Throwing Over the Table

Trial lawyers say that when you are in the courtroom; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts.  But if the facts are against you, argue the law.  If, however, the law is also against you, throw over the table.  The facts and law are patently against the Democrats in the Hillary affair and so they are now throwing over the table.

Let me explain.  Few people currently contend that Hillary Clinton did not have classified materials on her private server.  These have been found.  This is a fact.  It is also a fact that classified emails were discovered on Huma Abedin and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner’s computers.

So if the facts are unfavorable, move on to the law.  Thus, James Comey maintained that Hillary did not intend to break the law and therefore was not guilty.  The same has been said about Abedin in that she was unaware that transferring classified documents to personal laptops was illegal.

Unfortunately the law does not make this distinction.  The language of the relevant statutes is plain.  The mental state of the person mishandling classified papers is irrelevant.  As long as the deed is done, an unlawful act has been committed.

Officials at the FBI consequently sought to obscure the meaning of the law by stating that Hillary—and by extension Abedin—had been “extremely careless.”  Despite originally using the actual language of the law in their memos, which is, “gross negligence,” they altered the formulation to make it sound less serious.

This, however, did not do the job because extreme carelessness and gross negligence mean the same thing.  The law, in short, is obviously against Hillary.  On these grounds, she has perpetrated a crime for which many others are presently serving prison terms.

Here’s where throwing over the table comes in.  The former first lady’s defenders dredge up any diversion they can so that the public will not realize the seriousness of her infractions.  An appreciation of the gravity of exposing government secrets to enemy powers must be assiduously avoided.

So what do her Democratic apologists claim?  They say that the accusations are old news; that they were previously litigated.  Still, if our former secretary of state had committed murder ten years ago, would that be old news?  If it were a crime then, wouldn’t it be a crime today?

As to having been litigated, her misdeeds were not.  Comey and his cronies saw to that.  They took the law into their own hands and quashed an investigation the potential outcome of which they found unacceptable.  Their attitude was: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil—except against Donald Trump.

Yet pointing out this cover-up is decried as an attack on the FBI.  Left-wing spokespersons hurry to vindicate this sacred institution.  Nonetheless, no one is attacking rank and file agents.  It is a corrupt and politicized leadership that is questioned.

But should this tactic collapse, the next line of defense is to hide behind the Mueller investigation.  Some matters cannot be discussed, because this would interfere with unearthing Trump’s collaboration with the Russians.  Pertinent evidence cannot even be shared with congress.

Next, if this verbal barricade fails, we are cautioned against instigating a constitutional crisis.  At minimum, we ought not criminalize a political dispute.  This is amusing in that the same partisans had no qualms about criminalizing Richard Nixon during Watergate.

Besides, they continue, the election is over.  Hillary lost; so let her fade into history.  Except that whether she committed a crime is separate from the consequences of the voting.  Again, if she had murdered someone, would we care about the result of the presidential race?

Finally, if none of these approaches succeeds, it is time to start over.  These maneuvers can be repeated in an endless loop that becomes so convoluted few observers are able to keep track.  The public, in particular, can be kept off balance; especially when the mainstream media are in on the game.

The Hillary fiasco is a mess.  Her behavior—including with regard to the Clinton Foundation—has grievously compromised our national integrity.  That is why it must be pursued.  If we sweep her illegalities under the rug, we are merely paving the way for their repetition.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Drug Abuse is a Form of Cowardice

We are in the midst of a drug epidemic.  Thousands of people die annually from their abuse.  Nonetheless, California is currently legalizing marihuana for recreational use.  There seems to be no recognition of the connection between these events.

Too often, mind-altering chemicals are romanticized.  They are depicted as opening up new realms of consciousness.  Their devotees are to be regarded as creative souls.  They are, in short, cool.  Plainly on the cutting edge of a revolution, they are expanding our personal freedoms.

As for me, I don’t think so.  Having worked, many years ago, as a counselor in a methadone clinic, I saw too much death and destruction to believe that these substances are sophisticated.  They are poisons.  They not only kill people; they destroy the society that tolerates them.

When I first began advising heroin addicts, I assumed that I had a duty to inform them of the lethality of these drugs.  They had a right to know they might kill them.  In fact, they already knew—and didn’t care.  Many even welcomed the prospect of death.

The reason was that many of my clients were in such pain that their priority was obliterating this affect.  They did not want to experience it because they were convinced they could not deal with it.  They had neither the strength nor the cleverness to confront their personal demons.

And so they ran away behind a chemical screen.  Substances that could temporarily make them feel whole were preferable to living in fear and desperation.  These folks were terrified.  They did not have the courage to do battle with the many losses they had experienced.

To put the matter bluntly, they were cowards!  They could not muster the resolution to protect themselves.  Instead they secreted themselves away from a grim reality.  They were doing the equivalent of cowering under the bed when the bogeyman stalked their room.

It will, no doubt, be said that many contemporary drug addicts got that way because dangerous medications have been over-prescribed.  That is true.  Many of these folks can be excused for becoming addicted—but not from doing what they must to get clean.

But think of those marihuana users—those unapologetic, proselytizing potheads.  All they want to do is be mellow.  Their goal is to become so relaxed that they are oblivious to the pressures swirling about them.  They are clearly weaklings who do not want to cope with the demands of everyday life.

Some folks will respond to this charge by asserting that courage is over-rated.  They will argue that a rash desire to take chances is foolish.  Why not retreat into a chemical haze?  Why is exposing oneself to injury in the heat of battle superior to being a threat to no one?  Isn’t feeling good itself a good?

The answer is that if we do not take chances, we cannot, as a community, survive.  If we do not collectively overcome the threats to our existence, we will be soundly defeated.  The wolf will not only be at our door; it will be devouring our entrails.

Nor will we prosper as individuals.  If we are unwilling to defend ourselves, we can never live up to our potential.  Moreover, if we avoid doing that, we will know about it.  We will be aware of copping out and this reality will gnaw at our viscera.  No amount of chemical camouflage can disguise it.

A glass of wine with dinner will not compromise our integrity.  Neither will a bottle of beer with friends or a joint now and then.  But the regular use of these intoxicants is a disaster.  It steals the pleasures available from winning life’s many skirmishes.

It is for this reason that celebrating the virtues of drug indulgence is a calamity.  Treating addiction as if it were a righteous act is an invitation to despair.  Fairytales about how this would make us nicer people and our society more civilized are absurd.

Addicts are fatuous human beings, while drug addled societies are vulnerable to predation.  Like China, when opium addiction went unchecked, they embrace exploitation.  Courage is thus not an option.  It is essential for our safety and personal satisfaction.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

How Much Change Can We Expect?

As the New Year dawns, it is wise to remember that major changes always take time.  Despite our impatience to fix what is broken, political efforts at reform are never fully successful.  Despite the highest of hopes, we generally blunder along much as we previously have.

When I was young, like most young people, I intended to remake the world.  Well educated and as yet uncorrupted, I would participate in effecting what the bitter elder generation had not.  It was just a matter of employing my intelligence and integrity to substitute the good for the bad.

It was not until my early twenties that it occurred to me that this task might be beyond my reach.  Only then did I realize that if I could not reform my own parents, there was not much chance of reforming everyone else’s.  They too would resist my compelling logic and captivating enthusiasm.

By the time I was in my late twenties, I had an even more daunting realization.  Not only did older folks resist change; so did I.  As a child, I assumed that as a grown up I would straightforwardly become the person I intended to be.  It was simply a question of deciding what I wanted and doing it.

Somehow, however, my formative fears did not disappear.  Nor did the skills I desired magically materialize.  Worse still, I did not always know what I wanted or what would be best.  The future was not merely a blank slate; it was shrouded in mystery.

Sociologists talk about “cultural lag.”  They have learned that despite our quest for improvements, we tend to hold on to the familiar.  Our ideas about the world generally replicate the ones we adopted when young.  Likewise our problem-solving strategies are usually copies of old habits.

Talk about a brave new world therefore tends to be little more than talk.  Although we may be utterly sincere, when the rubber meets the road the best we can manage are small variations on time-honored themes.

If you are a liberal that means you want a bigger government and more regulations.  Evidence that this does not work as you supposed is discounted.  Failures are perpetually rationalized and enemies blamed for setbacks.  Moreover, the suspicion that you could be wrong is never entertained.

If you are a conservative, you trust that traditional religion and/or a free market can remedy any adversity.  You never question these ancient verities or investigate their limitations.  Instead, you too explain away apparent obstacles and cling to the tried and true.

Change, when it does come, is consequently a surprise.  To wit: who predicted the effects of the computer revolution when telephones had rotary dials?  Similarly, who, a century ago, imagined that we would be protecting extraordinarily busy airports from Islamist terrorists?

So what does this mean for the next year?  The economy may boom—or perhaps not.  We might reach a dramatic flashpoint with North Korea—or maybe we won’t.  There will surely be elections in which the Democrats will win—or is that the Republicans? 

A safer prediction is that our culture wars will remain at high dudgeon.  Liberals and conservatives will not reconcile.  Nor will President Trump and the media become friends.  Although the pundits will continue to give advice that goes unheeded, were it followed it would usually not work.

Nor will there be many apologies for the mistakes people make.  Once again, we will be treated to analysts spouting misleading talking points.  Once more, most members of the pubic will not pay attention.  Yet again, we will live our private lives much as we have this past year.

But that will not deter people like me from pontificating.  Nor will it keep heads from shaking at the inanities of others or fingers from waging at the slip-ups of our opponents.  Irrespective of calls to cease being judgmental, negative judgments will proliferate.

What is more, even if the economy booms, there will be pockets of unhappiness.  And even if peace breaks out in the Middle East, it will flare up elsewhere.  The fact is that we, as a species, are never completely satisfied.  Nor are we, regardless of our triumphs, in full control of our destiny.

My conclusion: there will be some change, much of which will surprise us.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Predicting the New Year

I seldom make predictions because I am so often wrong.  Nonetheless, when the New Year rolls around the temptation to peer into the future is irresistible.  As a consequence, I am about to put on my clairvoyant hat and do my best.

But first, a few caveats.  The longer the period to be foreseen, the less likely the accuracy.  Similarly, the more precise the formulation, the more it is apt to be off the mark.  General trends are much easier to predict than exact details.  Yet even these are subject to grave error.

We love the idea of a Nostradamus; nevertheless we must remind ourselves that his prophecies are only verified in hindsight.  Only after World War II occurred could we decide that this was a conflict to which we alluded.

In the real world, the complexities are too great to be assessed in every respect.  Unexpected events continually arise to throw our calculations out of whack.  Furthermore, we are not always sure of the rules governing change.  They too are in dispute.

Take the economy.  Liberals and conservatives both want it to grow.  But what will achieve this?  Liberals believe in Keynesian economics.  They assume that if they pump money into the system, it will take off.  As a result, they do not fear the effects of deficit spending.

Conservatives, in contrast, favor tax cuts.  They argue that if businesses and ordinary citizens have more money at their disposal, the consequent investments and personal spending will stimulate growth.  From their point of view, it is not the government but the private sector the produces wealth.

This divergence of opinions has generated diametrically opposed predictions about what this next year holds.  Thus, for Republicans the Trump tax cut will usher in a time of plenty.  They expect the economy to go into overdrive such that ordinary Americans get more jobs at higher wages.

Meanwhile, Democrats expect the opposite.  They argue that putting more money in the hands of investors merely encourages them to squander it on themselves.  If so, less will be spent on the needs of the poor and—as Nancy Pelosi predicts—people will die.

So who is right?  Although both factions claim to have science on their side, is this true?  In our scientific age we have learned the empirical investigations often generate insights that explain how events unfold.  For instance, once we understood how atoms split, we could build an atomic bomb.

The problem with respect to economics is that there is not yet a consensus on what works and what doesn’t.  Because both political power and intellectual dominance are at stake, ideology tends to overpower empiricism.  People see what they want to see and therefore come to conclusions favorable to themselves.

I, no less than other observers, am infected with this shortcoming.  I too have a history that slants the manner in which I interpret events.  This said, the way I read the tealeaves is this.  Tax cuts have had a successful track record.  They kindled growth under presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and even George W. Bush.

Keynesian stimulation grounded in government spending, conversely, has a less glowing record.  It did not get us out of the Great Depression, nor, in the hands of Barack Obama, did it generate a roaring economy.  In each of these cases, the effects were modest.

Economists, to be sure, continue to debate the whys and wherefores of these diverging stories.  Although they all believe in making deductions from the facts, they elucidate these differently.

As for me, I expect to see a booming economy.  Four per cent growth this next year does not seem out of the question.  Nor do I expect people to die as a result of this expansion.  In fact, I anticipate better health when people—including the poor—have more assets available to them.

For me, the big question is this.  Will a substantial portion of the electorate change its estimation of what has occurred?  Will Democrats and Independents credit Trump policies with generating the revival?

Or will propaganda win out?  Will the steady drumbeat of partisan criticism drown out the clinking of coins in people’s pockets?  In other words, will facts matter or will political allegiances take precedence?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University