizing respondents’ admissions programs. 

The universities’ main response to these criticisms is “trust us.” They assert that universities are owed deference when using race to benefit some applicants but not others. While this Court has recognized a “tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university’s academic decisions,” it has made clear that deference must exist “within constitutionally prescribed limits.” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 328. Respondents have failed to present an exceedingly persuasive justification for separating students on the basis of race that is measurable and concrete enough to permit judicial review, as the Equal Protection Clause requires.

Respondents’ race-based admissions systems also fail to comply with the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands that race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype. The First Circuit found that Harvard’s consideration of race has resulted in fewer admissions of Asian-American students. Respondents’ assertion that race is never a negative factor in their admissions programs cannot withstand scrutiny. College admissions are zero-sum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter. 

What was demonstrated by the opinion presented by the court, and the oral concurrence by Justice Thomas was that it wasn’t only affirmative action that was under scrutiny, but the reductive way we view and use race in this country.

One such example - as mentioned in the opinion - is the way that Middle Eastern - like that term in itself isn’t too broad - isn’t represented at all and the totality of Asia is lumped together. A cursory study of Pakistan-India relations is enough to suffice that all people from Asia do not share the same culture or identify identically. Even writing it, it feels like a ludicrously obvious statement.

Additionally, that practice is even more racist than the alternative as it’s purely about skin color. Caucasian Russians East of the Ural Mountains wouldn’t be allowed to check the Asian/Pacific Islander box, would they? So, what, by the previous standard, makes someone from Asia Asian?

But I digress. If our nation can transcend our petty political division, then we can seize the opportunity at hand. Largely, if colleges recruited based on class lines - this type of discrimination is not prohibited under the 14th amendment - not only would they likely achieve the racial diversity they seek, but actual, meaningful diversity of background and thought.

Justice Brown Jackson, in her dissent, paraphrased Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - which is ironic seeing as he’s the ‘content of character, not skin color’ guy - saying that, “the arc of the moral universe will bend toward racial justice.” Generally, I’m not a fan of qualifiers in front of the word justice; racial justice; as if that’s any different than justice as a broad concept.

MLK, Jr.’s actual quote is a little different; he, referencing a sermon by the abolitionist preacher Theodore Parker, said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Well, yes, but only if we’re granted the wisdom to know which way to strain, and the strength with which to do so.

To a better next week.

Cheers,

FDA